(February 14, 2016 at 11:45 am)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 11:40 am)abaris Wrote: I said it's one of the worst things, you're correct. Should I have included all the other worst things people can say? That would have been a pretty long list. Your's is incomplete too. Should I call you out for that?

Talking about hyperbole here.

One of the worst out of what? 100,000. It's totally silly. Saudi Arabia crucifies people who politically disagree with them, but this is one of the worst things a human being has said. I mean, it's just not. I don't agree with scalia at all on that, but don't be ridiculous.

So? Jerry Falwell didn't murder people like the Saudis do, but that didn't make him less of an asshole. Scalia was in a position of power, and his rulings over term on the bench have damaged our democracy not just on one issue, but several.

Take it outside you guys!

(February 14, 2016 at 7:33 am)A Theist Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 4:05 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: They couldn't possibly be worse? Really??

Yeah, it could definitely be worse. Especially if Barack Insane Obumshit appoints another far left radical to the SCOTUS. The Supreme Court is already radicalized enough with leftist zealots like Ginsberg, the Wicked Witch of the far left. Term limits for SCOTUS Justices! I only hope the Republicans aren't so wimpish to delay another leftwing appointee.

(February 13, 2016 at 8:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Scalia said the worst thing I've ever heard a jurist say:  'Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.'  More concerned with the process than actual guilt or innocence.

Boru

Context might help. 

http://news.lawreader.com/2008/08/30/bar...-to-agree/

I'm detecting a theme: the party of not-doing-their-job.

(February 15, 2016 at 8:52 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

I'm detecting a theme: the party of not-doing-their-job.

That sums it up. The GOP isn't interested in protecting the constitution, they are interested in being the only power.

(February 15, 2016 at 9:23 am)Brian37 Wrote: That sums it up. The GOP isn't interested in protecting the constitution, they are interested in being the only power.

I think they've fully realized quite some time ago that they only way they stay in power at a national level is to either change their platform to be more inclusive, or pull every dirty trick to subvert democracy and keep winning elections they can't actually win by a fair majority.

It's pretty obvious which of these two paths they've chosen. If they get to stack the Supreme Court, they can ensure another 20 or so years of doing so with relative impunity.

Here is an article about potential Scalia replacements. The first is a guy named Sri Srinivasan, a D.C. circuit judge who was approved in 2013 by the Senate 97-0.

I'm no politician but if I was in President Obama's position, I would salivate at the thought of ripping the Republicans apart if they rejected a guy they already approved unanimously for a position just one level down from supreme court justice. He might not be able to stop them but he can sure as hell cost them a LOT of political capital. How are they going justify it to the American people? There is no justification. He should be able to tear them apart over their obstructionism.

(February 15, 2016 at 10:56 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

(February 15, 2016 at 9:23 am)Brian37 Wrote: That sums it up. The GOP isn't interested in protecting the constitution, they are interested in being the only power.

I think they've fully realized quite some time ago that they only way they stay in power at a national level is to either change their platform to be more inclusive, or pull every dirty trick to subvert democracy and keep winning elections they can't actually win by a fair majority.

It's pretty obvious which of these two paths they've chosen. If they get to stack the Supreme Court, they can ensure another 20 or so years of doing so with relative impunity.

Well to be fair, unfortunately this seems to be a tactic used in our species history as part of our evolution. In COSMOS Neil spent a little time in each episode explaining, worldwide in our species history, the gatekeepers, the powers that be don't like having their power challenged. The good side to our species however, is that their are those willing to challenge social norms.

(February 15, 2016 at 11:13 am)AFTT47 Wrote: Here is an article about potential Scalia replacements. The first is a guy named Sri Srinivasan, a D.C. circuit judge who was approved in 2013 by the Senate 97-0.

I'm no politician but if I was in President Obama's position, I would salivate at the thought of ripping the Republicans apart if they rejected a guy they already approved unanimously for a position just one level down from supreme court justice. He might not be able to stop them but he can sure as hell cost them a LOT of political capital. How are they going justify it to the American people? There is no justification. He should be able to tear them apart over their obstructionism.

... and not just that, but if the Republicans choose to block his nomination, they risk offending a fast-growing demographic at a time when they're trying desperately to pretend that they are inclusive.