Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Justice Scalia deadFollow

#127 Mar 16 2016 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And who do we have to thank for that little slippery slope?

The foresight and leadership of Reid Smiley: thumbsup
gbaji wrote:
And given that I already said that McConnell was an idiot for saying that, I'm not sure what your point is here.

That there's no argument that this is on Obama. This is 100% on the Senate Republicans who stated plainly and absolutely that NO candidate would be accepted. There's no cute reading of "advice and consent" that puts this on the president.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#128 Mar 16 2016 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Just realized, the first female president is ******* The constitution reads "he". So the female president won't be able to legally do anything!
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#129 Mar 16 2016 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
He's supposed to seek their advice on his selection, not the other way around.
The other way around being...picking from a Senate generated list. So, yeah, you're right. For once.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#130 Mar 16 2016 at 4:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
OOOORRRRR... she can do ANYTHING!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#131 Mar 16 2016 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
He gets that Obama will never appoint anyone who isn't a far left partisan hack to the bench, but despite that being true, most of the public aren't as aware of this fact.
Did the brain trauma you suffered awhile back make you psychic, too? You lucky devil!!
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#132 Mar 16 2016 at 4:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
McConnell wrote:
The next president may also nominate somebody very different. Either way, our view is this — give the people a voice in filling this vacancy.
Sounds like a guaranteed losing strategy when the people's voice was what made gay marriage a thing, and them angry with the justices in the first place.


I'm not sure what you're saying here. The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage was in direct opposition to what "the people" wanted. I'm reasonably certain that most voters would be pissed off about not having any voice in yet another decision, pushing their country away from what they think it should be and towards one where rules are established, not by democratic processes, but executive and judicial fiat.

It's not just about positions on issues here. I know that many want to paint it that way. But the current crop of anger in this country is really about a sense that "the people" no longer have any control over their government. Yet another change pushed through via manipulation of the rules and in opposition to what "the people" want is only going to inflame that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#133 Mar 16 2016 at 4:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The SCotUS marriage ruling was in direct opposition to the will of the people... Except for the majority of people who approved of the ruling. But it was totally in opposition to the minority of people opposed to it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Mar 16 2016 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The SCotUS marriage ruling was in direct opposition to the will of the people... Except for the majority of people who approved of the ruling. But it was totally in opposition to the minority of people opposed to it.

The only people that really matter. Those that agree with gbaji.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#135 Mar 16 2016 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
US Constitution wrote:
he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court,


He's supposed to do this with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. You all are conveniently ignoring the "advice" portion of that. He's supposed to go to the Senate and actually ask them which potential nominations they're likely to confirm, and then make his choice out of that list. I get that this has been turned into yet another partisan fight, but it's not supposed to be "President nominates someone he likes and tells the Senate to STFU". And it's certainly not supposed to be "Blame the Senate if they can't agree". If the president nominates someone the Senate does not like, it's his fault, not the Senates. He's supposed to seek their advice on his selection, not the other way around.


Doesn't the way it's worded actually say he'll nominate, and the advice and consent part comes with the appointment? Seems like he doesn't have to seek advice on the nomination, only on the approval.


That interpretation makes no sense though. There's no advice to give the president other than on the choice of nomination. I'm not sure what else we could imagine "advice" would refer to. The wording is intended to make it clear that ultimately the power of nomination lies with the president and the power of confirmation lies with the Senate. I see the "advice" part as a suggestion that maybe the two should talk to each other before wasting a ton of time and effort.

The president has the power to select someone the Senate will not confirm, of course. But that doesn't make that a good choice.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#136 Mar 16 2016 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The SCotUS marriage ruling was in direct opposition to the will of the people... Except for the majority of people who approved of the ruling. But it was totally in opposition to the minority of people opposed to it.

The only people that really matter. Those that agree with gbaji.


No. I mean actual majorities in every single state in which the issue was put to the people directly. So you favor democracy except when it doesn't result in what you want, then you want an authoritarian government to force people to do what you want anyway? That seems... dangerous. Again, the issue is not just about SSM. It's a whole host of issues on which the people believe one thing, and they've watched as time and time again, those in power managed to manipulate the rules to do the opposite. I'd argue that the ACA is an even bigger issue in this regard than SSM.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#137 Mar 16 2016 at 5:28 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
So you favor democracy except when it doesn't result in what you want, then you want an authoritarian government to force people to do what you want anyway? That seems... dangerous. Again, the issue is not just about SSM. It's a whole host of issues on which the people believe one thing, and they've watched as time and time again, those in power managed to manipulate the rules to do the opposite. I'd argue that the ACA is an even bigger issue in this regard than SSM.
ITT: gbaji supports white people owning slaves.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#138 Mar 16 2016 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So you favor democracy except when it doesn't result in what you want, then you want an authoritarian government to force people to do what you want anyway? That seems... dangerous. Again, the issue is not just about SSM. It's a whole host of issues on which the people believe one thing, and they've watched as time and time again, those in power managed to manipulate the rules to do the opposite. I'd argue that the ACA is an even bigger issue in this regard than SSM.
ITT: gbaji supports white people owning slaves.

As long as the majority of the people in which ever group of people that matter want it.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#139 Mar 16 2016 at 5:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
He's supposed to seek their advice on his selection, not the other way around.
The other way around being...picking from a Senate generated list. So, yeah, you're right. For once.


The process usually involves members of the Senate sitting down in meetings with members of the President's staff and working together to generate a short list, from which the President makes a final choice. The problem is that over time, this has become less about making that choice, and more about the fight surrounding it. Which is precisely what Obama is doing here.

In this case, it's not even so much about sneaking a liberal on the bench (because he knew that wasn't going to fly anyway). Had McConnell not said what he said, Obama would have appointed some far left person, just to create a conflict. Now, after McConnell foolishly said he'd refuse to allow a vote on *any* nomination, Obama is intentionally picking someone more in the middle, forcing the GOP to either stick with McConnell or break with their own party leader. Again, it's not about the selection to the bench, but the political fight it creates.

Which may make for great politics, but it makes for lousy governing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#140 Mar 16 2016 at 5:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So you favor democracy except when it doesn't result in what you want, then you want an authoritarian government to force people to do what you want anyway? That seems... dangerous. Again, the issue is not just about SSM. It's a whole host of issues on which the people believe one thing, and they've watched as time and time again, those in power managed to manipulate the rules to do the opposite. I'd argue that the ACA is an even bigger issue in this regard than SSM.
ITT: gbaji supports white people owning slaves.


You'd have a point if there was any consistent methodology on the Left as to what things they believe the government should overrule the people on. But there isn't. It's a far stretch from "slavery violates the principle of individual liberty" to "failing to grant a benefit to a group of people we like is a violation of their rights". One is worth violating standard democratic processes over (even fighting a civil war over). The other? Not so much.

Edited, Mar 16th 2016 4:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Mar 16 2016 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No. I mean actual majorities in every single state in which the issue was put to the people directly.

You mean like in Maryland and Maine and Washington and Minnesota?

Did you stop getting your updated talking points in 2010 or something?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#142 Mar 16 2016 at 8:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. I mean actual majorities in every single state in which the issue was put to the people directly.

You mean like in Maryland and Maine and Washington and Minnesota?


Uh huh. I'd have to double check, but I believe that in each of those cases, the legislature had already passed a law granting marriage licenses to gay couples, and the public was more or less presented with a referendum that was portrayed as a protection for religious institutions from having to perform gay marriages. Many of those voting for the position did not realize they were voting to legalize gay marriage, but believed that gay marriage had already been legalized, and they were voting to create religious exemptions from it.

There's a reason why the language on the questions were framed the way they were. But if that's what you want to hang your hat on, fine. Here's the question though. And it's the same question conservatives like myself ask with regard to abortion. If the social movement was really in that direction anyway, why not just let this play out in the legislatures and among the voters of the states? There was no need to have the Supreme Court make law by fiat from on high. That's the part that pisses people off IMO.

It's not about the result, but the method used to achieve it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#143 Mar 16 2016 at 8:21 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
If the social movement was really in that direction anyway, why not just let this play out in the legislatures and among the voters of the states?
Like slavery, right?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#144 Mar 16 2016 at 8:46 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
gbaji wrote:
That interpretation makes no sense though. There's no advice to give the president other than on the choice of nomination.


Sure there is...

Obama: Senators, Representatives, Mr. Speaker, I stand before, seeking advice on the nomination for the next Supreme Court Justice.

Senators, representatives, and the Vice President: Follow your heart!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#145 Mar 16 2016 at 9:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But if that's what you want to hang your hat on, fine.

Are you kidding? You're the one twisting all over yourself to pretend that voters didn't directly vote to legalize SSM. "Oh, but... they were TRICKED! It was trick language!!" -- Yeah, I'm the one 'hanging my hat' on anything Smiley: laugh

By the way, here was the SUPER TRICKY DECEITFUL LANGUAGE used in Maine (for example):
Wiki wrote:
Maine Question 1 was a voter referendum on an initiated state statute that occurred November 6, 2012. The title of the citizen initiative is "An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom". The question that appeared on the ballot was: "Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?"

Holy cats! Those people were so fooled when they didn't really want SSM but that ballot was confusing that they were cast under a web of illusion!
Quote:
If the social movement was really in that direction anyway, why not just let this play out in the legislatures and among the voters of the states?

Why wait? Why deprive people of their rights for another year, ten years, whatever? Why do you care so little for people's rights that you'd rather deprive them in a fit of pique than get it over with? If the people have these rights (as the SCotUS ruled that they indeed do) then there's absolutely zero reason to "let it play out" and tell people "You guys just sit tight and we'll let you really have those rights in a while..."

I mean, the answer is obvious and it's not about your love of the constitution or liberty or anything like that. You're just petty and butthurt. But go ahead and write ten paragraphs pretending that that isn't it.

Edited, Mar 16th 2016 10:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#146 Mar 17 2016 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
The SCOTUS ruling on *** marriage was in direct opposition to what "the people" wanted.
Anyone that isn't white, male, straight, and a True Scotsman aren't "people" to you. We know, no need to keep bringing it up.
Jophiel wrote:
Those people were so fooled when they didn't really want SSM but that ballot was confusing that they were cast under a web of illusion!
Well, it was written in Comic Sans.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#147 Mar 17 2016 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
The president has the power to select someone the Senate will not confirm, of course. But that doesn't make that a good choice.


Right. What he doesn't have is the power to select someone the Senate will confirm, because no such person exists in the world.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#148 Mar 17 2016 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Holy cats! Those people were so fooled when they didn't really want SSM but that ballot was confusing that they were cast under a web of illusion!
It's those new-fangled computer voting booths. They don't actually care about your opinions; it's just another way for those hippie computer nerds to take over the world. Spreading their propaganda and lies and what not.

Smiley: tinfoilhat

Edited, Mar 17th 2016 9:58am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#149 Mar 18 2016 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I went into a voting booth once, and a voice inside kept telling me to insert more change if I wanted to make a call.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#150 Mar 18 2016 at 12:58 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,135 posts
I went into a voting booth once, and a voice inside kept telling me to insert more change if I wanted to make it to the money shot
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#151 Mar 22 2016 at 6:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
By the way, here was the SUPER TRICKY DECEITFUL LANGUAGE used in Maine (for example):
Wiki wrote:
Maine Question 1 was a voter referendum on an initiated state statute that occurred November 6, 2012. The title of the citizen initiative is "An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom". The question that appeared on the ballot was: "Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?"

Holy cats! Those people were so fooled when they didn't really want SSM but that ballot was confusing that they were cast under a web of illusion!


The title of the initiative was:

Quote:
An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom


It was also broadly represented to the public, not based on the final wording that appeared on the actual ballot, but the previous wording used during the petition process:

Quote:
Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and that protects religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?


The results were a reversal of the same issue that had been brought to the public (and rejected) just a few years earlier. One could argue that if you just keep trying the same law over and over, eventually you'll get a majority to vote for it. Especially if you engaged in clever wording of the law, and in the context of a national environment where it looked to voters like they were going to have gay marriage forced on their state by judicial fiat anyway. Best to put in protections for clergy before that happens, right?

And as it happens, they (and the citizens in Maryland and Washington) were right. Again though, I'd hardly take this as a majority endorsement of gay marriage. More a resignation to the fact that one way or another, their state was going to be required to grant SSM licenses. Given that the fear about clergy being forced to perform SSM was front and center during the debate at this time, it's hard to imagine that this didn't have some impact on the results.

Quote:
Quote:
If the social movement was really in that direction anyway, why not just let this play out in the legislatures and among the voters of the states?

Why wait?


Because then it'll be the people making the decision and not the courts? Was that really a question?

Quote:
Why deprive people of their rights for another year, ten years, whatever?


Because, first off, this isn't an issue of rights, but benefits, and secondly, because when you force people to do something they don't like, they tend to resent it. If you allow an issue to gradually become acceptable, they'll tend to go along.


Quote:
Why do you care so little for people's rights that you'd rather deprive them in a fit of pique than get it over with? If the people have these rights (as the SCotUS ruled that they indeed do) then there's absolutely zero reason to "let it play out" and tell people "You guys just sit tight and we'll let you really have those rights in a while..."


Again though, this was never an issue of rights. It was an issue of benefits that the court felt were unequally being granted. I, and many people in this country, disagree vehemently with the courts ruling. And no amount of having that court ruling changes our minds on the issue.

We still have people fighting tooth and nail over abortion Joph. That's why you don't try to solve social issues with court rulings.

Quote:
I mean, the answer is obvious and it's not about your love of the constitution or liberty or anything like that. You're just petty and butthurt. But go ahead and write ten paragraphs pretending that that isn't it.


Sigh. I'm upset that our court has become increasingly progressive in its rulings. And by "progressive" I don't mean "supporting people's, rights, minorities, women, gays, etc...". I mean "using the court as a tool to push an agenda in the first place". The problem I have with the ruling is that you could replace the benefit in question with almost any other state granted benefit, and replace homosexuals with almost any other identity group, and you could make the same argument, complete with claims that said group's "rights" are being infringed by not being included on the list of recipients of said benefit. It's not about SSM. It's about the desire of the court to be used as a tool for a social agenda rather than a stop gap against constitutional violations as it's supposed to be.

I get that for *you* it's entirely about the people involved. But for me, it's about the process by which we apply the law. And in this case, it was a terrible application. There was no law preventing any state's citizens from choosing to grant marriage benefits to any set of people they desired. Thus, it was not a constitutional issue at all. Gay marriage was not "illegal" in any state in the US. It was merely not rewarded by the state. The ruling did not increase our liberty by making SSM legal. It reduced our liberties by taking away our ability to choose as citizens which sets of people should qualify for which state benefits, and why.

Again. You have to look past the SSM aspect of this. That's just the symptom of a much larger problem. Of course, they'll always use groups that appear the most victimized to push forward a federal power agenda. It's the poor people without health care that pushes for a ruling that the commerce clause can be used to mandate individual purchases of a product. It's those poor gay folks that are used to push a ruling that states can't choose who can qualify for various social focused benefits programs (in this case, marriage, but could be anything). That's the real problem. SSM is just one tool used to push us farther and farther into a government system that increasingly controls our lives.

There you go. And only three (oops four now) paragraphs!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 320 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (320)