Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

For what it's worth, McConnell's intransigence was a rash dumbass pandering position to take. Would we have had a moderate like Brian Sandoval 'leaked' otherwise? I'm doubtful but I honestly don't know.It's frustrating.

I agree with Buzz.
 
BuzzH said:
JWP,



Even more lame is to point fingers and say, "see, they did it too"...nothing like continuing down an even lower road.
.
Click to expand...

Ok, so its perfectly fine for one party, but not the other way around?

Makes sense.

I provided video evidence, so the next viable excuse is..."its lame to say "see they do it too"...right.

The republicans biggest fish to fry is to get the commie light party out of office. But then again it doesn't matter. Because they wont balance the budget either, they wont get rid of the rampant welfare state, or anything else. It will be status quo in D.C., whatever the "lobbyists" want.
 
Last edited:
JWP58 said:
Ok, so its perfectly fine for one party, but not the other way around?

Makes sense.

I provided video evidence, so the next viable excuse is..."its lame to say "see they do it too"...right.

The republicans biggest fish to fry is to get the commie light party out of office. But then again it doesn't matter. Because they wont balance the budget either, they wont get rid of the rampant welfare state, or anything else. It will be status quo in D.C., whatever the "lobbyists" want.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it was acceptable for any party to act like children?

If you want your party to take the lead, then make them start acting like leaders.

You can squeal all day long that the other side did it too, but how does that make your position one bit better when you do the exact same thing?

That isn't leadership. A leader would look at the merit and resume of who is nominated before saying anything. A leader would rein in their party and kick guys like Mike Lee in the crotch if they lipped off. Nope, instead of showing leadership, and consider the nominee first, lets just oppose, oppose, oppose.

These hard line stances...on EVERYTHING, is why people have shut down and have no faith in congress and politics.

What ever happened to working together for the benefit of the American Public???:W:
 
News recently broke that President Obama was floating Nevada Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval as a potential successor. Sandoval withdrew his name because he knew it was nothing more than political gamesmanship
Click to expand...

...yup
 
But later in the day the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, called Judge Garland and said that the Senate would not take action on his nomination.

Mr. McConnell also informed Judge Garland that they would not be meeting in person at the Capitol on Thursday.

“Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House, the leader decided it would be more considerate of the nominee’s time to speak with him today by phone,” Mr. McConnell’s spokesman, Don Stewart, said in a statement. “The leader reiterated his position that the American people will have a voice in this vacancy and that the Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the person the next president nominates. And since the Senate will not be acting on this nomination, he would not be holding a perfunctory meeting, but he wished Judge Garland well.”
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0
 
Then McConnell and the GOP are wondering why they're circling the drain and have Trump as their front runner???

The GOP platform is simply obstruction at all costs, and the public is sick and tired, of being sick and tired of it.
 
I think Obama is just wanting another justice for the swing votes to keep things the way he wants them and to change things into his favor....the 'change' he always said he wanted from his first day in office. Our gun rights, for example, have usually been a 3-2 (eventhough there are 9 of them....thanks TopGun) vote in favor...put a DC judge that Obama wants and shares views with, and there goes swing votes in our favor...
 
Last edited:
I'm right there with BF & the others.
I am embarrassed to be an American by the disrespect/disregard of the Constitution and the offices & officials of our country. This by the main folks we have leading us,those holding the offices.

On a side note, Mrs. Reagan's service was the way folks should conduct themselves regardless of beliefs.
 
JohnCushman said:
I think Obama is just wanting another justice for the swing votes to keep things the way he wants them and to change things into his favor....the 'change' he always said he wanted from his first day in office. Our gun rights, for example, have usually been a 3-2 vote in favor...put a DC judge that Obama wants and shares views with, and there goes swing votes in our favor...
Click to expand...

John there are 9 Supreme Court Justices, not 5!
 
As much as the RNC brain trust (loose use of the term) seeks every chance to step in it, they might be playing the Garland nomination better than most situations they seem to have screwed up. I think the RNC sees a Trump nomination where they cannot, in any way, afford to derail him, for risking a complete burn down of their heavily damaged house. Seeing Trump has such huge negatives, in a general election he may end up being well behind in the polls. If so, they hold a hearing before the election and approve what is a far more moderate nominee than they will get if the political world implodes on them in November. That is their hedge.

If Trump is able to disprove all the naysayers in the general election, they hold their current "it's the process not the person" position. If Trump can deliver a victory, they look like geniuses, in spite of their efforts to derail Trump as their nominee. That is their bet.

Personally, the hypocrisy on both sides when it comes to these USSC appointments annoys the hell out of me. But, if I listed every hypocritical annoyance I find in the process of politics, I would need a new server to host all of those points.

If Garland gets a hearing in September or October, you can bet the Republicans are reading the tea leaves and finally see the oncoming train wreck. I see no hearing for Garland's nomination before the election under any other scenario.
 
DeepCountry said:
I want Obama to follow the Constitution too. But, has he? Especially when things aren't going his way? I have both an idealistic and a practical view of this, so I get it. But hell, if you really want to get real, non of this would matter as much as it does IF the whole damn bunch weren't overstepping their original Constitutional duties and powers so badly. And no Randy, I don't think our public lands should go under state control, and I'm not a truther.... I am an originalist, and want both sides to go back to that and leave us the hell alone.
Click to expand...

When has Obama broken the Constitution? And if so why haven't the Republicans went after him with impeachment hearings like with Bill Clinton? Congress has had nothing else to do in the last 8 years.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Desk Pop
Hawaii Supreme Court 2A Ruling
Replies
10
Views
701
HONEYBADGER
H
B
Bianchi v Brown (Frosh) Fourth Circuit AWB Case, SCOTUS Appeal Filed
Replies
1
Views
219
bucdoego
B
belshawelk
Oregon gets something correct
Replies
6
Views
673
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
EKYHunter
  • Locked
Supreme Court Decision
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
5K
Big Fin
Big Fin
Dave N
Going to be a lot of boating accidents!
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
howl
H
Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping Systems

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,384
Messages
1,956,867
Members
35,154
Latest member
Rifleman270

Share this page

Back
Top