DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on March 16, 2016, 07:45:40 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/opinions/merrick-garland-supreme-court-obama-toobin/index.html
This is no replacement for Alito, but he is not as bad as he could be.
For one thing he is already over Sixty, so the damage is bounded.
For another he has real experience as a prosecutor of desperate and notorious crimes.
If I were a Senator I would not make this appointment easy, there are concessions to be wrung from the administration.
But I would definitely give a real consideration to this guy.
Odds do not favor President Kasich ever getting to make a nomination.
President Clinton would certainly nominate judges too liberal to make a living as anything else but a justice.
And President Trump will nominate Judge Roy Bean.
Consider the odds that the next nominee will not be desirable or qualified or reasonable, a good case can be made for accepting the best that Obama would ever give.
-
http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/merrick-garland-position-view-gun-control-second-2nd-amendment-history-supreme-court-nominee-obama/
Belay my last.
Reconsider and regret.
Never mind.
-
I would opine that the last "legacy" item Obama would want to be remembered for in his goal of "fundamentally transforming the United States", is what I would claim as being guns and the 2nd amendment. He got his Obamination Care. He gutted the Welfare system, in order to get as many people hooked onto Government services as he possibly could. He used executive orders whenever congress didn't bow to his leftiest agenda.....unless it was brought up in a lawsuit, at which time those orders were halted.
He's pushing executive orders on guns that we already have in law, proclaiming loopholes that don't exist, and is apparently on track to make purchasing ammunition much harder. What he desperately needs is a swing vote on the Supreme court to side with the anti-2nd amendment brigade. Everything I hear about Garland is that he's very nice, civil, & intelligent person, while his politics, based on his judicial decisions, provide him the label of center-left, as in not a Conservative in any way, a left leaning moderate at best. And his positions on gun control is exactly what Obama is looking for
This is very shrewd politics, on Obama's part. At any other juncture, this would likely be an acceptable nominee. This isn't just any other time in history. The left is salivating at what might be another liberal for the Court, which would "fundamentally change" the Supreme Court, where Justice Kennedy is no longer the swing vote. At any other time, this nominee could be considered acceptable. This is not that time
However.....if Trump or Cruz doesn't win the WH come Nov, Clinton will have the perceived green light to nominate a 29year old hard core liberal law student, who's bisexual. And the GOP is going to be in the position of having to give Clinton her pick, having made it clear that the next president should be making the open SCOTUS pick
-
Yes.
If this guy did not think unconstitutional the gun laws of Washington DC , then what sort of gun law would be?
-
Exactly
-
No one is replacing the Fascist scumbag Alito. He is still alive. The one that is being replaced is the Fascist Scumbag Altarboy Scalia. Jeez, you oughta know that. It is time for that asshole McConnell to realize that We the People elected Obama not once but twice, and were aware that he was supposed to appoint the Justices, not the guy who is elected after him.
The GOP will pay the price for these assholes not doing their job. Watch and see.
-
We all knew what Plane meant, commie bastard xo ::) And we all see the price that the Dems payed for them pulling the same thing, they're condeming the GOP for
-
The GOP is going to lose because of this.
And I hope they lose SO BIG that the next Judge will be none other than Barack Obama himself!
-
No, this isn't what's going to lose the GOP the election. Running a crappy campaign against the incompotent corrupt Clinton will however
-
Trump will get an even lower percentage of Hispanics than Romney did, and there are more Hispanic voters now than there were then.
-
Whoops.
I must have been tired.
-
Trump will get an even lower percentage of Hispanics than Romney did, and there are more Hispanic voters now than there were then.
Strange how I'm hearing just the opposite. And even more interesting Trump is expected to get upwards of 20+% of the black vote, specifically because of his hard position on illegal immigration
-
Ooooh! 20%!!!
Trump makes up shit.
He is not primarily a businessman or a developer. He is a promoter, and not an honest one, as we can easily see by the way he bilked thousands of poor saps with his bogus "University" He claims that 98% of them said they were "satisfied". Not even Apple fanatics clam to be 98% satisfied. No one gets 98% but Kim Jong Un.
-
Whatever Trump "makes up", Clinton exponentially "trumps" that. And the best part is, most of the electorate knows that
-
They know nothing of the sort. Over half the Republicans won't vote for Trump. Most of this country are not sicko Hillaryhaters like you, sirs.
-
I'm one of those that cares little for Trump...but given the alternative, he gets my vote. Same with millions more like me, not to mention the disatisfied union worker or democrat that can't stomach the idea of another Clinton......especially with all her dishonest, corrupt baggage, she brings to the table
-
Trump is not my idea of the best, but HRC is my idea of the worst.
I can certainly imagine a better choice , but it doesn't seem like I am getting one.
-
Sad, isn't it. A pundit made a great analogy the other day. This was a 2 foot gimmee for the GOP this coming Nov, given who their front runner was, and the policies of Obama that she was going to continue, and instead of making the putt, the GOP pulls out a driver and hits the ball into the lake
-
The Republican'ts have no one to blame but themselves. They have been exceedingly stupid ever since they used dogwhistle racism and the "Southern Strategy" and now their stupidity has made them the Stupid Party for sure.
Hillary will make a GREAT president. and watching Trumpf lose and take the whole Stupid Party down with him will be a Glorious day indeed.
-
If you are hearing the Dog Whistle ,..
You are the Dog.
-
That is bullshit and you know it is bullshit.
Busing, the War on Drugs, the failure to attempt to arrest the murderers of the Mississippi Burning case for Reagan's two terms were all dogwhistle racism.
The dogs were the racists. the fools who claim that the Stars and Bars is their "proud heritage"
Fuck 'em and the bull they rode in on.
-
Could you tell me how Busing is an exploitation of racism?
-
The Republican'ts have no one to blame but themselves.
That's basically what I've been saying all along. Not following thru with what they campaigned on, and elected to in overwhelming landslide majorities, created the credible impression that DC could no longer be trusted to do what they said they'd do....that the electorate had to look outside DC......and that's the creation of Trump phenomenon, that the GOP can credibly be blamed for. It's not rocket science
-
The Republican'ts have no one to blame but themselves.
That's basically what I've been saying all along. ........................
Yes, I can go along with this as well.
-
What was the result of busing?
Students attended schools in their own segregated communities. Busing meant that White kids would (gasp!) be forced to attend schools with Blacks. Black students would be bused from their homes in "colored town" to schools near the country club, or even worse, White students would be bused from their posh neighborhoods to the ghetto. Of course, it also meant that money would be spend on buses, drivers, fuel and such, rather than school supplies.
-
What the frell are you blathering about? How is this anything to do wirh the Trump phenomenon?
-
I was answering Plane's question.
The campaign against busing was essentially racist.
-
And rhe support for black only proms isn't?
-
I have not heard of any Black people requesting exclusively Black proms in Florida. The purpose of an integrated school is to have an integrated society. If the White students and the Black students were to both want and requewst separate proms, because they like different music or something, then that would not be racist any more than nightclubs that cater to Blacks by playing rap & hiphop and to Whites by playing country western or square dancing or whatever, that would be a matter of choice. If both proms were open to anyone who wanted to attend regardless of race, then that would not be racist at all.
Separate proms is not any sort of contentious issue in this country. That is the sort of crap they blather about on ratbag rightwing radio. NOT a real issue. This is just a rare occurrence in tiny hick towns in Alabama and Mississippi.
The tradition was to have separate school districts for Whites and Black, and to support them with property taxes from the segregated communities in which they were located. This resulted in Black schools that got about a third as much financial support as White schools.
The campaign against busing was a way of maintaining separate and usually unequal schools.
The main purpose of a school is education, not dances and parties.
-
Not talking about Florida in general, as you weren't speaking of buses specifically in Florida either. The point being, all across this country there's a growing push...BY BLACK ACTIVISTS....supporting Black only events & organizations. So, how is that NOT racist, in the same vane as segregating blacks back in the era when Democrats supported wide spread bus segregation? You realize it doesn't require the parameters of "contentious" to make something racist.
-
I think Obama gave the GOP a gift with Garland. The choice could have been so much worse. And the fact remains that the GOP really doesn't have a leg to stand on with their refusal to even hold hearings on the nomination. There is no election bye year in either the appointment powers or the advise and consent powers. I am stoically looking at Garland as not Scalia's replacement though that is who he is replacing but a premature replacement of the perennial swingvoter Kennedy.
I understand that the GOP wants to show the base they are ever vigilant in protecting the highest court in the land by limiting the number of activist judges to the bench but they can't just ignore the constitution simply because Scalia died when he did.
-
The Republican'ts have no one to blame but themselves. They have been ......
That is bullshit and you know it is bullshit.
Busing, the War on Drugs, the failure to attempt to arrest the murderers of the Mississippi Burning case for Reagan's two terms were all dogwhistle racism.
Could you tell me how Busing is an exploitation of racism?
What was the result of busing?
Students attended schools in their own segregated communities. Busing meant that White kids would (gasp!) be forced to attend schools with Blacks. Black students would be bused from their homes in "colored town" to schools near the country club, or even worse, White students would be bused from their posh neighborhoods to the ghetto. Of course, it also meant that money would be spend on buses, drivers, fuel and such, rather than school supplies.
And the opposition to busing was exclusively Republican when?
-
I think Obama gave the GOP a gift with Garland. The choice could have been so much worse. And the fact remains that the GOP really doesn't have a leg to stand on with their refusal to even hold hearings on the nomination. There is no election bye year in either the appointment powers or the advise and consent powers. I am stoically looking at Garland as not Scalia's replacement though that is who he is replacing but a premature replacement of the perennial swingvoter Kennedy.
I understand that the GOP wants to show the base they are ever vigilant in protecting the highest court in the land by limiting the number of activist judges to the bench but they can't just ignore the constitution simply because Scalia died when he did.
Yes , but the power of consent more than just implies that approval may be withheld.
I think the Senate is within its rights , but they are playing the odds wrong.
Of Cruz, Clinton , Trump or Sanders , which is liable to nominate anyone that is better?
I think you are right and Garland can be considered a good bird in the hand.
Unfortunately we are loosing our second amendment right in the process, and the rest of the rights soon after that.
Just what is "moderation " in this context?
-
Yes they may disapprove nominees until the clock runs out. I think it a costly card to play.
-
I agree.
There is a lot of potential for embarrassment when President Trump nominates Judge Roy Bean, or President Clinton nominates Judge Che Guevara. At that point Judge Garland will no longer be available , and neither will anyone else remotely, reasonably good....
The basic problem seems to be that we rely on the SCOTUS too much. These appointments are very political because the supreme court has too much power and might use it too much, causing the party and individual agendas of the rest of the government to be frustrated, or accelerated.
This promises to become a major issue of the Presidential race, so it is a political question.
-
Yes it will become a major issue in the Presidential Campaign and it doesn't need to be. And more importantly it shifts the focus away from Hillary and on to the GOP Senate which could change hands if enough safe seats become unsafe.
-
Why should there be such a thing as a "safe seat"?
Who owns those chairs?
There is a lot of dissatisfaction with both parties right now and none of the leading candidates are looking like great statesmen.
When some politicians have enough leverage on the system to make their job secure do they have the privilege of frustrating the will of the voters?
Which party does not deserve a spanking this year?
How can we find more independent thinking , different from the establishment, politicians ?
Enough to administer a spanking ?