Post: #76

(02-13-2016 09:43 PM)username Wrote:  To the people celebrating this, you do realize that Obama/Hillary/Sanders will replace him with a radical SJW, right? A radical SJW that would have NO problem eroding many of the rights granted to us by the constitution.

The 1st amendment protects our rights to free speech and the freedom of the press. A SJW judge will get in there and have their lawyer pals bring cases to the court that seek to chip away at these important freedoms. In many other Western countries they have eroded the rights to free speech and now you cannot criticize, critique, or question a big list of protected classes. Example of protected classes: feminist, immigrants, gays, transsexuals, pedophiles, any minority group, any religious group that isn't Christian, any political opinion besides right/conservatism, and more.

I can't think of anything more terrible than losing the rights to free speech. Hell, this forum may no longer be able to exist in the near future. Look already how the media has attacked us with lies. This forum and Return of Kings will probably be the first to be shutdown when our freedoms of speech are curtailed.

From this thread, I'm convince this board is split between poolside apathetic observers who don't give a shit about politics and the culture war in general, can't say I blame them; and those that are fighting the good fight (but then how many of us are just keyboard warriors?) to preserve some semblance of traditional western civ.

The end game of this forum was always going to morph into politics and social issues, as the membership got older, bored, wanted new challenges, perfected game, etc..

Post: #77

I heard this (Obama 'thinking' of an appointment to the Supreme court) several weeks ago.

The implication was clear; Obama was signalling to Hillary what he wanted in order to help Hillary become President. Hillary can signal back that she accepts the deal by giving an 'off the cuff remark' of saying something like, "I think he (Obama) would be a great Supreme Court Justice".

There have been problems between both camps (Obama and Hillary), going back to the 2008 campaign. Prior to Obama getting into the race, Hillary was suppose to be the party nominee. It was supposed to be more like a coronation than an election. There were reports on the day after the election in 2004 that people were seen with 'Hillary for President' campaign buttons in New York city, but Obama came along in 2008, and ran Hillary's campaign off the road. In a string of 11 primaries, Hillary lost 10.

After the 2008 election, as part of the political deal made between them, Obama directed his people to direct donations to Hillary's campaign to bail them out of the loss. This caused problems within Obama's camp because hostility between the two sides was so high that no one wanted to help Hillary's campaign.

Part of the deal and consolation prize was that Hillary got to be Secretary of State. Hillary needed to be Secretary of State. The reason is that after Obama was out of office, and Hillary ran for President again, the office of Secretary of State time would give Hillary foreign policy experience. This was one of the problems Hillary had with her earlier campaign, no foreign policy experience. Appointing her as Secretary of State was supposed to fill in this hole in a credentials. (Of course, the fact that she appears to know no foreign language or nothing about any country outside of the United States would still be a problem. I expect in a debate with pointed questions that it would become obvious.)

As an additional note, When Hillary answered the questions on CNN recently about the emails and about her time as Secretary of State and claimed that she 'had no idea that she would ever run for President' it is a complete and total, out and out right lie. The whole idea of her being appointed to Secretary of State was to help her next run for President.

Post: #78

(02-13-2016 10:06 PM)Stun Wrote:  Obama referred to Scalia as a "brilliant legal mind" and promised to nominate a successor in due time.

Cruz and Rubio called for the next president to choose the successor- what a surprise.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...ma/462747/

Quote:

President Obama called Justice Antonin Scalia, who died suddenly on Saturday at the age of 79, a “brilliant legal mind with an energetic style, incisive wit, and colorful opinions,” and said he intends to fulfill his constitutional responsibility and nominate a successor in due time.

“He influenced a generation of judges, lawyers, and, students, and profoundly shaped the legal landscape,” Obama said of Scalia. “He will no doubt be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court.”

And, the president added: “Obviously, today is the time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy. I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and timely vote.”

The president’s remarks cap the partisan debate that erupted almost as soon as news of the conservative justice’s death broke. Republicans fear that an Obama nominee to replace Scalia, who was nominated by President Reagan, would tilt the balance of the Supreme Court, which has four reliably conservative justices, four liberals, and one swing vote. Democrats hope an Obama appointment achieves precisely that.

Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, said the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by Scalia’s death should be filled by the next president. Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, urged Obama to “send the Senate a nominee right away.”

Presidential candidates from both parties weighed in as well

Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, both Republican candidates for the presidency, called for the next president to choose Scalia’s replacement on the Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, said those who call to keep the seat vacant until after the next president is sworn “dishonor our Constitution.”

Obama’s remarks Saturday set up a prolonged fight with Republicans that, as my colleague Russell Berman reported, will play out both on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail.

This is funny. Cruz and Rubio seems to be completely and blissfully unaware of the possibility that if Hillary wins, and the seat is still open, she could appoint Obama.

Post: #79

This is a disaster of the first order. Don't be fooled otherwise. The world we live in just got a whole lot darker.

Post: #80

(02-13-2016 10:39 PM)LeeEnfield303 Wrote:  This is a disaster of the first order. Don't be fooled otherwise. The world we live in just got a whole lot darker.

So true. A great SJC that believes in freedom and the Constitution is like a great Offensive Linemen. He does his job so well you often don't even notice it...till he's gone, and your quarterback (or freedom) is constantly getting sacked.

Post: #81

Good news for SJWs and leftist freaks. Bad news for our freedoms, the constitution and holding the fabric of our great country together.

Could there have been a more conservative member of the court die as Obama's tenure is coming to a close? No.

I always thought and expected Obama to continue to pound through as many outrageous executive orders as possible and to cram through as much socialist shit as he can before he's out.

Now, I fully expect Obama to do all he can to push through a liberal-nut case Justice to fill Scalia's spot.

I do think Scalia probably died of natural causes due to his age and physical condition. At the same time, I hold all possibilities open knowing the radical nature of the powers that be...

Post: #82

(02-13-2016 08:00 PM)Tex Wrote:  If Sotomayor died you wouldn't find me saying "good riddance," if only because these people are legal experts who very often look past personal opinions to check our rampaging government and defend this country's founding document.

I agree with you, but many people would, even on this forum. Respect for the office or court just isn't there like it was in the past. You cannot tell me the President has respect because he is president, I cannot recall anyone else being told he is liar during the state of the union. I do not celebrate his passing. I do believe in fair discussions. If I am unclear, I am agreeing with you.

(02-13-2016 09:19 PM)Stun Wrote:  Sometimes you might not agree with them, but they serve one of the most professional insitutions left in America's government. To celebrate any of their deaths is classless and immature. These liberals celebrating Scalia's death and calling him a piece of shit because he has different views is ridiculous and sad. At least to me.

It's really very simple: Good riddance from the Court (my political opinion) but my sympathies and respect to his family (my personal opinion). Anyone happy he passed away is sick in the head.
[/quote]
Agreed

I will say all the justices seem to have some degree of political bent to them. Scalia seemed to have a strong political agenda.

I think the one thing that is not being discussed is the implications of not cooperating on a justice. If Obama nominates one and it is resisted by the Republicans/Senate and is an open matter during the Presidential elections, then you have guaranteed Clinton or Sanders in the White House. When Roe V Wade is being discussed constantly and women feel that they may lose the right to abort their (mainly) whoring mistakes, they will vote in force and shame everyone who does not vote with them.

Also, for all of the guys who love banging sluts, you may have less of them if their easy remedy for their mistakes (and yours) is taken away.

Reminds me of something that happened a few months ago, I think one of the states which was ruled by Republicans voluntarily raised minimum wages in order not to make it an election issue.

The Republicans will have to choose between fighting over a Justice and guaranteeing a Democrat/Socialist in the office or playing the long game. Though the Republicans often act like little children and take their toys and go home, they cannot in this case.

Post: #83

So many recent decisions have been 5-4....with Scalia on the "correct" side, from our point of view.

This is a catastrophe, if you value the Constitution and freedom...at least what we have left.

The GOPe will NOT fight the Bastard-In-Chief on nominating a successor.....the 5-4 will be the other way.

Alas, Babylon (book reference).

Post: #84

I am curious what is more important another Conservative Justice or the White House? I am not trying to derail the thread. I don't seeing having both as a possibility based on gaming this out to the final outcome.

A fight over the nomination will result in large numbers of liberals voting on election day.

I sure hope his passing was natural. Rest in peace.

Post: #85

Yeah as expected, they're all salivating like rabid animals at the opportunity to install their next saboteur. They just can't wait, postponing the destruction or failing to speed up the decay most happen immediately -- no delay. They are just so fucking evil. There's no other word to describe these people but just pure evil.

Post: #86

Scalia trolled the gays harder than other Justice, and that level of anti-PC speech against faggotry will never be seen again from the Supreme Court.

At the argument for Lawrence v. Texas, a case which ultimately decriminalized sodomy in the US and paved the way for gay marriage, he had this exchange with one of the pro-gay lawyers:

Quote:In the March arguments, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Paul M. Smith, chose to argue that while the concept of gay rights as such did not have deep historical roots, a libertarian spirit of personal privacy did reach back to the country's beginnings.

"So you really have a tradition of respect for the privacy of couples in their home, going back to the founding," Mr. Smith said. He noted that three-quarters of the states had repealed their criminal sodomy laws for everyone, "based on a recognition that it's not consistent with our basic American values about the relationship between the individual and the state."

Justice Scalia retorted, "Suppose that all the states had laws against flagpole sitting at one time" and subsequently repealed them. "Does that make flagpole sitting a fundamental right?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/politi...-GAYS.html

Post: #87

(02-14-2016 12:09 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  I am curious what is more important another Conservative Justice or the White House? I am not trying to derail the thread. I don't seeing having both as a possibility based on gaming this out to the final outcome.

A fight over the nomination will result in large numbers of liberals voting on election day.

I sure hope his passing was natural. Rest in peace.

The founding fathers fucked up when it came to the Supreme Court. They had NO CLUE subversive bastards would weasle their way in and legislate from the bench. They never saw it coming, if they had they would have put term limits on judges.
So, to answer your question, a SCOTUS judge is more influential that a president in the long term.

Post: #88

(02-13-2016 08:53 PM)rw95 Wrote:  I really, really hope you're right on this one. There's always the possibility that Obama will think he's got nothing to lose and name a complete SJW to the court. Right now the left is firmly in power, and they are well aware of that fact.

The left is firmly in power? I don't think so. If they were, they'd be shoving their agenda down our throats without anything to slow them down. Last I checked, the legislative branch was controlled by the opposition.

He can nominate whoever the fuck he wants. But whoever gets nominated must still be approved by the majority republican senate. And since he has little to bargain with at this point, the only way to get through a nominee, is to pick someone that both sides can tolerate.

We've only had 2 primaries. The general election is a long way off.

Post: #89

Question. If the Senate blocks any potential appointment, can Obama override? Executive Order, etc.?

Whatever the case, the election just became more interesting. I hope you guys in the swing states are all voting.

Post: #90

(02-14-2016 12:20 AM)rpg Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 12:09 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  I am curious what is more important another Conservative Justice or the White House? I am not trying to derail the thread. I don't seeing having both as a possibility based on gaming this out to the final outcome.

A fight over the nomination will result in large numbers of liberals voting on election day.

I sure hope his passing was natural. Rest in peace.

The founding fathers fucked up when it came to the Supreme Court. They had NO CLUE subversive bastards would weasle their way in and legislate from the bench. They never saw it coming, if they had they would have put term limits on judges.
So, to answer your question, a SCOTUS judge is more influential that a president in the long term.

I agree. Because of the lifetime placement. And because over the last few decades people's self importance has gotten so much bigger. Interesting times...

Post: #91

Joan Biskupik wrote a book about Scalia and gave an interview to PBS in 2010 about him.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-jan-j...lia_01-07/

GWEN IFILL: He is how old?

JOAN BISKUPIC: Seventy-three.

GWEN IFILL: No signs of retirement?

JOAN BISKUPIC: No signs of retirement, although, at one point, I said to his wife, now, he is in good health, right?

And there was enough of a pause that I got a little nervous.

GWEN IFILL: Now, he does still smoke. He smokes Marlboro Lights. He smokes. He drinks. He eats a lot. But he — his family — his parents lived into their 80s. And he seems vigorous. So, I think he has at least a decade more on the court.

Nope.

Post: #92

Amusing sales-based strategy to consider:
--- Obama nominates the most outrageously inappropriate candidate he can find, for example a Muslim legal scholar specializing in sharia law and known for frequent "Death to America" rants
--- The GOP base and Senators erupt in appropriate outrage, which dominates the news cycles for weeks; meanwhile, rank-and-file Democrat outrage is ignored by the media and Democrat politicians all praise the choice as progressive, enlightened, tolerant, diverse, and so on
--- After stoking the GOP opposition to a boil, Obama puts on his sad-clown face and announces that the nominee has withdrawn his name from consideration due to the Islamophobic hate and hysteria from the right, lectures us all on how disappointed he is in America for failing this good and brilliant man, how it's a loss for all of us, etc.
--- Then he nominates who he really wants: a Progressive/Marxist radical who appears more palatable by comparison, but is in fact even worse

Post: #93

https://medium.com/@SaraJBenincasa/on-th....mh5ryyy9x

Some dumb SJW actually wrote an article HOURS after Scalia's death saying she's "relieved" that he's dead because he opposed homo marriage. These people will go as far as to celebrate another man's death to push their warped and distorted worldview. There is no more disgusting group of amoral psychopathic basket-cases than the LGBT community. They're "relieved" about another human being DYING because he opposed the perversion known as homosexuality. Folks, this is a new level of mental illness.

Post: #94

It's all about the agenda with them. Of course they love that he's dead, he was in their way. Ever read some SJW posts online - it's always some version of "shut up forever" or "just die" while they giggle at their own wit.

Sad, trite children are the end result of creeping social decay that conservatives have been warning about for decades.

EDIT: Wow, reading her nonsense, I assumed she was a kid. Turns out she's a bitter, unloved 35 year old.

Post: #95

More dehumanizing from leftists.

Post: #96

(02-14-2016 12:39 AM)Alpha_Romeo Wrote:  Question. If the Senate blocks any potential appointment, can Obama override? Executive Order, etc.?

Whatever the case, the election just became more interesting. I hope you guys in the swing states are all voting.

The president has no recourse if the Senate blocks a nominee other than to make another nomination. In saner times, the president didn't nominate someone who they knew wouldn't get past the senate. But these aren't sane times, I fear.

Post: #97

I think he was murdered.

Post: #98

Obama and the Senate have a golden opportunity to name (and approve of) an anti-Trump judge, which they will do, soon.

Think of the timing on this: Trump wins NH primary, starts appearing like probable winner of Republican nomination.

Then, conservative, de-facto pro-Trump judge in Supreme Court conveniently and suddenly dies (no witnesses).

Result: Global elites have just found their safety-net against Trump, if Trump were to indeed win the presidency...

Post: #99

Don't drink the kool aid.

Scalia had neocon ties to Cheney and was a conservative in name at best. He was a pro Israelite neo-con through and through.

Conservatisim is important to U.S. politics and society but he was deeply corrupt. A false prophet.

I think it's bad that Scalia is dead before Obama's term is up though. It creates a huge opportunity to push through shit candidates.

Post: #100

Comments section...

Absolutely no understanding of the judicial system. A supreme court justice gives his opinion on the constitutionality of a case that is brought before the court. That's what they do. Justice Scalia's interpretation of the constitution doesn't make him personally a homophobic racist or whatever they want to label him. Truly despicable.