SC Justice Antonin Scalia has died

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ SC Justice Antonin Scalia has died
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Yeah, Snoopes has it mostly false.
http://www.snopes.com/obama-snubs-scalias-funeral/

And sounds like he spent most of the day going over nominees.
But, still, the POTUS should have been there at the funeral.
Feb 22, 2016 4:42pm
S

superman

Senior Member

3,582 posts
ptown_trojans_1;1782816 wrote:Yeah, Snoopes has it mostly false.
http://www.snopes.com/obama-snubs-scalias-funeral/

And sounds like he spent most of the day going over nominees.
But, still, the POTUS should have been there at the funeral.
When are people going to realize that Snopes is no more reliable than most other sites on the Internet.
Feb 22, 2016 7:37pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
superman;1782839 wrote:When are people going to realize that Snopes is no more reliable than most other sites on the Internet.
Cite?
Feb 22, 2016 7:38pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
And sounds like he spent most of the day going over nominees.
But, still, the POTUS should have been there at the funeral.
Yep, he was on the job and he's got plenty of photos to prove it! (unlike Benghazi).

He had to get that done on Saturday, because he had a tee time Sunday morning.
Feb 23, 2016 1:25pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Obama to nominate Merrick Garland to replace Scalia as SCJ.

Moderate liberal, I highly doubt the senate votes him in.
Mar 16, 2016 10:20am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
The senate already said they are not going to consider anyone this year. But as usual, obama does only what he wants to do.
Mar 16, 2016 10:34am
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
QuakerOats;1787124 wrote:The senate already said they are not going to do their job. But as usual, obama does his job.
fify
Mar 16, 2016 10:37am
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1787126 wrote:it should read "But as usual Obama does his job when it only benefits him or his party."
Mar 16, 2016 10:51am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1787126 wrote:fify

Maybe we should all donate a copy of the constitution to you so you can read it.
Mar 16, 2016 11:03am
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
QuakerOats;1787124 wrote:The senate already said they are not going to consider anyone this year. But as usual, obama does only what he wants to do.
So, he shouldn't have even tried to nominate someone at all?
Come on.

It is the President's job to nominate someone.
He has.
Now, it is in the Senate's court. And, they could very well not take up the nominee at all. They have that right. The same right the President, no matter the party or time of year, has to nominate someone.
Mar 16, 2016 11:16am
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
I don't know much about this, but from everything I'm reading, he seems to be very anti-2nd amendment. And that practically all republican senators will be voting against him because of this. Obama knows this but nominated him to say he's a moderate who's done a lot of public service and those evil republicans vetoed him.

Politics suck
Mar 16, 2016 11:23am
B

bigkahuna

Senior Member

4,454 posts
I find it funny that people are all up in arms about Obama nominating someone at this point of his presidency.
Mar 16, 2016 11:28am
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
SportsAndLady;1787147 wrote:I don't know much about this, but from everything I'm reading, he seems to be very anti-2nd amendment. And that practically all republican senators will be voting against him because of this. Obama knows this but nominated him to say he's a moderate who's done a lot of public service and those evil republicans vetoed him.

Politics suck
Politics suck, agree.
I would be careful I was were the R's.
This is a dangerous game to play. Let's say Trump is the nominee and Clinton absolutely destroys him. (Not a crazy thought given Trump's high negatives).
Clinton may want to appoint a more liberal judge and suddenly this guy seems like a good choice.

We could be in December with a lame duck Congress trying to approve this guy instead of settling for a Clinton nominee.
Because, the whole argument the R's are making is the next President should appoint the next judge. So, if that is the case, it is kinda hard for the R's to really turn down a Clinton nominee.
Mar 16, 2016 11:31am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1787126 wrote:fify
You mean like the Ds said they were going to do if either Bush POTUS nominated someone in their lame duck year?

I think the hearings and vote should happen, but just find it hilarious the hypocrisy that the liberals are showing.
Mar 16, 2016 11:37am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
The Senate should give him a fair hearing and vote him down.
Mar 16, 2016 11:39am
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
like_that;1787134 wrote:it should read "But as usual Obama does his job when it only benefits him or his party."
Probably. That wasn't the intent of QQ's message though which was omg I cant believe Obama is doing his job!!!
Mar 16, 2016 12:03pm
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
jmog;1787160 wrote:You mean like the Ds said they were going to do if either Bush POTUS nominated someone in their lame duck year?

I think the hearings and vote should happen, but just find it hilarious the hypocrisy that the liberals are showing.
The same hypocrisy that certain conservatives are showing. Like Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, who said that it should wait until the new president is in office, but was cool with approving Reagan's pick during his final year. It's a politics thing, not a liberal or conservative thing.
Mar 16, 2016 12:07pm
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1787171 wrote:Probably. That wasn't the intent of QQ's message though which was omg I cant believe Obama is doing his job!!!
If he's not doing his job, QQ will be the first to bitch about it. If he is trying to do his job, QQ will be the first to bitch about it. It's the life of a blindly partisan nutjob. Sort of entertaining to watch, in the same manner a poorly choreographed cat-fight on Jerry Springer is.
Mar 16, 2016 12:08pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Heretic;1787173 wrote:The same hypocrisy that certain conservatives are showing. Like Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, who said that it should wait until the new president is in office, but was cool with approving Reagan's pick during his final year. It's a politics thing, not a liberal or conservative thing.
I don't believe I said it wasn't. I agree that the Rs in this case are just as bad as the Ds in the past.
Mar 16, 2016 1:19pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Nate Silver on the R's best play may be to at least consider this guy.
If Clinton wins, the next appointment could be more liberal and younger, and with Trump, you have no idea what he will do.
There is also the possibility that the Senate goes Blue.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-could-do-a-lot-worse-than-merrick-garland-under-president-clinton-or-president-trump/
Mar 16, 2016 4:03pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
ptown_trojans_1;1787231 wrote:Nate Silver on the R's best play may be to at least consider this guy.
If Clinton wins, the next appointment could be more liberal and younger, and with Trump, you have no idea what he will do.
There is also the possibility that the Senate goes Blue.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-could-do-a-lot-worse-than-merrick-garland-under-president-clinton-or-president-trump/
While attempting to sell the "moderate" tag, this justice is on record as being against the Heller decision. Not much is more far left than the idea of undoing settled law with respect to one of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
Mar 16, 2016 4:13pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
queencitybuckeye;1787234 wrote:While attempting to sell the "moderate" tag, this justice is on record as being against the Heller decision. Not much is more far left than the idea of undoing settled law with respect to one of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
If he is that far left, then the committee should vote him down.
That happens, Obama would be forced to either withdraw his name, put forth another one, try and rush someone or, could just simply agree with the R's and accept that one will not be confirmed before he leaves.

But, again, the next person put forth could be more liberal and younger.
Mar 16, 2016 4:24pm