Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas r

Those would be best
As democrats always are for the economy

For freeloaders and leeches who want something for nothing maybe.

If a kid's own parents won't invest in his/her college, it doesn't sound like a good investment to me. Sanders thinks the rest of us should do for a kid what his own parents have figured out isn't a good idea.
 
Oh, really? So the Senate can decide to keep the Court at 8 justices?

They don't have a constitutional duty to fill vacancies? Really?

1) Yes... the Senate can indeed decide to not accept the nomination of the President. If they were required to accept the President's nomination, there would be no need to vote.

2) Yes, they have a duty to fill vacancies. But they do NOT have to vote yes to whomever the President nominates. It is called checks and balances.
 
For freeloaders and leeches who want something for nothing maybe.

If a kid's own parents won't invest in his/her college, it doesn't sound like a good investment to me. Sanders thinks the rest of us should do for a kid what his own parents have figured out isn't a good idea.

Middle class whites focus on the lower class minorities.
Rich democrats focus on the rich
 
For freeloaders and leeches who want something for nothing maybe.

If a kid's own parents won't invest in his/her college, it doesn't sound like a good investment to me. Sanders thinks the rest of us should do for a kid what his own parents have figured out isn't a good idea.

More taxes are paid by college grads
I bet you don't like investing
 
Does anyone really believe that this is what the founding fathers intended? That they said the President shall appoint justices, except for the last year of their tenure?

No. Obama should appoint whomever he feels is best qualified. The Senate should vote on whether or not they agree. If they do not, then Obama will appoint his next best option. The Senate should then vote on that person. This process continues until the two sides agree.
 
1) Yes... the Senate can indeed decide to not accept the nomination of the President. If they were required to accept the President's nomination, there would be no need to vote.

2) Yes, they have a duty to fill vacancies. But they do NOT have to vote yes to whomever the President nominates. It is called checks and balances.

And you think it's acceptable for the Senate to decide to wait a full year on the latter for purely partisan reasons?

I'm okay with an honest vote on a nominee. But a vote or lack of vote simply to delay is not in keeping w/ our principles, imo. I hope the GOP pays dearly for it.
 
And you think it's acceptable for the Senate to decide to wait a full year on the latter for purely partisan reasons?

I'm okay with an honest vote on a nominee. But a vote or lack of vote simply to delay is not in keeping w/ our principles, imo. I hope the GOP pays dearly for it.

Found this online:


Elena Kagan: 87 days (May 10, 2010, to Aug. 5, 2010)

Sonia Sotomayor: 66 days (June 1, 2009, to Aug. 6, 2009)

Samuel A. Alito Jr.: 82 days (Nov. 10, 2005, to Jan. 31, 2006)

John G. Roberts Jr.: 62 days (July 29, 2005, to Sept. 29, 2005)

Stephen Breyer: 73 days (May 17, 1994, to July 29, 1994)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 50 days (June 14, 1993, to August 3, 1993)

Clarence Thomas: 99 days (July 8, 1991, to Oct. 15, 1991)

David H. Souter: 69 days (July 25, 1990, to Oct. 2, 1990)

Anthony M. Kennedy: 65 days (Nov. 30, 1987, to Feb 3, 1988)

Antonin Scalia: 85 days (June 24, 1986, to Sept. 17, 1986)


The amount of time it took to confirm each judge.

Let's see partisan Republicans try and justify stonewalling for THREE HUNDRED FORTY-ONE DAYS..
 
For people who think that the Founders didn't envision politics being played with the SCOTUS, Congress voted not to confirm John Rutledge, in 1795, after his recess appointment expired, for purely political reasons. There was even a smear campaign against him, accusing him of alcoholism and claiming he was mentally ill.

In Congress' defense, Rutledge was a complete tool and a douchebag.
 
Dude, was asking for proof that The Courts have the power to invalidate unconstitutional laws.


That wasn't what I was asking. You really are a shitty lawyer. Your reading comprehension is for shit.

What I asked was whether they were authorized to INTERPRET the Constitution in the sense that it means one thing one day and another the next. For example. Did the US Constitution have a right to marry and have abortions on the day it was ratified? Did the Founders even want that considered in the US Constitution? The answer is a resounding no. Want to know why?

1) It wasn't mentioned in the document
2) It was outlawed in MANY states already

Now kindly go fuck yourself
 
I am so amused watching the democrat party on JPP feign shock at politicians acting well, political.

Shocking isn't it?

Of course when their side acts political they don't seem to mind so much. Only when the GOP acts political. Unfortunately, I fear another episode of Republican Failure Theatre where they make overtures about taking on Obama but caving like the pussies they are when push comes to shove.
 
I am so amused watching the democrat party on JPP feign shock at politicians acting well, political.

Shocking isn't it?

Of course when their side acts political they don't seem to mind so much. Only when the GOP acts political. Unfortunately, I fear another episode of Republican Failure Theatre where they make overtures about taking on Obama but caving like the pussies they are when push comes to shove.

I'm not shocked, and Democrats would do the same thing if the situation was reversed.

But, they need to be held accountable for willfully ignoring their responsibilities. Voters shouldn't tolerate this kind of stuff from either party.
 
I'm not shocked, and Democrats would do the same thing if the situation was reversed.

But, they need to be held accountable for willfully ignoring their responsibilities. Voters shouldn't tolerate this kind of stuff from either party.

yet, most of them will continue to mindlessly vote for their preferred party because they swallow koolaid and believe that the other side is the evil one. face it, we're fucked.
 
Back
Top