Reply With Quote
So what the 's going to happen when all the Supreme Court cases are 4-4 this year?
CG!
So what the 's going to happen when all the Supreme Court cases are 4-4 this year?
DNC coin flip.
Apparently the lower court ruling holds
"He" won't be making that pick. Your side will cheat again and not even bring up his pick for a vote. Which will drive voter turnout. Which always helps my side. Which means most likely "she" will be making that pick. And yes, that pick will be coming after the guns. Blazing after them.
Ha ha.
This. It's a risk, albeit one the democrats have no control over, to allow the next president to choose the replacement. But if the democrats can take back a majority in the senate and once they take the white house, we could see a far more liberal judge be nominated than whomever Obama would put up for confirmation.
see above, get smartSo what the 's going to happen when all the Supreme Court cases are 4-4 this year?
" a 4-4 tie. In that case, the ruling of the circuit court is upheld without setting any cons utional precedent."
I'll take that gamble. Better than him picking it now.
So what the 's going to happen when all the Supreme Court cases are 4-4 this year?
In a swift statement designed to warn Barack Obama against even nominating a replacement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pledged to sit on his hands for the remaining 11 months of the president's term.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scalia-obama-replacement_us_56bfabe4e4b08ffac1258cf5?ir=Politic s§ion=us_politics&utm_campaign=021316&utm_cont ent=FullStory&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics
Hillary should nominate Bill January 2017
Sides!
lol 3rd grade.
Scaly was ideological asshole, with little respect for the law, hypocrit "originalist", just like Krazy Kruz (his originalism says he is not a "natural born" asshole)
Antonin Scalia was only an ‘originalist’ when it was convenient
The Supreme Court’s creation of new religious rights for closely-held corporations,Burwell, Secretary of HHS v. Hobby Lobby, makes clear that while Antonin Scalia is winning his career-long war for more governmental accommodation of religion, he is doing it by silently consenting to the further dismantling of one of his most important decisions, Employment Division v. Smith.
The Hobby Lobby decision follows the logic of Citizens’ United in arguing that corporations, which have been ruled to have protected Free Speech rights for election campaign donations, now have the right to ignore portions of a federal law if they are “closely held corporations,” whose owners object to the law on religious grounds.
Prior to 1990, the Court used a complicated “compelling state interest” and “least restrictive means” test, requiring that the state make an exception to its law if that regulation “substantially burdened” a “central” belief in a person’s religion, unless the state could demonstrate that there was no other way to achieve its aim. The complication was that despite what seemed to be a balance here that favored protecting religious rights, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor always provided the fifth vote in favor of state regulation, because she argued that the laws did not affect “central” religious views.
Scalia changed the standard in a 1990 case called Employment Division v. Smith,dealing with the firing of a Native American who was a drug counselor for a private company and who ingested peyote for religious reasons, thus was denied his right to receive unemployment benefits from the state. Ignoring that using peyote was a central part of some Native Americans’ religion, Scalia returned to a much older “secular regulation rule,” under which general state regulations, that applied to everyone equally and did not target specific religious groups, would be upheld if they were “reasonable.” Contrary to Hobby Lobby, in which the Court animates corporations in order to protect their religious rights, Scalia allowed Oregon’s anti-drug law to operate regardless of its religiously discriminatory effect on the Native American litigant’s religion.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/anto...e+Raw+Story%29
So Scaly defended Christian Taliban the right to discriminate, harass, for their Christian bull , but overturned stare decisis to block a non-Christian from following his religion.
Typical Repug jurist, just another politicized asshole ideological turd.
Barry ought to nominate a cons utional conservative just to with McConnell.
I'm interested to see how the whitehouse plays this.
He's going to nominate someone he would never want who is really liberal, who is against Wall Street, hates Citizen United, and so on, and then the Democrats will run in 2016 on the platform of the Republicans once again stonewalling everything. It might be a good tactic to increase voter turnout.
I couldn't agree more
This is a game changer. Could increase voter turnout on both sides. I guess that's a good thing, right??
High voter turnout is bad for the Repugs, who, as the minority, depend on low voter turnout, eg, 2014. That's why Repugs are always so relentless in suppressing voters.
May his journey to be swift
Yeah. I just don't see a path where this plays out well for conservatives. the locals are all playing it cool since the senate can block Obama's nominee, but the reality is they lost their anchor on the SCOTUS. This is devisistating for cons utional conservatism.
While I differed with Justice Scalia’s views and jurisprudence, he was a brilliant, colorful and outspoken member of the Supreme Court.
My thoughts and prayers are with his family and his colleagues on the court who mourn his passing.
https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/?fref=nf
Repubs don't want that, especially when they have to defend a lot of senate seats.
You might want to re-think that. Obummer is going to be his squishy, centrist, "compromising" self just to get someone through. He'll nominate some corporatist status-quo loser who won't overturn RvW or marriage equality, but will vote with your side 1/2 the time.
Shillary on the other hand will come in with a big fat mandate, nominate the most liberal jurist available, and the Senate (regardless of composition) will have no choice but to approve.
You're better off with Obummer unless you think Trump can actually win, in which case you're even dumber than I thought.
rip
How I feel about that asshole
?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
