Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court War Ahead
#1
By now everyone must know that Justice Scalia was found dead yesterday, at a resort location in Texas. The political world is in an uproar, and its just possible that the results may be just as important as the Paris Attacks were for Dr. Carson's campaign.

[Image: scalia.jpeg]

Was there any foul play involved? Not certain, but there appears to be some eyebrow raising here. It seems he was discovered with a pillow over his head in the morning. I don't know of anyone who sleeps with a pillow over his head.

Quote:When Poindexter tried to awaken Scalia about 8:30 the next morning, the judge's door was locked and he did not answer. Three hours later, Poindexter returned after an outing, with a friend of Scalia who had come from Washington with him.

"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter.

"He was lying very restfully. It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap," he said.

Scalia,79, did not have a pulse and his body was cold, and after consulting with a doctor at a hospital in Alpine, Poindexter concluded resuscitation would have been futile, He then contacted federal authorities, at first encountering a series of answering services because he was calling on a weekend.


Further, MacDaddy stated he would definitely be sending an appointment to the senate for approval. But it appears he may have some trouble with this.

Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments

This is all going to get very nasty, before the election, and may become a huge factor in just who will be the Republican nominee. My guess is that Cruz will have the inside track on all this, but I could be wrong.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#2
Most ironic: the Democrats back in 1960 didn't want a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court Justice as a "recess appointment", but they would ignore that resolution when it is a Democrat President?

Hmm...
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#3
Probably isn't going to be a new justice until the next POTUS is sworn in. Hasn't been a guy in 88 years approved in the last year of any presidency. Unless Obama wants to appoint a Clarence Thomas clone.
Reply
#4
(02-15-2016, 04:51 PM)JohnWho Wrote: Most ironic: the Democrats back in 1960 didn't want a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court Justice as a "recess appointment", but they would ignore that resolution when it is a Democrat President?

Hmm...

Did you also see what Chucky Shumer said in 2007, about this very same thing, only relating to Junior? I wonder if he is in hiding right now? S13



___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#5
One of the worst issues that come from losing Scalia, is the The death of a 79-year-old New Jersey judge could have radically changed the mood music around US president Barack Obama’s beleaguered plan to make states slash greenhouse gas emissions.
Reply
#6
If a democrat appoints the new one it passes with ease. It may have anyway, Roberts and Kennedy are not justices one can trust on major issues.
Reply
#7
[Image: 2016-02-16-b6d05a58_large.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#8
I can already see that the Dumbasses are starting to show signed of 'caving' into MacDaddy.

GOP’s No. 2 senator leaves open possibility of hearing

This whole thing reminds me of a movie several decades ago entitled, "Advance to the Rear". Its all one Big Cluster F-ck, and something that only the Republican Party can do, without even breaking into a sweat.

The question will be, "Just when will that miserable excuse for a party finally collapse under its own weight?"

You know, that movie was such a great farce, I think I'm going to watch it again. S22
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#9
Ahh Haa, do they know something we don't?

Dems Predict GOP Cave on Scalia Replacement: ‘It’s Going to Be Deja Vu all Over Again’

Well, in truth, all they really need to do is just keep beating the trashcan lids as fast and loud as possible. They already know that their friends in the DOP are one things if nothing else: COWARDS! Gah
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#10
I found that to be a little strange too--the pillow-thing. But now...

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Scalia was NOT found with a pillow over his face - it was ABOVE his head, reveals sheriff who was first on the scene
(Daily Mail)
Reply
#11
I think the issue is all about Chuck Grassley, who is the chairman of the committee that has to rule on Obama's nominee to refer it to the floor. Without his moving the name forward it would just sit in limbo.

What might make him jumpy is the fear that Obama may name an Iowan judge which invokes the "Favorite son (daughter)" dilemma. He is standing for reelection, and being an establishment Republican, he needs every vote he can get.
Reply
#12
(02-17-2016, 10:06 PM)WmLambert Wrote: I think the issue is all about Chuck Grassley, who is the chairman of the committee that has to rule on Obama's nominee to refer it to the floor. Without his moving the name forward it would just sit in limbo.

What might make him jumpy is the fear that Obama may name an Iowan judge which invokes the "Favorite son (daughter)" dilemma. He is standing for reelection, and being an establishment Republican, he needs every vote he can get.

If Cruz begins to pull ahead of everyone else, including Trump, then Steve King will almost certainly enter the race. He can expect to get a whole lot of support from Cruz on the election.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#13
Steve King is an interesting politician. His issues are strong, as far as I'm concerned. His website looks like it was designed by a Democrat, though. The only place that mentions his party affiliation is buried in the listings of memberships, where it says he caucuses with the Republicans. Many Dems don't mention their party, so as to avoid any taint. Definitely not an Establishment GOP.

BTW: are you posting about him being named onto the ticket, or are you just speaking about "the race" per his Congressional re-election?
Reply
#14
Were we not discussing Grassley's seat on the senate? Wasn't that the point?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#15
I just got this from my friends at FEE today, concerning the next nominee, and what kind of justice would be best. And naturally FEE has its opinion, like many others.

What Do We Want in a Supreme Court Justice? Real Heroes: Melville W. Fuller

[Image: Chief-Justice-Melville-Fuller-638x251.jpg]

Quote:The February 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia renewed a debate that occurs whenever a vacancy arises on the US Supreme Court. What do we want in a justice’s philosophy and temperament?

Here’s a radical idea: how about a justice who interprets the Constitution according to its actual words and what they meant when the Founders wrote them?

That was Scalia’s view, and it’s mine as well. Anything less opens a can of worms. If words don’t mean anything or can be trumped by somebody’s personal agenda, then why have a Constitution in the first place?

If I were choosing a justice to succeed Scalia, I would pick someone much like him or, better yet, someone just like the best chief justice the Supreme Court has ever had: Melville Weston Fuller.
----------
To this day, the most controversial decision of the Fuller court (and one which counted Chief Justice Fuller in the majority) was in the case of Lochner v. New York in 1905. So-called progressives detest it as emblematic of “heartless” 19th-century laissez-faire. New York’s Bakeshop Act of 1895 made it a criminal offense (for both the employer and the employee) for a bakery employee to work more than 10 hours in one day, with no exceptions even for emergencies.

Fuller joined the court’s majority in invalidating the Bakeshop Act because they saw it as a violation of consenting parties’ right to engage in peaceful, mutually beneficial contracts. It was also condescendingly paternalistic toward workers. If workers could be drafted by the government to put their lives on the line in battle, why couldn’t they be trusted to decide if they wanted to work long hours in a bakery?

The Lochner ruling found that the restriction on hours had no substantial, factual connection to public health and safety. Moreover, the bakeshop owner, Joseph Lochner, didn’t force any employees to work long hours; he simply allowed them to when they requested it.

The majority opinion declared,

Quote:The question whether this act is valid as a labor law, pure and simple, may be dismissed in a few words. There is no reasonable ground for interfering with the liberty of person or the right of free contract by determining the hours of labor in the occupation of a baker. There is no contention that bakers as a class are not equal in intelligence and capacity to men in other trades or manual occupations, or that they are able to assert their rights and care for themselves without the protecting arm of the State, interfering with their independence of judgment and of action. They are in no sense wards of the State.

Melville Weston Fuller never succumbed to the temptations of power and ego, nor did he discover vast new constitutional duties for the Washington establishment to inflict on the people. He and most of his colleagues took seriously their oath to defend the supreme law of the land, a notion that seems sadly quaint in an age where sweeping judicial activism is a mainstream law-school principle.

In other words, another Clarence Thomas, in character and outlook. I could definitely go for that. S22
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#16
Clarence Thomas seems to me to be the only justice in a generation that was like this. Even a guy like Scalia was a government man, he almost always saw the constitution allowing the state more legal authority.

Thomas doesn't care for the state, IMO. He's the only guy like that since William O. Douglas who I hated as a kid.
Reply
#17
(03-12-2016, 11:54 AM)Palladin Wrote: Clarence Thomas seems to me to be the only justice in a generation that was like this. Even a guy like Scalia was a government man, he almost always saw the constitution allowing the state more legal authority...

That's always been the point of attack on the Constitution from the Left. The Constitution limits the Federal government and says only limited power is specifically enumerated and granted to the Fed. All other powers resides with the people and the States.

Reagan's Executive Order spelled that out. It didn't create the limitations - it just called attention to them.

Clinton's Executive Order 13083 compared to Reagan's 12612 is instructive.

Check out Sec. 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 © wherein Clinton attempts to raise the Federal government to sovereign status: "The Constitution created a Federal government of SUPREME, but limited, powers. The sovereign powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the people or to the States..."

In contrast, Reagan actually said the sovereignty resides with the people who delegated enumerated governmental powers to the national government.

Notice that Reagan's 2 (g) and 2 (i) were deleted.

EO 13083 would have justified federal intervention in any issue for any reason. There is simply no other reasonable way of interpreting it. It would have reduced state and local government to, at best, advisory status. I say, "at best" because Clinton didn't even bother to consult with state and local officials before issuing EO 13083.

Until the political pressure rose, Clinton was even proud of what he had done. Within months, Paul Begala was boasting of how Clinton would step up use of the executive order as a tool of governing, going over the heads of Congress. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land," Begala said. "Kinda cool."
Reply
#18
Operationally, I have yet to hear of a POTUS who did not ignore the constitution.

They just have different agendas and often agree on things like total authority for the state on law enforcement/security questions.
Reply
#19
(03-14-2016, 12:21 PM)Palladin Wrote: Operationally, I have yet to hear of a POTUS who did not ignore the constitution.

They just have different agendas and often agree on things like total authority for the state on law enforcement/security questions.

Scalia was an originalist. Reagan's XO 12612 defined his position square-on. Many Presidents held their oaths sacred.
Reply
#20
Scalia never saw a federal power or surveillance ability he disliked. That was not the original intent of our founders.

They would have died if they thought that mentality is what they spawned.

That's not a man who honored "original intent".
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Supreme Court Now Considering ObamaCare John L 95 34,968 02-14-2016, 03:12 PM
Last Post: John L
  Supreme court:: a human embryo is not a person quadrat 18 5,211 05-07-2012, 02:18 AM
Last Post: John L
  marijuana, Federalism, and the Supreme Court John L 20 4,495 01-25-2011, 02:06 PM
Last Post: Huh...What?
  Elena Kagan is Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Ron Lambert 102 26,633 08-08-2010, 08:07 PM
Last Post: ghoullio
  Barak Obama as a Supreme Court Justice? John L 2 752 02-18-2010, 11:05 PM
Last Post: Canuknucklehead
  Supreme court overturns campaign spending limits Huh...What? 6 1,381 01-25-2010, 12:21 PM
Last Post: John L
  CA Supreme Court Takes Up Gay "Marriage" Ban ghoullio 0 726 11-20-2008, 01:33 PM
Last Post: ghoullio
  Supreme court powers over marriage rights Thaiquila 4 1,239 11-12-2008, 02:37 PM
Last Post: John L
  2nd Amendment Supreme Court ruling helps Obama scpg02 24 3,851 07-04-2008, 11:58 AM
Last Post: Palladin
  The impact of Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court John L 2 1,182 06-19-2007, 10:18 AM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)