Scalia

Cowboysrock55 said:
Well that would be impossible...

I'm not a fan of Sotomayor at all which was one of his choices. I'd prefer a candidate who actually believes in upholding the constitution. I don't know enough about the possible choices to say who that would be though.

Also, I guess we can assume the nomination will be a female by Obama?
Click to expand...

And states rights, except for 2000.
 
So, the Republican Pty will block President Obama's nominee; though they don't know who it will be. That's where we are?
 
Carl said:
So, the Republican Pty will block President Obama's nominee; though they don't know who it will be. That's where we are?
Click to expand...

Probably so and for obvious reasons. His choice will not be what the Republicians are looking for.
 
Carl said:
So, the Republican Pty will block President Obama's nominee; though they don't know who it will be. That's where we are?
Click to expand...

Yeah, because Supreme Court Justices seem to be less about the law and more about political parties anymore. Which means Obama is essentially going to try and stack the court with a liberal Justice and the Republicans will want to fill that slot with a conservative Justice. It's a stupid system but I obviously can't blame the Dems for wanting to push someone through before possibly losing the Presidency and I can't blame the Republicans for wanting a shot at getting who they want. It's more about the broken system then bitching about either side.
 
It really is a fucking joke that clowns like Rubio are saying the NEXT president must nominate a nominee blah blah blah.

The fucktard running the Senate says the American people should get a say in who takes Scalia's place. :lol
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Yeah, because Supreme Court Justices seem to be less about the law and more about political parties anymore. Which means Obama is essentially going to try and stack the court with a liberal Justice and the Republicans will want to fill that slot with a conservative Justice. It's a stupid system but I obviously can't blame the Dems for wanting to push someone through before possibly losing the Presidency and I can't blame the Republicans for wanting a shot at getting who they want. It's more about the broken system then bitching about either side.
Click to expand...


Yes, good post; but that's what every Presidential election is basically about. Justice Kennedy is about 80. He is next to be replaced.

I am not a constitutional scholar; but doesn't the President have a responsibility and a right, constitutionally, to nominate someone?
 
NoDak said:
Stay classy, San Diego.
Click to expand...

Seriously. The same guy who admonished smitty for making fun of Bowlen's wife, goes and says something like that, which is a way worse thing to say.

Hypocritical douche bag.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Yeah, because Supreme Court Justices seem to be less about the law and more about political parties anymore. Which means Obama is essentially going to try and stack the court with a liberal Justice and the Republicans will want to fill that slot with a conservative Justice. It's a stupid system but I obviously can't blame the Dems for wanting to push someone through before possibly losing the Presidency and I can't blame the Republicans for wanting a shot at getting who they want. It's more about the broken system then bitching about either side.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's a shame but that's pretty much how it goes. Not sure what the alternative is though.
 
Carl said:
Yes, good post; but that's what every Presidential election is basically about. Justice Kennedy is about 80. He is next to be replaced.

I am not a constitutional scholar; but doesn't the President have a responsibility and a right, constitutionally, to nominate someone?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, but the nominee being confirmed by the Senate is also constitutional. Obama's been all about his no compromise "I've got a pen and a phone" attitude since Republicans took congress, so you can expect them to play hardball just as much as he has.
 
Carl said:
Yes, good post; but that's what every Presidential election is basically about. Justice Kennedy is about 80. He is next to be replaced.

I am not a constitutional scholar; but doesn't the President have a responsibility and a right, constitutionally, to nominate someone?
Click to expand...

Isn't Ginsberg the oldest? She can't be far either. She is like going to be 83 soon.

And yes Obama has the constitutional right to nominate someone and the Senate has the constitutional right to block that someone. So basically I don't think there is anything wrong with Obama doing his job. But that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with that being blocked either.
 
Last edited:
Genghis Khan said:
Seriously. The same guy who admonished smitty for making fun of Bowlen's wife, goes and says something like that, which is a way worse thing to say.

Hypocritical douche bag.
Click to expand...

So, when is the appropriate time lapse to say what you think? 72 hours? Just curious and I will write it down for future reference.
 
Carl said:
Yes, good post; but that's what every Presidential election is basically about. Justice Kennedy is about 80. He is next to be replaced.

I am not a constitutional scholar; but doesn't the President have a responsibility and a right, constitutionally, to nominate someone?
Click to expand...

To nominate yes to confirm no.
 
Carl said:
So, when is the appropriate time lapse to say what you think? 72 hours? Just curious and I will write it down for future reference.
Click to expand...

it's not about that, you fucking moron. You admonished someone else for essentially saying something mean about a public figure. A week later you say something even worse about a public figure. I guess it's ok when you disagree with a person's opinions and stuff.

You called someone a wanker and rejoiced at his death. All because you disagree with his political opinions. That makes you a hypocrite and a douche. Congrats.
 
Obama should nominate a black female for the job.

Put the heat on a bunch of old whitey men to block that one.
 
Genghis Khan said:
it's not about that, you fucking moron. You admonished someone else for essentially saying something mean about a public figure. A week later you say something even worse about a public figure. I guess it's ok when you disagree with a person's opinions and stuff.

You called someone a wanker and rejoiced at his death. All because you disagree with his political opinions. That makes you a hypocrite and a douche. Congrats.
Click to expand...

But he is a public figure who has dabbled; Bowlen's wife is not a public figure, unless perhaps to people in Denver. Anyway carry on with your name calling, swear words and mud-slinging. It is very entertaining.
 
Carl said:
But he is a public figure who has dabbled; Bowlen's wife is not a public figure, unless perhaps to people in Denver. Anyway carry on with your name calling, swear words and mud-slinging. It is very entertaining.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see, it's different when you do it, because reasons.

You're proving me right so you carry on.
 
BipolarFan said:
Obama should nominate a black female for the job.

Put the heat on a bunch of old whitey men to block that one.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the nomination will be a minority, female or both. Look at the previous 2 nominations he made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom