|
Does anyone have a pic of dead Scalia, I just want to make sure
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
His family declined autopsy, so I mean who's to say? Might just be a decoy corpse. But to what end, I wonder?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:His family declined autopsy, so I mean who's to say? Might just be a decoy corpse. But to what end, I wonder? They're afraid of being put in one of Obama's death camps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:That call can't be challenged! You're not dead until you're warm and dead, and with the icy depths of Scalia's heart we may have made a
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Fansy posted:Does anyone have a pic of dead Scalia, I just want to make sure He doesn't photograph well, seeing as how he's invisible to mirrors and cameras now that he's ascended.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Scalia strikes me as the kind of tool that does the vampire cabal's bidding and then when he asks for his eternal reward they drain him because it's funny.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
geegee posted:Tongue in cheek I'm sure but there will never be an American SG of the UN. This. There is a very low glass ceiling at the UN for US citizens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Alito is the worst tbqh yeah, he's just a festering pile of bile with no redeeming qualities scalia was at least at times possessed of wit and humor
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I mean, between losing the Court for a generation, and taking even a 33% chance of taking the White House, it's easy to see why they think it's worth the risk. The economy could crater This is the real risk for the Democrats this year. The Baltic Dry Index has fallen to a five-year low, initial jobless claims have broken through a five-year high, and the producer price index has absolutely plummeted. Any one of these indicators could be due to interfering environmental conditions, but all three of them happening at the same time suggests we're heading towards a major economic downturn in the relatively near future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This. There is a very low glass ceiling at the UN for US citizens. Considering that we've sent idiots like John Bolton as our ambassador, I don't blame them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
UberJew posted:yeah, he's just a festering pile of bile with no redeeming qualities Scalia rarely voted against the interests of the right wing of the Republican Party. Alito is purely a partisan hack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Scalia rarely voted against the interests of the right wing of the Republican Party. Alito is purely a partisan hack. Has he ever been asked about Raich? I'm sure I know what he'd say but...
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Has he ever been asked about Raich? I'm sure I know what he'd say but... He's dead, Jim
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
On cspan right now i my cable program listing says "justice antonin Scalia lying." That should be him explaining his judicial philosophy, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Radish posted:Scalia strikes me as the kind of tool that does the vampire cabal's bidding and then when he asks for his eternal reward they drain him because it's funny. is that why we never see thomas in the sunlight
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This. There is a very low glass ceiling at the UN for US citizens. Kenya can advance him pretty far though. It'd be worth the hassle of finding a way toward some sort of dual citizenship deal just to watch the right wing explode from the UN building.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Timby posted:This is the real risk for the Democrats this year. The Baltic Dry Index has fallen to a five-year low, initial jobless claims have broken through a five-year high, and the producer price index has absolutely plummeted. Any one of these indicators could be due to interfering environmental conditions, but all three of them happening at the same time suggests we're heading towards a major economic downturn in the relatively near future. Who cares if the economy is in the midst of a global balance sheet recession and Chinese solvency crisis, we Democrats have some loving amazing optics to hit Republicans with, all thank to Ted Cruz' opportunism. We know Ted Cruz is such an opportunist, he's willing to shut down the entire government if it helps Ted Cruz' future prospects. So I say this: Obama should use Ted Cruz by nominating America's first African-American woman justice while daring Cruz to filibuster before a hearing may be scheduled. How loving great would that be? You make the Obama legacy no longer about Obamacare, no longer about his absolute shitshow of foreign policy, no longer about Clinton's drat emails, you make it about whether a perfectly qualified African-American woman deserves to have her day in court, just like the previous two, white, women nominees received. Loretta Lynch for SCOTUS is the perfect choice because it fucks over the Republican narrative while increasing downballot minority turnout for Democrats, especially for Senate, while also absolutely loving over Bernie Sanders, a candidate who does not know how to handle an issue involving African American women.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Someone mentioned how long it took for Sotomayor to get confirmed but it was only like two months? If that's the longest the GOP can seem to fight against a relatively liberal judge I don't see how Obama doesn't get one through
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Jeffrey Toobin writes about Scalia's legacy in the New Yorker. He's not a fan. from the article posted:Belligerent with his colleagues, dismissive of his critics, nostalgic for a world where outsiders knew their place and stayed there, Scalia represents a perfect model for everything that President Obama should avoid in a successor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Jet Jaguar posted:Jeffrey Toobin writes about Scalia's legacy in the New Yorker. The greatest validation for Scalia's legacy would be filling his seat with a qualified African American woman who did not get where she is because of affirmative action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Someone mentioned how long it took for Sotomayor to get confirmed but it was only like two months? If that's the longest the GOP can seem to fight against a relatively liberal judge I don't see how Obama doesn't get one through There wasn't a Republican majority back then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:There wasn't a Republican majority back then. Also, she was replacing a liberal Justice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:There wasn't a Republican majority back then. There wasn't even a coherent Republican Senatorial minority back then, neither. 60 votes is 60 votes is gently caress you we make the rules go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Fair enough point. What's the longest it's taken to confirm a supreme court nominee?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
About 126 days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Fair enough point. What's the longest it's taken to confirm a supreme court nominee? The longest time to confirm a nominee is kind of irrelevant. If the Senate refuses to affirm a a nominee they'll be withdrawn for a new nominee, but the time for confirmation goes from nomination to confirmation. So those who aren't confirmed don't count. Other than W's Miers nomination and Reagan's aborted Ginsburg nomination, they've all nominees have been voted on in modern times. Nixon almost made the list too, but his Miers type incompetent nominees were going to be declared incompetent so he didn't actually nominate them. Since Tyler the Senate has pretty much accepted or rejected every nominee that didn't have their nomination withdrawn. John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson had nominees that the Senate passed a resolution to postpone the nomination of, which was meant to be indefinite. Tyler just had all his nominations end with a resolution to table the nomination. The only real parallel to the current threat is from Hayes' administration. Where he nominated someone controversial and the Senate just ignored it until the next guy was elected. Of course Hayes did make the nomination in January 1881 and Garfield took office in March 1881, so that's a pretty shaky precedent to try and lean on. Aside from the general bad idea of pointing to the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidency and saying "let's do that!" The longest vacancy on the Supreme Court was 27 months, when the Senate refused to accept Tyler nominees. The longest vacancy since the Court went to 9 Justices is 391 days, when Nixon had a couple nominees rejected. Gyges fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
Joe Biden has come out against nominating a Supreme Court Justice in an election year, urges Obama to follow "historical precedent:" http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581754/biden-senate-hearings-scotus-vacancy-election-year
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
The gently caress Joe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Despite his fake Onion Diamond Joe persona and goofy creeper uncle photos, Joe Biden has a lot of bad opinions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
uh why is anyone assuming arkane is being honest, it's a clip from the end of june 1992
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Tricked again!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:uh why is anyone assuming arkane is being honest, it's a clip from the end of june 1992 oh dear god, the callous dishonesty of posting snark! regardless, it is funny the fake outrage that is being bandied about when the exact same thing would happen/has happened if the parties were switched.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Arkane posted:oh dear god, the callous dishonesty of posting snark! even setting aside the obvious difference between a hypothetical advanced at the end of june and the reality of the middle of february and also the mindless defense of "well maybe its wrong but you would do it too!", that one guy said a wrong thing is pretty different from the entire republican caucus in the senate doing the wrong thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the Democrats have never outright rejected even the possibility of having nominations out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Look, if I can find a single clip of just one person aligned with your side saying something dumb that means it's totally defensible for my entire side to be doing incredibly dumb poo poo. Fair's fair, and now I'm off to sponsor a bill to require Senators to douse any supreme court nominee in Hershey's syrup because of this clip I've found of then Senator Santorum saying just the dumbest poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
The first GOP Senator up for re-election this year has cracked and defected:quote:Moderate Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) on Monday strayed from the hard line issued by Senate Republican leaders on President Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court, calling for the Senate to consider the President's nominee. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mark-kirk-supreme-court-scalia--2 Now, you still need 13 more to get past Cruz's inevitable filibuster (which is probably not happening), but it's very useful ammo for the Democrats in bashing Republicans over this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The first GOP Senator up for re-election this year has cracked and defected: Just for thread edification: Kirk was a Republican wave elected R senator in Illinois who only won because of the milquetoast Dem option and scandal-plagued Blagojevich admin anti-coattails (and barely won at that, 48-46). He's running against America's sweetheart wounded Gulf War vet Tammy Duckworth. I somehow got subscribed to his email list and watching the sharp left turn he's done since 2015 compared to what came before is amusing as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Oh no Biden said Bush should wait till after the campaign season to nominate someone 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm pretty sure the Democrats have never outright rejected even the possibility of having nominations out of hand. In the video, Biden says that the Senate committee should not even consider anyone nominated until after the election is over. which is practically the same as the current meme from the GOP side that Obama shouldn't bother nominating anyone and weasel, I didn't argue it was right. I was arguing against partisans treating two similar situations completely differently depending on who was in power. whether Its Biden in 92 or, to a lesser extent, Reid/Obama in 07/08, both parties are obnoxiously partisan, and seemingly at their worst when it comes to judicial nominations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Arkane posted:In the video, Biden says that the Senate committee should not even consider anyone nominated until after the election is over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:37
|
|
