Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/02/15 20:23:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
They definitely do have a lot of power, but Clinton wants to be "running the country".
Why did you place the phrase "running the country" in quotations? Has Clinton ever said that?
It was for emphasis and not that she said that. She wants the limelight, prestige, etc... That doesn't apply nearly as much to being a justice, though they have a much longer effect on the country.
She is a power and glory hungry individual.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Quotation marks are not for emphasis; they can produce ambiguity, as we can see in this example!
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/15 22:30:53
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: I thought Quotation marks are for quoting stuff...
What's the actual name for the single-not-quotation-mark marks?
You mean a single quotation mark? That's for making a quote within a quote. There are other acceptable uses for them though: the AP uses them for quotations in headlines and sometimes they're used to highlight words not being used for their meaning (this is common in philosophical and theological writing).
Using quotations for emphasis is called scare or sneer quotes and are used to convey irony or disdain (which is extra funny when people use them wrong). The proper way to do it is to use italics (my preferred way) or underline what you're emphasizing. Though as much as the grammar lover in me hates scare quotes, I'm guilty of using from time to time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/15 22:47:11
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/15 22:50:32
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
WASHINGTON—Moving quickly to begin the process of filling the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia, White House sources confirmed Monday. “These are all exemplary candidates with strong homosexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?” Obama reportedly asked himself while reviewing his list of queer, gender-nonconforming, feminist Planned Parenthood employees, all of whom were also said to be black immigrants. “I definitely have enough post-op transsexuals on the list, but it is a little light on pre-op candidates. And I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options.” Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.
2016/02/15 22:56:53
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
2016/02/16 00:20:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
2016/02/16 00:21:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
Why do people keep on repeating this crap?
2016/02/16 00:38:30
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
Why do people keep on repeating this crap?
Because apparently whatever the Democrats did in the past has no bearing and we all should play nice now... amirite?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/16 00:43:20
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Because they didn't fething do it no matter how fething often someone makes a fething post to pretend that they fething did.
I'm not even going to fething rewrite the post I already fething wrote explaining the fething difference because it will make no fething difference and by page 283 the next person will repeat the same fething argument.
2016/02/16 00:48:11
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Senator Schumer appeared Sunday on ABC's This Week and responded to suggestions that the Senate might not confirm the lame-duck President's nomination to replace the late Justice Scalia: "show me the clause [in the Constitution] that says [the] president's only president for three years."
True, Presidents serve four-year terms. But here's a question for Senator Schumer: Can you show me the clause that says the Senate must vote on, let alone confirm, a President's nominee?
I'll save him the effort: There is no such clause in the Constitution.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."
It could not be simpler. The president nominates someone. If the Senate gives its advice and consent, then the president can appoint him. But nowhere does the Constitution say that the Senate is required to act on the president's nominations. The Framers certainly didn't understand the Senate to bear such an obligation. And the Framers who drafted that document certainly didn't say that the Senate bore such an obligation.
That is a point I offered once in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Writing amidst the war over President Bush's judicial nominations, I looked at the founding debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and the ratification debates that followed, and found no indication of any expectation that the Senate would be required the vote on a President's nominees.
The Framers expressly based the Constitution's "advice and consent" model on the approach used in Massachusetts, under the State's Constitution of 1780. And, looking through years of archived nomination files, I found myriad examples of nominations made by the governor that received no up-or-down vote from the "Privy Council," the body that provided constitutional advice and consent.
But the best evidence of the Senate's power not to vote on nominations is found in the Framers' rejection of an alternative approach to appointments. As an alternative to the "advice and consent" model, James Madison proposed a discretionary Senate veto. Under that plan, a president's nominees would automatically be appointed unless the Senate mustered a majority vote against that nomination within a fixed number of days.
In short, Madison would have put the burden on the Senate, to affirmatively act to block a nomination. But the Framers rejected his proposal, and chose instead the "advice and consent" model, placing the burden on the president (and his supporters) to convince the Senate to confirm his nominee.
And history reflects the Framers' choice. Presidents have made 160 nominations for the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed only 124 of them. And of the 36 failed nominations, the vast majority of them (25) received no up-or-down vote.
To that end, the Senate can structure its own rules to govern the advice-and-consent process. It had constitutional power to establish the filibuster system. It has constitutional power to abolish or reform the filibuster. And it probably should. But the Constitution leaves this choice to the Senate alone—just as it leaves the Senate free to decide whether to consider a president's judicial nomination.
Of course, Senator Schumer knows as well as anyone that the Senate is not constitutionally obligated to give judicial nominations an up-or-down vote. From the very outset of George W. Bush's presidency, Schumer was ready to block a vote on any of his Supreme Court nominations. In fact, Schumer announced in mid-2007—with a year and a half left in Bush's presidency—that he would block any further nominations Bush might make to the Court. (He added that the failure of his effort to filibuster the Alito nomination, barely a year into Bush's second term, one of his "greatest failings and regrets.")
President Obama once shared Schumer's fondness for filibustering Supreme Court nominations. But now he, like Schumer, sees things quite differently. "I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time," he said yesterday, before asserting that the Senate must "fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote."
Obama's last point repeated almost verbatim the words of his predecessor. "The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to hold an up-or-down vote on every judicial nominee," President Bush said in response to Senator Obama's and Schumer's failed filibuster, a point Bush pressed repeatedly throughout his presidency.
In those days, President Obama was among the loudest critics of presidential power. Today he asserts presidential power more aggressively than his predecessor ever did. The Senate should assert its own power with no less vigor. Let ambition counteract ambition.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/16 01:03:38
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The White House says the president will not move to appoint a Supreme Court replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia while the Senate is in recess this week.
In an interview with ABC News, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Obama would would wait to announce his nominee until Congress returns from its break later this month. In an email to NPR, Schultz said the White House had ruled out a recess appointment "this week."
"At that point, we expect the Senate to consider that nominee, consistent with their responsibilities laid out in the United States Constitution," Schultz told ABC.
Of course, it's more complicated than that. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Saturday that the vacancy "should not be filled until we have a new president." That means an Obama nominee could languish until a new president takes over in January.
With that prospect, pundits began considering the possibility of Obama bypassing the Senate and appointing a justice temporarily when Congress was out of town.
As Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog writes, Article II of Constitution gives the president that power and William J. Brennan, Jr., one of the most consequential justices in the Court's history, began his time on the bench when President Dwight Eisenhower appointed him during a recess. Brennan's nomination was confirmed by the Senate after Eisenhower was re-elected.
According to the Constitution, a president can can fill vacancies while the Senate is in recess but their appointment expires at the end of the Senate's next session. This recess-appointment power, however, was greatly curtailed by the Supreme Court in the 2014 case National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.
Denniston explains:
"First, on the president's side, the Court ruled that the recess appointment power applies when the Senate leaves town for a break in the middle of an annual sitting, or a break at the end of each annual session.
"Second, also on the president's side, the decision declared that the president during a recess can fill a vacancy even if the opening occurred well before the recess began.
"Third, on the Senate's side, the ruling made clear that it has to last more than three days, without saying how much more time must pass without the Senate out of town and doing nothing.
"Fourth, strongly on the Senate's side, the decision left it largely up to the Senate to decide when it does take a recess, allowing it to avoid the formality of a recess by taking some legislative action, however minor or inconsequential and however few senators actually take part in some action."
2016/02/16 01:19:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Seems like the right thing to do. Do the thing he is supposed to do with no shenanigans, and see if the R's respond in kind. Because, honestly, just having a temper tantrum and not letting anybody in will only hurt the republicans in the election, and the D's have a lot more on the line here to excite their base. The only thing the R's conceivably have to excite the base about this is the 2nd, but even if it was as progressive a judge as you can get, I don't think they would have any legitimate concern. I doubt either Clinton or Bernie would put a really anti-gun judge up, Bernie's views on guns are one of the things he's been considered weak on by the D base, and Hillary is smart enough to know that she does't want to give the R's a good talking point to run on.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/02/16 01:30:44
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Excuse me, but the President can nominate anybody he damn well please...
Just like the Senate can deny any nominated candidate at any damn time...
Full stop.
They can block nominees for the rest of time. Slowly the other nominees will die off, until the sole survivor, Clarence Thomas, reveals his true form as A’Pacha, queen of the insect people, and sings the song that will end the world.
Or you know, people can temper the power they wield with responsibility. And so, just as it’d be grossly irresponsible for Obama to nominate himself, his wife, a political rival* or whoever else, Republicans would be just as irresponsible by planning to reject anyone Obama proposed for the next year.
Once again, this seems to be coming down to an issue of whether people respect proper governance or not.
*Remember, Underwood is a villain.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/16 01:44:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
Why do people keep on repeating this crap?
Because apparently whatever the Democrats did in the past has no bearing and we all should play nice now... amirite?
YES! If you want to be the better man, then you have to actually be the better man.
The GOP has a chance here to rise up above the likes of Trump and Cruz and show actual, genuine, responsible, intelligent leadership. A chance that you and many others are practically demanding that they squander. This country is already circling the toilet because of this petty political partisan bullgak from all sides AND IT NEEDS TO STOP. All it takes is one side to actually do it.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2016/02/16 01:45:48
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Senator Schumer appeared Sunday on ABC's This Week and responded to suggestions that the Senate might not confirm the lame-duck President's nomination to replace the late Justice Scalia: "show me the clause [in the Constitution] that says [the] president's only president for three years."
True, Presidents serve four-year terms. But here's a question for Senator Schumer: Can you show me the clause that says the Senate must vote on, let alone confirm, a President's nominee?
Yeah, that pretty much sums up the core of the current Republican con job on this issue. They're quite deliberately confusing the Senate's ability to reject a specific candidate with a decision to block any candidate, before that candidate is even known.
If Republicans were merely doing the former, then it would be irrelevant whether Obama was in his first year or last year. But of course, Republicans are doing the latter.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/16 01:56:19
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
Why do people keep on repeating this crap?
Because apparently whatever the Democrats did in the past has no bearing and we all should play nice now... amirite?
YES! If you want to be the better man, then you have to actually be the better man.
The GOP has a chance here to rise up above the likes of Trump and Cruz and show actual, genuine, responsible, intelligent leadership. A chance that you and many others are practically demanding that they squander. This country is already circling the toilet because of this petty political partisan bullgak from all sides AND IT NEEDS TO STOP. All it takes is one side to actually do it.
How do you define genuine, responsible, intelligent leadership?
"I would abolish the department of education as it now exists, reducing 5000 jobs to 20" Jeb!
kasich is trying to defund planned parenthood, the "faith based mentorship" program for public schools was his bill
Rubiobot has glitched on stage
Not to mention they are all anti science, homophobic bigots who base their decisions on a 1900 year old book written by cult leaders starring a magic carpenter born in a city that didn't exist until the second century A.D.
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
2016/02/16 01:57:25
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Tannhauser42 wrote: YES! If you want to be the better man, then you have to actually be the better man. The GOP has a chance here to rise up above the likes of Trump and Cruz and show actual, genuine, responsible, intelligent leadership. A chance that you and many others are practically demanding that they squander. This country is already circling the toilet because of this petty political partisan bullgak from all sides AND IT NEEDS TO STOP. All it takes is one side to actually do it.
It only one takes overtly partisan, deeply dysfunctional party to cause these problems. That’s the nature of US politics, it’s a consensus driven system, and so if one party rejects any kind of deal making things fall over. And right now one party and one party alone is in the midst of a hyper-partisan dose of crazy, making consensus impossible.
Of course, the answer is still exactly as you say, if Republicans decide to get off the crazy train, and start placing proper governance as a priority alongside their legislative issues, then things would solve themselves pretty quickly. But it’s been a long, slow ride down in to crazy, and I no longer think it will turn around without something very drastic happening.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/16 01:58:26
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/16 01:59:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Excuse me, but the President can nominate anybody he damn well please...
Just like the Senate can deny any nominated candidate at any damn time...
Full stop.
They can block nominees for the rest of time. Slowly the other nominees will die off, until the sole survivor, Clarence Thomas, reveals his true form as A’Pacha, queen of the insect people, and sings the song that will end the world.
Hah! But I wouldn't be surprised that Ginsberg outlives them all.
Or you know, people can temper the power they wield with responsibility. And so, just as it’d be grossly irresponsible for Obama to nominate himself, his wife, a political rival* or whoever else, Republicans would be just as irresponsible by planning to reject anyone Obama proposed for the next year.
Once again, this seems to be coming down to an issue of whether people respect proper governance or not.
*Remember, Underwood is a villain.
Dontcha know... we've reached the Calvinball Era now.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
Why do people keep on repeating this crap?
Because apparently whatever the Democrats did in the past has no bearing and we all should play nice now... amirite?
YES! If you want to be the better man, then you have to actually be the better man.
The GOP has a chance here to rise up above the likes of Trump and Cruz and show actual, genuine, responsible, intelligent leadership. A chance that you and many others are practically demanding that they squander. This country is already circling the toilet because of this petty political partisan bullgak from all sides AND IT NEEDS TO STOP. All it takes is one side to actually do it.
How do you define genuine, responsible, intelligent leadership?
"I would abolish the department of education as it now exists, reducing 5000 jobs to 20" Jeb!
kasich is trying to defund planned parenthood, the "faith based mentorship" program for public schools was his bill
Rubiobot has glitched on stage
Not to mention they are all anti science, homophobic bigots who base their decisions on a 1900 year old book written by cult leaders starring a magic carpenter born in a city that didn't exist until the second century A.D.
You forget the gang of Christian fanatics roving around the neighborhood.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/16 02:01:22
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/16 03:05:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Breotan wrote: Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
No. We're not going to do this - this thing, where you forge a narrative, and the only thing you need to make your "argument" is a willingness to embrace intellectual dishonesty and the endurance to outlast people calling you on it. Maybe D-USA got tired of knocking this garbage down 4 or 5 times today, but I'll be happy to copy and paste as many times as needed:
When this actually happened, in Ronald Reagan's last term with a Democratic majority senate, he put forward 2 nominees, and one withdrew. One got an up and down vote and was not confirmed, and one was confirmed 97-0.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/16 03:08:02
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/02/16 03:30:21
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
You forget the gang of Christian fanatics roving around the neighborhood.
You mean like the guy who shot up the Colorado springs planned parenthood? Or the ones at my school who threatened to kill me in public? Are those the type of people you are talking about? I don't think you have the same perspective I have on this issue.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/16 03:32:44
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
2016/02/16 04:42:34
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
"Stomping all over the Constitution" is a histrionic and inaccurate argument. It's neither stomping all over the Constitution to recommend the president leave nominating an associate justice candidate to his successor, nor is it stomping all over the Constitution to not approve someone the president does choose to pick.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/16 04:42:43
2016/02/16 05:01:24
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
"Stomping all over the Constitution" is a histrionic and inaccurate argument. It's neither stomping all over the Constitution to recommend the president leave nominating an associate justice candidate to his successor, nor is it stomping all over the Constitution to not approve someone the president does choose to pick.
Explain to me how it is not.
2016/02/16 05:13:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Dontcha know... we've reached the Calvinball Era now.
That sums up the current state of US politics pretty well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Dakka OT: a willingness to embrace intellectual dishonesty and the endurance to outlast people calling you on it
And that is pretty much the perfect description of dakka.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/16 05:13:26
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/16 05:44:52
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Maybe the Senate actually will do its duty of considering any proposed appointments, and make a mature decision.
Republicans respect the constitution. It can't work without a properly formed supreme court, so someone has got to be appointed without too much delay as there is a danger of not being able to form a quorum and thereby losing working time.
Surely you don't believe every time the Senate has said "lol no" to a presidential Supreme Court nomination, they've been violating the Constitution?
There is a difference between saying no to somebody and saying "you shouldn't appoint somebody and we will do our best to obstruct it". One is a legitimate reason and the other is political bullgak.
