Obama To Nominate Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He is not a good choice for the SCOTUS and should be blocked.

a reply to: dawnstar

The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He is not a good choice for the SCOTUS and should be blocked.

I think that was less descriptive than your first post that I asked you to explain yourself on...

a reply to: queenofswords

ooops my bad, still far past the time that the same right was granted to the freed african male slave though....

as far as the era removing the protection concerning the draft, or the favoritism when it comes to spousal/child support, umm.... you sure that was such a big favor to women? look around you, oh ya, mom might get a small pittance in child support, along with a nice set of gov't subsidies to ensure those darling kids have some food on their table most of the month and a roof over the head, clothes on their back..
but...
aren't they still treating women as basically handicapped in need of special protections and needs, not able to live independently in the world, just passing the title of lord and master from husband to gov't?
the laws are good but can be changed so much easier than a constitutional amendment could be. and many of the problems that we are facing now are the result of the bribe they offered instead of the equal rights.

a reply to: macman

how do you know he's not a good choice? how does the senate know? they've maybe had a grand total of four hours to take a serious look at the guy, review his past decisions (not just the ones put forth on the extreme left/right media outlets) and make a deductions and by the way the republican leadership sounds, I don't think they put in any effort whatsoever.. they are saying no, it should wait till after the elections, that the voters should have a voice....

I am still waiting for someone to point out where this position holds any constitutional integrity at all!!

oh, and ya, they are accusing obama of politicizing the empty seat...
really, he is??? how?? seems to me that he has picked someone that both sides have not only in the past voiced approval of, but could support now, it they would get off their high horse and stop politicizing the danged empty seat themselves!!!
we have a president in office
we have a congress in office
they were both elected by the voters
the constitution gives the president the obligation to appoint a nominee when a seat on the supreme court opens...not wait around for the next election to take place.
and it gives the congress the obligation to advise, vent, and consent or not consent...

the president has met his obligation...
the question is will congress meet their obligation and hold hearings or will they continue to politicize the empty seat using it in hopes that it will convince enough voters to vote for their party so that a conservative judge can be placed in the seat?

I am telling you now, they should take what obama offers because their lineup as far as candidates for president is like a bad circus act that's gonna give the presidency over to clinton probably... and well.. god only knows what kind of far left wacko she might nominate!

Just so you know.

The fight to get the ERA ratified continues.

www.equalrightsamendment.org...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MystikMushroom

So truth doesn't matter anymore.

Okay.

Just your interpretation vs mine.

If I'm in power, my interpretation wins.

If your in power, your interpretation wins.

Why not just measure d#cks fer chripes sake!

This is wrong no matter where you are on a political spectrum.

Truth is relative.

Something "true" to me might not be "true" to you. Truth isn't a certainty like gravity. Truth is a high abstraction that we humans have invented in order to convince other people to believe the same things we do.

And some people will allow themselves to selectively not see actual statistical data and logic in order to support their "truth". -- These people will get creative and invent new data sets and use circular logic to support their viewpoint.

You still did not answer my question:

Would you allow a doctor from 200 years ago to operate on you if your life was on the line -- considering that a bunch of other doctors with current medical understanding and knowledge are standing by?

Are we the same people we were 200 years ago? No.

We're not even the same society we were 50 years ago.

The Constitution is broadly defined enough to cover a lot of advancement, but our founding fathers could never have foreseen the internet and digital privacy laws. They could never have foreseen atomic weaponry and the insanely effective weapons we now have at our disposal. Their world was a much smaller place.

If we try to navigate forward through time by staying stuck inside their worldview, we're only going to get more confused and fight more with one another -- as the cognitive dissonance between what the world to them was and our world begin to diverge further and further apart.

We MUST take into consideration the new advances in STEM, and we MUST not advocate for anti-intellectualism. Our founders were some of the brightest minds of their day (also the most wealthy, but I digress) -- they would be ashamed at the closed-minded ignorance being spewed like The Poltergeist vomit. It's cool to be dumb, cool to be ignorant and smart people are the dumb ones, the weak ones.

And no, I wouldn't be OK with a Supreme Court filled with a bunch of hard-line extremists. That won't happen though. There is a reason the institution is setup the way it is -- there's a reason there are confirmation hearings and vetting processes. There's a reason why justices are termed for life and not revolving in/out all the time.

The general will of the community is what, in the end, should be respected and advocated -- not whomever shouts the loudest.

And in general? Moderate, centrist policies seem to be favored by most. The problem is, people on the fringes don't see moderate, centrist policies as "moderate" -- that's how you know you're a radical extremist. When moderate ideas start to seem extreme to you, you might want to step back and take a look in the mirror...

The GOP/Republican party has done a great job of pushing themselves into extreme radical conservatism that anything else by comparison seems extreme itself.

That's the huge irony we're facing today...and one of the reasons the party is slowly dying as more and more people are shaking their heads and walking away and becoming "undecided" or "independent".

a reply to: Krazysh0t
How is that not clear.

0bama has nominated someone that has no business within the SCOTUS.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

That's the huge irony we're facing today...and one of the reasons the party is slowly dying as more and more people are shaking their heads and walking away and becoming "undecided" or "independent".

Yes.

I'm very curious what/where the Republicans will go after the mess of the last few years.

They've basically been pushing a Christian theocracy.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom



The general will of the community is what, in the end, should be respected and advocated -- not whomever shouts the loudest.

not whomever shouts the loudest.


That goes both ways. For both ends of the political spectrum. And you cannot compare the Constitution to a medical text book.

Rights are rights.

I guess I am an extremist when I see people trying to convince me that more government control equals freedom and slavery to a system equals liberty.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t
How is that not clear.

0bama has nominated someone that has no business within the SCOTUS.

Well usually people explain their reasoning for their opinions instead of just making statements and assuming everyone knows why and how they came to the conclusion they did.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

To those running their mouths about Republican threats to block nominations, do some research before making comments as Democrats have done the same thing in the past. Ironic that they want to call out Republicans while ignoring the very same actions by Democrats.

Could you list the Republican SCOTUS nominees that a Democratic Senate has refused to consider?

Thanks.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

I'm sure they'll publicly protest, and demand some small concession in private because nothing is ever free politically but I really don't see how they don't take the deal Obama just offered them. If Obama really wanted to stick it to them he would have nominated someone very far left and alienated voters. Instead he's giving them an opportunity to save face while staring down a Trump bid for the White House.

If they don't take this, Obama can appoint someone whose actually liberal and force the Republicans to accept or effectively concede the election.

originally posted by: dawnstarthey are saying no, it should wait till after the elections, that the voters should have a voice....

The voters have a voice. They elected Obama to nominate justices to the Supreme Court, alongside several other powers. When McConnel is saying the voters should have a voice, what he's actually doing is trying to take the voice away from people who have already voted just because he doesn't agree with them.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: dawnstar

The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote.

No, it didn't. If it did, then women would be the only ones with the right to vote. No where in the Constitution does anyone have the right to vote.

The 19th Amendment states that you cannot be denied a vote based on gender. That is very different from women (or anyone) being affirmed of a right to vote.

McConnell says not so fast.

BREAKING: Senate just announced how it will proceed with Obama SCOTUS nomination

Today, McConnell has just confirmed his intentions for Obama’s SCOTUS pick, speaking from the Senate floor. He insisted the Senate will not proceed with the confirmation process — and that the next president should fill this critical vacancy.

Like Obama did in naming his nominee, McConnell is citing the Constitution in defending his perspective, saying:

“It is a president’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice and it is the Senate’s constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent.”

DaaaHaHaHa

originally posted by: xuenchen

“It is a president’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice and it is the Senate’s constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent.”

Yeah, except that's not what he's doing. He's not witholding consent, he's refusing to perform his Constitutional duty.

What a fricking TYRANT! Why is he afraid to let a nominee that has been approved by the Senate 97-0 previously have a fair up or down vote?

It's okay. Mitch will come around.

Poll watchers with no real backbone always do.

a reply to: xuenchen

and here's hoping that clinton is elected and we find ourselves with a large democratic majority in the congress...
and she nominates nancy polosi, just so we can see the crazy witch's face every so often on the news and in the newspapers for the rest of her lifetime...

there is no constitutional justification for them to just withhold consent because they believe that the seat should remain vacant till after the election, weather that be because they just don't wish to be bothered as they go forth begging for votes, or that they want to use the empty seat to try to convince the voters that they should vote for their choice of republican for president...
like Aazadan already stated, the voters had a voice in the previous elections. obama nominates, and the congress we have advises and consents...
letting the seat be empty till after the election (it's a hard stretch saying that the election season is already up and running considering we still don't know who the presidential candidates for the main election will be..) is not wise advice, and it's not following through on the obligations given to the senate by the constitution. heck, quite frankly, it seems like we are constantly in an election cycle, the way the parties seem to start their campaigning the day after the elections..

I think he'll eventually get confirmed but that Joe Biden speech asking to block a SCOTUS nominee in '92 is going to detract a lot of repubs.

originally posted by: nyjet67
I like the pick a good decision by our President. If the Republicans block the nominee like they said they would I will not vote for any republicans in november it will be all independents and democrats. But I am sure they will confirm so as not to lose votes in november ….I hope .

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Be honest, were you intending to vote GOP in November in the first place?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Who cares what the GOP looks like? I am more concerned that people seriously consider Clinton, who looks like a lying, devious powermonger (a credible representation of her) and is
under a valid investigation for her email server-in-the-bathroom "mistake", as well as Benghazi (not a scintilla of scandal, Mr. O?).

The GOP looks good compared to Clinton.