Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

a reply to: dawnstar

Indeed, the People did speak in 2012, and about 5 million more of us spoke for Obama than the other guy.

What we see here is "whining about whining."

a reply to: Gryphon66

I kind of wish the supreme court would speak up and condemn them all really, or at least publicly give the politicians, along with the american people a refresher course as to just how the idea of "stacking the supreme court" for political reasons runs contrary to the purpose of it's being. it's not supposed to be influenced by the current political trends or fads. that's why they were given such long terms, to distance them from the political pressures.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

I kind of wish the supreme court would speak up and condemn them all really, or at least publicly give the politicians, along with the american people a refresher course as to just how the idea of "stacking the supreme court" for political reasons runs contrary to the purpose of it's being. it's not supposed to be influenced by the current political trends or fads. that's why they were given such long terms, to distance them from the political pressures.

Precisely the philosophy of Scalia.......and 100% opposite of the person that Obama will want to appoint.

So there's that.

When FDR tried to change the # of justices, the nomination process, his power to appoint.....to achieve a newer, better marxism........America stood up to it.

Precisely what's happening today.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

I kind of wish the supreme court would speak up and condemn them all really, or at least publicly give the politicians, along with the american people a refresher course as to just how the idea of "stacking the supreme court" for political reasons runs contrary to the purpose of it's being. it's not supposed to be influenced by the current political trends or fads. that's why they were given such long terms, to distance them from the political pressures.

And how about we keep religion out of the Supreme Court?

The Constitution is not religious or based in religion - - - justices should not be using their God ideologies.

I hope this asinine suggestion by McConnell backfires. The arrogance is sickening.

a reply to: stevieray

Oh stop with the "America = the Republican Party" crap.

"America" places the performance rating of the Congress after two years of Republican control at historic lows.

"America" will speak in November ... so Mitch probably shouldn't get too attached to speaking on behalf of the Senate.

And when "America" does speak, if the Republicans are successful in their "delay, delay, delay" buffoonery, we're probably going to have a strongly liberal court FOR DECADES.

For political game-players, the Republicans surely seem to be inept.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

I kind of wish the supreme court would speak up and condemn them all really, or at least publicly give the politicians, along with the american people a refresher course as to just how the idea of "stacking the supreme court" for political reasons runs contrary to the purpose of it's being. it's not supposed to be influenced by the current political trends or fads. that's why they were given such long terms, to distance them from the political pressures.

And how about we keep religion out of the Supreme Court?

The Constitution is not religious or based in religion - - - justices should not be using their God ideologies.

I hope this asinine suggestion by McConnell backfires. The arrogance is sickening.

People who talk about their religious belief in public.....need not apply.

Raving atheists ? Plus 10% bonus right from the start.

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

I kind of wish the supreme court would speak up and condemn them all really, or at least publicly give the politicians, along with the american people a refresher course as to just how the idea of "stacking the supreme court" for political reasons runs contrary to the purpose of it's being. it's not supposed to be influenced by the current political trends or fads. that's why they were given such long terms, to distance them from the political pressures.

And how about we keep religion out of the Supreme Court?

The Constitution is not religious or based in religion - - - justices should not be using their God ideologies.

I hope this asinine suggestion by McConnell backfires. The arrogance is sickening.

People who talk about their religious belief in public.....need not apply.

Raving atheists ? Plus 10% bonus right from the start.

If that made sense, I'd have more comment.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: stevieray

Oh stop with the "America = the Republican Party" crap.

"America" places the performance rating of the Congress after two years of Republican control at historic lows.

"America" will speak in November ... so Mitch probably shouldn't get too attached to speaking on behalf of the Senate.

And when "America" does speak, if the Republicans are successful in their "delay, delay, delay" buffoonery, we're probably going to have a strongly liberal court FOR DECADES.

For political game-players, the Republicans surely seem to be inept.

America = traditional GOP beliefs. Constitution as written, Judeo-Christian basis for norms, laws. Melting pot, not balkanization. Traditions to be enjoyed, not destroyed.

You're correct in whatever label you want to put on most of the GOP today.

Less than 10 out there who really believe in the traditional values. Now they are dem-lite.

To misquote WC Fields, their only beliefs are "I believe I'll have another 4 / 6 years".

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

I kind of wish the supreme court would speak up and condemn them all really, or at least publicly give the politicians, along with the american people a refresher course as to just how the idea of "stacking the supreme court" for political reasons runs contrary to the purpose of it's being. it's not supposed to be influenced by the current political trends or fads. that's why they were given such long terms, to distance them from the political pressures.

And how about we keep religion out of the Supreme Court?

The Constitution is not religious or based in religion - - - justices should not be using their God ideologies.

I hope this asinine suggestion by McConnell backfires. The arrogance is sickening.

People who talk about their religious belief in public.....need not apply.

Raving atheists ? Plus 10% bonus right from the start.

If that made sense, I'd have more comment.

Don't hurt yourself.

You lose.

a reply to: stevieray

ya, well you will never convince me that cruz wouldn't try to "christianize" our gov't and it's laws if he got the chance, or that he wouldn't appoint a judge that has the same commitment.

and I've already said that I hope obama puts up a conservative, old fashioned republican (Rino), I am about willing to bet if he did this, Cruz and his christian right buddies would still be going on about giving the americans a "voice".

so, tell me, can you give me some cases where the justices that obama has already appointed to the court that show that they are left wingers intent on bringing communism to the american soil??? or are you just letting words pass through your mouth, passing on what you heard of good ole fox news and the like? obamacare doesn't count though, that was a republican thing before it was democrat. from what I've seen of the court, it seems like it hasn't been tilting in any one direction really, sometimes it's rulings have favored democratic policies, sometimes the republican policies. so please, give me some examples...

a reply to: stevieray

Absurd, but thanks for putting the lie to your earlier statements about not pandering for the Republicans.

America does not equal "GOP Beliefs" ... if you had any respect for the Constitution you'd acknowledge Amendment I, which makes it quite clear (as did Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and the other Founders) that the United States is not in ANY WAY founded on the Christian religion ... as to the rest ... mere blather.

Posting made-up statistics pulled out of the air at every turn is utterly laughable.

Misquoting and throwing in garbage Newsmax tabloid propaganda from five-years ago as relevant ...

What is that phrase so often repeated? Something about "zero credibility?"

If I were to pick one thing to pinpoint what started the american revolution, what that first shot was (note, I am no historian here, just going on what I know), I would say it was the boston tea party, where our founding fathers dumped a ton of tea into the boston harbor. tell me was that tea the property of the british gov't, or was it the property of one of the earliest corporations?? Because, I will tell you right now, that the republican party would protect that corporation come hell or high water!!!

and, please give me an example from the bible of anything resembling a gov't that functions as ours does? I don't believe there is one. It started out with judges ( which the republicans seem to think that they should be molding into an extra arm to meet their agendas) or kings, who's power was handed down through bloodlines, anointed by god, chosen to rule....

our leaders are chosen by the people, they don't enjoy any divine rights, and don't enjoy a lifetime position.

the fact is that those movements that extended rights to the previously disempowered people in this country, slaves, women, children, ect, well, they were hit by quite a bit of resistance by the religious institutions of the day. many still do.

so no, we weren't founded on christian principles, although I won't discount that the Christian God didn't have a hand in showing them the way to this new way of doing things.

and yes, we are a melting pot!! many different religions, many different values, many different beliefs... they should all be equally and fairly represented!

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Granite
a reply to: xuenchen

He says today in "honor" of Scalia.

But in four months he be making concessions to Obama like he ALWAYS does...

The Globalists always win
Does that voice also mean we have a voice against the TPP?
I doubt it

TPP?....how about the voting rights acts debacle, or the citizens united case......these two are have been the most destructive rulings in a 100 years....limiting Americans right-to-vote, and having the wealthiest unknown and/or foreign individuals secretly spend money to influence our elections.....this is what happens when the right-wing puts people in power....they screw over everyone but themselves....frankly, Scalia was an a**hole, but, no one wants to say that just after he died.....and....the media calling him "brilliant"...maybe back in the 1790's he would have been....

a reply to: jimmyx

The Union SuperPACS aren't complaining much.

a reply to: xuenchen

I hope upon all hope that the repubs hold strong to not allowing (within the rules/laws) another Progressive Anti-American Justice.

But, like what Granite states..............they will cave in because they want to be liked by the same people that despise them.

originally posted by: neo96
Everyone knows there is a problem with the Scotus.

The way it's set up now isn't working.

Ya...That whole checks and balances thing and that "Judicial branch" thing our founding fathers created isn't working out!

Just like the whole "voting thing" sucks too...que republican voter suppression laws and redistricting!

And geez...maybe if you can't tear down democracy quickly enough, you can just round up a bunch of guys with guns, start seizing public lands and just demand what you want.

More and more it seems like the right-wing has an issue with the premise of democracy itself...at least when it doesn't consistently give them everything they want.

To me it appears that the founding fathers put exactly these mechanisms in place so that tyrants would not seize power.

The President has the constitutional authority and outright obligation to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court...Reagan did it in his last year in office and a democratic congress approved his Nominee..

And as far as respecting the Peoples Voice...this president was elected twice by the American people and is carrying out the duties he is required to.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: xuenchen

I hope upon all hope that the repubs hold strong to not allowing (within the rules/laws) another Progressive Anti-American Justice.

But, like what Granite states..............they will cave in because they want to be liked by the same people that despise them.

Good to see that you're coming out so strongly as being against the Constitution ...

Because the Constitution speaks to this matter EXCEPTIONALLY clearly.

No one gets to define "Anti American" simply as disagreeing with their politics.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: xuenchen

I hope upon all hope that the repubs hold strong to not allowing (within the rules/laws) another Progressive Anti-American Justice.

But, like what Granite states..............they will cave in because they want to be liked by the same people that despise them.

Oh...The GOP in the US Senate can obstruct as you like...It would be unprecedented and cost many of them in swing states their seats.

Then in November, when the GOP loses the white-house again, they will also lose their thin margin in the Senate.

You can get what you want now...I just don't think it will lead to what you want later.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh goodie.


I stated something very explicate in my statement, in paraphrases. You might want to go back and re-read my statement.


When a Justice/Judge starts legislating from the bench, that is against the Constitution.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: xuenchen

I hope upon all hope that the repubs hold strong to not allowing (within the rules/laws) another Progressive Anti-American Justice.

Anti-American? What exactly does that mean anyway?

Seriously, you could call Scalia Anti-American for some of his thinking - - - for sure.