Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:09 pm

malchior wrote:Anyone who doesn't think the Republicans are the vast majority of the current problem are out of their minds. Luckily they won't likely be around much longer.

They haven't been watching the GOP debates, either.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:12 pm

Rip wrote:I think the entire thing is aimed at the election itself.

2nd amendment support runs deep and as long as that is a key election issue people will vote for Trump who otherwise might not.

Bold but smart political move going into the election.

Trump has given no one reason to believe he's a champion of the 2nd amendment. And even if he did, there's no reason to believe him. He's a pathological liar.

The chances that Trump is loyal to the people that put him in power is nearly zero.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:15 pm

Not sure why Obama would want to give motivation to second amendment absolutests motivation to vote for Trump, but...

GreenGoo wrote: Trump has given no one reason to believe he's a champion of the 2nd amendment.

He's got huge reasons. The best reasons. Trust me, there's no problem with his reasons.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:18 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote:I think the entire thing is aimed at the election itself.

2nd amendment support runs deep and as long as that is a key election issue people will vote for Trump who otherwise might not.

Bold but smart political move going into the election.
Trump has given no one reason to believe he's a champion of the 2nd amendment. And even if he did, there's no reason to believe him. He's a pathological liar.

The chances that Trump is loyal to the people that put him in power is nearly zero.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/ ... ent-rights

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.

The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:23 pm

Rip wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote:I think the entire thing is aimed at the election itself.

2nd amendment support runs deep and as long as that is a key election issue people will vote for Trump who otherwise might not.

Bold but smart political move going into the election.
Trump has given no one reason to believe he's a champion of the 2nd amendment. And even if he did, there's no reason to believe him. He's a pathological liar.

The chances that Trump is loyal to the people that put him in power is nearly zero.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/ ... ent-rights

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.

The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative.

See? There's every reason to believe that the pathological liar will uphold a rigid view of the second amendment because the pathological liar said he would.

Problem solved.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:23 pm

That's too articulate to be Donald Trump. Ask the Muslims what Trump thinks about the Bill of Rights when it's politically inconvenient.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:24 pm

Or ask Donald Trump what be thinks of an issue, then compare that to the material on his site. Say, healthcare.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:26 pm

So you would suggest looking to Hillary to do it?

Don't get me wrong, I would trust Ted Cruz to defend the 2nd more than Trump but he isn't really viable any longer.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:34 pm

Rip wrote:So you would suggest looking to Hillary to do it?

Don't get me wrong, I would trust Ted Cruz to defend the 2nd more than Trump but he isn't really viable any longer.

I'm saying that there is no reason to believe Trump is a strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights. If Clinton is unpalatable, maybe stay home on voting day

That said, at least Clinton understands what's in the bill of rights and the constitution. If Trump doesn't have an advisor keeping him from saying anything completely negating those documents, he should have. There's zero chance he understands anything beyond what he imagines those documents to be.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:36 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote:So you would suggest looking to Hillary to do it?

Don't get me wrong, I would trust Ted Cruz to defend the 2nd more than Trump but he isn't really viable any longer.
I'm saying that there is no reason to believe Trump is a strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights. If Clinton is unpalatable, maybe stay home on voting day

That said, at least Clinton understands what's in the bill of rights and the constitution. If Trump doesn't have an advisor keeping him from saying anything completely negating those documents, he should have. There's zero chance he understands anything beyond what he imagines those documents to be.

I don't vote for the person I like/trust, I vote against the person I fear.

As such I always have cause to vote.

I did my prt to avoid Trump by voting for Cruz.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:46 pm

And that's the problem facing the GOP establishment. There don't have 1 insurmountable problem, they have two. Even if they could defeat Trump, they're left with Cruz, as popular as a zit on prom night.

How on earth did the GOP get into this position?

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:24 pm

By trying to legislate us into 1950 regardless of the effect they're having on their own constituents?

If anything, this election has shown how pissed off the voting public is.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:38 pm

Rip wrote:https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/ ... ent-rights

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.

So close.

Cornell Law wrote:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What happens when well-regulated militias become a threat to the security of the free state?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:01 pm

Blackhawk wrote:By trying to legislate us into 1950 regardless of the effect they're having on their own constituents?

If anything, this election has shown how pissed off the voting public is.

If Trump rallies are any indication, the voting public is pissed off that the GOP didn't try to legislate you back to the 1800's.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:02 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Rip wrote:https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/ ... ent-rights

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.
So close.

Cornell Law wrote:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What happens when well-regulated militias become a threat to the security of the free state?

They are a threat? Should we forget about ISIS and all that and start sending drones after them?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:08 pm

The only domestic militias that I've heard about lately are ones advocating sedition.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:29 am

Rip wrote: Should we forget about ISIS...

Yes. For God's sake, yes. At least as far as being in a state of constant fear and deciding policy based on that fear.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:41 am

I didn't realize Biden had such influence in the senate. Maybe he should come up with more rules. Maybe Joe's Edict of Do Your Fucking Job.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:51 am

Alefroth wrote:I didn't realize Biden had such influence in the senate.

He's a big fucking deal.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:15 pm

Man-in-the-street interviews about Obama's pick

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:46 pm

Kraken wrote:Man-in-the-street interviews about Obama's pick

I'm not a fan of this kind of bit. We had a guy doing this to Americans when asked about Canada. Sure, sometimes it was funny, but the entire goal is to make people look stupid, and that just seems mean to me.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:47 pm

As much as I'm not a fan of playing games with supreme court nominations, and I'm tentatively not a fan of this nomination, I wonder if what Obama should do is: wait two or three of months, and if the senate hasn't moved the nomination process forward at all, then withdraw the nomination, and replace him with a different nominee that is qualified and slightly to the left of him on the political spectrum. Wait a couple of months and then repeat the process until they finally vote to confirm or the next president is sworn in.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:52 pm

I'm super duper hoping that's his plan.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 11:30 am

I honestly think the plan is to just keep hammering them on their inaction and hope that Trump turns the polls against vulnerable Republicans in such way that they get some movement. Galand probably won't get confirmed (and likely knows it) but is willing to get the opportunity.

Obama is repeatedly showing off the Republican weak spot that they can't govern and will keep twisting that know until they finally break. Imo this was a crafty smart move that will help usher in the possibility that he will be able to claim credit for driving the take in to the Republican party as part of his legacy.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 11:48 am

I think that's wishful thinking. That's how you will interpret these events, but you are already predisposed to believe that. I don't think the people that McConnell is reporting to will interpret these events in this way. I mean - you know that Rip and msduncan won't interpret events this way.

No pressure YellowKing, but malchior's hopes rest on you and those like you. Godspeed.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:14 pm

Wait...what?

“I can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses...”

Did he really just come out and say that?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:39 pm

It's like he's not even trying anymore.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:57 pm

GreenGoo wrote:How on earth did the GOP get into this position?

By appealing to their "base," for whom they cannot actually win the hearts and minds of. This is the Tea Party fracture I had envisioned nearly a decade ago, only I've totally surprised at how many of them there are and that so many of them really seem to be fueled by Sound and Fury. I had always assumed they would be marginalized by their minority anger. It never occurred to me that there would be so many of them and it never occurred to me that as a minority they could seize as much control as they have. But really it make sense in hind sight. How much of the population is republican? 40%? Is that generous? Now if half of them are extreme, it only takes 20%. And that's 20% of motivated voters. Only half the population votes, so now that's 10% of the country, if you are being generous, hold our feet to the coals.

I still hold hope against hope that this will create a sane conservative party but the problem is that I don't like establishment republicans either. So I'm as bad the Tea Party. Of course, none of the republican party is moving in the direction I want to go.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:03 pm

Smoove_B wrote:Wait...what?

“I can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses...”

Did he really just come out and say that?

Maybe if Obama nominated the NRA to the seat, they would finally allow a vote?

(Hey, if corporations are people...)

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:39 pm

George Mason University is renaming its law school after Justice Scalia. It will be known as the Antonin Scalia School of Law.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:45 pm

pr0ner wrote:George Mason University is renaming its law school after Justice Scalia. It will be known as the Antonin Scalia School of Law.

ASSoL? That's... unfortunate. Or awesome, depending on your perspective.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 8:38 pm

Max Peck wrote:
pr0ner wrote:George Mason University is renaming its law school after Justice Scalia. It will be known as the Antonin Scalia School of Law.
ASSoL? That's... unfortunate. Or awesome, depending on your perspective.

I'm sure they didn't care about Twitter hashtags or acronyms (or the hilarious liberal response I've seen online) when a) they're already a conservative leaning school, and b) they got to collect $30 mil in donations.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:43 am

pr0ner wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
pr0ner wrote:George Mason University is renaming its law school after Justice Scalia. It will be known as the Antonin Scalia School of Law.
ASSoL? That's... unfortunate. Or awesome, depending on your perspective.
I'm sure they didn't care about Twitter hashtags or acronyms (or the hilarious liberal response I've seen online) when a) they're already a conservative leaning school, and b) they got to collect $30 mil in donations.

Apparently they do care, given that they have changed the name to The Antonin Scalia Law School.

Under the terms of the anonymous gift, we are authorized to use a variety of different names. The name initially announced – The Antonin Scalia School of Law – has caused some acronym controversy on social media. The Antonin Scalia Law School is a logical substitute. We anticipate the naming will be effective on July 1, 2016 pending final approval by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV).

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:33 am

ASSoLs........

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jun 20, 2016 3:36 pm

So this whole "we're not going to allow the current President to appoint a Supreme Court Justice" is actually still happening, eh? How are any of these elected officials still drawing a salary and collecting benefits?

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:58 pm

Smoove_B wrote:So this whole "we're not going to allow the current President to appoint a Supreme Court Justice" is actually still happening, eh? How are any of these elected officials still drawing a salary and collecting benefits?

It's a known fact you can't fire a government employee.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:36 pm

Smoove_B wrote:So this whole "we're not going to allow the current President to appoint a Supreme Court Justice" is actually still happening, eh? How are any of these elected officials still drawing a salary and collecting benefits?

Are you suggesting it isn't sane to not be able to replace/appoint a Supreme 25% of the time? What kind of Democracy are we living in? The voters have to have a voice!

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:38 pm

I'm just astounded we're barreling through June and there's been no movement and I guess no one reporting on it? So apparently now we've set the bar so officially a Supreme Court Justice can't be replaced the final year of a Presidency - as stated in the Constitution somewhere?

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:47 pm

It's incredibly gross that no movement is being allowed to happen. I'm not surprised that nobody's reporting on it though. The story would be basically "GOP continuing to do the same nothing it's been doing." That's not the kind of story that pulls in readers.

What I think would be interesting is if one or more of the major news outlets kept a running count of the number of days the Senate's been refusing to schedule hearings. Just keep it at the top of the banner, kind of like an "X days accident free", but more depressing.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:00 pm

Chaz wrote:It's incredibly gross that no movement is being allowed to happen. I'm not surprised that nobody's reporting on it though. The story would be basically "GOP continuing to do the same nothing it's been doing." That's not the kind of story that pulls in readers.

What I think would be interesting is if one or more of the major news outlets kept a running count of the number of days the Senate's been refusing to schedule hearings. Just keep it at the top of the banner, kind of like an "X days accident free", but more depressing.

If you want to get really depressed, ask yourself this: suppose the presidency and the Senate remain divided between the major parties after the election (most likely variation on this is that Clinton wins the presidency but Republicans retain the Senate). What incentive does a GOP senate have to confirm a Clinton SCOTUS nominee at all during her term, rather than wait for 2021?