Obama To Nominate Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court

a reply to: queenofswords

So explain how this appointment of Obama's, someone who is dead center politically, would be a bad choice.

PS: It was only until recently that the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms applied to firearms and traditionally it was interpreted directly that we are allowed to form and arm militias in this country. So I take any claims of yours that Scalia was a strict interpreter of the Constitution with a HUGE grain of salt. He was VERY partisan in his rulings.

The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms

a reply to: queenofswords
can I ask you a question? I am assuming that you are a female...
here's my question....
do you believe that the constitution extends equal rights to women???

Obama To Nominate Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court

Not a bad nominee but the concept of an outgoing chief executive doing such has always been frowned upon.

Of course, there is, also, ALWAYS politics involved and if the situation was reversed, there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Democrats would be just as objective.

Obama offered his judge. Job done... but if he is rejected, it's nothing new and nothing to get huffed over.

originally posted by: redoubt

Obama To Nominate Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court

Not a bad nominee but the concept of an outgoing chief executive doing such has always been frowned upon.

Frowned upon?

Its his Constitutional duty to do this. Its his job.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Point taken.

So anything the Supreme Court DOES do, like Citizen United, should be taken with a grain of salt.

I think a Supreme Court reversal on the 2nd Amendment would be just as devastating as a reversal on gay marriage. Or a reversal on abortion.

I've said it before, but we have too many laws and too much BS in the country.

We need a Supreme Court determination anymore if we want to wipe our butts!

I just wish the government wasn't so interested in what I do, marry, smoke, drink, eat, earn.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: redoubt

Obama To Nominate Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court

Not a bad nominee but the concept of an outgoing chief executive doing such has always been frowned upon.

Frowned upon?

Its his Constitutional duty to do this. Its his job.

I see you skipped a sentence.
"... there is, also, ALWAYS politics involved and if the situation was reversed, there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Democrats would be just as objective."

It's politics. Both sides are the same when it comes to things like this.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You'd do well to remember that we are all humans and all flawed in our own ways. To expect a perfect system is pure folly. You work with what you have.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

PS: It was only until recently that the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms applied to firearms and traditionally it was interpreted directly that we are allowed to form and arm militias in this country. So I take any claims of yours that Scalia was a strict interpreter of the Constitution with a HUGE grain of salt. He was VERY partisan in his rulings.

Yes.

Hence my comment: "The second amendment does not mean what the NRA keeps trying to force".

originally posted by: redoubt

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: redoubt

Obama To Nominate Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court

Not a bad nominee but the concept of an outgoing chief executive doing such has always been frowned upon.

Frowned upon?

Its his Constitutional duty to do this. Its his job.

I see you skipped a sentence.
"... there is, also, ALWAYS politics involved and if the situation was reversed, there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Democrats would be just as objective."

It's politics. Both sides are the same when it comes to things like this.

I'm not a Democrat. Why does that matter?

The Constitution says the president is to pick the candidate.

a reply to: Annee

I never even suggested you were a Democrat.

I was referring to those in Congress.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He is not a Constitutional based Judge and should be blocked/voted down.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: queenofswords
can I ask you a question? I am assuming that you are a female...
here's my question....
do you believe that the constitution extends equal rights to women???

Not entirely. I think, but I'm not sure, that three or four states (not sure which ones...I'll have to look it up) never ratified the Equal Rights Amendment because it would deny women privileges such as exemption from the military draft and the ability to be supported by their husbands.

However, when it comes to employment, they have the same rights under the EEOC.www1.eeoc.gov...

Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

From the candidates I'm aware of, Garland looks like the perfect compromise. He's not a liberal, he's experienced, and most importantly he's not all that young. From Obama's perspective he moves the court further left than Scalia did but from the rights perspective he'll be replaced soon and he's not a leftist.

Everyone can claim victory, and lets be honest here with the way the elections are looking neither Sanders, Clinton, or Trump will nominate a more favorable Republican candidate.

a reply to: queenofswords

The EEOC isn't part of the Constitution though.

originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: Annee

I never even suggested you were a Democrat.

I was referring to those in Congress.

Back to the president nominating a candidate for the Supreme Court.

Republican/Democrat or anything else - - - its still his job according to the Constitution.

What happens after the nomination he has no say.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

From the candidates I'm aware of, Garland looks like the perfect compromise. He's not a liberal, he's experienced, and most importantly he's not all that young. From Obama's perspective he moves the court further left than Scalia did but from the rights perspective he'll be replaced soon and he's not a leftist.

Everyone can claim victory, and lets be honest here with the way the elections are looking neither Sanders, Clinton, or Trump will nominate a more favorable Republican candidate.

Agreed. The Republicans should take who they can get here. Obama is really extending an olive branch to them. If the Republicans shoot it down, it will be THEIR fault for the next round of government underperforming.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He is not a Constitutional based Judge and should be blocked/voted down.

What is this supposed to mean?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: queenofswords

The EEOC isn't part of the Constitution though.

It is still the law, and has to be obeyed. Read my reply about the ERA. Until the required number of states ratify it, women cannot be drafted into the military and as usual, courts favor women when it comes to spousal support. Someday it may be ratified and that favoritism will vanish.

BTW, we don't have to have an amendment to the Constitution for every little thing. The legislative branch can make all kinds of laws as long as they are constitutional.

a reply to: queenofswords

don't bother looking it up, you are right...
there is no constitutional protections when it comes to the women's right to work, or much of anything else... it was all done via laws, even though some form of the ERA has been introduced to congress almost every year since 1923 up to the last attempt in 1970. I don't even think that the women's right to vote is protected constitutionally.

did the federal gov't overstep state's rights when it decided that women should have equal rights in the workforce or the right to vote? I imagine it did, since well even up into the 80's it was quite difficult for a women to find a decent, good paying job in some states in this country!

a reply to: queenofswords

But the original question was "do you believe that the constitution extends equal rights to women???" Talking about laws that supplement the Constitution doesn't answer that question. Yes, there are laws that spell these things out, but they are laws. They aren't even Constitutional Amendments, so technically what they are addressing isn't addressed in the Constitution.