Why shouldn't a moderate Garland have passed through? Supreme Court confirmations used to be largely just a formality to check if the nominee wasn't batshit insane. Scalia was approved 98-0. Ginsburg 96-3.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
Jay seriously believes Obama was the worst president ever. Nothing short of rolling over and dying would be acceptable for Obama to do in Jay's eyes.
Jay wrote:
Why didn't he compromise and nominate someone who would pass through? Don't be dumb. That argument is stupid and you know it.
Republicans were going to block whoever Obama proposed, they stated this before Garland was even nominated.During his final year in office, Obama had an opportunity to fill a third Supreme Court vacancy, following the February 13, 2016, death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. On March 16, 2016, he nominated Merrick Garland, the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to the Court.[3] However, Republican leaders in the Senate announced that they planned to hold no vote on any potential nominee until a new president was elected.
On February 23, 2016, the 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell stating their intention to withhold consent on any nominee made by President Obama, and that no hearings would occur until after January 20, 2017, when the next president takes office
Who are the pricks now Jay? Oh yes, its that communist who wasn't even born in America, and his name even sounds a bit like a terrorists.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2017-01-09 23:39:30)
Fuck Israel
He's not a moderate. He's a Holmesian who would write the federal government a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want. The only thing that makes him a "moderate" from the left perspective is that he leans towards allowing cops to run wild. Replacing Scalia with a guy who believes in judicial restraint is a slap in the face (and Obama knows it). I trust Trump to pick someone from the Federalist Society and that will make me happy.DesertFox- wrote:
Why shouldn't a moderate Garland have passed through? Supreme Court confirmations used to be largely just a formality to check if the nominee wasn't batshit insane. Scalia was approved 98-0. Ginsburg 96-3.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I don't think Trump should be allowed to nominate anyone at all for SCOTUS, I think that should be left for the next President.
Fuck Israel
I say Trump is that guy who plays medic but never revives anyone.uziq wrote:
trump is that guy playing anti-tank on an inf only server.
Fuck Israel
My first genuine wtf Trump moment:
He's probably anti-GMO too... sigh
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/4 … s-nut-casePresident-elect Donald Trump met with Robert Kennedy Jr., a prominent vaccine skeptic, on Tuesday. According to incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer, the two discussed “the issues pertaining to vaccines and immunizations.”
After the meeting concluded, Kennedy told reporters that Mr. Trump had asked him to “chair a commission on vaccination safety and scientific integrity.” Kennedy said he told Mr. Trump he would chair such a commission, and that their meeting was held at Mr. Trump’s request.
He's probably anti-GMO too... sigh
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
He's just pandering to the southern california idiot crowd. Not you ken, the actual idiots down there.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
No he is just a genuine conspiracy theorist. Still better than a bitchy woman right guys?
She has her own wtf nonsense, and don't forget the dems are generally the anti-vaxxer, anti-GMO crowdSuperJail Warden wrote:
No he is just a genuine conspiracy theorist. Still better than a bitchy woman right guys?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
What were her wtf nonsense?Jay wrote:
She has her own wtf nonsense, and don't forget the dems are generally the anti-vaxxer, anti-GMO crowdSuperJail Warden wrote:
No he is just a genuine conspiracy theorist. Still better than a bitchy woman right guys?
Believing that she was not a complete sack of shitSuperJail Warden wrote:
What were her wtf nonsense?Jay wrote:
She has her own wtf nonsense, and don't forget the dems are generally the anti-vaxxer, anti-GMO crowdSuperJail Warden wrote:
No he is just a genuine conspiracy theorist. Still better than a bitchy woman right guys?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
Your post are like a breitbart article.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
Jay's only reason for hating Clinton is that she is a woman is who smarter and more accomplished then him. He feels threatened when a strong woman is in charge. He is more a blob than a man at this point and his masculinity is fragile.
It's true
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I mean, the good thing about the Supreme Court is that it isn't permanently supposed to have 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and 1 wild card. He could replace Scalia with whoever the fuck he wants. A highly qualified nominee like Garland should have breezed through regardless of your doom and gloom prophecy and nonsensical "not a moderate" classification..Jay wrote:
He's not a moderate. He's a Holmesian who would write the federal government a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want. The only thing that makes him a "moderate" from the left perspective is that he leans towards allowing cops to run wild. Replacing Scalia with a guy who believes in judicial restraint is a slap in the face (and Obama knows it). I trust Trump to pick someone from the Federalist Society and that will make me happy.DesertFox- wrote:
Why shouldn't a moderate Garland have passed through? Supreme Court confirmations used to be largely just a formality to check if the nominee wasn't batshit insane. Scalia was approved 98-0. Ginsburg 96-3.
You have to remember, "moderate" according to most people means someone who learns left on some issues and right on some issues and someone who doesn't have strong beliefs to traditionally 'very' liberal or conservative issues.
To Jay, if you have the idea of spending a single dime worth of government money, regardless of whatever else you think, socially or otherwise, you're literally Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pots love child. Babysat by ISIS.
To Jay, if you have the idea of spending a single dime worth of government money, regardless of whatever else you think, socially or otherwise, you're literally Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pots love child. Babysat by ISIS.
I'm just a constitutionalist. I believe it's the courts duty to uphold it, not bend over backwards to create new justifications for legislative overreach. For instance, the commere clause was bent so that it now includes all commercial activity, not just interstate commerce, and this has been used to make the drug war possible, even though most activity is local. This has, in turn, hurt millions of people and trampled on the self-deterministic federalism of some states which voted for legalization. A stricter interpretation of the clause would say it's not the federal governments role to regulate or police local commerce, that it is up to local and state governments.pirana6 wrote:
You have to remember, "moderate" according to most people means someone who learns left on some issues and right on some issues and someone who doesn't have strong beliefs to traditionally 'very' liberal or conservative issues.
To Jay, if you have the idea of spending a single dime worth of government money, regardless of whatever else you think, socially or otherwise, you're literally Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pots love child. Babysat by ISIS.
A progressive judge would bow to Congress and find an interpretation that would allow basically any law to pass. This is what Holmes' legacy is.
So it's not a matter of what the guys politics are, whether he's for abortion or gay rights or whatever, but how he interprets his job, that I care sbout. Scalia was a constitutionalist, and if you read some of his opinions, they are brilliant.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
Constitutionalism is so dumb. It is a changeable political document. It is not the Bible or Koran. Constitutionalism is sort of like Christian fundamentalism.
It is funny that Jay now admires Scalia and his work even though he made a thread dancing on his grave before his body was even cold. I am sure he read a reason.com article that told him to think that way though
It is funny that Jay now admires Scalia and his work even though he made a thread dancing on his grave before his body was even cold. I am sure he read a reason.com article that told him to think that way though
Don't worry, that'll change just as soon as you see there's a better deal for you in being something else.Jay wrote:
I'm just a constitutionalist.
Fuck Israel
It changed when I became better educated on the subject. Prior to that, my opinion on the man was shaped by the progressive media.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Constitutionalism is so dumb. It is a changeable political document. It is not the Bible or Koran. Constitutionalism is sort of like Christian fundamentalism.
It is funny that Jay now admires Scalia and his work even though he made a thread dancing on his grave before his body was even cold. I am sure he read a reason.com article that told him to think that way though
And you would, of course, believe that constitutionalism is dumb. You're a sadistic control freak that wants to bend other people to your will (lol, faggot) and the constitution is designed to stop that sort of thing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i feel sorry for jay. his thoughts and beliefs change like the weather. guy reads a spree of 4 books and he becomes a devout follower of x y z political philosophy. constant mental evasions and self-delusion to hide the fact that he's just taking whatever is most comfortable to him at any given point in life. one of the intellectually weakest people i have ever encountered. a genuine bottom feeder. it's almost impressive.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
Better educated, reason.com. pick one.
I have been to the websites you read.They are clickbait shit like everywhere else.
I think constitutionalism is dumb for the same reason I think biblical literalism and Sharia are stupid. The arguments are the same. "This is a sacred document handed down from our wise ancestors. All of the answers and rules we should live by are in here"
I live in the 21St century. What George Washington thought the ideal government should be like has just as much influence on me as how Moses thought the ideal Jewish community should live like. I don't care. I have 21St century problems.
I have been to the websites you read.They are clickbait shit like everywhere else.
I think constitutionalism is dumb for the same reason I think biblical literalism and Sharia are stupid. The arguments are the same. "This is a sacred document handed down from our wise ancestors. All of the answers and rules we should live by are in here"
I live in the 21St century. What George Washington thought the ideal government should be like has just as much influence on me as how Moses thought the ideal Jewish community should live like. I don't care. I have 21St century problems.