"in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.
The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won."
According to this mornings news, Obuma says he WILL recommend someone to be appointed in the next few weeks. He wont waste time, he needs to get someone in to help him with gun laws.
According to this mornings news, Obuma says he WILL recommend someone to be appointed in the next few weeks. He wont waste time, he needs to get someone in to help him with gun laws.
It IS within his duties to recommend someone.
I understand there was no autopsy for Scalia. Interesting. No calls that there is a democrat coverup?
I understand there was no autopsy for Scalia. Interesting. No calls that there is a democrat coverup?
It is not whitin his duties to circumvent the constitution, by appointing a judge that will interpret the constitution in such a manner, that disallows private ownership of firearms. That would literally be conspiring to commit treason. However, its speculation at this point, we will just have to wait and see.
It is not whitin his duties to circumvent the constitution, by appointing a judge that will interpret the constitution in such a manner, that disallows private ownership of firearms. That would literally be conspiring to commit treason. However, its speculation at this point, we will just have to wait and see.
Congress has to approve, and if they do, they are committing treason also and anyone who supports them is also... anyone who voted for them.. treason. The whole country will be jail or hung!
BTW, Obama is an alien from Mars.... but that is speculation at this point also.
Obama has both the constitutional authority and responsibility to appoint a new justice. But, the Constitution does not set a deadline to deliver.
Likewise, The Constitution gives the Senate authority confirm or reject a nominee by majority vote. The Constitution does not set a deadline for confirmation of a nominee.
I certainly won't drop a single tear if they stall confirmation until the next President takes office. But I can not call them wrong if they don't.
But just remember that when Sandra Day O'Connor retired, there was a loud cry to insist her replacement be female. Since, they got what they wanted dare we ask for that the most conservative member of the court be replaced by a conservative...... I won't hold my breath.....
Elections do have consequences, but it sure feels like republicans are disproportionately exposed to the negative.
Everyone is trying to say it's unprecedented that anyone even suggest the President not appoint anyone because it's too close to the end of his term. Remember however that Chuck Schumer opposed any appointments by George W. Bush for the nineteen months prior to the end of his Presidency. Amazingly enough, both sides play politics and both sides have selective memories.
According to this mornings news, Obuma says he WILL recommend someone to be appointed in the next few weeks. He wont waste time, he needs to get someone in to help him with gun laws.
I would consider a President incompetent if he or she had no plans at all to replace a vacancy. I would have a short list of at least half dozen prospects from day one of my Presidency and throughout. I doubt obama has no prospects already.
Congress has to approve, and if they do, they are committing treason also and anyone who supports them is also... anyone who voted for them.. treason. The whole country will be jail or hung!
BTW, Obama is an alien from Mars.... but that is speculation at this point also.
So I expect you to be 100 percent for anything trump does, if he gets elected.. Including using the IRS to persecute liberal mouth pieces, mandatory check points to see if immigrants are illegal. Remember, everything the government does is legal.
So I expect you to be 100 percent for anything trump does
Of course you do....
We have a process to replace SCJs. If you don't like it... pull a LaVoy (that worked so well... not), or better yet, work within the system to fix. All politics are local. Start by talking to your elected officials. Be sure to vote and get out and support your candidate. If that doesn't work, then work through the legal channels. Lots of opportunities to make changes.
Trump (if elected) will use EOs and try to bully through Congress. He will not get far as we have a system of checks/balances. I know... I know.. you think it is all rigged...but it is our system to work within.
We have a process to replace SCJs. If you don't like it... pull a LaVoy (that worked so well... not), or better yet, work within the system to fix. All politics are local. Start by talking to your elected officials. Be sure to vote and get out and support your candidate. If that doesn't work, then work through the legal channels. Lots of opportunities to make changes.
Trump (if elected) will use EOs and try to bully through Congress. He will not get far as we have a system of checks/balances. I know... I know.. you think it is all rigged...but it is our system to work within.
I have no problem with, the process we have to appoint supreme court justices. I have a problem, that we have allowed the Government to not be bound by the Constitution. Obama is likely to appoint a justice, that believes the Constitution allows whatever agenda the liberals have. As far as Trump not getting far, look at the IRS persecution of Tea Party members, and look at the consequences to that action. Look at Fast and Furious and what they got away with. Check and balances only work, if the Government adheres to the Constitution. Trump won't hurt my feelings, other than Constitutional violations, which I will be vocal about.
No conspiracy theory here, he died. While he may be obligated to recommend people, no one says Congress has to approve him. Trump is right that every way to delay it till after January should be carried out. Your right, there is no timeframe to follow. My point is not that he shouldnt recommend someone, its that you know hes going to want someone who sees eye-to-eye with all of his own ideas. I wonder if an appointment by EO is allowed. If its possible, he will use it to get someone in that Congress dont approve. Of course Congress can over ride that, and that would probably end up being a long enough delay.
Just for fun, heres a really scarey thought. Since Hillary is questionable right now for presidential race, could Obuma recommend her for the job ? They are butt-buddies, and Ill bet shed be happy to take the job. She could be just like the Fuhrer and be there for life...
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 02-15-2016).]
I have a problem, that we have allowed the Government to not be bound by the Constitution.
And this gets back to the issue... we disagree. The minute the Constitution was ratified the government has not been "bound" by it. It has been tested over and over.... it is not a living document (I will stop you from labeling me)... but if taken literally (word for word and no exceptions), we would not have many of the things YOU benefit from and things that make this country great. These changes have stood for centuries, yet now you believe we are not holding government to the Constitution? Well, we are as close as we can be. If we had what YOU believe we should, then we would be a 3rd world country... limited roads, power, telephone, medicine, army.... heck we might even be speaking German or Japanese and not even have a Constitution anymore.
I for one, look forward to the changes and to see how the process works with the next SCJ and the impact it will have on the election and the whole process we call Government.
He is the President... like it or not and he has the power to recommend someone. The responsibility goes with the office.
Sadly, Trump, is wrong... no big surprise, because he is telling his "trumpeters" exactly what they want to hear. If he was in that position, he would have someone nominated before the body was cold.
You seem to forget that Congress and overturn any EO. They just have to want to.
quote
Originally posted by rogergarrison:
Trump is right that every way to delay it till after January should be carried out. Your right, there is no timeframe to follow. My point is not that he shouldnt recommend someone, its that you know hes going to want someone who sees eye-to-eye with all of his own ideas. I wonder if an appointment by EO is allowed. If its possible, he will use it to get someone in that Congress dont approve. Of course Congress can over ride that, and that would probably end up being a long enough delay.
And this gets back to the issue... we disagree. The minute the Constitution was ratified the government has not been "bound" by it. It has been tested over and over.... it is not a living document (I will stop you from labeling me)... but if taken literally (word for word and no exceptions), we would not have many of the things YOU benefit from and things that make this country great. These changes have stood for centuries, yet now you believe we are not holding government to the Constitution? Well, we are as close as we can be. If we had what YOU believe we should, then we would be a 3rd world country... limited roads, power, telephone, medicine, army.... heck we might even be speaking German or Japanese and not even have a Constitution anymore.
I for one, look forward to the changes and to see how the process works with the next SCJ and the impact it will have on the election and the whole process we call Government.
I rather take my chances, of speaking German or Japanese in a Constitutional Republic, than speak English in a Police State. Even if that meant having to fight wars here.
Above all things, I value Liberty.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-15-2016).]
There's a possibility that Obama may try to get a recess appointment to replace Scalia in the next week because Congress won't return until the 22nd. If he does, there's talk of him appointing Loretta Lynch, the AG. We'll see how this all pans out. Would Obama rush with a recess appointment just to thumb his nose at Congress, or will he play nice-nice? Hell, if he wanted to, he could appoint Michelle. There's nothing that says that a Supreme Court Justice even has to have a law degree. So just about anyone can be appointed. Confirmation is a different story.
Justice Scalia’s most important legacy will be his “originalism” and “textualism” theory that judges should decide cases according to the “public meaning” of the words in the Constitution or its Amendments as understood by the American people in the state constitutional ratifying conventions. He frequently lectured his colleagues against using a “living” or “evolving” interpretation of the Constitution, something he termed “idiotic.” He argued, “The only good Constitution is a dead Constitution. The problem with a living Constitution in a word is that somebody has to decide how it grows and when it is that new rights are – you know — come forth. And that’s an enormous responsibility in a democracy to place upon nine lawyers, or even 30 lawyers.” For him, the Constitution was static, unchanging and enduring, and should only be changed by the voters through the amendment process.
MYSanAntonio's news article quotes Mr. Poindexter's (ranch owner's) words and starts a lot of debate on the blogsphere...
quote
"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. "Ultimately they became available and handled it superbly. They flew in by helicopter. They told me to secure the ranch, which I did until this morning," he said.
And this gets back to the issue... we disagree. The minute the Constitution was ratified the government has not been "bound" by it. It has been tested over and over.... it is not a living document (I will stop you from labeling me)... but if taken literally (word for word and no exceptions), we would not have many of the things YOU benefit from and things that make this country great. These changes have stood for centuries, yet now you believe we are not holding government to the Constitution? Well, we are as close as we can be. If we had what YOU believe we should, then we would be a 3rd world country... limited roads, power, telephone, medicine, army.... heck we might even be speaking German or Japanese and not even have a Constitution anymore.
I for one, look forward to the changes and to see how the process works with the next SCJ and the impact it will have on the election and the whole process we call Government.
It doesn't help when people like yourself would just as soon wipe your ass with it.
One day, those who fantasize about a government with the power to suppress their ideological opposition will get their wish and regret it ........
The Constitution can not protect those who refuse to protect it. Sadly, many fail to see the danger of electing someone who thinks the Constitution is the problem. The only reason for creating our constitution was to calm each state's fear of a government that would enslave them by denying their sovereignty. Sadly, The Sovereignty of the states is for all intent and purposes, Gone. Yet we're still talking about defending the Constitution from an over reaching Government as if the states have not already delegated enough of their authority to have "surrendered" their sovereignty all ready.
Sorry, But if we're not there already. Defending the constitution as it was originally intended will become an act of treason. The federal government can come into your state, county, city and right into your home and detain you without permission of the state or you.. the only protection you have is the limit on the amount of time they can detain you. But unless you have access to legal and the courts, good luck avoiding an extended stay. I'm not saying they have the right to do so, I'm saying your state will not exercise their authority because they have already delegated it to the government. You stand alone with nothing more than the best legal counsel you can afford.........
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 02-16-2016).]
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: It doesn't help when people like yourself would just as soon wipe your ass with it.
It only carries the weight we give it.
Like myself? Historically, people have been wiping since it was written, but ignore that fact as it doesn't fit your agenda. How can so many people be wrong, yet so few (like yourself) be right? It can't. I have already shown that if the Constitution was taken literally, we would not have many of the things that make the US great (in another topic)... but you don't seem to have a problem with those things. Hmmm. I guess it only matters when you don't like a ruling.
And this gets back to the issue... we disagree. The minute the Constitution was ratified the government has not been "bound" by it. It has been tested over and over.... it is not a living document (I will stop you from labeling me)... but if taken literally (word for word and no exceptions), we would not have many of the things YOU benefit from and things that make this country great. These changes have stood for centuries, yet now you believe we are not holding government to the Constitution? Well, we are as close as we can be. If we had what YOU believe we should, then we would be a 3rd world country... limited roads, power, telephone, medicine, army.... heck we might even be speaking German or Japanese and not even have a Constitution anymore.
The government is responsible for the "Army" but that's about it.
You don't walk into the corner hospital and get care from a government employee, do you? You might if you go to the VA, but I don't think anyone wants to cite the VA as being a model institution right now. Sure, the government may fund some health care (ie: medicare and healthcare insurance subsidies under the ACA), but that isn't the government's money to begin with. It is taxpayer money, minus a not-so-modest fee collected by the government to pay administrative costs and fund an increasing federal employee base. The Constitution does not mention health care. And I wouldn't say the government has made health care better. It may be funding aspects of health care and it may be funding care for people who otherwise couldn't afford it - but most of the money being collected to fund those enterprises isn't actually making it that far (and is instead being consumed by administrative positions). By enlarge, the demand by private individuals and their own money is what drives improvements in healthcare now.
When was the last time you saw a government service truck putting up or maintaining power lines? Does the government actually own and operate any power plants in this country? The Constitution does not say the government can or must provide electricity to the citizens. So it doesn't. What the government has done is imposed regulations on the power companies, many of which are completely needless and based on unproven science (theories and speculation are not proof) - resulting in the ever increasing electric bills I have to pay.
I don't cut a check to the government every month to pay my internet and phone bills. I do, however, have to pay more for my internet and phone to cover government taxes imposed on those providers. The Constitution does mention the press and free speech and expression, which could be construed to mean free communication of ideas. But we've already seen the government violate another right (freedom of privacy) by issuing warrantless wire taps and collecting metadata without probable cause. I guess you are ok with all of this as long as it is done in the name of keeping you "safe" and the people who are in charge of the information being gathered and kept, agree with your political views. Am I wrong?
Roads and bridges are more complicated. I've never seen a Federal road building crew or Federal road maintenance truck. I do see local and state trucks filling in pot-holes and doing inspection work, but that's about it. When Indiana needs to build a new road or resurface one that already exists, that work is done by a private firm funded by the state or federal government using our tax dollars. By the way, here in Indiana, 1/6 of the taxes we pay when we buy gas go to funding the roads and bridges. 5/6 go to other funds (like the general fund) which get used for other things. Guess what? There are people in our state house right now who are complaining there isn't enough money to fund our roads and bridges and they want to raise our gas tax again. Maybe if 6/6 of the gas taxes went to funding roads and bridges - it wouldn't be a problem... But I digress. The Constitution does give the government power to regulate commerce. Most agree this should be restricted to making sure the government has the power to ensure fair and free trade, both foreign and domestic. Roads are needed to ensure commerce (the economy) can operate and thrive. But does this give the government the right and mandate to build a road or a bridge to nowhere? Roads and bridges get built out of necessity for trade (of goods and services). This was done long before our government and our Constitution existed. I don't think anyone would advocate building a road out in the middle of death valley to leads to nowhere for no reason. But I'm sure if a certain politician owned property out that way and wanted access to it, he or she could sure conjure up an excuse for creating an earmark to fund it.
Most of what government does involves waste, fraud, and abuse. I think it is safe to say that when most people think of "government", the thought furthest from their mind is efficiency. Do you disagree? I don't think anyone here has a problem with government working for the people. What most have a problem with here is the waste, fraud, and abuse parts. And I think we lost our biggest advocate for fighting against those things in the high court in the passing of Scalia.
He is the President... like it or not and he has the power to recommend someone. The responsibility goes with the office.
Sadly, Trump, is wrong... no big surprise, because he is telling his "trumpeters" exactly what they want to hear. If he was in that position, he would have someone nominated before the body was cold.
You seem to forget that Congress and overturn any EO. They just have to want to.
In your last line, I didnt 'seem ' to forget anything. If you reread, thats exactly what I said. Trump is NOT wrong, Congress or republicans CAN delay any nomination they want for as long as they want. Obuma is not obligated to do anything within a set timeframe. He can recommend someone 2 years later if he wanted to, if he was still president. You need to reread the Constitution yourself. Then go ahead and post any links you find saying your right and im wrong, since you like links so much.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 02-16-2016).]
Did you look into taxes that you pay for utilities? You say they are needless. Bringing telephones and power to those without it... needless? This is the progress I talked about. Without government intervention, we would not be the great country that we are today. We would have "3rd world" areas within our own borders. That is not good for the country.
The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things. Doesn't say "Air Force"... but we have one. How about those federal highways you drive on? You say we need those for commerce??? Regulating does not mean building roads, especially highways, but we have them. We should let each state develop their own road system, with no consistency, is that what you are saying? If you say it is for the defense of the country, well, so is health care, then. We need strong, healthy people to defend our country
One could say that country-wide broadband is necessary for defense and commerce. Should the Feds build it? Same for droughts and climate change.... should the feds attempt to "regulate" those?
Founding fathers couldn't have imagined nuclear weapons, yet we have them, and we have defenses against them. This means the feds must up their game and play a larger roll in our government.
I don't believe in warrant-less wiretapping (are you attempting to label me?).
I never said the government was efficient. It is what it is. Sometimes there is waste and fraud, just like any organization. Sometimes the government must step in and pay for things (major disasters, cleanups, etc). Our country is great because we have a government that is by the people and for the people.
As for Scilia, he interpreted what HE believed the founding fathers wanted, but you have to remember that the Constitution was not approved by a handful of people.... many, many were involved and ultimately approved it. Are you going to tell me that Scilia knew how those people thought, also? There was disagreement when writing the Constitution and not everyone had the same opinion. Scilia selected what HE believed was intended. Of course, people will agree with him because they are of the same mind-set. That is what makes our country great, though... different opinions and understandings that are focused around a central set of laws and rights. It is not perfect, but it has worked for quite some time and will continue to do so, even with all the chicken littles telling us the Constitution is falling
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
The government is responsible for the "Army" but that's about it.
You don't walk into the corner hospital and get care from a government employee, do you? You might if you go to the VA, but I don't think anyone wants to cite the VA as being a model institution right now. Sure, the government may fund some health care (ie: medicare and healthcare insurance subsidies under the ACA), but that isn't the government's money to begin with. It is taxpayer money, minus a not-so-modest fee collected by the government to pay administrative costs and fund an increasing federal employee base. The Constitution does not mention health care. And I wouldn't say the government has made health care better. It may be funding aspects of health care and it may be funding care for people who otherwise couldn't afford it - but most of the money being collected to fund those enterprises isn't actually making it that far (and is instead being consumed by administrative positions). By enlarge, the demand by private individuals and their own money is what drives improvements in healthcare now.
When was the last time you saw a government service truck putting up or maintaining power lines? Does the government actually own and operate any power plants in this country? The Constitution does not say the government can or must provide electricity to the citizens. So it doesn't. What the government has done is imposed regulations on the power companies, many of which are completely needless and based on unproven science (theories and speculation are not proof) - resulting in the ever increasing electric bills I have to pay.
I don't cut a check to the government every month to pay my internet and phone bills. I do, however, have to pay more for my internet and phone to cover government taxes imposed on those providers. The Constitution does mention the press and free speech and expression, which could be construed to mean free communication of ideas. But we've already seen the government violate another right (freedom of privacy) by issuing warrantless wire taps and collecting metadata without probable cause. I guess you are ok with all of this as long as it is done in the name of keeping you "safe" and the people who are in charge of the information being gathered and kept, agree with your political views. Am I wrong?
Roads and bridges are more complicated. I've never seen a Federal road building crew or Federal road maintenance truck. I do see local and state trucks filling in pot-holes and doing inspection work, but that's about it. When Indiana needs to build a new road or resurface one that already exists, that work is done by a private firm funded by the state or federal government using our tax dollars. By the way, here in Indiana, 1/6 of the taxes we pay when we buy gas go to funding the roads and bridges. 5/6 go to other funds (like the general fund) which get used for other things. Guess what? There are people in our state house right now who are complaining there isn't enough money to fund our roads and bridges and they want to raise our gas tax again. Maybe if 6/6 of the gas taxes went to funding roads and bridges - it wouldn't be a problem... But I digress. The Constitution does give the government power to regulate commerce. Most agree this should be restricted to making sure the government has the power to ensure fair and free trade, both foreign and domestic. Roads are needed to ensure commerce (the economy) can operate and thrive. But does this give the government the right and mandate to build a road or a bridge to nowhere? Roads and bridges get built out of necessity for trade (of goods and services). This was done long before our government and our Constitution existed. I don't think anyone would advocate building a road out in the middle of death valley to leads to nowhere for no reason. But I'm sure if a certain politician owned property out that way and wanted access to it, he or she could sure conjure up an excuse for creating an earmark to fund it.
Most of what government does involves waste, fraud, and abuse. I think it is safe to say that when most people think of "government", the thought furthest from their mind is efficiency. Do you disagree? I don't think anyone here has a problem with government working for the people. What most have a problem with here is the waste, fraud, and abuse parts. And I think we lost our biggest advocate for fighting against those things in the high court in the passing of Scalia.
I was talking about EOs. You seem to think that Obama rules by them and there is nothing we can do. YET Congress has the ability to override. You blame Obama for everything and ignore how our government is supposed to work.
I bet if Trump gets in office and starts handing out EOs, you will be as quiet as a church mouse about it.
As for the rest... it is common knowledge that Obama doesn't have to nominate anyone.
quote
Originally posted by rogergarrison: In your last line, I didnt 'seem ' to forget anything. If you reread, thats exactly what I said. Trump is NOT wrong, Congress or republicans CAN delay any nomination they want for as long as they want. Obuma is not obligated to do anything within a set timeframe. He can recommend someone 2 years later if he wanted to, if he was still president. You need to reread the Constitution yourself. Then go ahead and post any links you find saying your right and im wrong, since you like links so much.
Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Here's a scenario you guys in particular should find appealing. Obama resigns his POTUS seat, passing the baton off to Biden for the remainder of his term and appoints HIMSELF to the seat vacated by Scalia. ...I'd like to see him attempt it simply for the joy of watching neo-con heads explode like a scene from Mars Attacks. LOL!!
You sir are a sick man.
No doubt though thatd be his dream job...well today the US, later the world.
