Scalia Dead - Supreme Court No longer has a Gun Friendly Majority

[beebobby]

I don't think anyone is surprised that the GOTP has already stated that they're intention is to obstruct the process before they even know who is nominated. Classic ODS.

 

[OC for ME]

Sicut demonstravit.

Ditto!

 

[redhawk44]

I don't think anyone is surprised that the GOTP has already stated that they're intention is to obstruct the process before they even know who is nominated. Classic ODS.

Who was it who said "elections have consequences"?

 

[beebobby]

Who was it who said "elections have consequences"?

I guess the consequence of Pres. Obama being elected twice is ODS?

 

[redhawk44]

I guess the consequence of Pres. Obama being elected twice is ODS?

Is it your position, the tables in complete reverse, that Harry Reid and your party would do differently? PLEEZZE!

I have no desire to consider your contentions or position in any way.

 

[utbagpiper]

I don't think anyone is surprised that the GOTP has already stated that they're intention is to obstruct the process before they even know who is nominated. Classic ODS.

I think GOP candidates made that clear during the 2014 Senate elections...and won on that platform.

"Elections have consequences...", right beebobby?

If the tables were turned, the Democrats would be doing exactly the same thing. Heck, democrats voters have been asking their presidential candidates what litmus tests they'd impose on SCOTUS nominees in addition to being pro-abortion for at least a couple of weeks already. The Democrats are clearly not the least bit interested in nominating sound jurists who will put the actual text and original meaning of the constitution above their own personal views. The Democrats are all about using the courts as an unelected, unaccountable, un-appealable super legislature to effect major social change. And why not. It has mostly worked out great for them. Other than Citizens' United and Heller/McDonald not killing the RKBA entirely, what have you got to complain about from the federal courts? All this even as Democrats have lost massively in Congress and in State Legislatures.

Stop pretending your side of the aisle has any principles above and beyond the GOP. Both sides want law and society to reflect their views; and inside the beltway, both sides want to get rich in the process.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

I guess the consequence of Pres. Obama being elected twice is ODS?

Do not forget the consequences of the voters handing the GOP control of both chambers of congress.

I know some folks really hate all limits on government power, but would you go so far as to entirely remove the Senate from the process of making lifetime appointments to the federal bench?

Charles

 

[beebobby]

Is it your position, the tables in complete reverse, that Harry Reid and your party would do differently? PLEEZZE! Did democrats "fillibuster" Scalia's nomination under Reagan? No.

I have no desire to consider your contentions or position in any way.

This has become the standard GOTP method of governing. Obstruct, delay.

 

[beebobby]

Do not forget the consequences of the voters handing the GOP control of both chambers of congress.

What have they accomplished with their control?

 

[WalkingWolf]

What have they accomplished with their control?

Do not forget the consequences of the voters handing the GOP control of both chambers of congress.

Less progressive liberal laws is a HUGE accomplishment!

 

[redhawk44]

"Less progressive liberal laws is a HUGE accomplishment!"

I was going to respond in kind, in a nutshell and without being overly intellectual; however, you nailed it!

 

[redhawk44]

less progressive laws will be an accomplishment! Progressivism being the political diarrhea of writing more laws to make things better for all of us. There are always un/intended consequences to our freedom.

yes

I have come to equate liberal and progressive. May be technically incorrect, but at this point, I do not care.

 

[utbagpiper]

What have they accomplished with their control?

So now you want to change the discussion from principles to performance? Not surprising. If I'd made the same series of posts you have, I'd want to move the goal posts as well.

So be it. I'll play along because even here, you will look foolish and quickly withdraw, I suspect.

Everything you would call "obstruction" is exactly what they've accomplished. The entire legislative process in our nation is very deliberately designed to make it difficult to pass laws, and especially difficult to effect major social changes in short time frames. Our constitution is a very conservative document in the true sense of that word that it favors the status quo over any change. When government acts it is exercising power and any exercise of power is a chance to abuse rights. Failure to act, or more accurately put, inability to act until a broad consensus has been reached most often results in no infringement of rights. There are rare exceptions, but exceptions they are.

So, everything you and Obama and the media would consider to be "obstruction" or "failure" to act, is actually Congress doing exactly what the voters wanted it and the federal government to do when they twice elected a liberal Democrat POTUS, but turned over both houses of congress to the GOP.

To act, to "accomplish" something would require that both houses of congress and the POTUS come to some level of agreement, or that the level of consensus in the congress be high enough to sustain a veto override.

Put into other terms, what is more reasonable, to expect a single man--the POTUS--last elected 4 years ago to bend his will to that of the most recently expressed public sentiment as expressed in the Congressional elections just over 1 year ago; OR to expect some 30 Senators elected a year ago to ignore their campaign pledges to go along with the desires of the one guy elected 4 years ago?

ETA:
The last time we had a similar situation, the POTUS was wise enough to modify his agenda to "get something done" with a new GOP majority congress and the Democrats, while ignoring that little point, still like to tout the years of economic prosperity that followed Bill Clinton's time in office. (end edit)

If the GOP Senate were to accomplish nothing in its two year term from 2015-2017 except to prevent a massive leftward shift in the ideology of the SCOTUS, I'd consider that they had done their job well.

Charles

 

[redhawk44]

So now you want to change the discussion from principles to performance? Not surprising. If I'd made the same series of posts you have, I'd want to move the goal posts as well.

So be it. I'll play along because even here, you will look foolish and quickly withdraw, I suspect.

Everything you would call "obstruction" is exactly what they've accomplished. The entire legislative process in our nation is very deliberately designed to make it difficult to pass laws, and especially difficult to effect major social changes in short time frames. Our constitution is a very conservative document in the true sense of that word that it favors the status quo over any change. When government acts it is exercising power and any exercise of power is a chance to abuse rights. Failure to act, or more accurately put, inability to act until a broad consensus has been reached most often results in no infringement of rights. There are rare exceptions, but exceptions they are.

So, everything you and Obama and the media would consider to be "obstruction" or "failure" to act, is actually Congress doing exactly what the voters wanted it and the federal government to do when they twice elected a liberal Democrat POTUS, but turned over both houses of congress to the GOP.

To act, to "accomplish" something would require that both houses of congress and the POTUS come to some level of agreement, or that the level of consensus in the congress be high enough to sustain a veto override.

Put into other terms, what is more reasonable, to expect a single man--the POTUS--last elected 4 years ago to bend his will to that of the most recently expressed public sentiment as expressed in the Congressional elections just over 1 year ago; OR to expect some 30 Senators elected a year ago to ignore their campaign pledges to go along with the desires of the one guy elected 4 years ago?

If the GOP Senate were to accomplish nothing in its two year term from 2015-2017 except to prevent a massive leftward shift in the ideology of the SCOTUS, I'd consider that they had done their job well.

Charles

"...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...."

The Declaration of Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

 

[utbagpiper]

But tapping Lynch to fill the seat of Scalia, who died suddenly Saturday, poses a perception problem for Republicans because her "history as a career prosecutor makes it very difficult to paint her as excessively liberal," Goldstein wrote.

Lynch would be the first black woman ever nominated to the nation's highest court — and the GOP would have a political problem during an election year if the Republicans refused to even consider her nomination, Goldstein wrote.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...a-lynch-most-likely-candidate-replace-n518916

And therein lies a huge problem with American politics now. It has been reduced to racial and other demographics. If Lynch were a middle aged, Protestant white guy, nobody in his right might would consider him at all qualified for the SCOTUS. But because "he" is really a she who happens to be black....

Even if Lynch were the best, most ethical, upright, successful prosecutor in American history, I'm not aware that she has done much of anything in her career regarding constitutional law. Nothing wrong with that. We need good prosecutors, and good contract attorneys, and defense attorneys, and maybe even a few divorce and personal injury attorneys. But none of these tend to lend themselves to expertise in the broad range of constitutional questions the highest court is tasked to answer.

We need solid, constitutional scholars on the highest bench, not someone whose only qualification is a law degree, bar admittance, and some immutable-trait demographics.

Charles

 

[beebobby]

When the GOTP obstructs legislation that they supported before Pres. Obama was elected, it doesn't appear that their obstruction has any rhyme or reason. They obstruct only to hinder Pres. Obama, even if it hurts America.

 

[Citizen]

So, how would we build the pyramids today? What about the stone bodies on Easter island? And as a student of the (Christian) bible, how can you claim we have made good advances? The bible promotes racism, says nothing prohibiting slavery, prohibits paying interest on loans, and absolves debts after 7 years.

Today, we could not build buildings like the pyramids. Today, we are owned by the bankers. Etc.

The only thing that has changed is speed of travel of basic goods and communication.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Oh, I don't know. I think User's comment about bigger and heavier further and faster holds true in the understood context.

Yes, Xerxes bridged the Hellespont (1300 meters?), but he had to use pontoons (boats) and massive flax cables to do it. Without blast furnace technology to make steel, something like the Golden Gate bridge or the Verrazano Bridge were out of the question.

And, lets not overlook the thousands of people sitting in chairs in the sky these days.* Nor, little basic things like asphalt shingles--boy, I'd hate to have to re-thatch my roof every several years. And, what about electric light. Not counting those darned fluorescent curly-cue light bulbs, it is kinda nice to flip a switch instead of hunt around for matches, then light the wick on a kerosene lamp. And, central heat. Oh, my. No more having to bank the coals at bedtime, then wake up to a cold house and get the fire restarted.

But for all that advance--as User points out--the fundamentals of human nature haven't changed.




*I borrowed that one from Louis CK. During an interview, he discussed people who whine about their latest air-travel. He asks, "But...did you partake in the miracle of human flight?...You're sitting in a chair in the sky!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akiVi1sR2rM

 

[MAC702]

When the ---- obstructs legislation that they supported before Pres. ----- was elected, it doesn't appear that their obstruction has any rhyme or reason. They obstruct only to hinder Pres. -----, even if it hurts America.

No need to specify which political party. It's politics, and they ALL do it.

2007: Chuck Schumer tried to stop any Bush nominations for the next 18 months.

 

[user]

I don't know what all the fuss is about - why doesn't our first non-citizen president just go ahead and appoint someone. In fact, I'll bet that with a little effort, he could find a Democrat that the Senate would accept. If I recall correctly, there's one on the Fourth Circuit Ct. of Apps.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP And therein lies a huge problem with American politics now. It has been reduced to racial and other demographics.

Phhhht! Factionalism is factionalism. Been going on in the US since literally before the constitution was ratified; before the convention itself.

Create a power center with a monopoly on the use of force, and what does anybody expect to happen?