You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Justice Scalia Dead
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
44 AMP said:That said, the discussion about the President not being able to make appointments seems to me to make no sense.
Congress can do as Congress does, within the law, but the idea that because he is a "lame duck" the Pres. should not nominate anyone is rather foolish.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz40CxAdboS
In 1960 the Senate passed S.RES. 334 against the President making SC Appointments during an Election year.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
An observation from Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog:
"Not surprisingly, Republican priorities are the exact opposite. Fundamental conservative legal victories over the past two decades hang directly in the balance. To take just one example, Ted Cruz is exactly right to say that a more liberal replacement for Justice Scalia is very likely to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent recognition of a Second Amendment right to possess firearms or at least render it a nullity as a practical matter. There are dozens of other examples. Conversely, a Republican appointee would not only preserve those victories but continue the Court’s steady move to the right."
Lots of other good analysis at that link as well.
"Not surprisingly, Republican priorities are the exact opposite. Fundamental conservative legal victories over the past two decades hang directly in the balance. To take just one example, Ted Cruz is exactly right to say that a more liberal replacement for Justice Scalia is very likely to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent recognition of a Second Amendment right to possess firearms or at least render it a nullity as a practical matter. There are dozens of other examples. Conversely, a Republican appointee would not only preserve those victories but continue the Court’s steady move to the right."
Lots of other good analysis at that link as well.
Clock,
We need a conservative president, not necessarily a Republican president. Neither Bush 41 nor Bush 43 were conservative. Now Jeb is trying to dupe his lackeys that he's conservative.
Never forget that the Republican Party has been coopted by neocons, who are really liberals, and that it has destroyed authentic conservatives.
Bush 41 signed gun control legislation. Bush 43 said he'd of signed a Brady Bill extension if congress had presented it to him.
Liberals should be kissing ground on which Bush 41 & Bush 43 walked.
Do not be fooled by neocons.
We need a conservative president, not necessarily a Republican president. Neither Bush 41 nor Bush 43 were conservative. Now Jeb is trying to dupe his lackeys that he's conservative.
Never forget that the Republican Party has been coopted by neocons, who are really liberals, and that it has destroyed authentic conservatives.
Bush 41 signed gun control legislation. Bush 43 said he'd of signed a Brady Bill extension if congress had presented it to him.
Liberals should be kissing ground on which Bush 41 & Bush 43 walked.
Do not be fooled by neocons.
Bart Roberts,
Given that Cruz is not a strict constructionist (he's not an authentic conservative) and his wife was a member of the New World Order, one-world-government, anti-America, traitorous Council on Foreign Relations and VP of Goldman Sachs, which ripped off our children thereby directly benefitting the Cruz family to the detriment of our progeny, why would you assume that he'd nominate a conservative justice?
I think Cruz is scary. I think he's a pathological liar. He'll say ANYTHING to get into the Oval Office.
Given that Cruz is not a strict constructionist (he's not an authentic conservative) and his wife was a member of the New World Order, one-world-government, anti-America, traitorous Council on Foreign Relations and VP of Goldman Sachs, which ripped off our children thereby directly benefitting the Cruz family to the detriment of our progeny, why would you assume that he'd nominate a conservative justice?
I think Cruz is scary. I think he's a pathological liar. He'll say ANYTHING to get into the Oval Office.
What the passing of Justice Scalia does reveal is that the supreme court is just as political as the other two branches of government, and that justice is not necessarily a component of law.
We need to, we must start impeaching activist justices and judges. What part of, "...shall not be infringed," gives anyone trouble?
Consistent with the Honorable Mr. Thomas Jefferson, we must enact term limits on every judge and justice in America. Five years is about as long as any liberty-sucking, black robed moron ought to be able to dismantle the foundation of liberty that was bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers. In fact, we need to aggressively monitor all lawyers.
We need to, we must start impeaching activist justices and judges. What part of, "...shall not be infringed," gives anyone trouble?
Consistent with the Honorable Mr. Thomas Jefferson, we must enact term limits on every judge and justice in America. Five years is about as long as any liberty-sucking, black robed moron ought to be able to dismantle the foundation of liberty that was bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers. In fact, we need to aggressively monitor all lawyers.
Do not be fooled by neocons.
Neocon is a contraction for neoconservative. Irving Kristol and Bill Bennett are neocons; they were once self-identified liberals who became estranged from the bulk of that movement and came to more closely identify with ideas regarded as conservative.
Neither Bush ever made that journey.
zuniphile,
I take it that you're neoconservative, because only a neocon would propagandize their intent.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/06/23/whats-a-neoconservative/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6750.htm
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whose-war/
Make no mistake, there is a huge chasm separating neoconservatism and conservatism. There would be no need for the prefix "neo" is there weren't.
Neocons seek enslavement of obsequious Americans who'll be forced to act contrary to their morality.
Neocons are more dangerous than liberals.
I take it that you're neoconservative, because only a neocon would propagandize their intent.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/06/23/whats-a-neoconservative/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6750.htm
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whose-war/
Make no mistake, there is a huge chasm separating neoconservatism and conservatism. There would be no need for the prefix "neo" is there weren't.
Neocons seek enslavement of obsequious Americans who'll be forced to act contrary to their morality.
Neocons are more dangerous than liberals.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I regret that this thread has wandered into pure politics unrelated to the issue at hand.
Thus, I'm closing it.
If there is a nominee put forward, we can discuss in a constrained manner, the qualifications of such a person and the relationship to the Law and Civil Rights.
If you want to talk about Goldman Sachs - find another place.
Done.
Thus, I'm closing it.
If there is a nominee put forward, we can discuss in a constrained manner, the qualifications of such a person and the relationship to the Law and Civil Rights.
If you want to talk about Goldman Sachs - find another place.
Done.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.