Supreme Court Justice Scalia Dies

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT

I saw it. There's still no link to the actual text of the email.

And still no requests for fundraising within the email.

But, are you saying that McConnell didn't make Scalia's death a political issue first?

Are you equally disgusted with him and the Republican party?

Been disgusted with McConnell long before Judge Scalia passed.
As for planning how to fill his vacant seat... vs. ...Fundraising off his death? Definitely, the latter is worse.

a reply to: Indigo5

You make excellent points. Scalia's politics were abominable.

But Scalia was also ... a grandfather, father, friend, etc.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT

I saw it. There's still no link to the actual text of the email.

And still no requests for fundraising within the email.

But, are you saying that McConnell didn't make Scalia's death a political issue first?

Are you equally disgusted with him and the Republican party?

Been disgusted with McConnell long before Judge Scalia passed.
As for planning how to fill his vacant seat... vs. ...Fundraising off his death? Definitely, the latter is worse.

Still no evidence of fundraising.

And even so, the Democratic effort is in response to McConnell's statements, which, arguably, go against the traditions of our country for more than the last hundred years. There has NEVER been any standard that the President is somehow stripped of his Constitutional powers because he only has 11 months to go.

McConnell is doing the same thing he's done for the last seven years; played politics over working on the People's business.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and now I remember why I post here so often in support of "the left" and against the hypocrites on "the right" that claim to love the Constitution, hate partisan politics, but then spit on the Constitution every time their wingnut agenda is threatened.

Constituion of the United States - Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:


"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.


The Constitution is clear. Appointment of Supreme Court judges is one of the express powers of the Presidency.

Those of you who are against our President doing so, or who support efforts by any means necessary to stall and forego his power to do so by the Senate, are making clear that you wish to subvert the Constitution based on your own partisan beliefs.

The president can nominate someone.

Appointment is a formality after the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes...if there is any of Gods grace to be found in Scalia's passing it was that God decided to spare one of the worlds most intelligent conservative minds the pain of watching the finale of the GOP implosion in 2016. A mercy...and gods speed to Justice Scalia...God's probably exhausted arguing with him already

a reply to: IAMTAT

The presidential candidates of the GOP are both fundraising consistently and using this guys death to push their campaign.

Too many Republicans won't invest the political capital to nominate principled constitutionalists to #SCOTUS. I will

This is Cruz's most recent tweet.

Ben Carson: 'We Should Not Allow a Judge to Be Appointed' by Obama - Breitbart" http://(link tracking not allowed)/1PUlJ7h via @BreitbartNews

Carson's latest.

These guys are doing the same thing.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: xuenchen


Keep up the chant, or rant or wishful thinking. The facts are completely different.

Democrats are 34% of the population Republicans 23% and Independents are at about 43%. In poll after poll.

No, if you want to see a party imploding, that would be your Republicans.

TRUMP ON THE INDEPENDENT TICKET 2016!

Not talking about voters professor.

It's about the tactics of the Democrat Party.

90° tangents play a part as you prove.

Its already been stated by McConnel that anything less than a consensus candidate wont make it.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and now I remember why I post here so often in support of "the left" and against the hypocrites on "the right" that claim to love the Constitution, hate partisan politics, but then spit on the Constitution every time their wingnut agenda is threatened.

Constituion of the United States - Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:


"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.


The Constitution is clear. Appointment of Supreme Court judges is one of the express powers of the Presidency.

Those of you who are against our President doing so, or who support efforts by any means necessary to stall and forego his power to do so by the Senate, are making clear that you wish to subvert the Constitution based on your own partisan beliefs.

The president can nominate someone.

Appointment is a formality after the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate.

A couple quick points here since Ted Cruz dropped a whopper at the GOP debate..."80 years of precedence of SCOTUS Nominees not being nominated during an election year"...or something similar..

The truth is just the Opposite..whenever there has been a vacancy during an election year, the President has nominated someone and they have been confirmed. Even Reagan did it.

www.scotusblog.com...

Other point...

Pres. Obama will nominate someone unquestionably qualified (for a reason) and the Senate will spend an election year looking like A-Holes beating up and scratching at a reason not to confirm...it will be horrible, steady headlines for the senators involved...or they will confirm.

So if they choose to play politics for the next 9 months and BS around with the nomination...they risk losing Senate seats...cuz the headlines will be abusive to the GOP senators attacking a solid Nominee in desperate ways..

If they also lose the whitehouse in 2016?...It could be a double loss..risking both the Whitehouse and the Senate...

So they will confirm the Nominee...Likely Judge Sri Srinivasan...look him up.

And the court will shift from a 5 to 4 Conservative Majority to a 5 to 4 Liberal Majority..

The right wing will scream..but that's the way this story is going to go..

a reply to: Indigo5

And the court will shift from a 5 to 4 Conservative Majority to a 5 to 4 Liberal Majority..

This is the part that gets me, this thread is full of " THE BALANCE IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED RABBLE RABBLE!"
Wonder how many of those same folks thought it wasn't balanced before...

a reply to: xuenchen

Of course you don't want to talk about anything concrete, measurable, or provable.

You thrive on innuendo and a healthy dose of Alinsky ...

TRUMP, INDEPENDENT, 2016

*tick, tick, tick*

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Indigo5

And the court will shift from a 5 to 4 Conservative Majority to a 5 to 4 Liberal Majority..

This is the part that gets me, this thread is full of " THE BALANCE IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED RABBLE RABBLE!"
Wonder how many of those same folks thought it wasn't balanced before...

Alas...this is ATS, there are undoubtedly folks here who are so far right that they think Scalia was a RINO.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Its already been stated by McConnel that anything less than a consensus candidate wont make it.

So do Mr. McConnell's comments trump the Constitution?

Further, I don't recall him saying anything about a consensus candidate. He declared that Mr. Obama doesn't get to fulfill his Constitutional duties. Could you direct me to those comments?

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein

originally posted by: Willtell
Obama just announced HE WILL NOMINATE SOMEONE.

According to CNN

Well, the majority of our great nation did in fact vote Obama into power for two consecutive terms.

Actually Obama got half of a half or about one forth of Americans votes.

Voter turnout dipped from 62.3 percent of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to an estimated 57.5 in 2012. That figure was also below the 60.4 level of the 2004 election but higher than the 54.2 percent turnout in the 2000 election.
bipartisanpolicy.org...

The power grubbing central planners have never got the majority of Americans vote.

Progressives are power thieves.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Indigo5

And the court will shift from a 5 to 4 Conservative Majority to a 5 to 4 Liberal Majority..

This is the part that gets me, this thread is full of " THE BALANCE IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED RABBLE RABBLE!"
Wonder how many of those same folks thought it wasn't balanced before...

Alas...this is ATS, there are undoubtedly folks here who are so far right that they think Scalia was a RINO.

My god if there is really people who think he is a RINO I would be scared to hear their beliefs!

originally posted by: Indigo5

Alas...this is ATS, there are undoubtedly folks here who are so far right that they think Scalia was a RINO.

That's funny

But, sadly true.

This does look to be the likely Nominee..

Sri Srinivasan
www.usatoday.com...

news.yahoo.com...

www.ibtimes.com...

originally posted by: dianajune
I find it odd that they're already saying it looks like natural causes was to blame for Scalia's death. If he was found alone, with no one around at the time, don't they, by law, have to do an autopsy?

Here's something I believe may be relevant. Check out this excerpt of an interview that Alex Jones did with Matt Drudge last fall:

During an appearance on the Alex Jones Show, Drudge asserted that copyright laws which prevent websites from even linking to news stories were being advanced.
“I had a Supreme Court Justice tell me it’s over for me,” said Drudge. “They’ve got the votes now to enforce copyright law, you’re out of there. They’re going to make it so you can’t even use headlines.”
“To have a Supreme Court Justice say to me it’s over, they’ve got the votes, which means time is limited,” he added, noting that a day was coming when simply operating an independent website could be outlawed.

Source

Drudge never identified which Justice he spoke with. If it was Scalia, I think it would be safe to say that the powers-that-be were very upset that this person spoke with Drudge. If Scalia was the person Drudge was referring to, could this have been murder?

I sure would like to know who Drudge was talking about as it may have bearing on the cause of death. The way things have been going in this country, anything is possible. I realize this is just speculation, but I am not willing to buy anything and everything that the mainstream media has to say about this, let alone the government. Too many crooked things have been going on, especially now we're getting closer to the election.

Murder is not out of the question. Maybe murder is standard practice, there are a lot of old people in politics and power, that should make it easier.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and now I remember why I post here so often in support of "the left" and against the hypocrites on "the right" that claim to love the Constitution, hate partisan politics, but then spit on the Constitution every time their wingnut agenda is threatened.

Constituion of the United States - Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:


"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.


The Constitution is clear. Appointment of Supreme Court judges is one of the express powers of the Presidency.

Those of you who are against our President doing so, or who support efforts by any means necessary to stall and forego his power to do so by the Senate, are making clear that you wish to subvert the Constitution based on your own partisan beliefs.

The president can nominate someone.

Appointment is a formality after the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate.

Oh don't worry about it, these people think we live under a totalitarian regime and have no need for consent. There is no discussion with people like that.

What if a Democrat wins the November election? Do Republicans then also tell Hillary or Bernie that the voice of the people should be heard and they should wait until the next president is elected to appoint another Supreme Court justice? What Republicans are basically telling the President is to not do his job and his constitutional duty.

Obama will nominate Srinvasan, who was approved 97-0. It'll be amazing to watch Republicans back track and refuse to vote for him after he was anonymously approved.