Jump to content

Supreme Court Justice Scalia

PhatMack19

By PhatMack19
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TxHoops
TxHoops

I'm not the biggest Scalia fan but the President should be ashamed of not being there to pay homage to the man.  Whether you agree with him or not, he's been one of the biggest contributors on the Cou

RETIREDFAN1
RETIREDFAN1

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 republica

Hagar
Hagar

I wonder if the Liberal Media will even acknowledge this.   Lets reverse the situation somewhat.  For instance, a white Republican President is going to skip the funeral of Assoc Justice Ginsburg

Hagar

Hagar

Posted
Posted

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
Hagar

Hagar

Posted
Posted
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
Hagar

Hagar

Posted
Posted
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
RETIREDFAN1

RETIREDFAN1

Posted
Posted
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
Hagar

Hagar

Posted
Posted
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
RETIREDFAN1

RETIREDFAN1

Posted
Posted
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
TxHoops

TxHoops

Posted
Posted

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
PhatMack19

PhatMack19

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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
TxHoops

TxHoops

Posted
Posted
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
Hagar

Hagar

Posted
Posted

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
TxHoops

TxHoops

Posted
Posted
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
Hagar

Hagar

Posted
Posted

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
PhatMack19

PhatMack19

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    45,953
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined


  • Posts

    • SmashMouth
      Baton Rouge split in half?

      By SmashMouth · Posted

      No doubt. It's definitely intriguing enough to watch how this all plays out...
    • tvc184
      Baton Rouge split in half?

      By tvc184 · Posted

      We all know that each state has its own laws which can be very different, especially in endeavors like annexation or incorporation, so there is no telling what Louisiana law says. I don’t know but I doubt that there is a point of appeal for Baton Rouge to force St. George to be absorbed back into Baton Rouge by now giving them what they asked for years ago. “Oh, we lost? Well let’s just undo incorporation, ruled as legal by the Supreme Court (of LA)  by going back and giving them what they asked for”. There has to be a law allowing such an appeal. I think what I read about the lower court decisions which actually backed up Baton Rouge, they did not all rule that incorporation was illegal but that they did not think the city could have services up and running soon enough. So you have a court saying that sure you can split but only if we agree that you can provide services get enough. In Louisiana, who knows? I doubt that Texas has such a mechanism to allow a city to split, for example, could the west end of Beaumont say that they wish to make their own city against Beaumont’s objection? I doubt it. Certainly Beaumont could allow a city to be created as Port Arthur did with Bridge City and Taylor’s Landing. There is a huge difference in allowing and forcing which is what happened in Baton Rouge. Similar to the sometime discussed topic of Texas splitting off from the United States because they don’t like the way things are going, think if citizens in any city in the United States were allowed to create their own city, which could not be stopped by the parent city.  That could get interesting!! Don't like what is happening in the south side of Chicago? Just de-annex and create your own city!! Anyway, I thought that it is an interesting story when the capital city splits in half.   
    • AggiesAreWe
      What has happened to Jasper?

      By AggiesAreWe · Posted

      Wasn't that 1st round loss last year? Also, during those previous 10 years I am pretty sure Jasper didn't go 2-58 in district play in the other 5 sports.
    • SmashMouth
      Even More From The Friendly muslims!

      By SmashMouth · Posted

      Ma'am, I don't think he said all Muslims were like that. If I'm reading this right, he's referencing the terrorist Muslims. You know, the ones who commit murder & have no regard for anyone who doesn't follow their jihadist beliefs...
    • AHUDDLESTON
      What has happened to Jasper?

      By AHUDDLESTON · Posted

      Great playoff run, no doubt.  They did make the 3rd round(1 less) 4 of the previous 10 years, only one first round loss. 6 district championships and 4 second place.  The only 4 years Carthage was in the same district. So no, I'm not sure it does make sense.

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...