Post: #101

(02-13-2016 10:03 PM)LeeEnfield303 Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 05:48 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  The fat fuck is dead?

Good to hear.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

The same thing can be said about your contributions......

Post: #102

(02-14-2016 01:49 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 10:03 PM)LeeEnfield303 Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 05:48 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  The fat fuck is dead?

Good to hear.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

The same thing can be said about your contributions......

There's a mechanism that makes me unable to read his contributions. You might want to think about using it as well.

Post: #103

(02-14-2016 01:52 AM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 01:49 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 10:03 PM)LeeEnfield303 Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 05:48 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  The fat fuck is dead?

Good to hear.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

The same thing can be said about your contributions......

There's a mechanism that makes me unable to read his contributions. You might want to think about using it as well.

Hahaha, well said. Time to put the ignore feature to good use.

Post: #104

Sad. I knew some of his family members.

The issue is now: is the GOP mice or men? Will they actually stand up to Obama, or will they cave?

Also, Obama can nominate himself all he wants. He can't hide during the hearings from his criminal incompetence.

Post: #105

Quote:The issue is now: is the GOP mice or men? Will they actually stand up to Obama, or will they cave?

Is this a question? Why is this a question?
Does anybody, anybody in the world, doubt the answer to this?

Of course they'll cave.

Post: #106

Cattle Rustler's comment may have been a little harsh, but I respect him for speaking his mind. This board leans far right and it is healthy to have some dissenting opinions.

Let's not pretend that if Hillary had a massive stroke tomorrow there wouldn't be dozens of comments and gifs expressing joy over her loss.

As far as who Obama nomimates, I am hearing a lot of talk about Sri Srinivasan, a left leaning moderate, who was confirmed with a 97-0 vote to the US Court of Appeals in 2013. We could have our first IRT Justice in a few months.

Post: #107

His "political bent" and "activism" was interpreting the constitution as it stands, not creating new rights that never existed as the liberal judges so often try.

The job of the SCOTUS isn't to make law, it's to read the constitution and apply it. Scalia was one of the few to get that.

Post: #108

(02-14-2016 03:38 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  His "political bent" and "activism" was interpreting the constitution as it stands, not creating new rights that never existed as the liberal judges so often try.

The job of the SCOTUS isn't to make law, it's to read the constitution and apply it. Scalia was one of the few to get that.

The constitution really doesn't govern the people. It governs the government. It establishes limitations on what government can and can't do.

And the sodomites weren't granted the right to have anal marriage. The supreme court decision last year only prevented the government from restricting it.

As someone else mentioned, Scalia was a pro-Israel neocon cuck. He and Cheney took turns sucking each other off in such an outspoken manner, that many people rightfully questioned how Scalia could be impartial in the cases he was hearing that Cheney was directly involved with.

When you go on a hunting trip with someone who is having a case heard in your court it's somewhat difficult to remain impartial.

Post: #109

(02-13-2016 06:28 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  It's kind of sad that the court is divided 5-4 on many important issues, and that people get all worked up about getting someone from their "side" appointed to push things one way or another.
It basically implies that the Supreme Court is made up of partisan hacks who put their own personal ideology first, and any sense of legal objectivity a very distant second.
When I have read some of the opinions, I get the distinct feeling that Justices, both liberal and conservative, decide a case based on their personal prejudices, and then go hunting for whatever bullshit legal sounding justification they can throw together to rationalize it and give the appearance that they have made a reasoned and impartial decision based in the law.

(02-14-2016 12:20 AM)rpg Wrote:  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 have similar thoughts on that.
Unfortunately I don't know much about the judicial system of the US, but to me the SCOTUS seems disproportionately powerful, and I doubt the current situation is what the founding fathers had in mind. If any party gets lucky and manages to get five of their guys into the court, any important decision on major and controversial political issues will go in their favor for probably the next 25 years, thanks to life time tenure and the Justices being untouchable, even if sometimes it's against the will of the majority of people. Get some power hungry sociopaths into court and you can basically stage a silent and subtle coup d'etat.
I take it that the SCOTUS is supposed to check and balance the other branches of government, but who in turn checks the Supreme Court?
The constitution, which they are supposed to uphold, when at the same time they are responsible for interpreting it?
The whole thing seems like a major flaw to me. Maybe the founding fathers didn't expect the US to ever be so radically divided along ideological lines?
If they intended the SCOTUS to wield so much power, surely they would have installed something to regulate it?

On the other hand, wikipedia tells me this:

Quote:According to statistics compiled by SCOTUSblog, in the twelve terms from 2000 to 2011, an average of 19 of the opinions on major issues (22%) were decided by a 5–4 vote, with an average of 70% of those split opinions decided by a Court divided along the traditionally perceived ideological lines (about 15% of all opinions issued). Over that period, the conservative bloc has been in the majority about 62% of the time that the Court has divided along ideological lines, which represents about 44% of all the 5–4 decisions.

Granted, if those 15% were the really controversial issues compared to the usual daily grind they can all agree on, the low number doesn't prove anything. Looking at the other statistics, it seems to me that the number of decisions along ideoligical lines has increased during the last few years.

Until now the SCOTUS looked pretty balanced to me, you had four conservatives, four liberals, and Justice Kennedy in the middle, who according to the statistic was siding with each side about the same number of times. In fact, almost everytime there was a 5-4 decision, it was
Justice Kennedy who decided the outcome of the decision. This guy seems to have de facto presidential levels of power, which of course is not his fault, but he is not voted in by the citizens, but appointed.

Those are my impressions as a foreigner.
It would be great if someone with expert knowledge or professional experience can elaborate on the SCOTUS system, would love to learn more.

Post: #110

(02-14-2016 12:48 AM)Alsos Wrote:  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

This 'joking' scenario is more closer to how it really is done after the failure of the Robert Bork nomination. You 'fake out' the Senate committee with a candidate that you know can't get through the process, then you put up the real nominee next, as an example, Harriet Miers. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers ). She was nominated as the first choice in 2005 even though she had never served as a judge, which was unbelievable. Samuel Alito was nominated next and appointed to the Supreme Court.

After the problems with the nomination of Robert Bork (attacked during the nomination hearing based on what he had wrote prior to that).

After that, the best way to get through the nomination process was to have never written about much of anything and not answer questions about issues at the hearings.

When Scalia went through the hearings, he told them that he couldn't answer some questions because he might have to rule on the issue someday, thereby avoid the problems that Robert Bork had with the process.

Post: #111

(02-14-2016 04:27 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 03:38 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  His "political bent" and "activism" was interpreting the constitution as it stands, not creating new rights that never existed as the liberal judges so often try.

The job of the SCOTUS isn't to make law, it's to read the constitution and apply it. Scalia was one of the few to get that.

The constitution really doesn't govern the people. It governs the government. It establishes limitations on what government can and can't do.

I am aware of that, did not state anything contradicting this fact. I think you've misinterpreted what I said.

Quote:And the sodomites weren't granted the right to have anal marriage. The supreme court decision last year only prevented the government from restricting it.

I was not referring to gay marriage.

Post: #112

Holy shit, this has fucking serious implications.

Popcorn time for the injection into the election cycle.

What a world of politics we live in.

Post: #113

Wouldn't be a had idea to put an am on layaway now. RIP the Supreme Court.

Post: #114

(02-14-2016 04:51 AM)Celtic_Austrian Wrote:  I have similar thoughts on that.
Unfortunately I don't know much about the judicial system of the US, but to me the SCOTUS seems disproportionately powerful, and I doubt the current situation is what the founding fathers had in mind. If any party gets lucky and manages to get five of their guys into the court, any important decision on major and controversial political issues will go in their favor for probably the next 25 years, thanks to life time tenure and the Justices being untouchable, even if sometimes it's against the will of the majority of people. Get some power hungry sociopaths into court and you can basically stage a silent and subtle coup d'etat.

(02-14-2016 04:51 AM)Celtic_Austrian Wrote:  I take it that the SCOTUS is supposed to check and balance the other branches of government, but who in turn checks the Supreme Court?
The constitution, which they are supposed to uphold, when at the same time they are responsible for interpreting it?

The lifetime appointment was designed to reduce political influence as much as possible since if you have to run again every 4-6 years, you would need to make promises and political favors to be reelected. The founders wanted to reduce that influence. Also after seeing a lifetime of decisions by the judge that is being appointed, there should be an expectation a judge will act for the most part a certain way. If congress is concerned with how that judge might rule, either don’t appoint him or appoint him when he’s old.

While it is true the SCOTUS was less developed than other bodies of government, the founding fathers were not unhappy with how the SCOTUS turned out. Before they died, they saw how the court took on the role of interpreting the constitution and checking the laws of the other branches. They were mainly fine with that. It might seem all powerful to rule what is legal or not but you have to remember the Supreme Court cannot fund or enforce their decisions.

Congress’ traditional power over the other braches has been to fund or defund initiatives. You can lose on a court decision but never pay for it.
The executive branch can also play games in HOW it enforces a court decision. The executive branch can try an implement a decision that might be reflect the ruling in the literal sense but not be in the sprint of ruling. Or it can delay the implementation of a decision so long that it’s effectively useless.

Post: #115

(02-13-2016 07:36 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  You call a chubby man "masculine"? Please return your "man card".

Donald Trump is not exactly thin, is he?

Post: #116

(02-14-2016 01:13 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  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.

I am not familiar with any neocon tendencies Scalia may have had, but even if I take your assertion at face value, so what? The supreme court has no input on foreign policy. Can you name a single ruling that Scalia was responsible for that actually had any deleterious effects? So long as the guy defends freedom and the constitution in his day job as a Supreme Court Justice, I couldn't care less about what his personal opinions on Israel, wars, etc are since he has no more ability to put them to practice than I do mine.

Post: #117

(02-14-2016 04:27 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  As someone else mentioned, Scalia was a pro-Israel neocon cuck. He and Cheney took turns sucking each other off in such an outspoken manner, that many people rightfully questioned how Scalia could be impartial in the cases he was hearing that Cheney was directly involved with.

When you go on a hunting trip with someone who is having a case heard in your court it's somewhat difficult to remain impartial.

That may be true, but when it came to preventing the agents of cultural decay from coming to greater power and defending the first and second amendments in particular, which as we all know by now are the foundations of a free society (along with habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence), and also defending our Constitution against the influence of foreign law, which Breyer recently said might have a place in the interpretation of our own Constitution, the man was indispensable.

An example that may turn up soon is the doctrine of plenary powers. Given Trump's leading the charge on immigration restrictions, those who say "but hurr durr banning Islamic immigration is unconstitutional," they conveniently forget that Congress has been recognized as having for well over 100 years plenary powers over immigration. That means it can essentially do whatever it wants, and normal constitutional protections don't apply - because how could they apply when it comes to deciding who the United States decides to admit into its country? This is essentially a declaration that the United States has complete and total sovereignty over their own borders. They are not required to extend the protections of residents and citizens outside those borders. To do so would undermine the sovereignty of the country.

If a fight comes to the court over the foundation these powers, which side would Scalia be on? Now ask yourself, which side would the Obama SJW appointee be on?

We tend to have a problem that we look at everything from a purist standpoint, but that's the problem with SJWs. Each of us is going to have our own preference structure, and no one will perfectly fit that entire structure, but I think that by most accounts the man was a stalwart ally.

Make no mistake, this is an absolute disaster for whites, for men, for Christians, for heterosexuals, and for pretty much anyone or anything that fits into the traditional social order. The Year Zero deconstructivists that want to destroy the Western social order are already, as we have seen, dehumanizing him and salivating at replacing him.

We are in for a tough fight.

(02-13-2016 07:36 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  Have you looked at his pictures?

I'll use a delightfully constructed sentence that cobra made on this post (/thread-33796...id672050):

Quote:He’s chubby as a fuck, but wears tight ass clothes that hang out his belly; probably raped as a boy and dressed up in panties.

You call a chubby man "masculine"? Please return your "man card".

I'll take the bait and respond to this shit post.

Of course being chubby is never a good thing (let's ignore the fact that he was almost 80 for now), but masculinity can never be narrowly defined to such superficial aspects.

Mike wrote a good article about the foundation of masculinity the other day, and it sort of mirrors my own. My conception of masculinity is essentially Homeric, and in that tradition, the heroes like Achilles and Odysseus defined their manhood by their ability to win kleos, or undying glory, where their names would long survive after their deaths and people would remember their deeds. In this way, it was possible for a mortal to win immortality.

That to me is what masculinity is all about - imposing your will on the world, dominating the scene, doing great feats that win you renown and make your name worthy of being remembered long after you're dead. That's what I aim for. Banging girls and having a good physique are just incidental to this fundamental understanding.

Scalia did impose his will on the world for 30 years and will be remembered for generations to come as one of the foremost scholars on the court. His jurisprudence will influence judges for a long time to come, and so even in death, he will not only be remembered, but his will will continue to be imposed. He will still dominate the scene, echoing through time.

This actually turned into a eulogy of sorts, much against my own expectations, and intentions, so I'll blog it. I just simply wanted to respond to what I saw as a bad post.

Post: #118

Well, since it appears that an SJW WILL be named to the court in one way or another, I guess we're going to have to try to play the system as much as possible. The minorities around here will have to learn to play the victim card at every possible time. You white guys might want to consider converting to Islam, or at least saying that you have. You know that SJWs aren't going to fuck with Muslims.

Man, we are really screwed, aren't we?

Post: #119

Justice died in his sleep during a pivotal election year where the democrats could get their asses handed to them?

Gosh this doesn't seem premeditated at all. Not at all. Am I the only one who feels this way?

Post: #120

(02-14-2016 10:08 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Justice died in his sleep during a pivotal election year where the democrats could get their asses handed to them?

Gosh this doesn't seem premeditated at all. Not at all. Am I the only one who feels this way?

I thought of that at first, but then he was 79 and there were signs going back several years that his health was not that great.

If you look or watch the CSPAN archives about the Supreme court justices and the 'inside story' that some guest talk about from time to time, you will see there is a pattern of not talking about justices that are having health problems, and leaving them in place until they feel 'it is time for them to leave.'

I seem to recall one story about one of the justices that was aware of this problem, and drafted a letter to himself, and left it with a close confidant, with instructions to deliver the letter to him if he ever declined to the point where he and unable to properly do the job and needed to step down. The letter, to himself, was a reminder from an earlier time where he wanted to remind himself that the whole point of the exercise was that it was time to retire for the good of the country.

Post: #121

Dont forget that more judges can be added to the bench. It isnt easy but 9 is not the limit. And these old geezers will be dropping sooner than later.

Post: #122

(02-14-2016 04:51 AM)Celtic_Austrian Wrote:  I have similar thoughts on that.
Unfortunately I don't know much about the judicial system of the US, but to me the SCOTUS seems disproportionately powerful, and I doubt the current situation is what the founding fathers had in mind. If any party gets lucky and manages to get five of their guys into the court, any important decision on major and controversial political issues will go in their favor for probably the next 25 years, thanks to life time tenure and the Justices being untouchable, even if sometimes it's against the will of the majority of people. Get some power hungry sociopaths into court and you can basically stage a silent and subtle coup d'etat.
I take it that the SCOTUS is supposed to check and balance the other branches of government, but who in turn checks the Supreme Court?
The constitution, which they are supposed to uphold, when at the same time they are responsible for interpreting it?
The whole thing seems like a major flaw to me. Maybe the founding fathers didn't expect the US to ever be so radically divided along ideological lines?
If they intended the SCOTUS to wield so much power, surely they would have installed something to regulate it?

The power of the Supreme Court can be checked by the legislature because any decision by the Supreme Court can essentially be undone through an amendment to the Constitution.

Post: #123

(02-14-2016 10:43 AM)Gopher Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 04:51 AM)Celtic_Austrian Wrote:  I have similar thoughts on that.
Unfortunately I don't know much about the judicial system of the US, but to me the SCOTUS seems disproportionately powerful, and I doubt the current situation is what the founding fathers had in mind. If any party gets lucky and manages to get five of their guys into the court, any important decision on major and controversial political issues will go in their favor for probably the next 25 years, thanks to life time tenure and the Justices being untouchable, even if sometimes it's against the will of the majority of people. Get some power hungry sociopaths into court and you can basically stage a silent and subtle coup d'etat.
I take it that the SCOTUS is supposed to check and balance the other branches of government, but who in turn checks the Supreme Court?
The constitution, which they are supposed to uphold, when at the same time they are responsible for interpreting it?
The whole thing seems like a major flaw to me. Maybe the founding fathers didn't expect the US to ever be so radically divided along ideological lines?
If they intended the SCOTUS to wield so much power, surely they would have installed something to regulate it?

The power of the Supreme Court can be checked by the legislature because any decision by the Supreme Court can essentially be undone through an amendment to the Constitution.

Passing an amendment now is probably harder than any time in history. Gonna suck if it comes to that!

Post: #124

(02-13-2016 05:27 PM)YoungAngel1 Wrote:  Hmmm. Am I the only one thinking he was killed by the liberal elitist? Idk seems strange.

I'm thinking it too. So is Alex Jones.

https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmeric...live_video

Fucking globalists. Obola and Shrillary didn't even wait 'til the body was cold to start chirping off about how they're going to nominate a new judge before Obola's time is up and the Republicans better not even THINK about blocking it or Shrillary is going to be triggered and give them all a very stern look. Right after she's done poisoning Bernie Sanders' food.

Post: #125

I was bummed out to learn about this. He really was the intellectual giant on the court in my opinion.