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.

Sorry, but Clinton is a moderate not a liberal. She's only a liberal in contrast to how far right the Republicans have shifted.

 skyth wrote:
Sorry, but Clinton is a moderate not a liberal. She's only a liberal in contrast to how far right the Republicans have shifted.

Ehh... not really... She's still a liberal, but I'd say she falls somewhere in between Progressive and Classical.

Also, I haven't been paying too much attention to Jeb! (which, lets be fair, no one really is), but I suspect that he's like the Bushes before him and pretty well Classical Liberal as well.

 Da Boss wrote:
But shouldn't they also approve of someone turning over a new leaf and finding more respectable employment?

Y'know, all christian like?

I guess that's mostly a rhetorical question.

Yeah, for many on that extreme end, the question "What would Jesus do?" is generally not a question they actually want answered.

More on the Michigan water front:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/us/flint-michigan-legionnaires/index.html

When the CDC Offers to help, why would you turn them down? I mean, there is no excuse for that kind of stupidity.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:
When the CDC Offers to help, why would you turn them down? I mean, there is no excuse for that kind of stupidity.....

Mainly because of your oversized ego or something you have to hide.

That event shows what happens when you put incompetent people in charge. And when you put money above everything else.

Also, sheer stupidity is much more spread than you expect - especially in people who are taking decisions and that you would believe their cursus prevents them from being that stupid. Sadly...it doesn't.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
When the CDC Offers to help, why would you turn them down? I mean, there is no excuse for that kind of stupidity.....

Perhaps they believe it's a punishment from "God" for their "sinful nature"?? (would explain the whole no bum-love bill that got passed) Perhaps it's something to do with money, afterall the Republican party is most definitely the party that is pro-big business and trickle down shenanigans.

Were I one to believe in conspiracy theories, I could suggest that the reason Republicans in MI don't want outside help in the Flint water issue, is because they don't want any other decaying corpses that were stuffed into proverbial freezers to be found. Unfortunately for them, if there is something worse than the water issue in MI, they have such a big spotlight on them right now that it will be found.

So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.

I posted a new topic, but Scalia was just died.


Edit: ninjaed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.

I have to wonder about the likelihood of a R controlled congress allowing Obama to put someone in. You saw how they were about lower courts. The question is, can the supreme court operate down a member?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I posted a new topic, but Scalia was just died.


Edit: ninjaed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.

I have to wonder about the likelihood of a R controlled congress allowing Obama to put someone in. You saw how they were about lower courts. The question is, can the supreme court operate down a member?

It can and frequently does when justices recuse themselves for conflicts of interest. I'm not sure Obama can get a new one in time though I am sure he is looking into his short list right about now.

 d-usa wrote:
So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.

Can you elaborate on the reasons for us lowly EU peasants?

Not that it hasn't been in this thread, but just to be clear, we're keeping it POLITE about Scalia's death here. No crowing, dancing on his grave or anything like that. Disagree with his policies, say you thought X or Y comment he made was unconstitutional or hypocritical, but don't be disgusting and celebrate his death.

And Sig, if Obama can't get a justice in it means the next president is going to be placing at least one, likely 2 (because 8 years is a long time for another to die) justices. This means the political leaning of the court could change markedly, and since they serve for so long, this change could have a huge impact on future decisions

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I posted a new topic, but Scalia was just died.


Edit: ninjaed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.

I have to wonder about the likelihood of a R controlled congress allowing Obama to put someone in. You saw how they were about lower courts. The question is, can the supreme court operate down a member?

It can and frequently does when justices recuse themselves for conflicts of interest. I'm not sure Obama can get a new one in time though I am sure he is looking into his short list right about now.

Yes, but for a year?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.

Can you elaborate on the reasons for us lowly EU peasants?

Justice Scalia was one of the, if not THE, most conservative Justice on the Supreme Court. If there was a conservative cause, you would find him championing it. So having him pass away is a huge blow to the conservative side of the bench, especially in an environment where the Supreme Court just very recently decided to hear some challenges on key Obama legacy pieces and they made that decision on a 4-5 margin (and nobody would be surprised if Justice Scalia was one of the 5 wanting to hear the challenge).

Obama will be able to appoint a new Justice to the bench, and whoever he appoints would most likely be a moderate who would function as a swing vote. He could propose a fairly liberal judge, but I don't think he would try to swing the balance of the court that much and it would certainly shut the Senate down if he tried. If Obama manages to replace one of the most conservative judges on the bench with another swing vote, then it becomes even more important for a Republican to win the White House to restore the "balance" of conservatives vs liberals on the bench.

Which also plays into all the Senate races that will be happening this year as well. The Senate has to approve the choices made by the President. So Democrats may try to jump on the opportunity to have a campaign message of "we need to control the Senate so that the next Republican President can't appoint conservative judges". And Republicans will be able to light a fire under the "we must undo the damage of Obama and his liberal SCOTUS". That is if the Senate doesn't completely implode and have Senator Cruz shut everything down until he is elected and places a true conservative on the bench to replace Scalia.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.

Can you elaborate on the reasons for us lowly EU peasants?

He was one of the members of our highest court, the supreme court. The members serve for life (generally) and interperate the constitution and the constitutionality of laws. There are only 9 members, so they hold a lot of sway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I posted a new topic, but Scalia was just died.


Edit: ninjaed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.

I have to wonder about the likelihood of a R controlled congress allowing Obama to put someone in. You saw how they were about lower courts. The question is, can the supreme court operate down a member?

It can and frequently does when justices recuse themselves for conflicts of interest. I'm not sure Obama can get a new one in time though I am sure he is looking into his short list right about now.

Yes, but for a year?

For a year would be tough, and with Obama having his immigration and environmental executive orders on the line he will likely try to get a replacement on the bench.

I don't think it will be anybody liberal, but this would be the moment to get another swing vote on the bench.

I think that Congress is going to dig in like never before to prevent Obama from filling Scalia's seat. I'm excited about adding a jurist who hasn't gone on the record stating he would overturn Roe v Wade given the opportunity, as Scalia has.

That being said, I will take a moment to remember Scalia's dissent in Kelo vs New London.

 Ouze wrote:
I think that Congress is going to dig in like never before to prevent Obama from filling Scalia's seat. I'm excited about adding a jurist who hasn't gone on the record stating he would overturn Roe v Wade given the opportunity, as Scalia has.

That being said, I will take a moment to remember Scalia's dissent in Kelo vs New London.

The longest time between a justice dying or stepping down and a new one being appointed is roughly 120 days. Republicans will have to triple that to avoid another Obama appointee.

 d-usa wrote:

Which also plays into all the Senate races that will be happening this year as well. The Senate has to approve the choices made by the President. So Democrats may try to jump on the opportunity to have a campaign message of "we need to control the Senate so that the next Republican President can't appoint conservative judges". And Republicans will be able to light a fire under the "we must undo the damage of Obama and his liberal SCOTUS". That is if the Senate doesn't completely implode and have Senator Cruz shut everything down until he is elected and places a true conservative on the bench to replace Scalia.

And yet, ironically, if Cruz did have his way, the judges he would want are also the kind of judges that would rule him as ineligible to be President.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Which also plays into all the Senate races that will be happening this year as well. The Senate has to approve the choices made by the President. So Democrats may try to jump on the opportunity to have a campaign message of "we need to control the Senate so that the next Republican President can't appoint conservative judges". And Republicans will be able to light a fire under the "we must undo the damage of Obama and his liberal SCOTUS". That is if the Senate doesn't completely implode and have Senator Cruz shut everything down until he is elected and places a true conservative on the bench to replace Scalia.

And yet, ironically, if Cruz did have his way, the judges he would want are also the kind of judges that would rule him as ineligible to be President.

Cruz is no less a natural born US citizen then I am, or John McCain. He was born to a US Citizen in another nation. I was born in Greece, yet I am a natural born citizen. Any who question his eligibility is no less a "birther" then those who go after Obama, and deserve the same derision.

 djones520 wrote:

Cruz is no less a natural born US citizen then I am, or John McCain. He was born to a US Citizen in another nation. I was born in Greece, yet I am a natural born citizen. Any who question his eligibility is no less a "birther" then those who go after Obama, and deserve the same derision.

That line of thinking is a nice way to dig at originalism, though.

"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," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky said in a statement.

That's like, 100% how it doesn't work, by dint of the SCOTUS being appointed and not elected. But sure, why not, Mitch. Or, if you'd prefer, the American people did have a voice in the selection of their next justice, by way of Barack Obama winning the Presidency. As John McCain once said, elections have consequences.

The more I think about it, the more I'm coming around to thinking that the GOP will be unable to block a new nominee until after the election. That's a really long time off.

 Ouze wrote:

"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," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky said in a statement.

That's like, 100% how it doesn't work, by dint of the SCOTUS being appointed and not elected. But sure, why not, Mitch. Or, if you'd prefer, the American people did have a voice in the selection of their next justice, by way of Barack Obama winning the Presidency. As John McCain once said, elections have consequences.

The more I think about it, the more I'm coming around to thinking that the GOP will be unable to block a new nominee until after the election. That's a really long time off.

Oh Mitch, you silly silly turtle. What a ridiculous statement.

 Ouze wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I'm coming around to thinking that the GOP will be unable to block a new nominee until after the election. That's a really long time off.

They can, but doing so would vindicate every single charge of obstructionism that the Democrats have made over the last 6 years.

Well, what do they have to lose? Their 12% approval rating?

 Ouze wrote:
Well, what do they have to lose? Their 12% approval rating?

I imagine many of them would gain a great deal for taking a stand against evil.

 dogma wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, what do they have to lose? Their 12% approval rating?

I imagine many of them would gain a great deal for taking a stand against evil.

I feel like doing so would just further polarize the country.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, what do they have to lose? Their 12% approval rating?

I imagine many of them would gain a great deal for taking a stand against evil.

I feel like doing so would just further polarize the country.

But what about The Base(TM), what can they do to prove to them that they oppose all Democrats?

It's an election year—let the public watch in realtime as the GOP obstructs a SCOTUS appointment for purely political purposes.

Apparently these kinds of articles are popping up all over social media. Hois body isn't even cold and people are arguing about it.

 djones520 wrote:
or John McCain.

I like Die Hard as much as the next guy but this doesn't make sense.

They are also already getting ready to impeach President Clinton.

For a body that gets so little work done, they are very good at getting future work done.