| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Sandra Day O'Connor says Obama should 'get on with it' and name Scalia's replacement |
February 17, 2016
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Add Sandra Day O'Connor to the list of people who say President Obama should name the late Antonin Scalia's replacement on the Supreme Court.
Ronald Reagan nominated O'Connor to the court in 1981, and she was the main swing vote until her retirement in 2006. She told KSAZ she does not agree with her fellow Republicans who say the next president should name Scalia's successor and they will block Obama's nominee. "We need somebody in there to do the job and just get on with it," she said.
The fact that there is an opening during an election year "creates too much talk around the thing that isn't necessary," O'Connor said, adding that Obama should "pick the best person" possible under the circumstances "as the appointing authority must do. And it's an important position and one we care about as a nation, as a people. I wish the president well as he makes choices and goes down that line — it's hard." Catherine Garcia |
http://theweek.com/speedreads/606628/sandra-day-oconnor-says-obama-should-name-scalias-replacement
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
feuser said: | Quote: | BTW, what does WELL-REGULATED mean to you?
|
As important is what "militia' means. Wikipedia says:
| Quote: | | The term militia in the United States has been defined and modified by Congress several times throughout U.S. history. As a result, the meaning of "the militia" is complex and has transformed over time.[1] It has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services). From the U.S. Constitution, Article II (The Executive branch), Sec. 2, Clause 1: "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States." |
One might consider all current gun owners, not in the military service, as the "militia". Clearly, not the same today as in the 1700's, but nevertheless, today's militia is armed and ready should a coup occur, or if a foreign element tries to overthrow our government.
From answers.com:
| Quote: | When the Constitution was ratified, most states passed laws requiring all adult men not in the Army to maintain their own guns and ammunition, and to know how to use them, should a dangerous situation arise. The specific intent was to minimize thee need for the government to maintain an army. The citizens at that time were extremely opposed to any army which could be misused to control ordinary people. It was in fact that very issue which had triggered the American Revolution (Think about the Quartering Act, the Boston Massacre, the battle of Concord, etc.) If you consider the discussions and correspondence among the new country's leadership at the time it becomes clear The terms "well regulated" were intended to signal strong limits on the government's utilization of the militia (the people with arms) rather than limits on the armed people themselves.
|
"well regulated" may be a bit more complex to define, but so far, the Supreme Court supports gun ownership by it's citizens, and I doubt that will ever change. More regulations are likely, but the guns will never be turned in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | feuser said: | Quote: | BTW, what does WELL-REGULATED mean to you?
|
As important is what "militia' means. Wikipedia says:
| Quote: | | The term militia in the United States has been defined and modified by Congress several times throughout U.S. history. As a result, the meaning of "the militia" is complex and has transformed over time.[1] It has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services). From the U.S. Constitution, Article II (The Executive branch), Sec. 2, Clause 1: "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States." |
One might consider all current gun owners, not in the military service, as the "militia". Clearly, not the same today as in the 1700's, but nevertheless, today's militia is armed and ready should a coup occur, or if a foreign element tries to overthrow our government.
From answers.com:
| Quote: | When the Constitution was ratified, most states passed laws requiring all adult men not in the Army to maintain their own guns and ammunition, and to know how to use them, should a dangerous situation arise. The specific intent was to minimize thee need for the government to maintain an army. The citizens at that time were extremely opposed to any army which could be misused to control ordinary people. It was in fact that very issue which had triggered the American Revolution (Think about the Quartering Act, the Boston Massacre, the battle of Concord, etc.) If you consider the discussions and correspondence among the new country's leadership at the time it becomes clear The terms "well regulated" were intended to signal strong limits on the government's utilization of the militia (the people with arms) rather than limits on the armed people themselves.
|
"well regulated" may be a bit more complex to define, but so far, the Supreme Court supports gun ownership by it's citizens, and I doubt that will ever change. More regulations are likely, but the guns will never be turned in. |
answers dot com is just opinions not fact... anyone from anywhere can write an answer. Ever the Taliban could.
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
baja said: | Quote: | answers dot com is just opinions not fact... anyone from anywhere can write an answer. Ever the Taliban could.
|
Great, so what's your opinion? It seems that the Supreme Court has pretty much confirmed what I posted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pointster
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | feuser said: | Quote: | BTW, what does WELL-REGULATED mean to you?
|
As important is what "militia' means. Wikipedia says:
| Quote: | | The term militia in the United States has been defined and modified by Congress several times throughout U.S. history. As a result, the meaning of "the militia" is complex and has transformed over time.[1] It has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services). From the U.S. Constitution, Article II (The Executive branch), Sec. 2, Clause 1: "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States." |
One might consider all current gun owners, not in the military service, as the "militia". Clearly, not the same today as in the 1700's, but nevertheless, today's militia is armed and ready should a coup occur, or if a foreign element tries to overthrow our government.
From answers.com:
| Quote: | When the Constitution was ratified, most states passed laws requiring all adult men not in the Army to maintain their own guns and ammunition, and to know how to use them, should a dangerous situation arise. The specific intent was to minimize thee need for the government to maintain an army. The citizens at that time were extremely opposed to any army which could be misused to control ordinary people. It was in fact that very issue which had triggered the American Revolution (Think about the Quartering Act, the Boston Massacre, the battle of Concord, etc.) If you consider the discussions and correspondence among the new country's leadership at the time it becomes clear The terms "well regulated" were intended to signal strong limits on the government's utilization of the militia (the people with arms) rather than limits on the armed people themselves.
|
"well regulated" may be a bit more complex to define, but so far, the Supreme Court supports gun ownership by it's citizens, and I doubt that will ever change. More regulations are likely, but the guns will never be turned in. |
Also from answers.com
"The reader of our current Constitution would also have been fairly knowledgeable about the contents of our "Articles of Confederation" that pre-dated the Constitution. In Article VI, para 4, you will find the following:
"No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
In other words, the Articles clearly expected that although the States would not maintain standing armies of their own, they were obligated to maintain their own militias. When the Constitution was written, there was little controversy about the issue of state militias, since it was already assumed they understood that fundamental relationship to the Central Government."
So I would dispute that "well regulated" means a limitation on the govt's ability to utilize a militia, but that the states would each maintain an organized fighting force. ( There are those who manitain that the state national guards meet that definition today).
Further, if you look at the history of militias in England, they were often organized along religious lines, e.g. "no Catholics". The founders did not want such restrictions on the "right to bear arms", meaning the right to join a well regulated state militia.
I believe the Supreme court's decision on the individual right to own guns is good example of failure of the textualism of the Originalist theory advocated by Scalia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What goes around, comes around,,,,, short sightedness can lead to regrets,,,,, payback can be a bitch,,,,, there are many more that can be applied, but you get the idea.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee
By Jordan Fabian - 02/17/16 02:14 PM EST
President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.
“That is an approach the president regrets,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.
Obama and the Democratic senators who joined him in filibustering Alito “should have been in the position where they were making a public case” against the merits of his nomination to the high court instead, Earnest said.
“They shouldn’t have looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process," he added.
As a senator from Illinois, Obama and 23 other senators attempted to stage a filibuster to block a confirmation vote on Alito, one of former President George W. Bush’s picks to serve on the bench. The filibuster bid failed and Alito was confirmed.
Conservatives have seized on Obama’s filibuster vote to accuse him of hypocrisy for criticizing Republicans for saying the next president, and not Obama, should nominate Scalia’s successor.
But Earnest said the GOP is going further than Obama did in pledging to not consider any nominee the president puts forward.
“These are two different things,” the spokesman said.
He argued that the Democrats’ 2006 filibuster of Alito was symbolic because he had the votes to be confirmed.
And he said Obama’s decision to filibuster was “based on substance” whereas the GOP’s blanket opposition to any Obama nominee is purely political. The president has yet to choose a nominee to replace Scalia.
Earnest went further than Obama did during a press conference when he was asked about his choice to join the filibuster effort against Alito.
“I think what’s fair to say is that how judicial nominations have evolved over time is not historically the fault of any single party,” Obama said Tuesday. “This has become just one more extension of politics.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regrets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NW....do you think it would have been ok for the Dems to block Reagan's nominee in 1988? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | What goes around, comes around,,,,, short sightedness can lead to regrets,,,,, payback can be a bitch,,,,, there are many more that can be applied, but you get the idea.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee
By Jordan Fabian - 02/17/16 02:14 PM EST
bla bla bla
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regrets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee |
not even apple to oranges... what the right wing have done from the day Obama was sworn in was to have a meeting where their entire goal was to make obama a 1 term president, they should be tried for treason. They owe the constitution and americans and president to do what is best for america under the constitution. they decided their political party is more important than america and the constitution, again treason from what I see.
That was over a single individual because the person was so pathetic which he has shown himself to be. As noted he did finally get approval without a filibuster as most of the dems did not agree. He could have been filibustered and we would have had a new pick.
Where here we have the right wing before the guy is pronounced dead saying they are not going to abide by the constitution. and be obstructionists.
Hey lets just not replace any supreme court justice ever, isn't that the right wings interpretation on the founders intent.
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| boggsman1 wrote: | | NW....do you think it would have been ok for the Dems to block Reagan's nominee in 1988? |
If the dems at the time thought that his appointee was far right enough to mount a block, then sure why not?
What's good for the goose, is good enough for the gander and all that.
But Reagan didn't appoint someone who was a right winger, he was too smart for that.
BHO on the other hand might, we'll see, he can try anyone he wants.
Fortunately our constitution doesn't require the senate to confirm just anybody. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| baja-human wrote: | | nw30 wrote: | What goes around, comes around,,,,, short sightedness can lead to regrets,,,,, payback can be a bitch,,,,, there are many more that can be applied, but you get the idea.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee
By Jordan Fabian - 02/17/16 02:14 PM EST
bla bla bla
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regrets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee |
not even apple to oranges... what the right wing have done from the day Obama was sworn in was to have a meeting where their entire goal was to make obama a 1 term president, they should be tried for treason. They owe the constitution and americans and president to do what is best for america under the constitution. they decided their political party is more important than america and the constitution, again treason from what I see.
That was over a single individual because the person was so pathetic which he has shown himself to be. As noted he did finally get approval without a filibuster as most of the dems did not agree. He could have been filibustered and we would have had a new pick.
Where here we have the right wing before the guy is pronounced dead saying they are not going to abide by the constitution. and be obstructionists.
Hey lets just not replace any supreme court justice ever, isn't that the right wings interpretation on the founders intent. |
troll post.....
Yet another post from this far left wing stalker, what is it with you, you scare me, I might have to move up to Canada and join NP, it's farther away from Baja so I will feel much safer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
