Jump to content

Supreme Court Justice Scalia


PhatMack19

Recommended Posts

And I just posted how lucky we'd been that Obama hadn't had the opportunity to place someone on The Court. 

IMO This will result in a large chunk off the rock of freedom.  The SCOTUS will have 5 Socialist members.  Decisions will be made that will make a mockery of our Constitution and democracy.   Essentially, the Ship of State just took a broadside at the waterline.  

I know many of you don't agreed, but the wheels to create the Republic of Texas need to start turning now.  Prior to this I felt we had 5 maybe, 10 years.  Scalia's death is a game changer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Colmesneilfan1 said:

Not if the Senate grows a pair.......it takes 60 votes to approve a justice.......all the republicans have to do is say no......

Unfortunately C1, only 54 or less have them, and the other 46 are not equipped to grow them.  Hope I'm wrong, but I can't see six Dems going against Obama/DNC and risking ending up like Vince Foster.  And on that note I'll end with, "I hope Scalia's death was natural causes, but if not, we'll never know".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, smitty said:

This is the hidden content, please

First, glad to see you posting Smiitty!  Been worried about you.  

Now, McConnell and I don't always agree, but we do on this.  But I suspect O may have had an orgasmic reaction to the news.  What better way to put one more dagger into the Constitution.  One that will remain for probably 30 years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Unfortunately C1, only 54 or less have them, and the other 46 are not equipped to grow them.  Hope I'm wrong, but I can't see six Dems going against Obama/DNC and risking ending up like Vince Foster.  And on that note I'll end with, "I hope Scalia's death was natural causes, but if not, we'll never know".

 

All we have to have to keep his nominee out is 40........there are over 50 republicans in the Senate......if they can't block his nominee, there's no further reason to even bother voting for republicans ever again......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Colmesneilfan1 said:

All we have to have to keep his nominee out is 40........there are over 50 republicans in the Senate......if they can't block his nominee, there's no further reason to even bother voting for republicans ever again......

You're right C1.  This nightmare, and I mean nightmare has got me upset.  IMO the best Justice we had.  And I agree, if they approve an Obama appointee, no use voting Rep (or voting at all) again.    H-ll, we may not be able to vote again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, REBgp said:

You're right C1.  This nightmare, and I mean nightmare has got me upset.  IMO the best Justice we had.  And I agree, if they approve an Obama appointee, no use voting Rep (or voting at all) again.    H-ll, we may not be able to vote again. 

That SECOND AMENDMENT is looking better and better......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he appoints Sri Srinivasan, current DC circuit judge, GOP will look awful trying to block him.  Was approved 97-0 for his current appointment.  Scuttlebutt is that may be who he goes with and would be a layup.  Either a yes vote or egg all over their faces. The hypocrisy argument would loom large in an election year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

If he appoints Sri Srinivasan, current DC circuit judge, GOP will look awful trying to block him.  Was approved 97-0 for his current appointment.  Scuttlebutt is that may be who he goes with and would be a layup.  Either a yes vote or egg all over their faces. The hypocrisy argument would loom large in an election year. 

I guess that's better than the Quran?

"At his swearing-in ceremony, he took the oath on the Hindu holy book 

This is the hidden content, please
.
This is the hidden content, please
"

 

This is the hidden content, please

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PhatMack19 said:

I guess that's better than the Quran?

"At his swearing-in ceremony, he took the oath on the Hindu holy book 

This is the hidden content, please
.
This is the hidden content, please
"

 

This is the hidden content, please

 

Idk.  Maybe he used a different book when he worked for W.?

Either way, almost anyone who would vote against him would be flip flopping.  Which was my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only qualifications I saw for a SCJ are age, citizenship, and residency.  If that is correct (pardon my distrust of the Internet), I'm just curious, when was the last time someone not born as a citizen of the U. S. was placed on the Supreme Court?

My lack of knowledge concerning our judicial system (local, State, and Federal) would overwhelm the Forum's new server.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, REBgp said:

The only qualifications I saw for a SCJ are age, citizenship, and residency.  If that is correct (pardon my distrust of the Internet), I'm just curious, when was the last time someone not born as a citizen of the U. S. was placed on the Supreme Court?

My lack of knowledge concerning our judicial system (local, State, and Federal) would overwhelm the Forum's new server.  

Felix Frankfurter was the last one (born in Vienna, Austria).  There have been 6 total.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, keeps getting better.   Fully dressed with a pillow "over his head".  Strange choice of words though.  Why not, "pillow over his face"?   Still, nothing should be discounted out of hand. Too early.

This is the hidden content, please

Hey, I still remember the long list of accidental(?)/natural (?) deaths associated with the Clintons rise to power.  Plus more recent, Vince Foster, and wasn't it a guy who was their chef?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, REBgp said:

Wow, keeps getting better.   Fully dressed with a pillow "over his head".  Strange choice of words though.  Why not, "pillow over his face"?   Still, nothing should be discounted out of hand. Too early.

This is the hidden content, please

Hey, I still remember the long list of accidental(?)/natural (?) deaths associated with the Clintons rise to power.  Plus more recent, Vince Foster, and wasn't it a guy who was their chef?

I would hope our government assassins are better than that.  I sleep with a pillow over my head sometimes.  Either way an autopsy should be mandatory for any govt official in a role such as this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • No offense, but both sides do it.  The Rs in Texas want to do away with decades of precedent and demand that Dems are no longer given chair positions on any committees in the Tx House. It sounds reasonable enough, until you arrive at a point when the Ds enjoy a single seat majority in the house, select the most leftist speaker of all times, and the refuse to give Rs any say in the legislative process by refusing to give them any committee chairs.     Experience has shown me that any time a party seeks to consolidate power in a legislative body, it backfires.    What I don’t like is a world where we cheer for Manchin for doing his own thing, but also re-elect guys like Paxton and Patrick when they make threats to R Legislators if they don’t do exactly what the Radical Right demands. Our Rep here in Hardin County lost his spot for voting against private school vouchers-his wife is a teacher. He also voted his conscience on the Paxton impeachment.  It cost him his seat…. Not because of the will of the voters in his district, but because if millions of outside dollars pumped into the race from outside the district and even an endorsement of his unknown challenger by Donald Trump himself.    Why do people like you applaud Manchin for being his own man and then vote against Phelan for doing the same thing?
    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...