Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:54 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
#31
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 16, 2016 at 7:42 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:
(March 16, 2016 at 7:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Fucker doesn't have a law degree.
There's no Constitutional requirements for being on the SCOTUS.  The big wigs made up some phony qualifications to exclude everyone who isn't in their club.

It's one of those traditions that the republicunts love to talk about..... when it suits their nefarious purposes.
Reply
#32
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 16, 2016 at 7:42 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:
(March 16, 2016 at 7:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Fucker doesn't have a law degree.
There's no Constitutional requirements for being on the SCOTUS.  The big wigs made up some phony qualifications to exclude everyone who isn't in their club.

OH BULLSHIT, our society is just as responsible for letting it get this far.

AGAIN, you are NOT taking long term voting habits into consideration. Nothing magically happens overnight, things build to these points.

Now you don't seem to understand that the founders handed a very brilliant concept to society. The idea of equal protection, which is what the First Amendment is. Checks and Balances and oversight as well and separation of powers. But especially with religion, even back then most people just put up with the idea because they just won a war. But outside the Barbary Treaty article 11 which backs up the idea of secular common law, ever since religious people have made several countless attempts to blur and erase that wall.

The  biggest events that lead us to an increase of pushing more religion into government were the cold war, which lead to paranoid Christians getting God in the pledge and put on all currency. And you talk about Catholics JFK had to bend over backwards to convince Baptists and Evangelical voters he would not use his faith to legislate. Just like today's xenophobes even after 7 years still think Obama is a tyrant.

And Nixon was anti Semetic. Didn't trust Jews one lick.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...nixon6.htm

GOP has been bitter since that loss, and many are still in Congress who started out as aids Cheney was one of those young GOP supporters back then.

Add to that Jerry Falwell starting his "moral majority", while that failed, he did successfully court the GOP up until his death. And unfortunately Liberty University has been a mandated GOP stop not by the government, but by politicians seeking to get votes.

The net result of 50 years of assaulting Jefferson's wall is why Obama can't do what he wants.

Yes, it IS lopsided as far as religion but Scalia was for the rich and the religious right. He'd fit in with any Evangelical and more often than not sided with the rich and the right wing religious. Ginsburg is a liberal, I most certainly trust her if she were the congress and the to confirm anyone of any label. 

It isn't about labels for that court, it is about right wing religious people and voters over decades limiting our choices.
Reply
#33
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
THIS is the party that Trump is running for. Now he's only running now, but if he won, after saying things like "I'd punch em in the face" and "send them out on stretchers" what do you think he'd do to people while in office?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHN3IJ_j8A
Reply
#34
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
He won't a have a single friend in Congress.   He'll be impeached.
Reply
#35
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 16, 2016 at 8:11 pm)Brian37 Wrote:
(March 16, 2016 at 7:42 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: There's no Constitutional requirements for being on the SCOTUS.  The big wigs made up some phony qualifications to exclude everyone who isn't in their club.

OH BULLSHIT, our society is just as responsible for letting it get this far.

AGAIN, you are NOT taking long term voting habits into consideration. Nothing magically happens overnight, things build to these points.

Now you don't seem to understand that the founders handed a very brilliant concept to society. The idea of equal protection, which is what the First Amendment is. Checks and Balances and oversight as well and separation of powers. But especially with religion, even back then most people just put up with the idea because they just won a war. But outside the Barbary Treaty article 11 which backs up the idea of secular common law, ever since religious people have made several countless attempts to blur and erase that wall.

The  biggest events that lead us to an increase of pushing more religion into government were the cold war, which lead to paranoid Christians getting God in the pledge and put on all currency. And you talk about Catholics JFK had to bend over backwards to convince Baptists and Evangelical voters he would not use his faith to legislate. Just like today's xenophobes even after 7 years still think Obama is a tyrant.

And Nixon was anti Semetic. Didn't trust Jews one lick.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...nixon6.htm

GOP has been bitter since that loss, and many are still in Congress who started out as aids Cheney was one of those young GOP supporters back then.

Add to that Jerry Falwell starting his "moral majority", while that failed, he did successfully court the GOP up until his death. And unfortunately Liberty University has been a mandated GOP stop not by the government, but by politicians seeking to get votes.

The net result of 50 years of assaulting Jefferson's wall is why Obama can't do what he wants.

Yes, it IS lopsided as far as religion but Scalia was for the rich and the religious right. He'd fit in with any Evangelical and more often than not sided with the rich and the right wing religious. Ginsburg is a liberal, I most certainly trust her if she were the congress and the to confirm anyone of any label. 

It isn't about labels for that court, it is about right wing religious people and voters over decades limiting our choices.
You have so much BS in your comments you may want to read up on what you're posting before you embarass yourself further.  

The First Amendment doesn't have squat to do with Equal Protection.  That's in the 14th Amendment.

JFK was a Senator so if he was going to do any legislating he would have done it when he was a Senator.  Presidents don't legislate a damn thing.  So it was silly for him to have kissed anyone's ass over that issue.

Obama has been a wuss overall and is .000001 on the tyrant scale.

Ginsburg might be a liberal but she's a greedy old bat.  When Trump becomes Prez he will probably have to fill her vacancy in the first week after he takes office when she croaks.  She looks like a walking corpse already.  She needs to step aside and let someone do something.  If we ever get off of our asses are rewrite the Constitution we should put in some term limits.  The creeps are like Third Worlders who think that once they are in office they can stay till death.
Reply
#36
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 16, 2016 at 8:48 pm)Minimalist Wrote: He won't a have a single friend in Congress.   He'll be impeached.

The smart thing would be to smack them in the face at the first wiff of that by going on tv and naming them by name as plotters who are trying to stage a coup and send the US Marshals in to arrest them as domestic enemies of the US.
Reply
#37
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 16, 2016 at 11:06 am)Divinity Wrote: Yeah, they might just approve it to get this guy on there.  Which makes Obama look weak too.

To be fair, Obama is weak.

Never overplay your hand.

Reply
#38
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
Republins are standing fast.

Congressional Republicans reiterated on Wednesday that they have no intention of taking any action on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick — a defiant position that foreshadows a tense confirmation fight.

"It is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday shortly after the president's announcement.


These fools are even dumber than they seem. According to the same article, 55% of Americans disapprove of their stonewalling. It will hurt their Senators up for reelection. They are about to nominate Donald Trump for President - who Republican insiders have been warning will lose badly in November. They should be jumping at the chance to confirm this guy rather than be stuck with much more liberal judge Hillary is sure to nominate. They won't be able to obstruct her pick for four years. She'd be able to push Vorlon through given that much time. Then they'll be pining for Merrick Garland.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Albert Einstein
Reply
#39
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 17, 2016 at 9:45 am)AFTT47 Wrote: Republins are standing fast.

Congressional Republicans reiterated on Wednesday that they have no intention of taking any action on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick — a defiant position that foreshadows a tense confirmation fight.
...
These fools are even dumber than they seem. According to the same article, 55% of Americans disapprove of their stonewalling. It will hurt their Senators up for reelection. ...

In some states, this probably endears them to the electorate.  But I can tell you for a fact that in Pennsylvania this has significantly negatively affected Senator Pat Toomey's chances for reelection this fall.
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D

Don't worry, my friend.  If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Reply
#40
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
Well, looks like Garland was active (to what extent I'm not sure yet) in the Clinton (Bill) presidential campaign back in the day, so the 'centrist' thing is out the window as far as the pubs are concerned.

And, we are going to see replay after replay of Biden voicing what is now being called "The Biden Rule" when he was in the senate, and even if he did 'walk it back' in his next sentence or too, the media has their sound bite and they aren't going to drop it.

There is a pattern, members of one party voice or do something, then get all hissy when the other party goes there too. Harry Reid and changing th senate rules on confirmations springs to mind. Harry even had his nose rubbed in it at the fucking time and still did it. And now Biden is in the club . . .

Fuckers and twats as far as eye can see . .
 The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it. 




Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Innocence is not enough for the Supreme Court... Rev. Rye 7 502 May 27, 2022 at 6:20 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  Navalny’s speech from court Fake Messiah 3 205 February 5, 2021 at 5:36 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Why you should fear Trump's pick for Supreme Court Judge Foxaèr 75 3957 October 31, 2020 at 10:52 am
Last Post: TaraJo
  Amy Coney Barnett officially confirmed as Supreme Court Justice Rev. Rye 33 1868 October 28, 2020 at 3:01 pm
Last Post: Rev. Rye
  Expanding The Supreme Court onlinebiker 94 3748 September 30, 2020 at 1:32 pm
Last Post: Secular Elf
  UK Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful zebo-the-fat 6 580 September 25, 2019 at 1:16 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  Who do you want to be the Democratic nominee in 2020? CapnAwesome 71 3771 September 14, 2018 at 1:25 am
Last Post: Foxaèr
  The WLB's Next Supreme Court Pick? Minimalist 0 443 March 15, 2018 at 12:46 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Supreme Court Cases (and other interesting cases) - A Thread! TheRealJoeFish 11 3552 June 2, 2017 at 11:58 am
Last Post: TheRealJoeFish
  The WLB loses Another Court Fight Minimalist 0 573 May 17, 2017 at 5:48 pm
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)