Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead

Wow..wow. A great loss for our nation he will be missed.

Are you kidding me? What? Does this mean? It does and the tide just turned. Who? This is crazy!
 
FTW, you are a punkazz and need your junk knocked in the dirt. Disrespectful #####.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-16 AT 06:02PM (MST)[p]We all know that Obama will want to appoint a liberal anti gun justice. The Senate has to confirm or deny the appointment. The Senate can also mount a filibuster to delay any appointment until after this years election.
Might be a good thing the Senate majority is Republican. This also may play a big influence on the election for President. Trump will use it to his advantage and so could several GOP candidates.

RELH
 
Likely he'll make a recess appointment. The House and Senate are scheduled to take a long summer vacation. Senate recesses on July 18 - Sep 5, so expect a nomination on July 19, which will allow the nominee to sit on the bench at least until the Senate reconvenes, and then will have to hold hearings to confirm or deny the nominee. During this time, that person will still get to sit the bench.

There is a shorter recess scheduled, a recess appointment could be made and the Senate will have to spend time conducting hearings while the appointee is on the bench.

Obama has done this before but due to a technicality, his appointments were ruled unconstitutional.
 
Not good. Cant imaging the POS that Obama will appoint.

To bad he could not have held out another year.
 
>FTW, you are a punkazz and
>need your junk knocked in
>the dirt. Disrespectful #####.

YBO, if you have not figured it out yet, FTW is either a troll or a non hunting groupie.

I think it is pretty safe to say that he does not even hunt. He either is attracted to hunters in a sick way or is just an internet troll.

On a personal level he is not even someone I would consider a man.

He cowardly messaged founder to complain about me when he did not like what I posted instead of dealing with me man to man.

There is not a single person on this forum I have less respect for.

A true coward with no character, that is not man enough to confront someone.
 
One more thing on this loser.

It has nothing to do with FTW being a liberal. There are lots of liberals that are my friends and are worthy of respect.

I cannot think of one other guy on this forum that would go crying to the owner of this site out of maliciousness.
 
Antonin Gregory Scalia
March 11,1936 ? February 12, 2016

2488scalia.jpg
 
.....if turtle man lets Obama make this appointment, he is more worthless than we think now....
 
Well if someone had to go.................

If a liberal judge had died many of you wingnuts would be dancing in the street so hold the respect crap.


Scalia wasn't all bad . but he can be replaced with a moderate and the nation will be better off. that's what I would prefer but it's not my choice. and it's not yours.


This will be more interesting than the election. and possibly more important.














Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>
>
> Well if someone had to
>go.................
>
>If a liberal judge had died
>many of you wingnuts would
>be dancing in the street
>so hold the respect crap.
>
>
>
>Scalia wasn't all bad .
>but he can be replaced
>with a moderate and the
>nation will be better off.
> that's what
>I would prefer but it's
>not my choice. and
>it's not yours.
>
>
>This will be more interesting than
>the election. and possibly more
>important.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Stay Thirsty My Friends

HOLY FRICK!

He's Alive!

Where Ya been dude?




[font color="blue"]"This is the USA where people get Paid to Watch
People that are
Watching You!"[/font]
 
Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sup...7Kz&ocid=edgsp

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.
Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa.
According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.
Chief U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, of the Western Judicial District of Texas, was notified about the death from the U.S. Marshals Service.
U.S. District Judge Fred Biery said he was among those notified about Scalia's death.
"I was told it was this morning," Biery said of Scalia's death. "It happened on a ranch out near Marfa. As far as the details, I think it's pretty vague right now as to how," he said. "My reaction is it's very unfortunate. It's unfortunate with any death, and politically in the presidential cycle we're in, my educated guess is nothing will happen before the next president is elected."
The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation.
Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment.
A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.
A gray Cadillac hearse pulled into the ranch last Saturday afternoon. The hearse came from Alpine Memorial Funeral Home.
Scalia was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.
Staff writers Vianna Davila, Tyler White and Richard A. Marini, John MacCormack and Guillermo Contreras contributed to this report.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-16 AT 11:24PM (MST)[p]>11b you are more mouth than
>service. Ride the wave...Typical john
>Kerry type, or maybe closer
>to bergdahl.


Aww, someone wants attention. Take it to another thread, Chump. This one's about Justice Scalia. Show a little respect.
 
>>FTW, you are a punkazz and
>>need your junk knocked in
>>the dirt. Disrespectful #####.
>
>YBO, if you have not figured
>it out yet, FTW is
>either a troll or a
>non hunting groupie.
>
>I think it is pretty safe
>to say that he does
>not even hunt. He
>either is attracted to hunters
>in a sick way or
>is just an internet troll.
>
>
>On a personal level he is
>not even someone I would
>consider a man.
>
>He cowardly messaged founder to complain
>about me when he did
>not like what I posted
>instead of dealing with me
>man to man.
>
>There is not a single person
>on this forum I have
>less respect for.
>
>A true coward with no character,
>that is not man enough
>to confront someone.
That should shut him up for awhile!
 
The fact an old fat guy died is not a shocker . so let's get on with what happens next.


Turtle man is saying they won't confirm anyone Obama nominates. another shocker. they say the people should have a voice in the next election, I guess black presidents aren't elected by the people.


What they're going to do isn't unprecedented but it shows how partisan and unqualified to lead they really are. they refuse to even consider any nominee a president with almost a year left in office . what effects will this have on the nation for the next year and a half until a 9th justice is confirmed?


What effect will it have on moderate voters I the elections who expect their leaders to do the job they're elected to do? anywhere else they'd be fired.

The people will have a voice this November. and turtle man may not like what they say. imagine if Sanders makes the nomination . or if Hillary nominates Obama, wouldn't that be classic. this is a dangerous game.










Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Oh crap! Obama's reply will be that Bush did it. Manny will find information that Loretta Lynch, U.S.A.G. was seen fleeing the room out the back door and she was picked up by a black helicopter.

RELH
 
Dude, I would not be surprised if Obama picked a very liberal attorney during the Senate recession, as suggested he did before. Then I would not be surprised if he pushed those 5 liberal judges to decide some cases where he can get a more liberal opinion from them on the cases.
Yes, it can be a dangerous game, but it has to be done to protect certain rights being downgraded by a liberal thinking court that feels the constitution is a living document subject to change by their whim.

RELH
 
Manny, I have to agree with you. She is about as conservative as you can get and would follow the constitution as a rule of law.

RELH
 
That's just what we need, a reality TV president and supreme court.


The point is Obama is the president, it's his job to nominate a justice and it's the senates job to check them out and vote on them. so to sat they refuse to do their job based on potential political gain should pizz both liberal and moderate the voters off.


Obama will nominate a moderate judge for two reasons. because he knows a liberal will never be confirmed and more importantly to embarrass the republicans. if he offers a moderate 90% of americans accept but the GOP won't vote because think they're entitled to a conservative majority how will that play in the election?

For this to play out as the republicans hope it requires two unlikely events. they have to win the whitehouse and hold the senate. odds are they do neither. and chit like this will only make it harder.












Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>Dude, I would not be surprised
>if Obama picked a very
>liberal attorney during the Senate
>recession, as suggested he did
>before. Then I would not
>be surprised if he pushed
>those 5 liberal judges to
>decide some cases where he
>can get a more liberal
>opinion from them on the
>cases.
> Yes, it
>can be a dangerous game,
>but it has to be
>done to protect certain rights
>being downgraded by a liberal
>thinking court that feels the
>constitution is a living document
>subject to change by their
>whim.

We played the "who could be the worst person nominated" game last night and came up with 2 Very Bad Scenarios:

1. Recess appointment of Eric Holder
2. Should Hillary be elected, she nominates... Obama

Incidentally, we briefly discussed whether it was possible for Obama to be Hillary's running mate, but decided it probably couldn't happen. But don't discount Bill being her VP and it wouldn't violate the 22nd Amendment
 
>Manny, I have to agree with
>you. She is about as
>conservative as you can get
>and would follow the constitution
>as a rule of law.

Are we really scraping the barrel that we're considering TV talking heads for both a Supreme Court Justice and President? May as well nominate Judge Judy while we're at it.

"As conservative as you can get" doesn't impress me, I'm more interested in one who follows the rule of law despite personal beliefs.
 
Elizabeth Warren voted with Reid and the dems for the nuclear option for judges and now they are demanding a vote for the new Obama SC appointment. Too bad so sad. He will make an appointment and it won't be a conservative in any way. Likely a black or hispanic so he can use it to beat the republicans over the head until the election. After the election which is in 9 months no one will care. Either you will get Hillary or a republican. Elections have consequences as Obama told McCain on the ACA. The difference is whoever wins will win a big fat SC judge.
 
Nobody said they can't do it. the question is should they, and what will the political cost be?

Even if the clowns voted the perfect nonpartisan justice down they'd at least be able to say they did their job. for turtle man to say they won't even do that much is flipping the voters off.









Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>He will make an appointment
>and it won't be a
>conservative in any way. Likely
>a black or hispanic so
>he can use it to
>beat the republicans over the
>head until the election.

I've heard this before. Are people forgetting that there is already a black person on the bench, and about as conservative as they come? Posted by a Republican President, even.

Obama's already played the "I nominated a minority" card by posting Sotomayor to the bench. Incidentally, he's posted 2 women, so that dog isn't going to hunt very far if he's going to try that tactic.

Interestingly, apart from the terror-inducing thought of Obama trying to get Eric Holder appointed, it came up in my research that Janet Napolitano had come up on the short list to succeed both Souter and Stevens when they retired.
 
Old Janet was the worst governor we ever had. She put her lesbo partner in charge of the prisons after they broke up. She would never pass muster but might get the gay vote for Hillary.
 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>That's just what we need, a
>reality TV president and supreme
>court.
>
>
>The point is Obama is the
>president, it's his job to
>nominate a justice and it's
>the senates job to check
>them out and vote on
>them. so to
>sat they refuse to
>do their job based on
>potential political gain should pizz
> both liberal and moderate
>the voters off.
>
>
>Obama will nominate a moderate judge
>for two reasons. because he
>knows a liberal will never
>be confirmed and more importantly
>to embarrass the republicans.
>if he offers a moderate
>90% of americans accept but
>the GOP won't vote because
>think they're entitled to a
>conservative majority how will that
>play in the election?
>
>For this to play out as
>the republicans hope it requires
>two unlikely events. they
>have to win the whitehouse
>and hold the senate.
>odds are they do neither.
> and chit like this
>will only make it harder.
>
>
>
>
>

Tog, most presidents would do exactly what you just said, but, Obama has a history of not working with the other party.

I think the absolute best the republicans can do here is get a moderately left justice. I cant see kicking the can for almost 10 months.

Obama is a lame duck president, and I doubt he puts up a moderate justice. The democrats almost always win these political pissing contests, and he knows it.
 
?Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up -or -down vote.? ? Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (5/19/05)

?I hope that by the end of this session of Congress, my colleagues will give the President's qualified nominees what they, and all current and future nominees deserve: the opportunity to have a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate on their nomination. For the sake of the Senate, the nation, and our independent judiciary, I hope that these partisans will not launch more filibusters, but from what I've heard today, I won't hold my breath.? ? Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) (3/26/04)

?The bottom line has to be that the president has the right to get a vote, an up-or-down vote, on his nominees.? ? Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) (11/10/04)

What's different this time?

?Let's debate the nominees and give our advice and consent. It is a simple ?yea? or ?nay,? when called to the altar to vote. Filibustering a nominee into oblivion is misguided warfare and the wrong way for a minority party to leverage influence in the Senate. Threatening to grind legislative activity to a standstill if they do not get their way is like being a bully on the school yard playground. Let's do our jobs. Nothing is nuclear about asking the full Senate to take an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees. It is the way the Senate has operated for 214 years.? ? Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) (5/23/05)

?But denying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution.? ? Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) (4/20/05)

?Every nominee deserves a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.? ? ##### Cheney (5/10/04)
 
JUDAS!

There for a Minute I thought Manny's Pic was gonna be Judge JUDITH F'N SHITELAND!

Wouldn't Surprise me if Obama Votes Her in,GEEZUS!



[font color="blue"]"This is the USA where people get Paid to Watch
People that are
Watching You!"[/font]
 
> JUDAS!
>
>There for a Minute I thought
>Manny's Pic was gonna be
>Judge JUDITH F'N SHITELAND!
>
>Wouldn't Surprise me if Obama Votes
>Her in,GEEZUS!

Speculation on SCOTUSBlog is that the top of Obama's list is Loretta Lynch. This would be an interesting problem as he would then have to nominate a replacement Attorney General and have to worry about 2 confirmation hearings, unless he's going to leave that to his successor.
 
There should be a few Mandatory Requirements!

They Must be a hunter and Outdoorsman!

They Must Own & Bare Arms!

They Must Uphold the Constitution!

They Must Be Honest!

They Must Practice what they Preach!

The List goes on & on..........................





[font color="blue"]"This is the USA where people get Paid to Watch
People that are
Watching You!"[/font]
 
I would not be surprised if 11bravo is right on Lynch. My second pick would be Obama selecting Eric Holder. Obama has shown to reward his yes people that remain loyal to him. If he can not force his changes on this country, he is willing to chip at it in hopes it happens down the line in years to come.

RELH
 
>They Must Own & Bare Arms!

What do you have against sleeved shirts?

>They Must Uphold the Constitution!
>
>They Must Be Honest!
>
>They Must Practice what they Preach!

And RELH think that *I'm* n?ive...
 
Sri Srinivasan or possibly Paul Watford. Both are about the same age, but Srinivasan is the logical choice.

Sri Srinivasan

D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan is perhaps the most attractive potential Supreme Court nominee for Obama if the goal is to put pressure on McConnell to allow a Senate confirmation vote. Nominated by Obama in June 2012, Srinivasan was confirmed in May 2013 by a unanimous, 97-0 vote.

Democrats believe that unambiguous verdict on Srinivasan could make it awkward for McConnell to block a vote on his nomination.

A nomination of Srinivasan, 48, to the high court would make history: he was born in India and would be the first Indian-American Supreme Court justice.

Srinivasan is widely viewed as a moderate. He clerked for Republican-appointed Justice Sandra Day O?Connor. In a speech last October, Srinivasan seemed to relish maintaining stability in the law. He suggested that fears he and three other Obama appointees would dramatically change the balance in the D.C. Circuit were overwrought.
 
I think you're on the right track. Obama knows if he nominates some left wingnut the republicans will have cause to obstruct him. and picking someone already cleared will put the senate in a position to be torn apart .


There is no down side for the dems. at best they make hay off the situation at worst they lost a vote on the SC that wasn't in their favor anyway.



















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>I think you're on the right
>track. Obama knows if
>he nominates some left wingnut
>the republicans will have cause
>to obstruct him. and
>picking someone already cleared will
>put the senate in a
>position to be torn apart.

The smart move would be to nominate a popular moderate and let McConnell throw crap on his own face trying to block it. The GOP's lost a few popularity points by Turtleboy saying that he's going to block anyone that Obama nominates, and that it should be up to the next President. Makes the GOP look like obstructionists and petulant children.

It's a Constitutional requirement that the President fill vacancies (SHALL rather than MAY- strange that some people make this differentiation when it comes to the issuance of concealed carry permits, but play loose and easy when it comes to appointing a Supreme Court Justice). But McConnell wants to deny anyone without a fair hearing. This is the party that honors and defends the Constitution? Do your job, Mitch.
 
Is that kind of like the president SHALL inform congress before swapping prisoners for a deserter? And probably many more SHALL'S that get ignored.

The dems want republicans to follow the constitution but they don't have to?
 
I'll preface this with the usual disclaimer since I can tell that emotions are starting to get a little high: This is just a commentary on the powers and responsibilities of the President, it is not an opinion on the rightness or wrongness of what was done. It is not an endorsement nor a critique of Obama. End disclaimer

>Is that kind of like the
>president SHALL inform congress before
>swapping prisoners for a deserter?
>And probably many more SHALL'S
>that get ignored.

I don't see anything like that in the Constitution. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, things such as that are strictly within his wheelhouse. If I'm wrong, please show me where in either the Constitution or further legislation that the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States is required to answer to the Legislative branch for anything military except to authorize war (which Congress authorized his action anyway, making subsequent action entirely legal withing the purview of the Use of Force authorization) and getting money to drop bombs on people.

>The dems want republicans to follow
>the constitution but they don't
>have to?

It would be nice if both sides followed it. The Constitution says that the President shall fill vacancies. Let him do his job. The Senate should do theirs and hold proper confirmation hearings, which is the job they're authorized and required to do according to the Constitution. McConnell has stated that he's pretty much not interested in fulfilling his Constitutional responsibilities and is seeking to alter the meaning of the Constitution by declaring that this should be left to the next President.
 
Agreed. if the senate wants to vote anyone or anything down that's something they can do. but to state they will not vote because they don't like the current president is inexcusable.



















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
They have the votes so Mitch didn't need to say anything, but old habits...

At a time when the establishment is out of favor, the memo went out, the players fell in line, this could have some spill over into the election with Indies.

After a 97-0 vote just 2+ years ago to be Circuit Judge of the U.S.C.A for D.C., Sri will be the guy. It's going to look a little weird if the vote comes back radically different.
 
Turtle man is either going to have to eat his words or drag the republicans down with him. the dems have the chance to really put the wood to the republicans here lets see if they're smart enough to take full advantage of it.
















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>Turtle man is either going to
>have to eat his words
>or drag the republicans down
>with him. the dems
>have the chance to
>really put the wood to
>the republicans here lets see
>if they're smart enough to
>take full advantage of it.

He's really maneuvering the GOP to look bad here. Despite their claims that they're the party that honors the Constitution, McConnell is blatantly trying to block people from doing their jobs, for obvious reasons.

Now I know the idea of Obama nominating a gun-hating, abortion-loving libuuuuural activist judge genuinely frightens some people, but the check and balance in this case is the Senate. McConnell claiming that the "voice of the people should be heard" is hollow rhetoric. The voice of the people were heard in 2012 when they re-elected Obama, like it or not. It's not the People who nominate Supreme Court Justices in the first place, it's the President.

Basically this is McConnell saying that he doesn't want to do his job. I hope the citizens of Kentucky remember this when it's time to elect Senators. Let Obama nominate whoever he wants. It's the Senate's job to confirm or deny that nominee after a fair confirmation hearing. It's what is mandated in the Constitution. Do your f'ing jobs. That's why we have checks and balances. You can't genuinely claim to honor the Constitution by advocating anything else.

I'm sure someone will interpret this as being pro-Obama.
 
I agree, all they have to do is vote to fulfill their duty. the outcome is where politics come in.

Obama will not nominate a left wing nut that does him no good whatsoever. he will nominate someone the republicans will have to vote on and approve or look like partisan hacks. no new judge on his term, but great political gain for the left before the election.

People keep saying this is a blow to Obama's agenda. that makes no sense. what Obama will have without Scalia is a tie where a loss would have been. same thing in the end.


I'm also at a loss as to why the republicans think Trump will beat either Sanders or Hillary and they're sure they will hold the senate. this is a risky endeavor , if things go as the polls suggest we could replace Scalia with a pot smoking hippie next year. a compromise now may very well be in everyone's best interest. this is a game of all or nothing with the odds against them.


















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>I agree, all they have to
>do is vote to fulfill
>their duty. the outcome is
>where politics come in.
>
>Obama will not nominate a left
>wing nut that does him
>no good whatsoever. he
>will nominate someone the republicans
>will have to vote on
>and approve or look like
>partisan hacks. no new judge
>on his term, but great
>political gain for the left
>before the election.
>
>People keep saying this is a
>blow to Obama's agenda. that
>makes no sense. what
>Obama will have without Scalia
>is a tie where a
>loss would have been.
>same thing in the end.
>
>
>
>I'm also at a loss as
>to why the republicans think
>Trump will beat either Sanders
>or Hillary and they're sure
>they will hold the senate.
> this is a risky
>endeavor , if things
>go as the polls suggest
>we could replace Scalia with
>a pot smoking hippie next
>year. a compromise now
>may very well be in
>everyone's best interest. this
>is a game of all
>or nothing with the odds
>against them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Stay Thirsty My Friends
is pot smoking a prerequisite now?
 
...the congress doesn't have to do anything. Congress determines how many SCJ's there are....they could leave it at eight.....or change it to seven so it would still be a full court when Ruth Buzzy croaks....
 
>...the congress doesn't have to do
>anything. Congress determines how many
>SCJ's there are....they could leave
>it at eight.....or change it
>to seven so it would
>still be a full court
>when Ruth Buzzy croaks....


Might want to look up the Judiciary Act of 1869.
 
In 1960 the democrats passed S.res334. That said that the Senate should not approve a SC nominee in an election year.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-16 AT 01:06PM (MST)[p]>In 1960 the democrats passed S.res334.
>That said that the Senate
>should not approve a SC
>nominee in an election year.
>


Nonbinding resolution and "should". To prevent recess appointments, not prevent nominating a Justice through 'nor al' means, although the Constitution allows for recess appointments.

Again, let the President do his job so the Senate can do theirs. It's all quite Constitutional.
 
>>...the congress doesn't have to do
>>anything. Congress determines how many
>>SCJ's there are....they could leave
>>it at eight.....or change it
>>to seven so it would
>>still be a full court
>>when Ruth Buzzy croaks....
>
>
>Might want to look up the
>Judiciary Act of 1869.

Ok......."do nothing" was the wrong wording to use......they should pass a Judiciary act of 2016 then
 
>...the congress doesn't have to do
>anything. Congress determines how many
>SCJ's there are....they could leave
>it at eight.....or change it
>to seven so it would
>still be a full court
>when Ruth Buzzy croaks....

Ruth Buzzy,LMAOF!!!!
 
>>Might want to look up the
>>Judiciary Act of 1869.
>
>Ok......."do nothing" was the wrong wording
>to use......they should pass a
>Judiciary act of 2016 then

To what purpose?
 
The Constitution says nothing about the Senate having to do anything with the nominee. No hearings, no timeline, no nothing. They have the power to advise and CONSENT. If they don't consent then you will get a good old Borking so bend over and grab your ankles. Elections have consequences.
 
+1 Glenn

About your tinfoil hat video Manny, good to see Goldwater, I wish he was alive and in the mix today.
 
Elections do have consequences, maybe you shouldn't have let Obama win twice.

Being azzhats and not doing your job like voters expect has consequences as well. on the election. this is a no win situation for the republicans.











Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Obama doesn't give aa FF . in 11 months he's out of there and if a supreme court judge he compromised on is seated or not effects him not in the least.

Obama is more concerned with how much the dems can get from this in the election than anything else. then Hillary or Sanders can nominate him.















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Like him or not Justice Scalia played a vital role of being a Literalist. He once noted "[Sometimes] I have to arrive at results that are stupid and even cruel,". I think that is a very candid response, if the words are not there, he as SCJ cannot make them magically appear. If the people want to Amend the Constitution there are vehicles to do that.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-comments-on-the-constitution-2013-8

Given the environment I'm not sure which move gives the right side of the aisle a better deal? Waiting in a high turnout, high anti-establishment presidential election with the Executive and Senate majority in play could backfire. It may leave Candidates having to go on record on an establishment issue. Push for a vote now and force Obama to pick the most center of left appointee for consideration.

Perhaps this has more to do with Ted Cruz and how much play he would get in the process during an election year. Sen. Cruz sits on the Judiciary Committee, lots of air time and Mitch does not like him.
 
Considering every possible scenario I think the republicans would be best off to settle for a moderate justice now.

Any other path comes with HUGE risk they may very well regret. we may all regret.















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Good luck with that. Obama appointed two liberal hacks already and republicans would be smart to allow a left leaning moderate to replace the most conservative justice? You are nuts. They will hold off until Hillary wins and she can appoint another lesbian Like Janet Napolitano. OR maybe she will get her ass kicked and the next GOP POTUS can appoint a couple of constitutional conservatives unlike Roberts.
 
Now that would be justice.


Even if Bernie or Hillary wins and the republicans hold the senate a far more liberal judge will be appointed than what they could cut a deal on this year. if Trump wins pretty much the same as Bernie and Hillary.













Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>
>Now that would be justice.
>
>
>Even if Bernie or Hillary wins
>and the republicans hold the
>senate a far more liberal
>judge will be appointed than
>what they could cut a
>deal on this year. if
>Trump wins pretty much the
>same as Bernie and Hillary.

Imagine all the.heads exploding if Hillary won, and she nominated Obama to fill Scalia's slot.
 
Entirely possible. or if Sanders won same thing.

What if Trump wins? won't be Obama but it won't be a conservative. hell before it's over he might nominate a hippie just for revenge.

It won't be Rubio or Cruz making the choice because they'll never be president. so exactly what does the GOP think time is going to gain them? it makes no sense.








Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-16 AT 11:13PM (MST)[p]...without Scalia, and an Obama judge, Heller would have lost 5-4 and you wouldn't have that to guarantee to all us idiots our gun rights dude...
 
I suppose the libs can make an end run against Heller like you bible thumpers have been trying to do on the Roe v wade decision. that's different is it?



As you recall Scalia himself said " we'll have to see " on the legality of your Rambo chit. even he was undecided , so you were screwed anyway. I'm not worried at all the 2nd amendment still exists and the Heller decision will stand for years.








Stay Thirsty My Friends
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

S.D. Pheasants.JPG
IMG_20231028_120707.jpg
20191023_163715.jpg
MD217.jpg
P1020506.JPG
JD's Big Velvet Buck
A2E832B3-DC50-4390-9CE8-88CBAB08BA7E.jpeg
IMG_9109.jpeg
20210403_133350.jpg
3591D299-A93D-466B-90F4-C35C89E8001A.jpeg
IMG_0093.jpeg
IMG_6796.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom