Skip to main content

on Supreme Court Nominations.  This is for the benefit of those who might have been led into error by the balderdash being put out by scheming obstructionists such as Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz.  Read up and get educated on this matter:

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/14/...to-the-supreme-court

Last edited by Contendahh
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Contendahh posted:

on Supreme Court Nominations.  This is for the benefit of those who might have been led into error by the balderdash being put out by scheming obstructionists such as Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz.  Read up and get educated on this matter:

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/14/...to-the-supreme-court

Who from the link were the scheming obstructionist responsible for

7. The last nominee outright rejected was Robert H. Bork in 1987. He faced 12 hearings and didn't get one until 70 days after his nomination. There have been about a dozen nominees who were outright rejected; 124 of the 160 nominated were confirmed, according to the Congressional Research Service. The fastest anyone has been rejected was five days. That record belongs to George Washington's nomination of John Rutledge to be chief justice in 1795. Rutledge is the earliest rejection of a nominee (by a 14-10 vote and also the only recess appointment to be rejected). In 1811, Alexander Wolcott was the fastest non-justice to be rejected. It took just nine days for the Senate to dismiss Madison's nominee.

direstraits posted:

The senate's job per the constitution is advice and consent.  Well, the advice can be "we do not accept this candidate"  and the consent answer can be "no."  God answers all prayers, sometimes in the negative.

____

For the Senate's Majority Leader to announce in advance that he will block any Obama nominee from Senate consideration until after the upcoming election is a perversion of the Constitutional process for filling SCOTUS vacancies. 

mad American posted:

Patriots will stop obama at every turn. It has been obvious from the first day of his bid for the white house, that the best interest of the United States is nowhere in his agenda. Traitors support him.

______

Congratulations!  You have just accomplished the amazing feat of classifying as "traitors" all of the 69,498, 516 Americans who voted for President Obama in 2008 and all of the 65,915,796 Americans who voted for for him in 2012.  These are in addition to American "traitors" who support the President but who did not go to the polls in one or both of those years.

Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

Condie has proven he can read, unfortunately for him, comprehension has always been just out of grasps reach.

___

I fully comprehended all of the information I  posted, which fully refutes the asinine assertions of Cruz and McConnell.  The historical rejections of Bork and others in no way negate anything I have posted.  The fact is that they received the benefit of hearings, whereas the obstructionist position of Cruz and McConnell would deny Obama's nominees even that stage of the process.  The Man Turtle has announced, even before any Obama nominee has been named, that he will block the appointment and has proclaimed that there will be no Senate consideration of any nominee until after the 2016 election. It is YOU who lack comprehension.

http://www.politico.com/story/...rt-nomination-219248

Last edited by Contendahh
Contendahh posted:
Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

Condie has proven he can read, unfortunately for him, comprehension has always been just out of grasps reach.

___

I fully comprehended all of the information I  posted, which fully refutes the asinine assertions of Cruz and McConnell.  The historical rejections of Bork and others in no way negate anything I have posted.  The fact is that they received the benefit of hearings, whereas the obstructionist position of Cruz and McConnell would deny Obama's nominees even that stage of the process.  The Man Turtle has announced, even before any Obama nominee has been named, that he will block the appointment and has proclaimed that there will be no Senate consideration of any nominee until after the 2016 election. It is YOU who lack comprehension.

http://www.politico.com/story/...rt-nominati219248

The manner in which the Democrats treated Bork and Thomas destroyed the last shreds of decorum in the senate.  The recent destruction of minority sa***uards developed over 200 years by Reid for small gain ended any chance to stop partisanship.  Dems started it, now become big crybabies when their own creation is aimed against them.

crybaby dems

Attachments

Images (1)
  • crybaby dems
Contendahh posted:
Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

Condie has proven he can read, unfortunately for him, comprehension has always been just out of grasps reach.

___

I fully comprehended all of the information I  posted, which fully refutes the asinine assertions of Cruz and McConnell.  The historical rejections of Bork and others in no way negate anything I have posted.  The fact is that they received the benefit of hearings, whereas the obstructionist position of Cruz and McConnell would deny Obama's nominees even that stage of the process.  The Man Turtle has announced, even before any Obama nominee has been named, that he will block the appointment and has proclaimed that there will be no Senate consideration of any nominee until after the 2016 election. It is YOU who lack comprehension.

http://www.politico.com/story/...rt-nomination-219248

Kabuki theater starring the Three Stooges sounds like great entertainment for this election year. McConnell might not wish to waste everyones time when the outcome is certain and there are other important matters to discuss. Of course Obama could nominate an originalist jurist and McConnell would probably change his mind.

Contendahh posted:
mad American posted:

Patriots will stop obama at every turn. It has been obvious from the first day of his bid for the white house, that the best interest of the United States is nowhere in his agenda. Traitors support him.

______

Congratulations!  You have just accomplished the amazing feat of classifying as "traitors" all of the 69,498, 516 Americans who voted for President Obama in 2008 and all of the 65,915,796 Americans who voted for for him in 2012.  These are in addition to American "traitors" who support the President but who did not go to the polls in one or both of those years.

They are traitors. What's your point?

Stanky posted:
Contendahh posted:
Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

Condie has proven he can read, unfortunately for him, comprehension has always been just out of grasps reach.

___

I fully comprehended all of the information I  posted, which fully refutes the asinine assertions of Cruz and McConnell.  The historical rejections of Bork and others in no way negate anything I have posted.  The fact is that they received the benefit of hearings, whereas the obstructionist position of Cruz and McConnell would deny Obama's nominees even that stage of the process.  The Man Turtle has announced, even before any Obama nominee has been named, that he will block the appointment and has proclaimed that there will be no Senate consideration of any nominee until after the 2016 election. It is YOU who lack comprehension.

http://www.politico.com/story/...rt-nomination-219248

Kabuki theater starring the Three Stooges sounds like great entertainment for this election year. McConnell might not wish to waste everyones time when the outcome is certain and there are other important matters to discuss. Of course Obama could nominate an originalist jurist and McConnell would probably change his mind.

Let Obama call together the Senate Republican leadership for their suggestions.  Then, choose from those.

Stanky posted:
Contendahh posted:
Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

Condie has proven he can read, unfortunately for him, comprehension has always been just out of grasps reach.

___

I fully comprehended all of the information I  posted, which fully refutes the asinine assertions of Cruz and McConnell.  The historical rejections of Bork and others in no way negate anything I have posted.  The fact is that they received the benefit of hearings, whereas the obstructionist position of Cruz and McConnell would deny Obama's nominees even that stage of the process.  The Man Turtle has announced, even before any Obama nominee has been named, that he will block the appointment and has proclaimed that there will be no Senate consideration of any nominee until after the 2016 election. It is YOU who lack comprehension.

http://www.politico.com/story/...rt-nomination-219248

Kabuki theater starring the Three Stooges sounds like great entertainment for this election year. McConnell might not wish to waste everyones time when the outcome is certain and there are other important matters to discuss. Of course Obama could nominate an originalist jurist and McConnell would probably change his mind.

___

On the day that Obama nominates an originalist jurist, I expect that a very red man wit horns, a pitchfork and cloven hooves will announce, "Well, friends, it actually has frozen over."

Contendahh posted:
Stanky posted:
Contendahh posted:
Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

Condie has proven he can read, unfortunately for him, comprehension has always been just out of grasps reach.

___

I fully comprehended all of the information I  posted, which fully refutes the asinine assertions of Cruz and McConnell.  The historical rejections of Bork and others in no way negate anything I have posted.  The fact is that they received the benefit of hearings, whereas the obstructionist position of Cruz and McConnell would deny Obama's nominees even that stage of the process.  The Man Turtle has announced, even before any Obama nominee has been named, that he will block the appointment and has proclaimed that there will be no Senate consideration of any nominee until after the 2016 election. It is YOU who lack comprehension.

http://www.politico.com/story/...rt-nomination-219248

Kabuki theater starring the Three Stooges sounds like great entertainment for this election year. McConnell might not wish to waste everyones time when the outcome is certain and there are other important matters to discuss. Of course Obama could nominate an originalist jurist and McConnell would probably change his mind.

___

On the day that Obama nominates an originalist jurist, I expect that a very red man wit horns, a pitchfork and cloven hooves will announce, "Well, friends, it actually has frozen over."

There you have it, admission that Democrats do not want the constitution to say what it means, but what they want it to say. With that can go all the rights declared under the Bill of Rights.

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
Stanky posted:
Contendahh posted:
Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

Condie has proven he can read, unfortunately for him, comprehension has always been just out of grasps reach.

___

I fully comprehended all of the information I  posted, which fully refutes the asinine assertions of Cruz and McConnell.  The historical rejections of Bork and others in no way negate anything I have posted.  The fact is that they received the benefit of hearings, whereas the obstructionist position of Cruz and McConnell would deny Obama's nominees even that stage of the process.  The Man Turtle has announced, even before any Obama nominee has been named, that he will block the appointment and has proclaimed that there will be no Senate consideration of any nominee until after the 2016 election. It is YOU who lack comprehension.

http://www.politico.com/story/...rt-nomination-219248

Kabuki theater starring the Three Stooges sounds like great entertainment for this election year. McConnell might not wish to waste everyones time when the outcome is certain and there are other important matters to discuss. Of course Obama could nominate an originalist jurist and McConnell would probably change his mind.

___

On the day that Obama nominates an originalist jurist, I expect that a very red man wit horns, a pitchfork and cloven hooves will announce, "Well, friends, it actually has frozen over."

There you have it, admission that Democrats do not want the constitution to say what it means, but what they want it to say. With that can go all the rights declared under the Bill of Rights.

____

There you have absolutely nothing of the kind you describe. For your statement to make sense, you would have to show from the Constitution that Obama is somehow obliged to nominate an originalist, and I think I properly understand you to mean an originalist in the mold of Antonin Scalia. You evidently consider originalism  a la Scalia  to be the sole legitimate manner of interpreting the Constitution.  Your ignorance is showing dire. There is no unanimity of agreement among the recognized elite scholars of the law that Scalian originalism is the sole legitimate means of interpretation. Consider:

https://newrepublic.com/articl...-textual-originalism

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
Stanky posted:
Contendahh posted:
Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

Condie has proven he can read, unfortunately for him, comprehension has always been just out of grasps reach.

___

I fully comprehended all of the information I  posted, which fully refutes the asinine assertions of Cruz and McConnell.  The historical rejections of Bork and others in no way negate anything I have posted.  The fact is that they received the benefit of hearings, whereas the obstructionist position of Cruz and McConnell would deny Obama's nominees even that stage of the process.  The Man Turtle has announced, even before any Obama nominee has been named, that he will block the appointment and has proclaimed that there will be no Senate consideration of any nominee until after the 2016 election. It is YOU who lack comprehension.

http://www.politico.com/story/...rt-nomination-219248

Kabuki theater starring the Three Stooges sounds like great entertainment for this election year. McConnell might not wish to waste everyones time when the outcome is certain and there are other important matters to discuss. Of course Obama could nominate an originalist jurist and McConnell would probably change his mind.

___

On the day that Obama nominates an originalist jurist, I expect that a very red man wit horns, a pitchfork and cloven hooves will announce, "Well, friends, it actually has frozen over."

There you have it, admission that Democrats do not want the constitution to say what it means, but what they want it to say. With that can go all the rights declared under the Bill of Rights.

____

There you have absolutely nothing of the kind you describe. For your statement to make sense, you would have to show from the Constitution that Obama is somehow obliged to nominate an originalist, and I think I properly understand you to mean an originalist in the mold of Antonin Scalia. You evidently consider originalism  a la Scalia  to be the sole legitimate manner of interpreting the Constitution.  Your ignorance is showing dire. There is no unanimity of agreement among the recognized elite scholars of the law that Scalian originalism is the sole legitimate means of interpretation. Consider:

https://newrepublic.com/articl...-textual-originalism

Scalia was a contextualist.  I stated an originalist.  The constitution is not a living document subject to the whim of a few persons in black robes.

direstraits posted:

Scalia was a contextualist.  I stated an originalist.  The constitution is not a living document subject to the whim of a few persons in black robes.

Scalia described himself as an originalist---one who interpreted the Constitution as he considers it to have been understood when it was adopted. Your word, "contextualist" is not used by knowledgeable persons discussing these matters.  The correct word is "textualist."

Some enlightenment for you; the actual sense in which the Constitution is a "living document," according to various scholars, is discussed here. Whims of black-robed jurists have nothing to do with it.

http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/3194

These are not simple issues to be dismissed casually and dogmatically by your two- or three-liners.

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

Scalia was a contextualist.  I stated an originalist.  The constitution is not a living document subject to the whim of a few persons in black robes.

Scalia described himself as an originalist---one who interpreted the Constitution as he considers it to have been understood when it was adopted. Your word, "contextualist" is not used by knowledgeable persons discussing these matters.  The correct word is "textualist."

Some enlightenment for you; the actual sense in which the Constitution is a "living document," according to various scholars, is discussed here. Whims of black-robed jurists have nothing to do with it.

http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/3194

These are not simple issues to be dismissed casually and dogmatically by your two- or three-liners.

I referred to Scalia as a contextualist because he used the word to describe how he determined law -- by reading the law books and legal dictionaries of the time the constitution was written, as well as the Federalist Papers.  He made the statement during a TV interview.  I'll trust the words from  his mouth.

As to differences, I'd suggest this Oxford University Press article concerning textualist vs. contextualists.

http://global.oup.com/us/compa.../2001/textvscontext/ 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×