Supreme Court Justice Scalia Dies

a reply to: Indigo5

My apologies for the previous post.

Politics does make me ill.

I see no reason why 5 people should decide what is and what is not for every one. Especially since they are appointed by people who seek to use their appointment for special interest gains.





"Its not whether a work of art is real or fake, it is whether it is a good fake or a bad fake"

originally posted by: Kitana
To those with reading comprehension:

The political situation within the republican party right now is very tenuous for establishment republicans. For the first time establishment republicans are seeing just how angry their voting base is - and just how close they are to being voted out of office in their next term.

To what extent their jobs are in danger won't be fully known until the end of this election. Is it just a couple of states? Or it is widespread? They will soon find out. The extent in which it currently appears as if all their jobs are in danger means they really need to get a better handle on what their constituency really wants them to do. Something again, this election will tell them.

This leaves them in a position where they need to be very careful how they act right now or not one of them will have a job next time their jobs are up for vote. It is intelligence which is telling them they need to wait to decide what nomination to accept. Simple common sense really.

No one is saying Obama does not have the right and responsibility to nominate, but a nomination is not unilateral appointment. The republican party right now needs to know what direction to take and they feel that direction will be clearly shown this election cycle. I support that decision, unless Obama brings us a nice originalist, then I would say yes all the way. BUT the ones under consideration at the moment are anything but originalists so its a safe bet we will be waiting for a long time anyway.

However, originalist is only my vote. The rest of the republican party should be heard also. A majority vote ending up for Rubio, or Bush, or any other candidate might change the decision on who the republican party should accept - because it shows where the majority of the republicans stand.

Hopefully that makes sense to everyone. The republicans currently in office need to make the decisions their constituency wants them to, and they are currently finding out they haven't been doing that at all.

Therefore, you will have to forgive the republicans as our representatives are just now waking up to a few facts and need a little time to decipher just what those facts are.

Good point!

Waiting also makes sense if the Reps want get elected before they give us another Roberts.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Correct!

why do so many people think he was "brilliant"....smart, of course, but brilliant, no way....go read some of his opinions.

originally posted by: jimmyx
why do so many people think he was "brilliant"....smart, of course, but brilliant, no way....go read some of his opinions.

You should post up the "smartest" ones.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

I see no reason why 5 people should decide what is and what is not for every one.

They don't actually, do they?

They determine if something is Constitutional.

a reply to: Kitana

Ad hom aside, I answer yes it is their duty, twice. Maybe you missed it.

I then added that no one can say that the voters voted the people in to do some unprecedented actions like filibustering a nomination. Sorry you are trying to pigeon hole the question and load it up.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
But please continue to insult me, really shows where you want this conversation to go.
Still haven't answer my question, but yet you are lecturing me on how I am not answering yours?

a reply to: Sremmos80

When your response does not begin with a specific answer to my question don't expect me to waste my time on reading anything.

Yes or no means you begin with either or. You may qualify your yes or your no afterward if you like, but yes or no is simple and if you refuse to begin with a specific answer I simply wont waste my time further on ignorance. I was specific and you chose to evade - not worth anyone's time.

That said, If it is your job to represent someone, and you suddenly found out that person felt deeply that you were not doing that in their interest, would you ask them, since it is your job to represent them, how you might best work in their interest?

If you cannot understand someone who would, then there is little to no hope for you. If you cannot understand the position in which elected republicans now find themselves, then there is little to no hope for you.

There is nothing in law, that says that a senator must accept any nomination put in front of them. None. There is nothing in law that prevents a republican from waiting a moment to find out what the party electorate wants. None.

I heard he was not a nice man.
Maybe everything does happen for a reason.

a reply to: Kitana

When your response does not begin with a specific answer to my question don't expect me to waste my time on reading anything.

Isn't that rich, you want to insult me about reading comp when you openly admit you didn't even read everything I typed?
The first time I answer I started with saying how ironic it is that you want me to answer questions when you wont answer mine, which you still have not. I haven't evaded jack, I have answered it twice. You just seem to want to ignore it, by your own words.

Yes they do have that duty, but I don't see how saying no to say no is part of that. The people didn't elected them to stall a crucial part of our gov for over a year. They didn't elect them so that after the death of Scalia, that they would just refuse to do their jobs of deliber

Crazy how that starts with a yes.... That was in the first post after you asked.

Now when you want to have a conversation without ad homs I'll be around.

No one voted these guys in knowing they would be in the position to just outright block a new appointee and many of those in office are on record saying that isn't what you are suppose to do. Muse7 already pointed that out to you, but maybe you didn't read that either.


Any chance you actually answer my question I have been asking you?
Where was the balance in the SCOTUS before this death? I promise I will read your whole post even if you don't start off with the answer to that question.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

I see no reason why 5 people should decide what is and what is not for every one.

They don't actually, do they?

They determine if something is Constitutional.

The SCOTUS has determined that through the Commerce Clause -- anything is within the limits of the Federal Government's jurisdiction.



"Since the infamous Wickard v. Fliburn case, the feds use the commerce clause to justify virtually unlimited intrusion into nearly every corner of American life. From regulating the nation’s entire health care system to waging a “war on drugs,” federal agents wield power over the states and the people via the commerce clause.

Rep. John Yarmuth reluctantly admitted the truth during a radio interview in August 2010. The show host asked the Kentucky Democrat: what can’t the federal government do if it can mandate Americans must purchase health insurance.

'It really doesn’t prohibit the government from doing virtually anything – the federal government. So I don’t know the answer to your question, because I am not sure there is anything under current interpretation of the commerce clause that the government couldn’t do,' Yarmuth replied. "

tenthamendmentcenter.com...

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

I see no reason why 5 people should decide what is and what is not for every one.

They don't actually, do they?

They determine if something is Constitutional.

The SCOTUS has determined that through the Commerce Clause -- anything is within the limits of the Federal Government's jurisdiction.

Thank you.

Not my area, so I ask questions.

Hopefully, someone will offer an intelligent counter thought.