View Full Version : POTUS to nominate Merrick Garland to SCOTUS
What's the story on this guy?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_SUPREME_COURT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-16-10-05-51
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
30 cal slut
03-16-16, 09:27
And shocker, he is an enemy of the 2A. Wanted to reverse Heller.
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland
The “Moderates” Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland
by CARRIE SEVERINO March 11, 2016 8:21 PM
As the White House prepares to choose a nominee for the Supreme Court, they are continuing to suggest that they might nominate a supposed “moderate.”
But Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense.
A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling.
He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case.
Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years.
Moreover, in the case mentioned earlier, Garland voted with Tatel to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement.
Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but as Kopel explained, the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.”
By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law.
Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place.
Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law abiding citizens.
Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things.
First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them.
Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners.
That’s not so moderate, is it?
we all knew he would try this shit.
Now we get to see if the GOP really has a spine.....why I am not too hopeful?
Now we get to see if the GOP really has a spine.....why I am not too hopeful?
Because you are a realistic person.
Dist. Expert 26
03-16-16, 09:57
Anyone want to take bets on how quickly he gets confirmed? My money is on a month.
2016 is either going to be the year the GOP grows a pair, or it will be marked in history as the year a political party destroyed the greatest nation on earth out of greed and self-preservation.
diving dave
03-16-16, 10:05
Not like we didnt know this was coming...Now the major media will start to spin up on how the Republicans are jamming up the works, etc.
30 cal slut
03-16-16, 10:14
somebody please cross-post the NR article above to TOS - we need to get the word out ASAP.
****er is an enemy of freedom.
Already been on the phone and writing emails demanding that they block this confirmation.
Please do the same gents.
Outlander Systems
03-16-16, 10:27
If you like your native Chicagoan Clinton Appointee, you can keep your native Chicagoan Clinton Appointee.
Anyone want to take bets on how quickly he gets confirmed? My money is on a month.
2016 is either going to be the year the GOP grows a pair, or it will be marked in history as the year a political party destroyed the greatest nation on earth out of greed and self-preservation.
NBCs Chuck Todd has all but confirmed him. Slam dunk.
Chief Justice of the most over bearing and corrupt segment of the entire United States. A DC Judge from Chicago...
Not sure where the thread is now but someone yesterday was saying how Obama has been the most favorable POTUS to the 2A in years. --- and now you know why. They play to win the big game.
VooDoo6Actual
03-16-16, 10:43
Lol,
Completely shocked that the POTUS picked a SCOTUS nominee that wants to regulate an immutable & inalienable right.
Panem et Circenses
When I heard Obama talk about how Merrick has stood fornthe rights of regualr Americans I started yelling at my car radio. Moreso when he called the DC Circuit Court the 2 highest court in the land.
Merrick also hails from Chicago, corruption is in his blood.
McConnell standing tall....for now.
NBCs Chuck Todd has all but confirmed him. Slam dunk.
Chief Justice of the most over bearing and corrupt segment of the entire United States. A DC Judge from Chicago...
Not sure where the thread is now but someone yesterday was saying how Obama has been the most favorable POTUS to the 2A in years. --- and now you know why. They play to win the big game.
Surely they can articulate that we now have 20 years of history since his last confirmation. And that he is now DQ'd. I don't see this as a slam dunk on the 2A merits alone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-16-16, 11:37
I think the thing to stress is that Scalia was on a balanced court. The Progressives were getting what they want, the conservatives were getting mostly the things they want. What wasn't happening was the ability to take away from the other side. Abortion and voting rights weren't taken away and gun rights and political money weren't taken away.
When the Progressives say 'balance' on the court, they mean that they want all of their wins- and make sure that conservatives don't get any wins. That to them is 'balance' total victory.
ETA: If they are successful in blocking the nomination, Barry will post him in recess in January and we'll have him for two years.
Moreso when he called the DC Circuit Court the 2 highest court in the land.
From a practical perspective, the DC Circuit actually is the 2nd highest court in the land, due to its jurisdiction over administrative law.
From a legal point of view, the DC Cir Court is more or less equal with Federal Courts of Appeal, State Supreme Courts (or highest courts... NY is weird), and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, as they're all the last stop before SCOTUS.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-16-16, 11:45
But Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense.
A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling.
He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case.
So he'll just say that this was pre-Heller and that is now settled law. If pressed on it, he will say that agrees with the ruling and Scalia's comments about reasonable restrictions.
Which in reality means anything short of door-to-door confiscation.
And to focus people more- the firearms manufacturer and seller protection is toast. Which means that since they will keep pressing for UBCs, with out private transfers, transferring guns becomes almost as expensive as the gun itself since no one will take the risk.
Eurodriver
03-16-16, 12:46
Not sure where the thread is now but someone yesterday was saying how Obama has been the most favorable POTUS to the 2A in years. --- and now you know why. They play to win the big game.
That was me. And I said it was in my entire life.
That was me. And I said it was in my entire life.
I don't remember much of GWB's reign, but was he pro-2A?
I don't remember much of GWB's reign, but was he pro-2A?
No.
He was willing to sign a renewal for the Clinton ban after it sunset.
AnthonyCumia
03-16-16, 13:24
What's the story on this guy?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_SUPREME_COURT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-16-10-05-51
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Still think the Left can be negotiated with? They want to see the nation burn.
If we lose the court, we lose everything else by default.
AnthonyCumia
03-16-16, 13:27
I don't remember much of GWB's reign, but was he pro-2A?
God no, he was willing to sign a new AWB, he signed some bill after the Virginia Tech shooting, did not make use of the majority in the Congress. Did not use the power of his office.
The man is proof that on all other issue but as well as the 2nd Amendment, they never wield their power to stop or reverse the gains made by the left.
They are cowards or controlled opposition.
RINO Orrin Hatch just got lambasted on FOX, because they have video of him gushing about Merrick being a "consensus choice" he voted to confirm back in 2010 to the DC court. He looked like a complete idiot trying to say "it's not about the person, it's about the position...". The cuckservatives shot themselves in the foot years ago and only now is it bleeding. Obama looked for a leftist the Republicans already overwhelmingly voted for, so he can DARE them to block the nomination now. Goddammit! :mad::mad::mad:
Here's what I posted in the Scalia thread. It's time to make it rain all over these bastards!
If you look at it this way, each SCOTUS Justice represents 35.8 MILLION Americans. Like it or not, every one of them is a politician and every one of them is political. NOT doing an autopsy on a sitting SCOTUS Justice that dies is just plain stupid, regardless of any other factors. :(
As I see it, we need a two pronged attack plan on McConnell and Graham. First, we do need to write polite, well reasoned letters to them. Those need to be written and sent now.
Second, we need to wait until Obama nominates his 3rd leftist. Once he has, we need to do some brief but intense research on them. We need a short list of reasons to block the nomination and we need to set a pretty quick political action date. That date needs to fall on a Monday when the Senate is in session. We need to post that date on EVERY gun forum in the country. On that date, every one of us needs to call the following Senate offices:
Senate Judiciary Committee:
Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Chair 57/66
Orrin Hatch, Utah 36/39
Jeff Sessions, Alabama 81/80
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina 36/37
John Cornyn, Texas 44/50
Mike Lee, Utah 100/100
Ted Cruz, Texas 100/97
Jeff Flake, Arizona 68/45
David Vitter, Louisiana 78/69
David Perdue, Georgia 75/67
Thom Tillis, North Carolina 50/33
Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell 45/44
The numbers I put to the side are each Senator's Heritage Action/Conservative Review scorecard numbers. The RINOs are in red and the conservatives in black, with a couple of in-betweens in orange. These numbers are important, because they should frame how you speak to each office. I'd go so far as to thank the ones in black and reinforce their resolve with your support. The RINOs? I plan to very pointedly discuss their failures and how important it is to their reelection prospects, to block Obama's nomination with all the strength and vigor they can muster. It's not enough that they merely vote correctly, but be seen twisting their fellow RINOs arms on this one. A mere vote will not save their seat of power. It's just not enough.
Here are some other crucial names to consider calling:
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire 24/33
Thad Cochran, Mississippi 34/33
Susan Collins, Maine 16/14
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
Ron Johnson, Wisconsin 46/60
Orrin Hatch, Utah
Mark Kirk, Illinois 12/19
Rob Portman, Ohio 36/50
Those are the 10 who crossed the aisle to confirm AG Lynch. The four repeats obviously had no objections when her nomination was under review by the Judiciary Committee.
And just in case you weren't convinced:
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
Orrin Hatch, Utah
Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Lamar Alexander, Tennessee 29/21
Susan Collins, Maine
Bob Corker, Tennessee 46/45
Chuck Grassley, Iowa
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 59/38
John McCain, Arizona 51/36
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 32/20
Those are the leftover RINOs that voted to confirm Eric Holder! :(
And here are the ones who voted for Sotomayor:
Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
Susan Collins, Maine
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
And here are the ones who voted for Kagan:
Susan Collins, Maine
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
Not only should this be a perfect primer on where to apply pressure, it should also be a GOP road map for who to get rid of in their next elections!!! :mad:
I'm willing to give you that one word. However, Obama WILL nominate nothing but hardcore leftists. The first nominee should be publicly flayed in the hearings and categorically rejected. The word needs to go out to Obama that his next nominee will suffer the same fate if he doesn't moderate his choice. Why? Because he's a lame duck president who lost both the House & Senate under his watch. That is a referendum against him, whether he likes it or not. If he keeps acting like a willful child and refuses to moderate, then ALL of his nominees should be rejected. It wouldn't even remotely be criminal to do so. When he throws his inevitable temper tantrum, the Republicans simply need to educate The People on why it's happening.
I'll try to update this post with phone numbers and email addresses as I can. If we all work together, we can hopefully do some good!
RINO Orrin Hatch just got lambasted on FOX, because they have video of him gushing about Merrick being a "consensus choice" he voted to confirm back in 2010 to the DC court. He looked like a complete idiot trying to say "it's not about the person, it's about the position...". The cuckservatives shot themselves in the foot years ago and only now is it bleeding. Obama looked for a leftist the Republicans already overwhelmingly voted for, so he can DARE them to block the nomination now. Goddammit! :mad::mad::mad:
Here's what I posted in the Scalia thread. It's time to make it rain all over these bastards!
I see the point, but only 7 sitting GOP senators voted for him, and that was almost 20 years ago, and to a lesser court. Hatch really find it that hard to say that this is a the highest court, a lot is at stake, and we now have two decades of Merrick's history to consider?
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-16-16, 15:49
No.
He was willing to sign a renewal for the Clinton ban after it sunset.
HA! Just like BHO said he was against gay marriage.
Finally a GOPer that can lie about their gun positions just like the Dems do.
What DEM doesn't 'support the 2A' which means double barrel shotguns, revolvers and no Semi rifles or handguns - along with registration, UBC, ammo taxes, gun insurance and psych evals.
HA! Just like BHO said he was against gay marriage.
Finally a GOPer that can lie about their gun positions just like the Dems do.
What DEM doesn't 'support the 2A' which means double barrel shotguns, revolvers and no Semi rifles or handguns - along with registration, UBC, ammo taxes, gun insurance and psych evals.
Why would any politician, R or D, want an armed citizenry?
Eurodriver
03-16-16, 16:08
Why would any politician, R or D, want an armed citizenry?
https://elliotalexander.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/4289668-4259349598-c71a2.jpg
1. Garland is considered anti-Second Amendment. As the National Review noted last week: “Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation” and voted “to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement.” Obama will use his pick to pursue a gun control agenda.
2. Garland has favored environmental regulations. As SCOTUSblog noted in 2010: “On environmental law, Judge Garland has in a number of cases favored contested EPA regulations and actions when challenged by industry, and in other cases he has accepted challenges brought by environmental groups.” That could be very important, with Obama’s Clean Power Plan in the balance.
3. Garland’s positions on abortion and social issues are murky. Some liberals are worried that Garland may not be unambiguously pro-choice. Richard Wolf of USA Today writes: “During 19 years at the D.C. Circuit, Garland has managed to keep a low profile. The court’s largely administrative docket has left him without known positions on issues such as abortion or the death penalty.”
4. Garland would maintain the Court’s demographic profile. He is the second Chicagoan Obama has nominated. He is no “wise Latina,” and is the first man Obama has chosen. But Garland, like Scalia, is a graduate of Harvard Law, keeping the number of Crimson justices at five. If confirmed, he would also be the fourth Jew on the Court, preserving the odd exclusion of evangelical Protestants.
5. Republicans have supported Garland in the past. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in particular has been outspoken in his support for Garland as the best Republicans could expect from the Clinton administration. More recently, he suggested he would welcome Garland’s nomination but predicted that Obama would make a more ideological pick. That makes Garland harder for the GOP to oppose.
No.
He was willing to sign a renewal for the Clinton ban after it sunset.
And banned Chinese imports.
https://elliotalexander.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/4289668-4259349598-c71a2.jpg
My special ed teachers always said I was smarter than I looked ;)
1. Garland is considered anti-Second Amendment. As the National Review noted last week: “Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation” and voted “to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement.” Obama will use his pick to pursue a gun control agenda.
2. Garland has favored environmental regulations. As SCOTUSblog noted in 2010: “On environmental law, Judge Garland has in a number of cases favored contested EPA regulations and actions when challenged by industry, and in other cases he has accepted challenges brought by environmental groups.” That could be very important, with Obama’s Clean Power Plan in the balance.
3. Garland’s positions on abortion and social issues are murky. Some liberals are worried that Garland may not be unambiguously pro-choice. Richard Wolf of USA Today writes: “During 19 years at the D.C. Circuit, Garland has managed to keep a low profile. The court’s largely administrative docket has left him without known positions on issues such as abortion or the death penalty.”
4. Garland would maintain the Court’s demographic profile. He is the second Chicagoan Obama has nominated. He is no “wise Latina,” and is the first man Obama has chosen. But Garland, like Scalia, is a graduate of Harvard Law, keeping the number of Crimson justices at five. If confirmed, he would also be the fourth Jew on the Court, preserving the odd exclusion of evangelical Protestants.
5. Republicans have supported Garland in the past. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in particular has been outspoken in his support for Garland as the best Republicans could expect from the Clinton administration. More recently, he suggested he would welcome Garland’s nomination but predicted that Obama would make a more ideological pick. That makes Garland harder for the GOP to oppose.
Well Earnest Josh just told Bret Baier that Garland is the "consensus choice" and that even Biden said during his "Biden Rule" speech, that the Dems would consider a "consensus choice" nominee during an election cycle. Of course he also called Bret "partisan" and pretended that he's not. I'm surprised he didn't say confirming Garland is "common sense". :rolleyes:
Orrin Hatch, Utah 36/39 is a HORRID Senator and he's now being used as a club against McConnell and the "No" voters. You also have the other six who voted to confirm Garland in 1997:
Thad Cochran, Mississippi 34/33
Susan Collins, Maine 16/14
John McCain, Arizona 51/36
Pat Roberts, Kansas 54/55
Dan Coats, Indiana 54/44
Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma 73/74
These GOP Senators are Obama's best defense and I seriously don't believe McConnell when he says the GOP will block this nomination. Now is the time to write letters, send emails and make phone calls folks!
I don't remember much of GWB's reign, but was he pro-2A?
According to some sources that endorse her, even Hillary Clinton is Pro-2A:
“Border policies are going to be put in place,” Will Quigg said. “Our second amendment rights that she’s saying she’s against now, she’s not against. She’s just our choice for the presidency.”
Will Quigg just happens to be a Hillary supporter and also the Grand Dragon of the California Ku Klux Klan. So vote for Hillary if you support the KKK!
According to some sources that endorse her, even Hillary Clinton is Pro-2A:
Will Quigg just happens to be a Hillary supporter and also the Grand Dragon of the California Ku Klux Klan. So vote for Hillary if you support the KKK!
Strange that we haven't heard about Clinton's Klan supporters but we sure did hear about Trump's BFF since kindergarten David Duke...
Strange that we haven't heard about Clinton's Klan supporters but we sure did hear about Trump's BFF since kindergarten David Duke...
Funny isn't it? Especially since the Duke-Trump thing wasn't even true....but I am sure our lovely media would never perpetuate a hoax to make the GOP front runner look bad...
AnthonyCumia
03-16-16, 20:24
I wonder would politics be like if "The Purge" was real?
I wonder would politics be like if "The Purge" was real?
We'll considering politicians couldn't be targeted probably not much different.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
AnthonyCumia
03-16-16, 23:27
We'll considering politicians couldn't be targeted probably not much different.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Are you kidding? Their own body guards would do them. And if not we could see the leftist voter base eat each other alive as to reduce their impact and burden on the rest of us.
Not like we didnt know this was coming...Now the major media will start to spin up on how the Republicans are jamming up the works, etc.
Well... the Senate Republucans objectively are "jamming up the works."
Is there something about being in Congress that removes your balls, or are they already removed before you are elected?
VooDoo6Actual
03-17-16, 06:02
Risible & the charade continues.
Corporate Idolatry & the spoon on the grenade was pulled long ago.
Is there something about being in Congress that removes your balls, or are they already removed before you are elected?
Lots of power and influence in every direction. Also, politicians have been politicians for as there has been politics...that doesn't change.
gunrunner505
03-17-16, 07:16
The problem is a basic lack of character and moral bankruptcy in people that seek public office. They may go to Washington or local office with the best intentions however once they get there, and they see how rich they can get, they all play the game. Also, even if you vote out the guy in office, the dudes behind the scenes waggle a truckload of cash in front of the new guy and he locks in step and does what he's told. Guys don't go to Washington with $100k in the bank and leave millionaires for nothing. They all play the game. Doing the public work has long been removed from political office and has been replaced with how rich can I get.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I keep seeing a lot of gun people and conservatives repeating the Obama line that the Senate needs to "do their job" and that Garland doesn't have an anti-2A record anyways....it ain't just the politicians we can't count on.
Gunfighter.45
03-17-16, 07:28
Is there something about being in Congress that removes your balls, or are they already removed before you are elected?
Lol...Do you mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYvLWHohOlY
Whiskey_Bravo
03-17-16, 07:33
The problem is a basic lack of character and moral bankruptcy in people that seek public office. They may go to Washington or local office with the best intentions however once they get there, and they see how rich they can get, they all play the game. Also, even if you vote out the guy in office, the dudes behind the scenes waggle a truckload of cash in front of the new guy and he locks in step and does what he's told. Guys don't go to Washington with $100k in the bank and leave millionaires for nothing. They all play the game. Doing the public work has long been removed from political office and has been replaced with how rich can I get.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This x 100. The system has been this way for a long time and I don't see it changing unless there is a reboot.
I keep seeing a lot of gun people and conservatives repeating the Obama line that the Senate needs to "do their job" and that Garland doesn't have an anti-2A record anyways....it ain't just the politicians we can't count on.
There's a difference between talking to the guy ("do their job") and confirming him.
Some of y'all need to be honest with yourselves, If it was a President Mittens picking the nomination y'all would want the senate to confirm the nominee before the election and possible loss to Clinton...
The President is playing by the agreed upon rules and the Senate has to do the same and either confirm or deny the appointment.
If you want to change the rules you must first win the game.
Some of y'all need to be honest with yourselves, If it was a President Mittens picking the nomination y'all would want the senate to confirm the nominee before the election and possible loss to Clinton...
The President is playing by the agreed upon rules and the Senate has to do the same and either confirm or deny the appointment.
If you want to change the rules you must first win the game.
There is no rule that they have to have hearings.
There is no rule that they have to have hearings.
By that logic, a dem controlled senate could just decide to never hear a gop scotus nomination, even if it were to happen in the first year of a first term president.
By that logic, a dem controlled senate could just decide to never hear a gop scotus nomination, even if it were to happen in the first year of a first term president.
There is no precedent for that, but there is for this. But either way, the Constitution basically allows the Senate to make their own rules.
Even the leftist WaPo gave Obama three pinocchios when he said they have to hold hearings.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/16/does-the-senate-have-a-constitutional-responsibility-to-consider-a-supreme-court-nomination/
Eurodriver
03-17-16, 10:07
2A issues aside, I think Obama is playing it smart but this is a very good scenario for the Republicans
What Mitch CuckConnell should do is allow the hearings to begin as slowly as possible. Knowing that Trump has very little chance of winning the general election, he should delay things as long as possible but get the ball rolling so that Obama cannot withdraw Merrick and reappoint a 20 year old UC Berkeley liberal. By June we will know if we will have a brokered convention and by August we will know who the nominee is. If it is trump, then we should confirm Merrick so that we avoid having 60 years of Hillary on the court.
Again, 2A issues aside I'd rather have an old "moderate" on the court than a young ass Hillary appointed judge.
Cagemonkey
03-17-16, 20:55
Is there something about being in Congress that removes your balls, or are they already removed before you are elected?Its called being owned. Either by being bribed or blackmailed. The CIA and NSA have dirt on everyone.
VooDoo6Actual
03-18-16, 06:53
Its called being owned. Either by being bribed or blackmailed. The CIA and NSA have dirt on everyone.
True & sounds like you have had too much to think.
Stupidity has always been around & the internet proves it over & over.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Jungian Duality theory explains man's bonum or malum concisely.
Mysterium Coniunctionis
"The factors which come together in the coniunctio are conceived as opposites, either confronting one another in enimity or attracting one another in love. To begin with they form a dualism; for instance the opposites are humidum (moist)/siccum (dry), frigidum (cold)/ calidum (warm), superiora (upper, higher)/inferiora (lower), spiritus-anima (spirt-soul)/corpus (body), coelum (heaven)/terra (earth), ignis (fire)/aqua (water), bright/dark, agens (active)/patiens (passive), volatile (volatile, gaseous)/fixum (solid), pretiosum (precious, costly;also carum, dear)/vile (cheap, common), bonum (good)/malum (evil), manifestum (open)/occultum (occult;also celatum, hidden), oriens (East)/occidens (West), vivum (living)/mortuum (dead, inert), masculus (masculine)/foemina (feminine), Sol/Luna."
One of the main arguments of this investigation is that duality and opposites have far-ranging significance in all parts of life and are not contained simply within biblical ideas, ancient concepts of philosophers or speculations from a rather esoteric-sounding book by Carl Jung. Rather duality plays itself out around us everyday in culture.
In fact Jung pointed out in a number of places this duality of culture. In Psychological Types (1921) he wrote about this back and forth swing of a culture using the poles of introversion and extraversion as the key dualities:
"No culture is ever really complete, for it swings more towards one side or the other. Sometimes the cultural idea is extraverted, and then the chief value lies with the object and man's relation to it; sometimes it is introverted, and then the chief value lies with the subject and his relation to the idea."
In the former case (extraversion), Jung observed that the culture takes on a collective character while in the latter case (intorversion) an individual character.
Jung's research suggested that introversion and extraversion are the major attitudes or orientations of one towards life. As such, they are not to be confused with Jung's four psychological types of feeling, sensing, intuition and thinking. Attitudes suggest a philosophy while types suggest a personality contained within this philosophy.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-18-16, 08:04
I keep seeing a lot of gun people and conservatives repeating the Obama line that the Senate needs to "do their job" and that Garland doesn't have an anti-2A record anyways....it ain't just the politicians we can't count on.
The MSM is already in the bag, of course. CNN runs a headline about how most people want hearings. The detail is that it is 66%.
The bigger story is that only 66% of people think we should have, what really should be almost procedural hearings. IF only 66% of people thought we should drive on the right side of the road tomorrow, that would be pretty significant.
How many people can name a member of SCOTUS?
Name more than one?
Tell us how many people are on the court?
Name a court case in the past 18 months? If they can name one, I bet it is gay marriage- but I thought the court was some right wing conspiracy and must be 'balanced'.
And people think that is all going to rile people up?
The MSM is already in the bag, of course. CNN runs a headline about how most people want hearings. The detail is that it is 66%.
The bigger story is that only 66% of people think we should have, what really should be almost procedural hearings. IF only 66% of people thought we should drive on the right side of the road tomorrow, that would be pretty significant.
How many people can name a member of SCOTUS?
Name more than one?
Tell us how many people are on the court?
Name a court case in the past 18 months? If they can name one, I bet it is gay marriage- but I thought the court was some right wing conspiracy and must be 'balanced'.
And people think that is all going to rile people up?
Yup, and every headline and news story refers to the nominee as a "centrist"....it is almost as if the news media is being centrally controlled....
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-18-16, 08:13
Yup, and every headline and news story refers to the nominee as a "centrist"....it is almost as if the news media is being centrally controlled....
I'll even give that he is 'centrist', but he is to the left of Kennedy, so it only changes the velocity of the teetor-tooter, but not which side it will fall towards.
I'd like to point out that he is exactly what I mentioned would get nominated if Barry were smart and not drinking the Jarrett commie kool-aid.
ETA: I think the most effective thing against him is to slow roll the process, and then pivot to why do we have to have another Yale and Harvard grad on the court. In this anti-establishment election and sentiment on both sides, are we seriously going to go oldest-school one more time?
There is no precedent for that, but there is for this. But either way, the Constitution basically allows the Senate to make their own rules.
Even the leftist WaPo gave Obama three pinocchios when he said they have to hold hearings.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/16/does-the-senate-have-a-constitutional-responsibility-to-consider-a-supreme-court-nomination/
That article actually says there's no precedent for this exact situation. Period.
And it says: "Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination."
Which supports the idea that they can just decide to never act on an opposing party's scotus nomination, be it the the 8th year of a 2nd term or the 1st year of a 1st term.
If the Senate wished, they could just not ever confirm a SCOTUS justice and after more and more die, bring it down to a 1 justice court.... or remove it entirely from play.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-18-16, 13:16
That article actually says there's no precedent for this exact situation. Period.
And it says: "Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination."
Which supports the idea that they can just decide to never act on an opposing party's scotus nomination, be it the the 8th year of a 2nd term or the 1st year of a 1st term.
If the Senate wished, they could just not ever confirm a SCOTUS justice and after more and more die, bring it down to a 1 justice court.... or remove it entirely from play.
Recess appointments...
2A issues aside, I think Obama is playing it smart but this is a very good scenario for the Republicans
What Mitch CuckConnell should do is allow the hearings to begin as slowly as possible. Knowing that Trump has very little chance of winning the general election, he should delay things as long as possible but get the ball rolling so that Obama cannot withdraw Merrick and reappoint a 20 year old UC Berkeley liberal. By June we will know if we will have a brokered convention and by August we will know who the nominee is. If it is trump, then we should confirm Merrick so that we avoid having 60 years of Hillary on the court.
Again, 2A issues aside I'd rather have an old "moderate" on the court than a young ass Hillary appointed judge.
Obama is a brilliant tactician. How the hell did he find somebody to whom republicans could give wide support, save for the lone "3rd rail" issue (2A).
Since they are so inept at articulating the reasons for their positions or objections, they'll be painted as obstructionists. Even though the gun stuff should be obvious as a non-starter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Recess appointments...
Checkmate. POTUS lives and works in DC, 24/7/365. The Senate doesn't. They would literally be holding themselves hostage and would have to work year round. Not. Gonna. Happen. :)
Checkmate. POTUS lives and works in DC, 24/7/365. The Senate doesn't. They would literally be holding themselves hostage and would have to work year round. Not. Gonna. Happen. :)
Well actually, they might. There is already a precedent for this. The Senate stayed open although only one or two folks were there, Obama called BS and made appointments (I believe this was the NLRB case), Senate sent to court, court ruled that Senate make its rules and Obummer was wrong. All those lefty decisions by the NLRB during that time became null and void.
National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
As long as the Senate has a "pro-forma" session and is not recessed more than three days at a time... no recess appointments possible. Obama screwed the pooch on this one.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-18-16, 17:03
Between the two terms. You have to close for business every two years. I don't think that they can pull that in-between real sessions.
AnthonyCumia
03-18-16, 21:33
Anyone else think the Senate should be allowed to over turn the ruling of the Court with a 2/3 majority?
Election is less than 234 days away. If they can take that long to cash your check and mail you a stamp I don't see why vetting a nominee wouldn't take that long.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-18-16, 22:43
Anyone else think the Senate should be allowed to over turn the ruling of the Court with a 2/3 majority?
Interesting. The asymmetrical set up of the three branches does make something like that make sense. Isn't the real out a constitutional amendment? That really isn't nearly the easy as the SCOTUS has to do to overturn a law, but it is an option. 2/3 of the Senate and the Pres makes a little more sense.
The real issue is that SCOTUS gets out of its lane and starts legislating- and there is no real check on that. Obama (doesn't)Care is a great example. If SCOTUS just called balls and strikes and didn't award Homeruns, that is the real solution. Of course, absolute power..... I think term limits, or at least an age limit would be a good start. Even great-grandfather in the current ones. 16 year terms? 75 years old?
Of course, the real issue is that we are trying to legislate at the national level things best left to people closer to the specific problems. That is the cause of all this and made only possible with no debt/deficit limits. States and cities need to control their budgets- and even Rahm Emanuel seems like a sane leader unpalatable to the Pure Progressive idiotology.
Anyone else think the Senate should be allowed to over turn the ruling of the Court with a 2/3 majority?
No way in hell. We don't need to give those clowns any more power than they already have.
And yes, there is a check to anything SCOTUS does. Constitutional Amendment.
I would trust an 18 year old private who has 10K in his pocket on liberty in a Thai whorehouse before I would trust 98% of congress.
Eurodriver
03-19-16, 06:07
I would trust an 18 year old private who has 10K in his pocket on liberty in a Thai whorehouse before I would trust 98% of congress.
Amen.
Yet they keep getting elected as politicians and reelected as members of congress.
I don't get it.
Even on this site people like Kasich because he has "experience". :rolleyes:
Brand Awareness. When only 1/3 Americans know the branches of the fedgov it is important to be a recognizable name, for good or bad.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-19-16, 10:56
Brand Awareness. When only 1/3 Americans know the branches of the fedgov it is important to be a recognizable name, for good or bad.
Far more can tell you how the judges on The Voice operate than SCOTUS operates.
SeriousStudent
03-19-16, 17:19
I would trust an 18 year old private who has 10K in his pocket on liberty in a Thai whorehouse before I would trust 98% of congress.
I'll have you know I was 26 years old and had just made PFC, thankyouverymuch!
I'll have you know I was 26 years old and had just made PFC, thankyouverymuch!
Patiently awaiting the story of your adventures in a Thai whorehouse...
SeriousStudent
03-19-16, 18:50
Making PFC is not an adventure.
Keeping PFC stripes, that is an adventure. Especially five months into a WestPac.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.