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

More taxes are paid by college grads
I bet you don't like investing

I like investing and picking my own investment not letting you determine them for me.

As for paying more taxes, maybe or maybe not. That's the claim you morons have said is true if people make $15/hour minimum wage vs. the current one. Some would and some wouldn't. There is no guarantee.
 
I like investing and picking my own investment not letting you determine them for me.

As for paying more taxes, maybe or maybe not. That's the claim you morons have said is true if people make $15/hour minimum wage vs. the current one. Some would and some wouldn't. There is no guarantee.

you mouthpooping is not fact
 
you mouthpooping is not fact

I can prove my claim about the taxes and minimum wage. Are you saying a single parent with two kids currently being paid $7.25/hour would pay income taxes if he/she started making $15/hour? I say no and can prove it.
 
I like investing and picking my own investment not letting you determine them for me.

As for paying more taxes, maybe or maybe not. That's the claim you morons have said is true if people make $15/hour minimum wage vs. the current one. Some would and some wouldn't. There is no guarantee.

Are you saying one doesn't make much more with a degree
Are you a teabagger
 
Nor will they confirm another Obama appointed far left justice.

But leaves open a rather obvious political gambit if you're Obama. Nominate a non-radical and when the republicans refuse to vote him up, accuse them of obstructionism.

I should go into politics.
 
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.

lol.....Obummer hasn't even nominated someone and you're bitching that Republicans are taking too long to vote on him......
 
But leaves open a rather obvious political gambit if you're Obama. Nominate a non-radical and when the republicans refuse to vote him up, accuse them of obstructionism.

I should go into politics.

I agree.....he should nominate the most conservative person he can find just to make the Republicans look stupid......
 
Hey, dopey - have you heard what Mitch McConnell as well as every candidate on the GOP side has said since the weekend?

Welcome to earth.

sure I have.....and it isn't what you liberal asswipes are claiming they've been saying.......no approval for liberal justices, welcome to hell......
 
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.

And you would be cheering on the democrat party if the roles were reversed.

Where were you when the democrat party was blocking an immensely qualified Hispanic named Miguel Estrada? Oh yeah. You were nowhere.
 
too bad


the American people voted him in twice you democracy hating fuck

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.

Almost immediately after Scalia’s death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.

“You know, the kind of obstructionism that [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell's s talking about, he’s hearkening back to his old days,” Schumer said, according to The Hill. “In 2010, right after the election or right during the election, he said, ‘My number-one job is to defeat Barack, ’ without even knowing what Barack Obama was going to propose. Here, he doesn’t even know who the president’s going to propose and he said, ‘No, we’re not having hearings; we’re not going to go forward to leave the Supreme Court vacant at 300 days in a divided time.'

“When you go right off the bat and say, ‘I don’t care who he nominates, I am going to oppose him,’ that’s not going to fly,” Schumer added.

When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.

Much like Republicans today, Schumer’s sentiment was clearly based on a fear that another Bush appointment would radically shift the overall makeup of the Court’s ideology.

Of course, Schumer’s attitude back then provoked a response from Republicans very similar to the one Democrats are making now. Bush’s Press Secretary Dana Perino argued at the time that Schumer’s statements showed “a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution” and amounted to “blind obstructionism.”

As it happened, Schumer’s suggested obstruction never came to pass, as no more vacancies opened during Bush’s presidency.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Desh probably feels that since Schumer was unsuccessful, that it means everyone should follow his example and fail also.
 
FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.

Almost immediately after Scalia’s death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.

“You know, the kind of obstructionism that [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell's s talking about, he’s hearkening back to his old days,” Schumer said, according to The Hill. “In 2010, right after the election or right during the election, he said, ‘My number-one job is to defeat Barack, ’ without even knowing what Barack Obama was going to propose. Here, he doesn’t even know who the president’s going to propose and he said, ‘No, we’re not having hearings; we’re not going to go forward to leave the Supreme Court vacant at 300 days in a divided time.'

“When you go right off the bat and say, ‘I don’t care who he nominates, I am going to oppose him,’ that’s not going to fly,” Schumer added.

When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.

Much like Republicans today, Schumer’s sentiment was clearly based on a fear that another Bush appointment would radically shift the overall makeup of the Court’s ideology.

Of course, Schumer’s attitude back then provoked a response from Republicans very similar to the one Democrats are making now. Bush’s Press Secretary Dana Perino argued at the time that Schumer’s statements showed “a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution” and amounted to “blind obstructionism.”

As it happened, Schumer’s suggested obstruction never came to pass, as no more vacancies opened during Bush’s presidency.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Desh probably feels that since Schumer was unsuccessful, that it means everyone should follow his example and fail also.

Well it is like their "they didn't really lie about Iraq because they didn't get troops killed" argument.
 
Are you saying one doesn't make much more with a degree
Are you a teabagger

I said making more doesn't automatically mean they'll pay certain taxes. The claim by you leftist idiots is that by paying fast food workers $15/hour, they'll start paying income taxes. Maybe they will and maybe they won't but it's not guaranteed.

Are you claiming that someone making more will automatically pay them?

I also said that if a parent won't invest in their own kids, it's not a good investment. If the person closest to the kid doesn't think enough of him/her to do it, why should those of us that don't know the kid think it's a good idea?

What kind of guarantee are those of us expected to invest going to get that it will provide the return you say it will? I need proof that EVERY kid in which we're supposed to invest will provide the return you say it will.
 
I said making more doesn't automatically mean they'll pay certain taxes. The claim by you leftist idiots is that by paying fast food workers $15/hour, they'll start paying income taxes. Maybe they will and maybe they won't but it's not guaranteed.

Are you claiming that someone making more will automatically pay them?

I also said that if a parent won't invest in their own kids, it's not a good investment. If the person closest to the kid doesn't think enough of him/her to do it, why should those of us that don't know the kid think it's a good idea?

What kind of guarantee are those of us expected to invest going to get that it will provide the return you say it will? I need proof that EVERY kid in which we're supposed to invest will provide the return you say it will.

You are dumber than I though if you think college grads only make 15 hr
 
Back
Top