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.

4 for $23

Apparently however you can buy 2 for $12 at the stands on the "Thank you" tour.




T-shirts are $35.

Gotta pay for the private security force somehow huh ?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For four years.

Such pessimism. Surely Trump will make it the full eight without being impeached!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For four years.

Such pessimism. Surely Trump will make it the full eight without being impeached!

I don't know, and I genuinely don't wish anyone...even Trump...bad, but his junk food diet combined with the stress of the office has me concerned...

Pouncey wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Personally I find your country's obsession with "State's Rights" to be a bizarre and antiquated notion that's been holding your country back for centuries.

So bizarre and antiquated that the European Union is basically trying to do the same thing, but with countries instead of states. Except they appoint a president of the European Council instead of electing him. I wonder if a vote in the EU to appoint one if they chose to do it that way would wind up like the US elections, where each "state" votes and the states are tallied.

No doubt in the 23rd century, if the EU is still around, people then will question that same 200+ year old system that doesn't make sense anymore.

You know, not every person feels the need to change something simply to change it. The 1911A1 is still in production. That's over 100 years that a firearm design has seen steady production. There have been TONS of innovations made in firearm technology, but the 1911 is still a staple of gun design. Because it works. If something functions adequately, I don't see the reason to change it unless something PATENTLY better shows up. And trashing state sovereignty for union control isn't patently better, to me at least. But you ARE Canadian so maybe you just don't get it.

About those prison sentences that were commuted....

One of those guys is from a town neighboring mine. He was caught in the manufacture and distribution of meth, and quite a good amount of it. He all ready had a history of run-ins with the law. He was all ready known for domestic violence, and he was supplying to minors.

Say what you will about the pot heads that got commuted sentences, this piece of human waste needed to stay in jail. Total Presidential failure in my opinion.

Got a name?

 Just Tony wrote:
And trashing state sovereignty for union control isn't patently better, to me at least. But you ARE Canadian so maybe you just don't get it.

You're right.

We have provinces and territories without the bizarre fixation on representing them in the election of our Prime Minister. Quebec wanted more representation in the federal government, so the Bloc Quebecois became a thing and its aim was purely to represent Quebec's interests in the federal government.

Really, I live in a country with something similar to US states, but we don't feel the need to elect our federal government under the assumption that the provinces themselves need a say in the matter.

Americans are weird though.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
And trashing state sovereignty for union control isn't patently better, to me at least. But you ARE Canadian so maybe you just don't get it.

You're right.

We have provinces and territories without the bizarre fixation on representing them in the election of our Prime Minister. Quebec wanted more representation in the federal government, so the Bloc Quebecois became a thing and its aim was purely to represent Quebec's interests in the federal government.

Really, I live in a country with something similar to US states, but we don't feel the need to elect our federal government under the assumption that the provinces themselves need a say in the matter.

Americans are weird though.

On the positive we have the Bill of Rights. You have...oh sorry you don't have anything.

 Just Tony wrote:
You know, not every person feels the need to change something simply to change it. The 1911A1 is still in production. That's over 100 years that a firearm design has seen steady production. There have been TONS of innovations made in firearm technology, but the 1911 is still a staple of gun design. Because it works. If something functions adequately, I don't see the reason to change it unless something PATENTLY better shows up. And trashing state sovereignty for union control isn't patently better, to me at least. But you ARE Canadian so maybe you just don't get it.

The M2 would've been a better example than the 1911 pistol, as it is so perfectly designed for what it does that it is still in operation.

The Great White Shark would've been another decent example. Particularly considering that even though they're nearly perfect and have gone without evolutionary changes for millions of years, humans are causing their extinction without really making a serious effort due to our technology being completely overpowered cheese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
And trashing state sovereignty for union control isn't patently better, to me at least. But you ARE Canadian so maybe you just don't get it.

You're right.

We have provinces and territories without the bizarre fixation on representing them in the election of our Prime Minister. Quebec wanted more representation in the federal government, so the Bloc Quebecois became a thing and its aim was purely to represent Quebec's interests in the federal government.

Really, I live in a country with something similar to US states, but we don't feel the need to elect our federal government under the assumption that the provinces themselves need a say in the matter.

Americans are weird though.

On the positive we have the Bill of Rights. You have...oh sorry you don't have anything.

You do know we have a constitution too, right?

So they directly elect the PM in Canada? That's fascinating, I had assumed he'd just be the leader of the party, in a sense unelected by the people (outside of their seat and party room that is) just like ours is over here.

Also, cool it on the "X are weird". You're toeing lines which shouldn't be toed this past bit

 motyak wrote:
So they directly elect the PM in Canada? That's fascinating, I had assumed he'd just be the leader of the party, in a sense unelected by the people (outside of their seat and party room that is) just like ours is over here.

Yeah, but the PM has to be elected in his/her own riding like any other Member of Parliament. If the ruling party's leader fails to be elected in his/her own riding, what happens is that another MP from the ruling party volunteers to give up his/her position, and a byelection is done in that riding to see if the PM is elected there instead.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
You know, not every person feels the need to change something simply to change it. The 1911A1 is still in production. That's over 100 years that a firearm design has seen steady production. There have been TONS of innovations made in firearm technology, but the 1911 is still a staple of gun design. Because it works. If something functions adequately, I don't see the reason to change it unless something PATENTLY better shows up. And trashing state sovereignty for union control isn't patently better, to me at least. But you ARE Canadian so maybe you just don't get it.

The M2 would've been a better example than the 1911 pistol, as it is so perfectly designed for what it does that it is still in operation.

The Great White Shark would've been another decent example. Particularly considering that even though they're nearly perfect and have gone without evolutionary changes for millions of years, humans are causing their extinction without really making a serious effort due to our technology being completely overpowered cheese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
And trashing state sovereignty for union control isn't patently better, to me at least. But you ARE Canadian so maybe you just don't get it.

You're right.

We have provinces and territories without the bizarre fixation on representing them in the election of our Prime Minister. Quebec wanted more representation in the federal government, so the Bloc Quebecois became a thing and its aim was purely to represent Quebec's interests in the federal government.

Really, I live in a country with something similar to US states, but we don't feel the need to elect our federal government under the assumption that the provinces themselves need a say in the matter.

Americans are weird though.

On the positive we have the Bill of Rights. You have...oh sorry you don't have anything.

You do know we have a constitution too, right?

But you don't have a Bill of Rights. You have no absolute right to free speech under your Constitution.*


*I could be thinking of the British in which case I will just make fun of the yards thick snowfalls you get. I had a Petroleum engineer send me pics of a literal river of snow 5 meters thick moving under a freeway. It was crazy. Another had a pic photobombed by a polar bear which caused a "rapid evac from the area."

I think your ridings are our seats from the sounds of it. The point of my post is that you aren't generally electing a PM with your elections in Canada, not like they do in the US for pres. Rather, you're voting in a party usually. You should be voting for members who will work for your seat, but so many people don't pay attention to who they have on offer.

 Pouncey wrote:
The M2 would've been a better example than the 1911 pistol, as it is so perfectly designed for what it does that it is still in operation.

The Great White Shark would've been another decent example. Particularly considering that even though they're nearly perfect and have gone without evolutionary changes for millions of years, humans are causing their extinction without really making a serious effort due to our technology being completely overpowered cheese.

The M2 is a decent example, but there are service members still packing 1911s. When I was in Iraq, every SF, Spec Ops, or OGA I came across had a govt. issue 1911. They had their pick of the entire US arsenal and chose the 1911. THAT is why I chose that as an example.


And I don't see how animal rights activism has anything to do with anything going in in this thread, let alone this particular strain of conversation. Do Great Whites vote? Are Great Whites a man-made construct? I, for one, DO love the Great White Shark. They bite surfers in half, and that is a noble cause.

 motyak wrote:
I think your ridings are our seats from the sounds of it. The point of my post is that you aren't generally electing a PM with your elections in Canada, not like they do in the US for pres. Rather, you're voting in a party usually. You should be voting for members who will work for your seat, but so many people don't pay attention to who they have on offer.

Voting for a party did you say?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
You know, not every person feels the need to change something simply to change it. The 1911A1 is still in production. That's over 100 years that a firearm design has seen steady production. There have been TONS of innovations made in firearm technology, but the 1911 is still a staple of gun design. Because it works. If something functions adequately, I don't see the reason to change it unless something PATENTLY better shows up. And trashing state sovereignty for union control isn't patently better, to me at least. But you ARE Canadian so maybe you just don't get it.

The M2 would've been a better example than the 1911 pistol, as it is so perfectly designed for what it does that it is still in operation.

The Great White Shark would've been another decent example. Particularly considering that even though they're nearly perfect and have gone without evolutionary changes for millions of years, humans are causing their extinction without really making a serious effort due to our technology being completely overpowered cheese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
And trashing state sovereignty for union control isn't patently better, to me at least. But you ARE Canadian so maybe you just don't get it.

You're right.

We have provinces and territories without the bizarre fixation on representing them in the election of our Prime Minister. Quebec wanted more representation in the federal government, so the Bloc Quebecois became a thing and its aim was purely to represent Quebec's interests in the federal government.

Really, I live in a country with something similar to US states, but we don't feel the need to elect our federal government under the assumption that the provinces themselves need a say in the matter.

Americans are weird though.

On the positive we have the Bill of Rights. You have...oh sorry you don't have anything.

You do know we have a constitution too, right?

But you don't have a Bill of Rights. You have no absolute right to free speech under your Constitution.*


*I could be thinking of the British in which case I will just make fun of the yards thick snowfalls you get.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms guarantees:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

So, since the Freedom of speech would be under B (specifically expression)...

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Seb... that's politics.

You've got BOTH sides basically saying "no... YOU move!".

But go ahead... it's Republicans that's practicing destructive politics.

Gimme a fricking break Seb and quite ignoring the bad gak that Democrats has done.

And here you are completely ignoring the argument I made, again, and then just claiming without example that Democrats have also done the same.

You refuse to recognise that the strategies employed by Republicans are outside or normal politics, and you fail to produce a single example of Democrats attempting the same. But you will continue to pretend it is true, because the alternative is finally acknowledge that Republicans really have been worse in the last couple of decades.

Excuse moi?

Ever heard of Borking?

Look up Miguel Estrada.

Or better yet, acknowledge that the Democrats threatened to do the same thing.

Do you recognize those strategies?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Seb... that's politics.

You've got BOTH sides basically saying "no... YOU move!".

But go ahead... it's Republicans that's practicing destructive politics.

Gimme a fricking break Seb and quite ignoring the bad gak that Democrats has done.

And here you are completely ignoring the argument I made, again...

At some point, you have to realize you're the problem by repeatedly providing the other half of these interactions. It's been years. He's not going to stop his behaviors. You're never going to provide the magical coherent argument that works, because you've already tried a thousand times. This won't be the time Lucy doesn't yank the football away, Charlie, while screaming gibberish about Vox\Slate\MSNBC.

]
The beatings will continue until morale is improved!

Oh, I got schooled from the Big Smoke! Excellent. I shall have to retaliate against the Canucks in the office about their poor life decisions leading them to be exiled to Texas muahahah!

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Centrist?

Garland sided with the liberals justices in the Court of Appeals in the Heller case... he'd be the deciding vote to overturn Heller.

Garland would side with the liberal justices to overturn Citizen United.

A jurist who'd be the deciding vote to neuter the 1st & 2nd amendent.
he's a hair to the right of Ginsburg.... but, he'd be voting with the liberal jurist at the SC.

I don't think you understand what "centrist" means. It does not mean "will not vote with the liberal side on any cases". It does not mean "will not vote with the liberal side on this issue I care about". The consensus was that Garland is a relatively centrist "compromise" pick compared to the left-wing alternatives Obama could have nominated. Clearly he wasn't going to nominate the next Scalia, but he didn't nominate someone to the left of any of the existing justices.

Turtle did exactly what he was supposed to do. Yes, it was a gamble as HRC was the heavy favorite... but, he stuck his neck out for his constituents.

No, he broke the system with the same "obstruct at all costs" tactics the republican party has been using. He didn't say "this pick in particular is too extreme and must be opposed at all cost", the republican party openly said "Obama is not allowed to nominate a justice". IOW, they shut down a basic function of government because it wasn't 100% under their control.

Clearly, you don't understand the ideological makeup of Garland:


Furthermore, it is absolutely within the Senate's purview to conduct their "Advise & Consent" as they see fit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
At some point, you have to realize you're the problem by repeatedly providing the other half of these interactions. It's been years. He's not going to stop his behaviors. You're never going to provide the magical coherent argument that works, because you've already tried a thousand times. This won't be the time Lucy doesn't yank the football away, Charlie, while screaming gibberish about Vox\Slate\MSNBC.

Though IMO there's some value in doing it for the sake of anyone reading the thread. Whembly will probably never get it, but as long as people keep pointing out how (almost) everything he posts is wrong nobody is going to be persuaded by his arguments. It's a tedious slog sometimes, but I don't think he should be able to speak unopposed.

Nice rose colored glasses buddy.

 motyak wrote:
I think your ridings are our seats from the sounds of it. The point of my post is that you aren't generally electing a PM with your elections in Canada, not like they do in the US for pres. Rather, you're voting in a party usually. You should be voting for members who will work for your seat, but so many people don't pay attention to who they have on offer.

A riding is essentially a seat in the House of Commons, whose representative is directly elected in a federal election by the constituents of that particular geographical location.

So basically, the entire country doesn't get to vote for the PM, only the constituents of the particular riding the party's leader is running in. I don't think our parties' leaders even compete directly with each other in an election most of the time, since they just run in different ridings.

It's also worth noting, though, that our Prime Minister is not a branch of the government in and of him/herself. We don't really have an "Executive Branch" of the government like the US does.

As for voting for a party, some people do that. I know I do. My mom on the other hand, loves the idea of the MP she elects representing her personally, so she does a lot of research into the individual candidates running in her riding to see which individual she'd rather be represented by.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
The M2 would've been a better example than the 1911 pistol, as it is so perfectly designed for what it does that it is still in operation.

The Great White Shark would've been another decent example. Particularly considering that even though they're nearly perfect and have gone without evolutionary changes for millions of years, humans are causing their extinction without really making a serious effort due to our technology being completely overpowered cheese.

The M2 is a decent example, but there are service members still packing 1911s. When I was in Iraq, every SF, Spec Ops, or OGA I came across had a govt. issue 1911. They had their pick of the entire US arsenal and chose the 1911. THAT is why I chose that as an example.

The M2 is still commonly in service too. IIRC it's the machine gun on Abrams tanks and it's commonly mounted on Humvees.

And I don't see how animal rights activism has anything to do with anything going in in this thread, let alone this particular strain of conversation. Do Great Whites vote? Are Great Whites a man-made construct? I, for one, DO love the Great White Shark. They bite surfers in half, and that is a noble cause.

I didn't say anything about animal rights whatsoever. It was just an example of a perfectly-suited creature to its environment being nearly wiped out by a more modern species with a superior method of doing things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
*I could be thinking of the British in which case I will just make fun of the yards thick snowfalls you get. I had a Petroleum engineer send me pics of a literal river of snow 5 meters thick moving under a freeway. It was crazy. Another had a pic photobombed by a polar bear which caused a "rapid evac from the area."

My partner lives near the Great Lakes, in Michigan, and he gets heavier snowfalls than I do.

Also, if you're encountering polar bears, you're so far north that you're in the "mostly uninhabited" parts of Canada.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Centrist?

Turtle did exactly what he was supposed to do. Yes, it was a gamble as HRC was the heavy favorite... but, he stuck his neck out for his constituents.

No, he broke the system with the same "obstruct at all costs" tactics the republican party has been using. He didn't say "this pick in particular is too extreme and must be opposed at all cost", the republican party openly said "Obama is not allowed to nominate a justice". IOW, they shut down a basic function of government because it wasn't 100% under their control.

But worst of all they were rewarded for doing it. Therefore, rewarding those behaviors in politics will lead to more of those destructive behaviors. We can expect more of the same, and that is the worst part.

 whembly wrote:
Centrist?

Yes he is.

Garland sided with the liberals justices in the Court of Appeals in the Heller case... he'd be the deciding vote to overturn Heller.

Seriously, how hard is it to look this up?

The Heller case is the Supreme Court's affirmation of Garland's previous ruling (a unanimous ruling of Garland's court).

He literally came to the same decision.

Garland would side with the liberal justices to overturn Citizen United.

That might make a dull plot for a fiction novel, but it's just supposition. Garland has upheld Citizens United when it came before him in the court.

A jurist who'd be the deciding vote to neuter the 1st & 2nd amendent.

Garland has taken rather liberal views of religious rights (and by liberal I mean he's gone out of his way to affirm them even when he didn't have to ruling that the government can't make someone work on Sunday when it isn't vital to the job, and that the state can't deny access to communion wine to prisoners), and Heller was his case before it was the Supreme Court's and he ruled in favor of repealing the ban.

I don't think you understand what "centrist" means

I think some people have gone so far to the right they have no idea where the center is anymore. Garland is about as center as it gets. By all accounts he's pro-Gun, liberal on First Amendment Rights (as in he applies the first broadly) and reserved on Election Finance Reform, pro-government transparency but not blind to security concerns. The most leftist thing about him is that he's very differential to government regulations, and seems unlikely to overturn regulatory decisions without a really good argument for why. And aren't conservatives the ones always complaining about judges "legislating from the bench?" He's the definition of a centrist, and saying he isn't comprises a complete lack of perspective.

Ah yes, Bork. When the Democratic Party rejected any nomination out of hand and the Ted Kennedy speech in the Senate debate on his nomination never happened. Justice Kennedy also wasn't nominated by the same President and unanimously accepted by the Senate. In fact, that seat is still empty to this very day!

This is why we think you're a partisan hack whembly. Your own example proves our point and yet you're sticking your fingers in your ears.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Centrist?

Yes he is.

Really?

Garland sided with the liberals justices in the Court of Appeals in the Heller case... he'd be the deciding vote to overturn Heller.

Seriously, how hard is it to look this up?

The Heller case is the Supreme Court's affirmation of Garland's previous ruling (a unanimous ruling of Garland's court).

He literally came to the same decision.

He literally did NOT.

As DC Appellate Judge, he sided with the District government by voting for a do-over in dissent that invalidated the D.C. handgun ban.

Garland would side with the liberal justices to overturn Citizen United.

That might make a dull plot for a fiction novel, but it's just supposition. Garland has upheld Citizens United when it came before him in the court.

Indeed, but it's one of the hot topics in our time and I'm convinced that Obama has gotten assurance how Garland would've ruled on the SC bench.

A jurist who'd be the deciding vote to neuter the 1st & 2nd amendent.

Garland has taken rather liberal views of religious rights (and by liberal I mean he's gone out of his way to affirm them even when he didn't have to ruling that the government can't make someone work on Sunday when it isn't vital to the job, and that the state can't deny access to communion wine to prisoners),

This is fine.

and Heller was his case before it was the Supreme Court's and he ruled in favor of repealing the ban.

2nd Amendment issues have come before Garland, at least four times. He voted anti-gun every time...
Garland was one of 4 jurist to rehear the case AFTER the initial 3 panel judges struck down the DC ban.

In another case where Seger v Gonzales, which was an anti-gun ruling, Garland voted AGAINST a re-hearing.

Garland voted to allow prosecutors to NOT prove that the person knew they were breaking the law. As in, mens rea isn't required.

Garland also voted to allow FBI to retain background check informations, which would build a registry db, that Congress has expressed forbidden.

He's not an extremist and he's absolutely qualified.

However, the SCoTUS is a political creature (unfortunately... I wish we could force textualist interpreter) and there was a desire to prevent Obama from shifting the Court's ideological balance.

I don't think you understand what "centrist" means

I think some people have gone so far to the right they have no idea where the center is anymore. Garland is about as center as it gets. By all accounts he's pro-Gun, liberal on First Amendment Rights (as in he applies the first broadly) and reserved on Election Finance Reform, pro-government transparency but not blind to security concerns. The most leftist thing about him is that he's very differential to government regulations, and seems unlikely to overturn regulatory decisions without a really good argument for why. And aren't conservatives the ones always complaining about judges "legislating from the bench?" He's the definition of a centrist, and saying he isn't comprises a complete lack of perspective.

I'm going to keep shoving this:


He's not a centrist.

You're fooling yourself if you really think Obama would nominate someone who hasn't personally/privately assured him how he'd vote on certain topics.

So would Canada be willing to annex Washington, California, Oregon and New England down to New York?

The USA is more so now the Coasts and the Interior, where the Interior now calls the shots even though they have less people

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Ah yes, Bork. When the Democratic Party rejected any nomination out of hand and the Ted Kennedy speech in the Senate debate on his nomination never happened. Justice Kennedy also wasn't nominated by the same President and unanimously accepted by the Senate. In fact, that seat is still empty to this very day!

This is why we think you're a partisan hack whembly. Your own example proves our point and yet you're sticking your fingers in your ears.

So why didn't Obama re-nominate a more appealing jurist? One that the duly elected Senators would consent?

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Ah yes, Bork. When the Democratic Party rejected any nomination out of hand and the Ted Kennedy speech in the Senate debate on his nomination never happened. Justice Kennedy also wasn't nominated by the same President and unanimously accepted by the Senate. In fact, that seat is still empty to this very day!

This is why we think you're a partisan hack whembly. Your own example proves our point and yet you're sticking your fingers in your ears.

So why didn't Obama re-nominate a more appealing jurist? One that the duly elected Senators would consent?

Who would then get blocked by "we will block anything Obama proposes" republicans.

Hell they are so much "we block everything" they just might accidentally block candinate republicans would put forward if Obama would have proposed him!

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So would Canada be willing to annex Washington, California, Oregon and New England down to New York?

The USA is more so now the Coasts and the Interior, where the Interior now calls the shots even though they have less people

Doubtful.

For one thing, our current PM is very much into respecting the sovereignty of our neighbours on Earth.

For another, the US military is way too god damned powerful for anyone to annex any part of the USA.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Ah yes, Bork. When the Democratic Party rejected any nomination out of hand and the Ted Kennedy speech in the Senate debate on his nomination never happened. Justice Kennedy also wasn't nominated by the same President and unanimously accepted by the Senate. In fact, that seat is still empty to this very day!

This is why we think you're a partisan hack whembly. Your own example proves our point and yet you're sticking your fingers in your ears.

So why didn't Obama re-nominate a more appealing jurist? One that the duly elected Senators would consent?

Why nominate a second candidate when the Senate has not even held a single hearing on the first guy?
Why nominate a second candidate when the GOP leadership told the majority of people who voted in 2012 to feth off?
Why nominate a second candidate when the GOo leadership already stated that they will not entertain anybody you nominate because presidential terms only last 3 years for SCOTUS nomination purposes?

tneva82 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Ah yes, Bork. When the Democratic Party rejected any nomination out of hand and the Ted Kennedy speech in the Senate debate on his nomination never happened. Justice Kennedy also wasn't nominated by the same President and unanimously accepted by the Senate. In fact, that seat is still empty to this very day!

This is why we think you're a partisan hack whembly. Your own example proves our point and yet you're sticking your fingers in your ears.

So why didn't Obama re-nominate a more appealing jurist? One that the duly elected Senators would consent?

Who would then get blocked by "we will block anything Obama proposes" republicans.

Hell they are so much "we block everything" they just might accidentally block candinate republicans would put forward if Obama would have proposed him!

Actually, the Senate made it a campaign issue, by exercising their 'Advise' authority and let the voters have a say as who's going to pick the next SC jurist.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Ah yes, Bork. When the Democratic Party rejected any nomination out of hand and the Ted Kennedy speech in the Senate debate on his nomination never happened. Justice Kennedy also wasn't nominated by the same President and unanimously accepted by the Senate. In fact, that seat is still empty to this very day!

This is why we think you're a partisan hack whembly. Your own example proves our point and yet you're sticking your fingers in your ears.

So why didn't Obama re-nominate a more appealing jurist? One that the duly elected Senators would consent?

Why nominate a second candidate when the Senate has not even held a single hearing on the first guy?

Because Garland was an unacceptable nomination.

Why nominate a second candidate when the GOP leadership told the majority of people who voted in 2012 to feth off?

What about the people who voted for the Senators? feth them too?

Why nominate a second candidate when the GOo leadership already stated that they will not entertain anybody you nominate because presidential terms only last 3 years for SCOTUS nomination purposes?

You mean, the same thing that Joe Biden once advocated.... right?

Had Obama nominated a Scalia-clone, you think the GOP leadership would block that? If you do, you're part of the problem.

All Obama had to do, was the rescind the Garland nomination and put someone up that's more agreeable for the Senate. Instead, it became a campaign issue... something that Obama & Crew has obviously wargamed, knowing that if the GOP blocked Garland, in their mind, HRC would pick someone further to the left of Garland.

It was a win-win at the time.

They just didn't forsee Drumpf winning (neither did I either )