teddyballgame
10 years ago
The Constitution says NOTHING about the Senate being required to act on or vote on a nomination.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."



Scalia had an interview a few years back in where he said something to the effect that he would not want a successor to him to be a liberal judge that would undo all he had done while on the bench. So I think that Scalia would not welcome the impending lefty hacks that Obama will try and ram through to pack the courts with liberal activist judges.

But we don't know either way, because Scalia is not here to answer that exact question. The point is moot, we can't speak for the man.
victor809
10 years ago
This is fun...
Ok... By your claims, Scalia is a constitutionalist. Also, by your claim, the Constitution provides the president the power to appoint the supreme Court justices... Without Senate approval even...(I'm just following your exact statements)

But despite you believing these two things, you believe that scalia would support some sort of end run around the Constitution because it could prevent him from being replaced by "lefty hacks" ... Who you don't believe would follow the Constitution.

And you stated all of this without any intended irony.

....
DrafterX
10 years ago
I heard he was suffocated with a pillow... 😟
jjanecka
10 years ago
Who knows maybe out of a Random act of kindness or complete foolishness Obama will appoint the most conservative, constitutionalist, states-rights judge this nation has ever seen.
tonygraz
10 years ago
I seem to remember that a while back Scalia said he wanted a liberal to be next on the court and suggested Kagan. He got his wish.
Brewha
10 years ago

I disagree with a great deal of what you post, but I generally support your right to hold and state your opinions. I suppose that I still do, but after that abhorrent post, that support is waning. Sad and ugly, Brew.

dstieger wrote:


First off I was kidding.
Second, I wrote that after reading some of Teddy's rantings - so just like the rest of us, my judgment and sensibility were temporarily impaired.
Thirdly, Sorry my crass humor offended your delicate sensibilities.
And lastly, Thank you dstieger, for your ongoing support and patronage. It is hard to put a value on it.
But I'll try....
teddyballgame
10 years ago
So you are going to blame your weak attempt at humor on me eh?

Typical liberal.

Your crass humor is really just crass anyway. You and tony are about the least funny people around...but not in your minds.
teddyballgame
10 years ago

This is fun...
Ok... By your claims, Scalia is a constitutionalist. Also, by your claim, the Constitution provides the president the power to appoint the supreme Court justices... Without Senate approval even...(I'm just following your exact statements)

But despite you believing these two things, you believe that scalia would support some sort of end run around the Constitution because it could prevent him from being replaced by "lefty hacks" ... Who you don't believe would follow the Constitution.

And you stated all of this without any intended irony.

....

victor809 wrote:




Yes he was a Constitutionalist and yes the Constitution provides that the Pres. nominates S.C. Justices.
(lets keep up with the actual Constitution, Maynard)

And there is no "end run" around the Constitution as, again according to the actual written text in the Constitution, there
is nothing that states the Senate need act on a nominee. It is up to the Senate.

And it is not like I believe "lefty hack" justices don't follow the Constitution, they actually look for ways to interpret the Constitution to bastardize its meaning to push their agendas.

...and you followed along without any cliffs notes.

=d>
Brewha
10 years ago

So you are going to blame your weak attempt at humor on me eh?

Typical liberal.

Your crass humor is really just crass anyway. You and tony are about the least funny people around...but not in your minds.

teddyballgame wrote:


Well, you have to be good for something.....

Wait, I can foretell your next thought; its "irony can be pretty ironic..."
tonygraz
10 years ago
Hey, we can't all come up with the laughable chit T-ball comes up with.
tailgater
10 years ago

First off I was kidding.
Second, I wrote that after reading some of Teddy's rantings - so just like the rest of us, my judgment and sensibility were temporarily impaired.
Thirdly, Sorry my crass humor offended your delicate sensibilities.
And lastly, Thank you dstieger, for your ongoing support and patronage. It is hard to put a value on it.
But I'll try....

Brewha wrote:




Your second point about TBG's rantings? Pure BS.
Teddy had one post prior to you laughing at the death of Scalia. And that post was hardly ranting.
Go back and look at the thread. Unfortunate for you we've got that pesky thing known as written proof.

This denial makes your post somehow more vile.
And your poor excuse is such a typical liberal reaction.

And I was going to applaud your superb use of irony in your first post here.






Brewha
10 years ago

Your second point about TBG's rantings? Pure BS.
Teddy had one post prior to you laughing at the death of Scalia. And that post was hardly ranting.
Go back and look at the thread. Unfortunate for you we've got that pesky thing known as written proof.

This denial makes your post somehow more vile.
And your poor excuse is such a typical liberal reaction.

And I was going to applaud your superb use of irony in your first post here.

tailgater wrote:


So what if it is pure BS? It sounded plausible – and that’s all it takes in the political forum.
Or it could be that I was reading other threads that TBG wrote – yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket. I was, uh, reading other stuff that he wrote and it threw me off, made me all light headed and stuff. I could have been hurt…..That guy is dangerous. We should regulate that stuff he writes. It’s like toxic waste, or SARS, or anything Bill O’Rielly says….

Huh, that rhymes…
tonygraz
10 years ago
As if right wingers were polite angels that respected anyone left of center.
gummy jones
10 years ago

First off I was kidding.
Second, I wrote that after reading some of Teddy's rantings - so just like the rest of us, my judgment and sensibility were temporarily impaired.
Thirdly, Sorry my crass humor offended your delicate sensibilities.
And lastly, Thank you dstieger, for your ongoing support and patronage. It is hard to put a value on it.
But I'll try....

Brewha wrote:



dude i really didnt/dont think you were joking
we all have our differences but that comment was unbecoming considering what i know of you
and id like to think it was a comment of passion that isnt reflective of your character

DrafterX
10 years ago
Brewha wouldn't hurt a fly... unless it bit him or somethin.. then I guess he'd prolly smash it... 🤔
teedubbya
10 years ago
Go to Oprah... Go to Oprah...

bunch of girls. get over it.
DrafterX
10 years ago
What the hell is that..?? 'Go to Oprah'..?? 😕
gummy jones
10 years ago
shes skinny again i think

maybe tw wants us to get some weight loss tips?
teedubbya
10 years ago
It's what they chant on the Springer show when things get too serious..... then they get back to ripping shirts off and bitch slapping and stuff
DrafterX
10 years ago
it's all staged.... or so I heard... 😟
Users browsing this topic