America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Terrible news.

I read that on infowars

It's going to get ugly.

^^wrong guy...it was Vince Foster "in the park"

I'm getting a kick out of the let the election decide crowd. It's a year away and ignores the last two elections.

That said. Let the election decide it.

I like big butts I can't deny

R I P Big Tony..

Jokes aside... we do not want the judiciary branch running things. Period.

Seems to me they almost do already... balance in the supreme court is best.

I heard he's gonna appoint Bill Clinton...

um, what about the sitting Prez picking the next judge? If you are against that norm, and against some of the potential new presidents, wouldn't it be a weird precedent to allow you to decide who picks?

TW for Supreme Court Justice..!!

This is very bad news.

The squish Republicans in the Senate will give Obama any candidate he wants, most likely, not put up a fight, because they will say he gets his pick.

The senate needs to be hard on these S.C. nominees and make sure they adhere to the Constitution. Hell look what the Dems did to Bork and tried to do to C .Thomas. I am not suggesting that, but Sotomayor and Kagan were just shuttled through so easily, when they both had so many questions about pushing their agendas from the bench.

But It will now be a 5-4 liberal majority and we will continually lose more of our liberties.

Article V, and the convention of the states is needed and needed badly now.

Man this blows.

I think Scalia did his country a great service - by kicking off. This guy was ultra right wing conservative that wanted to take us all back 200 years.

Hopefully with a more balanced SCOTUS we will have less conservative tyranny and less erosion of our rights.

This is great news!

Interesting how the strict interpretation of the constitution changes when the republicans don't like the circumstances.




61

Same here Frank.

Did she like it ?



61

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

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that 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.

As it should this time.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html

So Ike did it three times in a row and the senate passed a non binding outrage statement and no one has done it since.

I'm literally weeping.

curious what was meant by "recess" appointment, as opposed to some term that obviously means lame duck appointment.
From what I could surmise from this all too brief write up, it did not pass the GOP controlled Senate, but I'm guessing the SCOTUS would have ruled it unconstitutional in any event.

Two wrongs make a right, evidently.

I may disagree here and there on some specifics with you, but I get your anger and respect it.

I find it comical that a S.C. Justice like Scalia, committed to following very closely to the Constitution of the U.S. is considered "ultra right wing."

Since when is following the Constitution "far right?" The U.S. Constitution should be considered the central starting point of the conversation.

It just shows how the country has veered left and how extreme, far progressively left the democrat party has gone- off the rails.

Pitiful

The real argument isn't left or right its whether the constitution is a living document that should adapt to changing times or not (strict constructionist). It's an interesting intellectual debate if you strip the left right politics and natty light expert commentary out of it. The judges themselves seem to respect that.

while i understand your point im not sure i agree with it. judges are not more principled and do not have better morals than you or i simply because they wear the robe. further, they are not necessarily better equipped to focus on the common good rather than personal gain no matter how badly we want them to.

in our polarized society we are going to see more and more activists judges and it will not be a good thing.

First off, cacman is spot on with his "fix" of TW post.


Nextly (yes I said "nextly"),

The "living breathing" Constitution argument was "concocted" because Pres. Wilson hated the constraints that the Constitution placed on the government. So, this B.S. was given birth to and liberals run with it as if it were gospel.

The Constitution isn't "living and breathing."

It is a contract with laws that the fed government is supposed to adhere to LIMITING their power and reach. There are provisions for the Constitution to adapt and be changed, through a Constitutional amendment process, which is not fast enough, nor liberal enough for democrats to push through their agenda items.
Why don't we just consider all contracts living and breathing?
Tell the business party on the other side of the agreed to document, that you consider it living and breathing and that you are changing the terms...see how that goes.

So we conservatives are painted as "strict constructionists" to make us sound like we are ever unchanging. Conservatives are ok with the change to the Constitution, but by the amendment process in Article V.

Look at the runaway constant Constitutional convention we have going on now.


The president, ad hoc, passes laws by fiat, or he ignores laws or parts of laws he doesn't feel fit his agenda.
The EPA and other bureaucracies are passing laws that are given the imprimatur by the Supreme Court. These bodies aren't beholden or accountable to anyone, and no where in the Constitution does it say these bodies can make laws.

Look how Roberts twists the Obamacare penalty, claiming it was a "tax", when we have audio, video, written text claiming the exact opposite- it was not a tax, but a penalty on the individual for not acting. Didn't matter, Roberts wanted the law to be law of the land, so he pushed his and the other 4 justices' agenda.
This is NOT following the Constitution, this is trying to make law from the bench.

These are people, just like the citizenry, with their own prejudices and agendas and just because they wear black robes, doesn't mean they are following the Constitution. In fact, we now rely on the vote of one justice in 5-4 votes to say that this is an ok law or not. - what if Roberts went the other way? Then Obamacare is Unconstitutional because HE decided it was?

If the justices all followed the Constitution, why would FDR try and pack the S.C. with justices sympathetic to his agenda? Why do that if all justices follow the Constitution anyway?

The left 4 S.C. judges are never going to change their minds from their liberal bents. Hell, Ruthy Ginsberg thinks South Africa's constitution is THE document to point to for the shining example to the world.

So, if we don't place another "strict constructionist" on the S.C. we are going to go to a place that mindless Utopia-ists like tonygraz and Brewha want to take us to- someplace with a living breathing constitution where the fed government takes whatever liberties it wants... ahhh nirvana.