myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
right wing supreme court right wing activism
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1498

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
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.


Reagan certainly appointed a right-winger in Scalia. If he had not been so ideologically reliable, the loss of his vote on the Supreme Court wouldn't matter as much as it does.

I think Democrats (and Republicans) back then followed the law more closely and considered the sitting Presidents candidates merits, extending the benefit of the doubt to the White House.

Democrats did try to block Alito, after considering his impact on the court. At no point have Democrats rejected the choice the President might make a priori, i.e. undermine the presidency itself. There is no equivalent here; it's not even in the same ballpark.

_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1498

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pointster wrote:

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.


The reading of the 2nd amendment supported by Scalia does seem extremely selective. In the 2008 landmark case he pretty much threw out the entire first half of the amendment which confines gun ownership to the context of a militia - instead of defining a modern-day equivalent of militia.

Personally, I would accept organized gun ownership as such - for example in the form of liability insurance companies who in turn control their risk exposure through vetting, and training. There need not be a direct Government control over these private entities, with the exception of the requirement of liquidity and that every gun owner is a member of any such organization.

This would of course also mitigate the very grave situation in which many families and survivors of gun victims find themselves in: with the loss of one or the single breadwinner in the family, tragedy is usually compounded by financial ruin.

_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 7928
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/16/3749754/what-republicans-said-about-supreme-court-nominations-during-george-w-bushs-last-year/
Quote:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

“[The idea that July 2008 would trigger the] Thurmond Rule ­­– that’s just plain bunk. The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president’s term.”

Today, Grassley says that “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year… it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

“There’s no excuse for not considering and voting upon a well­ qualified judicial nominee in the United States of America today… [J]ust because it’s a presidential election year is no excuse for us to take a vacation. And we’re here. We’re ready to go to work.”

Today, Alexander says that “it is reasonable to give the American people a voice by allowing the next president to fill this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)

“[N]ow is the perfect time for a new politics of judicial confirmation to arise where Republicans and Democrats work together to confirm qualified men and women to the federal bench. Now is the perfect time because, of course, we’re in a presidential election year and no one yet knows who the next president will be. What a unique opportunity to establish that regardless of the next president’s party, the nominees will be treated fairly and on the basis of their qualifications, and not on the basis of ancient political squabbles.”

Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

“I think it’s clear that there is no Thurmond Rule. And I think the facts demonstrate that.”

Today, McConnell is leading the charge for an expanded Thurmond Rule. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” he said, immediately after Scalia’s passing.

For his part, Barack Obama intends to nominate a Scalia’s replacement. “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote,” he said in a statement on Saturday.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 18411

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I bought my first gun when camping with my dogs in the SW desert boondocks surrounded by coyotes ... the four-legged kind. I upgraded that purchase when I perceived more two-legged threats. Coup, schmoo; I have a right to protect myself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 7928
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
I bought my first gun when camping with my dogs in the SW desert boondocks surrounded by coyotes ... the four-legged kind. I upgraded that purchase when I perceived more two-legged threats. Coup, schmoo; I have a right to protect myself.


real men protected themselves with spears for tens of thousands of years. Only wimps need weapons of mass destruction ... Our founders hunted and did just fine with powder loading muskets of some sort. again the day when men were real men.

I must be far more manly than the right wingers I do not need any type of gun to not pee in my pants when camping.

I have a brain so I do not need a gun to protect myself.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 7928
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Republican gov of Nevada is rumored to be on the short list for the position. I at this point would back this person if picked as a Navada resident myself. He has done a decent job as gov of Nevada as a republican. He is not the pit bull partisan of the last pathetic gov.

The negatives that do not outweigh the positives IMHO are he is a republican, he will demobilize the motivation that will come from wanting a liberal supreme court, many of the more active liberals will be upset with the democratic establishment and thus not motivated to push to get the vote out for the next election.

IE I want a super ultra liberal partisan appointed that has never been on the Supreme court, the right appointed idiots to the extreme and we liberals only get to have mild liberals. I want a ultra liberal to begin to balance out the alitos, stevens, thomas ultra right wingers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines

Republican governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval being considered for Supreme Court

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10376
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a delicious scenario. Obama nominates a moderate Republican, turtle man blocks his appointment. The Republicans nominate Trump and the backlash against Republican obstruction helps Hillary win in a landslide--and she nominates Obama to the vacant seat. Enough Democratic senate candidates win and he is confirmed. Mac laughs and several right wingers collapse with heart attacks.

Just sayin...it could be worse for yous guys.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 2998

PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

baja said:
Quote:
real men protected themselves with spears for tens of thousands of years. Only wimps need weapons of mass destruction ... Our founders hunted and did just fine with powder loading muskets of some sort. again the day when men were real men.


Intelligent as well as "real" men have always used "state of the art" weapons, regardless of historical time period. Those that choose other options are not too bright.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 18411

PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
Intelligent as well as "real" men have always used "state of the art" weapons, regardless of historical time period. Those that choose other options are not too bright.

Damn straight. A "fair fight", by definition, gives each side a 50/50 shot at survival. The good guy, OTOH, deserves 1.00 -- 100/0 -- odds of victory. Anybody who brings "only" a .22 semiautomatic pistol to a knife fight is an idiot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 7928
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
baja said:
Quote:
real men protected themselves with spears for tens of thousands of years. Only wimps need weapons of mass destruction ... Our founders hunted and did just fine with powder loading muskets of some sort. again the day when men were real men.


Intelligent as well as "real" men have always used "state of the art" weapons, regardless of historical time period. Those that choose other options are not too bright.


ya we all nee shoulder launch weapons, and machine guns, and tanks. throw in a few nice grenades with biological chemical or nuclear potential. the real state of the art. That is also how we should be hunting...

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 of 10

 
Jump to:  
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

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group