|
I completely agree with you guys but you got to agree that politically it undermines Obama a bit, can't be explained away simply.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:I completely agree with you guys but you got to agree that politically it undermines Obama a bit, can't be explained away simply.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:I completely agree with you guys but you got to agree that politically it undermines Obama a bit, can't be explained away simply. Definitely true. That said, I think that Kirk defecting from the Republican blockade is a bigger deal because it allows Obama to say "bipartisan support" over and over when talking about how his nominee should get a vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:I completely agree with you guys but you got to agree that politically it undermines Obama a bit, can't be explained away simply. You act as if it matters for the GOP to have internally consistent ideas or talking points. The right wing base doesn't care either way, they will screech just as loud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
So some lawyer says there's no problem letting Scalia rule on pending supreme court cases from the graveArizona attorney and necromancer Kory Langhofer posted:With no apparent sarcasm, an Arizona attorney on Sunday proposed that the late Justice Antonin Scalia's votes in cases pending before the Supreme Court should still count even though he died before the court issued its rulings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGX_YaYLXk8
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
I want the GOP to try to push this, because there’s no way it goes over well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Arizona, quelle surprise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
Of course he's "no fan of government" but wants a big government conservative justice to get procedural pseudo-votes from beyond the grave. So-called small-gov people are unprincipled fuckheads.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
If you liked the cadaver synod then you're gonna fuckin' love this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Saying basically that "we know exactly how he would have ruled so we should really just be able to rubber stamp the rulings we wanted like he would have" is probably the most insulting thing I've heard said about Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
Radish posted:Saying basically that "we know exactly how he would have ruled so we should really just be able to rubber stamp the rulings we wanted like he would have" is probably the most insulting thing I've heard said about Scalia. Granted it's kind of accurate. 4th amendment stuff (excluding the bedroom and maybe weed) is his autobahn, the rest is "HMM YES HOW lovely CAN I GET ABOUT THIS QUESTION"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:If you liked the cadaver synod then you're gonna fuckin' love this. Reached from the great beyond, Reagan agreed. "That's just responsible governance."
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Why can't I vote for by dead grandmother? I know exactly how she was planning on voting and know she wouldn't have changed her mind. I really don't see the difference between her dying in October then my voting for her in November and her voting in November then dying in December.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Showed this to my high school civics class for discussion and a couple of students informed me that ouija boards really work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
We had a seance to get Scalia to rule on this case and gently caress over some people but we got Thurgood Marshall by accident oh no!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Showed this to my high school civics class for discussion and a couple of students informed me that ouija boards really work. Tell them Hasbro own the Ouija Board copyright.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Showed this to my high school civics class for discussion and a couple of students informed me that ouija boards really work. Did you let them know your Ouja point pointed to an F for their grades?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:We had a seance to get Scalia to rule on this case and gently caress over some people but we got Thurgood Marshall by accident oh no! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Arizona, quelle surprise. Sell Arizona back to Mexico and use the proceeds to build a wall around it, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
in a 75-37 decision, the supreme court has decided that female suffrage is unconstitutional
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Did you let them know your Ouja point pointed to an F for their grades? Should do this
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:in a 75-37 decision, the supreme court has decided that female suffrage is unconstitutional Just because something is a bad idea doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. That's why women needed Scalia on the court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
it's kinda depressing that such a outrageous hijacking of democracy as the GOP Senate is engaged in is pretty much just a ho hum process story...
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
I'm curious if they are just going to keep it up if the Democrats keep the presidency for another four years. It's about as legitimate as what they are doing now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:it's kinda depressing that such a outrageous hijacking of democracy as the GOP Senate is engaged in is pretty much just a ho hum process story... How are they hijacking democracy? Did they cancel the next election? Were all the key people appointed to a vacancy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm curious if they are just going to keep it up if the Democrats keep the presidency for another four years. It's about as legitimate as what they are doing now. See also: the budget wars. If their constituents really don't like it, they can vote them out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Drogue Chronicle posted:How are they hijacking democracy? Did they cancel the next election? Were all the key people appointed to a vacancy? By ignoring the result of the presidential election
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Drogue Chronicle posted:How are they hijacking democracy? Did they cancel the next election? Were all the key people appointed to a vacancy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
They can't prevent the president from using his elected power to appoint someone. He can't prevent them from exercising their elected power to act, or not, within the laws and senate rules. And they're doing that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Like I said, just keeping the SCOTUS as a permanent eight (or less) members for as long as they control the senate is as legitimate as saying we need to wait for the next person. They should just be honest that they are doing it in order to stop all nomination processes instead of trying to frame it as leaving it to the people that have already spoken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Drogue Chronicle posted:See also: the budget wars. If their constituents really don't like it, they can vote them out. Provided they can get to the polls on a weekday since Sunday voting is shut down, and with the proper documentation because voting fraud is everywhere, and then wait in a four hour line because your Precinct has poo poo machines and too few of them to boot. But yeah. Democracy and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:By ignoring the result of the presidential election Please explain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Please explain. They're claiming that the legally elected head of the executive branch of the government doesn't have the right to exercise powers specifically granted him by the document that established the government, because he happens to be in office for the final year. "Let the American people decide who they want to pick the next justice" ignores the fact that they did exactly that when they elected Obama just over three years ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
That's just marketing, though. The constitutional reality is they don't have to approve anyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:They're claiming that the legally elected head of the executive branch of the government doesn't have the right to exercise powers specifically granted him by the document that established the government, because he happens to be in office for the final year. Which powers are they preventing Obama from exercising? People keep saying this but no one has been able to tell me. Also, you claimed they are ignoring the results of a presidential election. Are you talking about Al Gore back in 2000?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Which powers are they preventing Obama from exercising? People keep saying this but no one has been able to tell me. So we're going to be purposefully pedantic? Goons, what a shock. Not even allowing a nominee to be heard by the Senate Judicial Committee is de facto denial of the President's power to nominate Justices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Which powers are they preventing Obama from exercising? People keep saying this but no one has been able to tell me. Article II of the Constitution, section 2. quote:He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. It says "advice and consent". It does not say "refusing to give such advice by bottling up the appointment in committee", which is what the Republicans are threatening. It also does not say "Unless it's the last year of his Presidency, in which case he loses the following executive powers".
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Oh BS. It's two branches of the government doing the separation of powers thing. Separation of powers is a good thing. patentmagus fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Oh BS. It's two branches of the government doing the separation of powers thing. Separation of powers is a good thing. No, it's one branch doing it's constitutionally guaranteed bit and the other branch refusing to do its part. It'd be one thing if Republicans were holding hearings and voting down any nominees Obama appointed to run out the clock. It's another thing to not even hold a hearing and refuse any appointments by fiat. This is what's happening. It's disingenuous at best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
Saying that you won't even consider any of a president's nominations regardless of quality because you hope to win an election after he's gone in a year is an interesting way of interpreting "separation of powers."
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 21:00
|
|