Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Supreme Court Appointment

Page 6 of 15 [ 239 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 15  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Should Obama Select the next Supreme Court Justice?
Yes 76%  76%  [ 29 ]
No 24%  24%  [ 9 ]
Total votes : 38

MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

16 Feb 2016, 6:24 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Why don't you want this to be something the people vote on? It is possible it could work out better for the D's in the end, I think everybody knows any candidate Obama nominates will be a Trojan horse radical bent on destroying on destroying the constitution. He isn't going to name someone whose vote he can't count on. It is not a living document, it isn't something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.


The people voted Obama into office, twice now. The president appoints a SC Justice. The constitution isn't an original document either apparently, just something you'll do lip service to while pushing an agenda.


_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

16 Feb 2016, 6:26 pm

Jacoby wrote:
There is no moderate position on the 2nd Amendment, you are either for it or against it because the words "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. ......... It is not a living document, it isn't something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.
if it's not a living document, why does it have 27 extra bits that weren't there when it was written?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

16 Feb 2016, 6:29 pm

MDD123 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Why don't you want this to be something the people vote on? It is possible it could work out better for the D's in the end, I think everybody knows any candidate Obama nominates will be a Trojan horse radical bent on destroying on destroying the constitution. He isn't going to name someone whose vote he can't count on. It is not a living document, it isn't something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.


The people voted Obama into office, twice now. The president appoints a SC Justice. The constitution isn't an original document either apparently, just something you'll do lip service to while pushing an agenda.


The people took away Obama's majorities in the House in 2010 and then the Senate in 2014, the Senate has to approve any SC nominee. Elections matter, deal with it but luckily for us there is one 9 or so months away. Where in the constitution does it say anything being obligated to approve the presidents SC picks? Do you know there isn't even anything in constitution saying we need 9 justices, they could leave it at 8 and that would be totally with in congresses right to do that.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

16 Feb 2016, 6:32 pm

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There is no moderate position on the 2nd Amendment, you are either for it or against it because the words "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. ......... It is not a living document, it isn't something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.
if it's not a living document, why does it have 27 extra bits that weren't there when it was written?


That's exactly the point, there is a whole process to amending the constitution and it doesn't include arbitrary redefinition for political expediency. The 2nd Amendment is clear in what it says, the 27th amendment is clear in what it says. We can't risk Obama naming an activist judge to bench for a lifetime appointment 9 months before an election, we don't have to and don't want to.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

16 Feb 2016, 6:36 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There is no moderate position on the 2nd Amendment, you are either for it or against it because the words "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. ......... It is not a living document, it isn't something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.
if it's not a living document, why does it have 27 extra bits that weren't there when it was written?


That's exactly the point, there is a whole process to amending the constitution and it doesn't include arbitrary redefinition for political expediency. The 2nd Amendment is clear in what it says, the 27th amendment is clear in what it says. We can't risk Obama naming an activist judge to bench for a lifetime appointment 9 months before an election, we don't have to and don't want to.
so you have legal precedent for not allowing the president to perform his proscribed duties?(the Thurmond rule isn't precedent, before you trot that out.)



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

16 Feb 2016, 6:39 pm

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There is no moderate position on the 2nd Amendment, you are either for it or against it because the words "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. ......... It is not a living document, it isn't something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.
if it's not a living document, why does it have 27 extra bits that weren't there when it was written?


That's exactly the point, there is a whole process to amending the constitution and it doesn't include arbitrary redefinition for political expediency. The 2nd Amendment is clear in what it says, the 27th amendment is clear in what it says. We can't risk Obama naming an activist judge to bench for a lifetime appointment 9 months before an election, we don't have to and don't want to.
so you have legal precedent for not allowing the president to perform his proscribed duties?(the Thurmond rule isn't precedent, before you trot that out.)


There is precedent but it's not needed anyways since this president and this election are without precedent. I don't care either way since it would be the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. The balance of the court is at stake so it worth it to have this fight. The GOP has the majority, they get to ultimately decide. Elections matter. End of story.



frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

16 Feb 2016, 6:42 pm

Jacoby,

All valid points



MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

16 Feb 2016, 6:46 pm

Jacoby wrote:
There is precedent but it's not needed anyways since this president and this election are without precedent. I don't care either way since it would be the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. The GOP has the majority, they get to ultimately decide. Elections matter. End of story.


How is Obama unprecedented? Besides the widespread Republican reaction against him, I've asked time and time again why Obama is so different from other presidents. Can you honestly say something more specific than your "King Obama" hyperbole?


_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

16 Feb 2016, 6:50 pm

Jacoby wrote:
There is precedent but it's not needed anyways since this president and this election are without precedent. I don't care either way since it would be the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. The GOP has the majority, they get to ultimately decide.
it wasn't the same thing actually. the GOP never raised any objections when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito on his last term. as for your comments about the 2nd amendment being inviolate, maybe you should reread Article 2 of the constitution.



frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

16 Feb 2016, 6:52 pm

MDD123 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There is precedent but it's not needed anyways since this president and this election are without precedent. I don't care either way since it would be the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. The GOP has the majority, they get to ultimately decide. Elections matter. End of story.


Quote:
Can you honestly say something more specific than your "King Obama" hyperbole?



Obama acts like a monarch. Circumventing the Constitution by abusing his executive order rights instead of taking it to Congress for debate and an up or down vote.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

16 Feb 2016, 6:59 pm

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There is precedent but it's not needed anyways since this president and this election are without precedent. I don't care either way since it would be the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. The GOP has the majority, they get to ultimately decide.
it wasn't the same thing actually. the GOP never raised any objections when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito on his last term. as for your comments about the 2nd amendment being inviolate, maybe you should reread Article 2 of the constitution.

advice and consent

the senate has to approve whoever the president names, checks and balances

This is pretty simple US government, you might not like the politics of it but it is completely legal and with in their right. There is nothing Obama or the Democrats can do but whine so go ahead. Our president is not a king, he does not get to rule by decree, I know Obama has a hard time with this but luckily for us he will not be president much longer. Don't like it, vote harder. :lol:



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

16 Feb 2016, 7:00 pm

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There is precedent but it's not needed anyways since this president and this election are without precedent. I don't care either way since it would be the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. The GOP has the majority, they get to ultimately decide.
it wasn't the same thing actually. the GOP never raised any objections when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito on his last term. as for your comments about the 2nd amendment being inviolate, maybe you should reread Article 2 of the constitution.


Do you mean the Democrats? If so you're wrong, go look watch what Chuck Schumer said. It's all politics and the Democrats are powerless in the minority.



frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

16 Feb 2016, 7:01 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There is precedent but it's not needed anyways since this president and this election are without precedent. I don't care either way since it would be the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. The GOP has the majority, they get to ultimately decide.
it wasn't the same thing actually. the GOP never raised any objections when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito on his last term. as for your comments about the 2nd amendment being inviolate, maybe you should reread Article 2 of the constitution.

advice and consent

the senate has to approve whoever the president names, checks and balances

This is pretty simple US government, you might not like the politics of it but it is completely legal and with in their right. There is nothing Obama or the Democrats can do but whine so go ahead. Our president is not a king, he does not get to rule by decree, I know Obama has a hard time with this but luckily for us he will not be president much longer. Don't like it, vote harder. :lol:



You are on a roll!!



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

16 Feb 2016, 7:02 pm

frenchmanflats wrote:
Obama acts like a monarch. Circumventing the Constitution by abusing his executive order rights instead of taking it to Congress for debate and an up or down vote.
This makes no sense as Article Two, Clause 5 of the constitution charges the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Combining that with Article Two, Clause 1 which names the President as the Executive, not issuing executive orders in these circumstances would be actual cause for impeachment as worded in the Constitution.



frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

16 Feb 2016, 7:06 pm

Fugu wrote:
frenchmanflats wrote:
Obama acts like a monarch. Circumventing the Constitution by abusing his executive order rights instead of taking it to Congress for debate and an up or down vote.
This makes no sense as Article Two, Clause 5 of the constitution charges the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Combining that with Article Two, Clause 1 which names the President as the Executive, not issuing executive orders in these circumstances would be actual cause for impeachment as worded in the Constitution.


You can challenge a executive order in court or have it struck down in Congress. His immigration executive order is coming up on a hearing in the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court will hear the case of United States v. Texas this spring.The court will decide the legality of two White House initiatives



Last edited by frenchmanflats on 16 Feb 2016, 7:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

16 Feb 2016, 7:07 pm

With all the unprecedented executive orders and unconstitutional actions taken by Obama it would be a conflict of interest for him to name a justice to SC as many of his policies are at stake before the high court. There is zero reason to work with Obama, he has to give something up and compromise to even get the GOP to the table. How important is that SCOTUS seat and how confident are you winning in November?

What kind of concession would Obama give for his nominee to have a fair hearing?



Last edited by Jacoby on 16 Feb 2016, 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.