Rand FB (regarding SCOTUS): I Plan to Lead

[otherone]

So people who need their cases heard by SCOTUS can just go fuck themselves I guess.

oh noes! muh cases!

 

[ShaneEnochs]

obama can and will probably nominate. the senate just wont confirm.. both doing their jobs.

No, what the Senators are saying they'll do is delay, as in not even vote.

 

[Dianne]

I am absolutely with Rand on this. Since when has Obama ever cared about the Constitution? The fact of the matter, is Obama's legacy is getting creamed right now. All his Executive Orders have been shot down by the lower courts. And with Scalia, all his Executive Orders would be shot down by the Supreme Court. Thus, the reason Obama had Scalia assassinated. Remember, last year President Obama reportedly told his aides that he's 'Really Good At Killing People'. Scalia is one man who would stood between Obama and the legacy he wishes recorded in history.

 

[squirl22]

I am absolutely with Rand on this. Since when has Obama ever cared about the Constitution? The fact of the matter, is Obama's legacy is getting creamed right now. All his Executive Orders have been shot down by the lower courts. And with Scalia, all his Executive Orders would be shot down by the Supreme Court. Thus, the reason Obama had Scalia assassinated. Remember, last year President Obama reportedly told his aides that he's 'Really Good At Killing People'. Scalia is one man who would stood between Obama and the legacy he wishes recorded in history.

Bravo, Dianne, I am with you. I cannot believe there is someone on this site advocating for Obama...phew...scary person.

 

[spikel]

This has nothing to do with political statements. Under Article II, it is the President's job to nominate a justice, and it is the Senate's job to provide advice and consent. Rand isn't talking about leadership, he's talking obstruction and rendering an entire branch of government crippled. Any 4-4 decision would be like the Court never even heard the case.

Senators vowing to block any appointment before one is even made are being derelict in their duties and putting important cases in jeopardy.

I agree!

 

[spikel]

I am absolutely with Rand on this. Since when has Obama ever cared about the Constitution? The fact of the matter, is Obama's legacy is getting creamed right now. All his Executive Orders have been shot down by the lower courts. And with Scalia, all his Executive Orders would be shot down by the Supreme Court. Thus, the reason Obama had Scalia assassinated. Remember, last year President Obama reportedly told his aides that he's 'Really Good At Killing People'. Scalia is one man who would stood between Obama and the legacy he wishes recorded in history.

You sound totally nuts! Okay I'm not a fan of Obama but he will nominate and if the Senate refuses to even vote then that is childish and petty. Mitch's immediate statement that they'd refuse to even have a vote is PATHETIC, playing political kiddy games. Ok I'm out of here I guess I feel like I'm in the minority.

My point is at least have the vote and have the nominee denied the proper way rather than obstructing the representation of the people being shown.

 

[hells_unicorn]

That's bullshit. In a conservative majority court, they ruled in favor of marriage equality and have upheld Obamacare.

Conservative majority courts don't approve legal enforcement of sodomy and authoritarian health care systems, the only place where anyone could come away calling the SCOTUS as it stands now conservative is from Bernie Sanders' sphincter. Do crawl out of there when you feel the urge and join us in the real world, it's actually kind of nice out here.

This is crippling the balance of power in government. It tips the power in favor of the executive and the legislative and leaves the judiciary out to dry.

Nope, it simply delays secular religionists like yourself from getting your way until the next geriatric relic croaks. Try not to get your panties in a knot over trivial matters please.

You sound totally nuts! Okay I'm not a fan of Obama but he will nominate and if the Senate refuses to even vote then that is childish and petty. Mitch's immediate statement that they'd refuse to even have a vote is PATHETIC, playing political kiddy games. Ok I'm out of here I guess I feel like I'm in the minority

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, but I do agree with you on one thing, the senate shouldn't hold up the nominations by delaying. Instead they should simply march every commie, baby-killing nutter that Obama nominates into the senate, tear them apart the same way that Ted Kennedy did with Robert Bork, and then send them all packing until Obama leaves office. McConnell's problem isn't that he's a partisan, but more so that he's a pussy who folds every time things get tough.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Conservative majority courts don't approve legal enforcement of sodomy and authoritarian health care systems, the only place where anyone could come away calling the SCOTUS as it stands now conservative is from Bernie Sanders' sphincter. Do crawl out of there when you feel the urge and join us in the real world, it's actually kind of nice out here.

Ah, to have a government so small that it can fit nicely in your bedroom. Sodomy laws are fucking stupid and unenforceable.

As far as political leanings, Republican presidents nominate right-of-center justices, and Democrat presidents nominate left-of-center justices. Five were nominated by Republicans and four were nominated by Democrats. That puts the balance in favor of conservatism.

Nope, it simply delays secular religionists like yourself from getting your way until the next geriatric relic croaks. Try not to get your panties in a knot over trivial matters please.

Uh, yep. And what the hell is a secular religionist? That's an oxymoron, you realize that, right? That's like calling someone a fit obese person. And the only people who don't think it's important are the people whining that they don't want Obama to appoint a justice.

 

[Brett85]

It won't make any difference at all if Trump wins the GOP nomination. He'll just appoint a liberal to the Supreme Court anyway.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Ah, to have a government so small that it can fit nicely in your bedroom. Sodomy laws are fucking stupid and unenforceable.

The last place I want to be is in a queer person's bedroom pal, kindly spare me the stupid political slogans. Giving tax benefits to perverts who can't produce a future beyond themselves is stupid, learn the difference.

As far as political leanings, Republican presidents nominate right-of-center justices, and Democrat presidents nominate left-of-center justices. Five were nominated by Republicans and four were nominated by Democrats. That puts the balance in favor of conservatism.

If you think that Republican presidents are consistently conservative and that Democrats are consistently some sort of rational, moderated version of the insanity that makes up their voting blocks, I've got a really nice tower in Paris to sell you.

Uh, yep. And what the hell is a secular religionist? That's an oxymoron, you realize that, right? That's like calling someone a fit obese person. And the only people who don't think it's important are the people whining that they don't want Obama to appoint a justice.

Nope, it's an accurate depiction of the lunacy that makes up American secular culture, a band of crazy people who are so worried about people having the right to marry anything that moves and to dismember the unborn that they don't care about anything else. It's a textbook example of a cult, just without a particular persona that is the focal point of their idolatry.

And lastly, why the hell would you want Obama to appoint another kook to a lifetime of inflicting their crazy beliefs on the rest of us? Better yet, what is an Obama supporter like you doing on this forum?

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Jesus Christ, what a hateful person you are. I'm all about philosophical differences, but homophobic bigots just can't be reasoned with rationally. To the Ignore List you go!

 

[Bryan]

Let's keep thing civil and inline with the guidelines.

Thank you!

 

[euphemia]

I think the Senate has decided to reject a candidate out of hand before. They sure seemed to be in that mindset when Robert Bork was nominated. Same thing happened with Clarence Thomas. Bork was fully rejected, and Thomas was put through a lot of ginned-up silliness and humiliation before he was finally approved.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Nope, it's an accurate depiction of the lunacy that makes up American secular culture, a band of crazy people who are so worried about people having the right to marry anything that moves and to dismember the unborn that they don't care about anything else. It's a textbook example of a cult, just without a particular persona that is the focal point of their idolatry.
?

They do seem to have their priorities out of place. Like I said before in the Scalia thread,

"Yay, our economy collapsed and we're now subjugates under a global UN dictatorship!! BUT, at least we get to have our birth control, abortions, naturalized illegal aliens on welfare, and reduced standard of living climate change programs!"

 

[Origanalist]

oh noes! muh cases!

lol..

 

[Origanalist]

This has nothing to do with political statements. Under Article II, it is the President's job to nominate a justice, and it is the Senate's job to provide advice and consent. Rand isn't talking about leadership, he's talking obstruction and rendering an entire branch of government crippled. Any 4-4 decision would be like the Court never even heard the case.

Senators vowing to block any appointment before one is even made are being derelict in their duties and putting important cases in jeopardy.

So why did Obama do it? Or is it different when a progressive liberal does something? http://www.westernjournalism.com/po...tm_content=2016-02-15&utm_campaign=manualpost

 

[ShaneEnochs]

So why did Obama do it? Or is it different when a progressive liberal does something? http://www.westernjournalism.com/po...tm_content=2016-02-15&utm_campaign=manualpost

It was just as wrong then as it is now. This is too important for dick measuring contests between the Executive and the Legislature.

 

[Origanalist]

It was just as wrong then as it is now. This is too important for dick measuring contests between the Executive and the Legislature.

Lol, what bullshit and hypocrisy on the part of Obama.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Lol, what bullshit and hypocrisy on the part of Obama.

And I agree with you. It absolutely is. That being said, a straight up or down vote needs to be held on whoever he nominates. The Republicans need to be the "bigger man" on this issue instead of doing exactly what they criticized him for doing.

 

[Origanalist]

And I agree with you. It absolutely is. That being said, a straight up or down vote needs to be held on whoever he nominates. The Republicans need to be the "bigger man" on this issue instead of doing exactly what they criticized him for doing.

No, they don't. They need to stand up like men and keep Obama from turning this country into a even bigger progressive hellhole than it is already. You lefty's are always full of shit and huge hypocrites.

Do as I say, not as I do, eh Shane?