This Is Huge - SCOTUS Justice Scalia has died
- Thread starter go high fast
- Start date
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwig3fLak9jLAhUHWSYKHQwgBhcQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fheavy.com%2Fnews%2F2016%2F03%2Fmerrick-garland-position-view-gun-control-second-2nd-amendment-history-supreme-court-nominee-obama%2F&usg=AFQjCNFl6d28Ncw4YJWIFSqkrxiXT0x_og&sig2=VNCXje0N5dEDCn445nKlIA
or
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...d--Ey3_Lj5aYorCaQ&sig2=a7yGjXwvVWSLOxI3pLVPkQ
or
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...d--Ey3_Lj5aYorCaQ&sig2=a7yGjXwvVWSLOxI3pLVPkQ
Last edited:
From the article you posted a link to:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ix7lQLplA_E?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Regardless of your stance on firearms... this is completely LUDICROUS.
I can't believe this man still holds office... I can see back in the day when he felt a responsibility to our nation... that has since been lost.
The Qualifications for a SCOTUS appointee are weather or not they will be a good judge... based on the case, law, the constitution...
and...
NOT... weather they are endorsed by one industry supported lobby group or not.
Mitch... needs to revisit his reasons for being a senator.
These statements by Senator McConnell show his true colors: a pandering obstructionist.
Our country is not about corporate supported, lobby groups dictating the structure of the judicial system... especially not the SCOTUS.
This politicking needs to end...The people HAVE spoken... and the current sitting, NON lame-duck, president is the person that the overwhelming majority of people have elected to do the job of POTUS. President Obama has 10 months remaining in office... 2 months shy of a year... heck... he has 8 months in office till we know who the next POTUS is.
With Sen. McConnell saying that the senate majority will not even consider this President Obama nominee unless a Dem is elected to POTUS... and then, then, they will consider him in the REAL lame-duck period between the election and when President Obama leaves office. Really???
My understanding is that they will still have to hold hearings for this appointment by President Obama at some point...even with a new POTUS in the oval office.
My message to Sen. McConnell would be the same as President Reagan's message above (post #33) ... You are to uphold your constitutional responsibilities that you swore an oath to uphold when you accepted that very responsibility that was entrusted to you by the people.
Thats my 2 cents.
.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ix7lQLplA_E?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Regardless of your stance on firearms... this is completely LUDICROUS.
I can't believe this man still holds office... I can see back in the day when he felt a responsibility to our nation... that has since been lost.
The Qualifications for a SCOTUS appointee are weather or not they will be a good judge... based on the case, law, the constitution...
and...
NOT... weather they are endorsed by one industry supported lobby group or not.
Mitch... needs to revisit his reasons for being a senator.
These statements by Senator McConnell show his true colors: a pandering obstructionist.
Our country is not about corporate supported, lobby groups dictating the structure of the judicial system... especially not the SCOTUS.
This politicking needs to end...The people HAVE spoken... and the current sitting, NON lame-duck, president is the person that the overwhelming majority of people have elected to do the job of POTUS. President Obama has 10 months remaining in office... 2 months shy of a year... heck... he has 8 months in office till we know who the next POTUS is.
With Sen. McConnell saying that the senate majority will not even consider this President Obama nominee unless a Dem is elected to POTUS... and then, then, they will consider him in the REAL lame-duck period between the election and when President Obama leaves office. Really???
My understanding is that they will still have to hold hearings for this appointment by President Obama at some point...even with a new POTUS in the oval office.
My message to Sen. McConnell would be the same as President Reagan's message above (post #33) ... You are to uphold your constitutional responsibilities that you swore an oath to uphold when you accepted that very responsibility that was entrusted to you by the people.
Thats my 2 cents.
.
Last edited:
What that means actually is that the senate needs to uphold the constitution and hold hearings on the Presidents appointee to vet Merrick Garland or find reasons that would disqualify him.
Those reasons to confirm or reject are NOT political or ideological views.
Reasons would be based on weather or not the Merrick Garland would conduct the responsibilities as a Judge in the SCOTUS.... plain and simple.
If he is endorsed by the LGBT union... NOT a reason.
If he is endorsed by the NRA.... NOT a reason.
If he is endorsed by Greenpeace... NOT a reason.
If he is endorsed by the Heritage Foundation... NOT a reason
If he is endorsed by Planned Parenthood.... NOT a reason.
If he is endorsed by Hobby Lobby....NOT a reason.
If he is endorsed by the Sierra Club.... NOT a reason.
If he is endorsed by the Catholic/Mormon Church... NOT a reason.
Merrick Garland was confirmed with bipartisan support, 76 to 23 in 1997.... many are still in the senate.
The only way to put this.... obstructionist and anti-constitutional.
If you stand for upholding the constitution or ANY of the amendments... then opposing the constitutional responsibility to hold hearing is nothing but political obstructionism.
Funny... if Mrs. Clinton gets elected to POTUS... THEN... durning the actual lame duck period of President Obama... THEN the obstructionists have conceded that they will consider Judge Garland.
I find it disturbing that the current leaders in the senate are actually proud of being obstructionists... the founding fathers would be ashamed IMO. I know President Reagan would be.
I guess we'll see what the people say during the next election for both POTUS and for the senate...and I hope 'reason' plays a big role...rather than the circus of candidates that look like they'll get their parties nomination.... may be a big year for an independent!!
.
Those reasons to confirm or reject are NOT political or ideological views.
Reasons would be based on weather or not the Merrick Garland would conduct the responsibilities as a Judge in the SCOTUS.... plain and simple.
If he is endorsed by the LGBT union... NOT a reason.
If he is endorsed by the NRA.... NOT a reason.
If he is endorsed by Greenpeace... NOT a reason.
If he is endorsed by the Heritage Foundation... NOT a reason
If he is endorsed by Planned Parenthood.... NOT a reason.
If he is endorsed by Hobby Lobby....NOT a reason.
If he is endorsed by the Sierra Club.... NOT a reason.
If he is endorsed by the Catholic/Mormon Church... NOT a reason.
Merrick Garland was confirmed with bipartisan support, 76 to 23 in 1997.... many are still in the senate.
The only way to put this.... obstructionist and anti-constitutional.
If you stand for upholding the constitution or ANY of the amendments... then opposing the constitutional responsibility to hold hearing is nothing but political obstructionism.
Funny... if Mrs. Clinton gets elected to POTUS... THEN... durning the actual lame duck period of President Obama... THEN the obstructionists have conceded that they will consider Judge Garland.
I find it disturbing that the current leaders in the senate are actually proud of being obstructionists... the founding fathers would be ashamed IMO. I know President Reagan would be.
I guess we'll see what the people say during the next election for both POTUS and for the senate...and I hope 'reason' plays a big role...rather than the circus of candidates that look like they'll get their parties nomination.... may be a big year for an independent!!
.
Last edited:
I guess milehighassmonkey didn't care for this post. Gave me a big red thumbs down! LOL!
So what does that mean, is it hilarious there are also snowmobiles in China and Russia? Is that the kind of government you want? You could move there. As For me I much prefer freedom to produce and individual responsibility. You might be surprised to find out Russia and the Scandinavian countries have the highest incidences of drunkenness and suicide rates in the western world. The whole of Europe is about to crumble under their socialist system and illogical immigration policies. And by the way what does that have to do with republicans using the Biden rule on the scotus pick?
Its mind boggling that not only leaders are touting it, but people are eating it up. But I guess thats just the new American dream. Drag your feet until people give you what you want. Sometimes everything doesn't go your way, but you do what you can, move on and try to keep making positive moves as best you can.
