Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead at age 79

[DonDadda59]

Details incoming. Let the conspiracy theories fly.


Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died, according to My San Antonio. Scalia was a conservative justice.

According to MySanAntonio.com, Scalia was found dead of natural causes on Saturday at a luxury resort in West Texas.

Scalia, 79, was at a resort, the Cibolo Creek Ranch. He didn’t come to breakfast Saturday and someone went to his room and found a body, according to CBS News.

Scalia has served on the high court since 1986, and was nominated by President Ronald Reagan.

According to CBS News, Scalia was the longest-serving Supreme Court justice.

According to MySanAntonio.com, the U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI are investigating the death and have declined to comment.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott released the following statement, calling Scalia “a man of God, a patriot, and an unwavering defender of the written Constitution and the Rule of Law.”

“He was the solid rock who turned away so many attempts to depart from and distort the Constitution,” Abbott’s statement said. “His fierce loyalty to the Constitution set an unmatched example, not just for judges and lawyers, but for all Americans. We mourn his passing, and we pray that his successor on the Supreme Court will take his place as a champion for the written Constitution and the Rule of Law.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/breaking-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-has-died/

[rezznor]

republicans are gonna shit bricks

[DonDadda59]

republicans are gonna shit bricks

Definitely. This may cause a seismic shift in lawmaking over the next generation. You know Obama is going to nominate a liberal-leaning justice and there could be potentially 3 appointments once Hillary wins the Presidential nomination later this year.

And the SC is due to hear some key cases this year. Obama's executive orders on immigration will be on the docket in the Spring or Summer.

[rezznor]

Definitely. This may cause a seismic shift in lawmaking over the next generation. You know Obama is going to nominate a liberal-leaning justice and there could be potentially 3 appointments once Hillary wins the Presidential nomination later this year.

And the SC is due to hear some key cases this year. Obama's executive orders on immigration will be on the docket in the Spring or Summer.


something like this could actually mobilize the right even more to come out in droves to vote in trump, regardless of how disastrous he would be.

scalia dying is huge, huge news.

i dont think obama is gonna get his nomination through easily though. the right are gonna stall it as long as possible

[KyrieTheFuture]

something like this could actually mobilize the right even more to come out in droves to vote in trump, regardless of how disastrous he would be.

scalia dying is huge, huge news.

i dont think obama is gonna get his nomination through easily though. the right are gonna stall it as long as possible
The average voter couldn't even tell you what the SC does.

[DonDadda59]

something like this could actually mobilize the right even more to come out in droves to vote in trump, regardless of how disastrous he would be.

scalia dying is huge, huge news.

Makes tonight's debate infinitely more interesting. I really am curious what the noms have to say about this. They were already riled up about the potential 3 nominees the next President will have, but now that the stalwart conservative Reagan nominee needs to be replaced... They're going to lose their shit. :lol


i dont think obama is gonna get his nomination through easily though. the right are gonna stall it as long as possible

No doubt. It may be a long process. It could get ugly.

[BoutPractice]

Can't Republicans just block any nominee coming out of the Obama administration until the election?

And if they can, why wouldn't they?

As for Scalia, all I can say is R.I.P. Even if you disagree with most of his political positions (which I do) you can't help but admire a man of his wit, intellect, and character.

[NumberSix]

Prediction...

Obama is going to be dumb enough to nominate a blatant left-wing radical that has no shot of getting in.

[KyrieTheFuture]

So is this gonna be like Al Davis dying where everyone pretends they didn't hate his guts the last 20 years?

[NumberSix]

So is this gonna be like Al Davis dying where everyone pretends they didn't hate his guts the last 20 years?
Nobody did hate him.

[Draz]

Obama, handle it

[Akrazotile]

Oh gee.

A new round of talk about people and republican versus democrat, and amateur commentators giving a play-by-play on the politics of the whole situation.


Instead of people discussing ideas amongst each other as citizens and then dictating their will to the elected public servants.


Lets turn it into one big sporting event so we can all critique and cheer, but nobody has to think about the difficult and unpleasant decisions to be made in this country.


here.

we.


go :(

[DeuceWallaces]

Wow. That is huge. Conservatives stay losing. Been a rough year for them.

[TheMan]

Where's the conspiracy in an old fart kicking the can?

It was about time too. Just because he died, now were gonna pretend he wasn't a shit judge and was questioned on issues on ethics and conflict of interests? :confusedshrug:

Dude was very politically biased and it affected his vote.

Good riddance

[KyrieTheFuture]

Nobody did hate him.
You truly are delusional

[Patrick Chewing]

Where's the conspiracy in an old fart kicking the can?

It was about time too. Just because he died, now were gonna pretend he wasn't a shit judge and was questioned on issues on ethics and conflict of interests? :confusedshrug:

Dude was very politically biased and it affected his vote.

Good riddance

You don't know anything about this country. He was elected unanimously and was the longest serving.

He was a defender of the Constitution till his last dying breath. Nobody can hate that.

You're bias is tiring.

[TheMan]

You don't know anything about this country. He was elected unanimously and was the longest serving.

He was a defender of the Constitution till his last dying breath. Nobody can hate that.

You're bias is tiring.
My bias? :yaohappy:

My opinion, I'm entitled to it (if you didn't know, this ain't Cuba, we are allowed to have different opinions). Looks like you need to learn more about this country. As long as we're in this thing about learning about the US, my family was in Texas before it became American. I didn't leave my island in the 50s/60s like a bunch of rats (facists one at that too) leaving a sinking ship.

BTW, you are way more biased than I am, you're always shouting your rightwing viewpoints from the top of your lungs along with those other dimwits who share your reactionary politics.

Scalia was a divisive figure, deal with it.

Da fuq outta here

[Patrick Chewing]

My bias? :yaohappy:

My opinion, I'm entitled to it (if you didn't know, this ain't Cuba, we are allowed to have different opinions). Looks like you need to learn more about this country. As long as we're in this thing about learning about the US, my family was in Texas before it became American. I didn't leave my island in the 50s/60s like a bunch of rats (facists one at that too) leaving a sinking ship.

BTW, you are way more biased than I am, you're always shouting your rightwing viewpoints from the top of your lungs along with those other dimwits who share your reactionary politics.

Scalia was a divisive figure, deal with it.

Da fuq outta here

Oh god you're one of those Mexicans that wants Texas back. Get over it, ese. You got your beaner asses kicked and Texas is ours. The hell do you care about whether Texas is a U.S. State or not? All your brethren are hopping the border anyway to live there.

[Cactus-Sack]

Fat fvck couldn't have held on for another year?

[Jailblazers7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryanne_Trump_Barry

Lol

[Real Men Wear Green]

Prediction...

Obama is going to be dumb enough to nominate a blatant left-wing radical that has no shot of getting in.
He can put in anyone he wants to, all he has to do is appoint the Justice with the Senate in recess.

[FillJackson]

He can put in anyone he wants to, all he has to do is appoint the Justice with the Senate in recess.
Wont do that for the SC.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Wont do that for the SC.
McConnell is saying he shouldn't even pick one so he almost definitely should for the sake of his party taking control of the Supreme Court. Obama may think a democrat will succeed him but he can't be sure.

[Sarcastic]

Wont do that for the SC.


At this point, why shouldn't he? They intend to be scumbags, and block any candidate he picks. He's only got 11 months or so left. Might as well scumbag it as well.

[FillJackson]

At this point, why shouldn't he? They intend to be scumbags, and block any candidate he picks. He's only got 11 months or so left. Might as well scumbag it as well.
Let them do it for 4 or so months and see how their party and candidates fare in the polls.

It's like the government shutdown, it will backfire tremendously and they will have to back down.

[DeuceWallaces]

Let them do it for 4 or so months and see how their party and candidates fare in the polls.

It's like the government shutdown, it will backfire tremendously and they will have to back down.

They are in a really bad spot on this. They let some moderate liberal through and they'll get killed in local elections. They railroad it for a year and they'll get hammered in the general this fall.

[FillJackson]

Wow. Eisenhower used three recess appointments, but it hasn't happened since him.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-worries-obama-could-install-scalia-successor-through-recess-appointment/article/2583236?custom_click=rss

[Draz]

Fat fvck couldn't have held on for another year?
:roll:

[FillJackson]

Details incoming. Let the conspiracy theories fly
Alex Jones is asking was Anthony Scalia killed?:roll:

Also asking if Clarence Thomas is next.:banana:

[DonDadda59]

Alex Jones is asking was Anthony Scalia killed?:roll:

Also asking if Clarence Thomas is next.:banana:

Color me shocked.

[TheMan]

Oh god you're one of those Mexicans that wants Texas back. Get over it, ese. You got your beaner asses kicked and Texas is ours. The hell do you care about whether Texas is a U.S. State or not? All your brethren are hopping the border anyway to live there.
I never mentioned anything about wanting Texas back :confusedshrug:

All I said was that while my family can trace their roots in Texas to the 1800s, your roots in America only goes as far back to when the US offered your banana republic brethren assylum from Castro. Those first wave of Cubans were a bunch of entitled rich fascist mafiosos who knew they'd end up behind bars because they were sucking Cuba dry for their own wealth. I'm pretty sure you're a product of that, hence your support for rightwing politics.

BTW, Mexican Americans tend to be Democrats but they've also been prominent GOP members whereas Cubans are always Republicans. Then they have the nerve to critisize black Americans for voting Democrat when they all vote GOP to a man (Chewing is your typical Cuban GOP supporter, there has never been a Cuban who voted anything but Repub) :yaohappy:

[Dresta]

Let them do it for 4 or so months and see how their party and candidates fare in the polls.

It's like the government shutdown, it will backfire tremendously and they will have to back down.
You mean if the media can scare everyone into thinking this some kind of disaster that hasn't happened a bunch of times in US history already?

Yeah, hopefully the media can scare the country into packing the Supreme Court the way you want it.

Those "liberal" tactics doe

:facepalm

[BoutPractice]

Oh come on, you know better than this.

Nominating a Supreme Court justice under the normal constitutional procedure isn't "packing the court".

Packing the court is what FDR did. This would be nothing like it.

What Mitch McConnell is saying right now is that he won't even let the Senate examine the nominee on his or her merits. He may be allowed to do this, but let's not pretend like THIS is the way things are supposed to be while Obama following the normal procedure is some kind of huge executive overreach.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Obama decides to nominate Sri Srinivasan... a rightly qualified, moderate candidate who clerked for Republican judges and whose nomination to a lower court was confirmed 97-0.

If the same body that once confirmed him 97-0 suddenly decides to obstruct his nomination by any means necessary, are we supposed to applaud them, and view any backlash against this tactic as the ravings of partisan loons?

(By the way, for the record, I'm not exactly into judicial activism... like Scalia, I prefer significant policy changes to come through the ballot box)

[NumberSix]

Of course it's Obama's job to replace Scalia. Even though I don't like it, that's the appropriate course of action. I won't shed any tears if the republicans shamelessly block it though given the last two democrat presidents' (Clinton & Obama) history of appointing judges who openly don't care about what the constitution says or case law.

[Jailblazers7]

I think Republicans stating they will blindly block an appointment is stupid because it totally handcuffs them and makes them look like assholes. Why not just stay silent and then pick apart the nominee based on their career as a judge?

[Draz]

Some further context, if you didn't already know:

Theoretically, the US political system has three branches of government: Judicial, Legislative, and Executive. The idea is that they balance each other out -- Congress (the House and the Senate, together) can try to pass laws, but the President (head of the executive branch) can refuse to sign them, and even to an extent determine how they'll be carried out. The judicial branch's official role is to interpret laws, but the Supreme Court has the specific mandate of interpreting the Constitution -- meaning if a given law is relevant to a case that makes it to the Supreme Court, the Court can pretty much on the spot throw that law out as unconstitutional.

Whether the rest of the government goes along with this is another matter, but keep in mind that the US legal system is heavily based on precedent. A law deemed unconstitutional might not even be repealed, so it might technically be on the books, but it's effectively invalid. If nothing else, anyone who might consider enforcing that law would know that, even if they won every other court battle, that just means the case ends up back in the Supreme Court and the same exact people will throw it out.

So effectively, they end up being the final word on a lot of things for a long time.

Some things the Supreme Court has decided:
Plessy v. Ferguson: "Separate But Equal" is the law of the land, for almost sixty years until:

Brown v. Board of Education: Public schools cannot be racially segregated.
Roe v. Wade: Abortion is legal. There are other later cases that refine this, but this is why conservatives have tried to do everything they possibly can to make it hard to get an abortion, instead of banning it outright -- because you can't ban it outright in the US.
Miranda v. Arizona: This is why it's called a "Miranda warning" -- before this, you may have had a right to remain silent, but the police didn't have to tell you about it when they interrogated you.
United States v. Windsor: A key clause in the poorly-named "Defense Of Marriage Act" is struck down, and same-sex marriage is legal.
Citizens United v. FEC: SuperPACs can spend as much money as they want on a candidate, because this counts as "political speech."
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc: Corporations were legally required to provide access to contraception under their healthcare plans... except, as in this case, if they have a religious reason not to. (Because under US law, a corporation is a person, and now has religious rights.)

This is massively over-simplified, of course. So let me over-simplify it further: Whoever replaces Scalia will have (at least until the next justice dies, or until one of the other justices changes allegiances) effective control over the judicial branch. They could single-handedly decide cases like the above, and basically define some core legal principle for the next half a century.


According to CNN Obama will not wait out his term without nominating a justice, so here are the possibilities:
Boring option: If the Senate confirms Obama's nominee, then liberals win. (Most likely Obama will try to choose someone as moderate as possible to win votes from Republicans)
Shitshow: The Senate could stall for the rest of Obama's term. If this happens, it would be some of the worst senate gridlock we've seen since the civil war. The campaign would no longer concern just the presidency, it would be about control of the courts. I think Republicans want to avoid this because voters will probably blame the Senate as occurred during the last government shutdown, not to mention setting a precedent of ****ing with Supreme court nominations--democrats could pull this same shit in the future.
Keep in mind he's not any court justice he was clearly the most conservative one.

[longtime lurker]

Some further context, if you didn't already know:



According to CNN Obama will not wait out his term without nominating a justice, so here are the possibilities:
Boring option: If the Senate confirms Obama's nominee, then liberals win. (Most likely Obama will try to choose someone as moderate as possible to win votes from Republicans)
Shitshow: The Senate could stall for the rest of Obama's term. If this happens, it would be some of the worst senate gridlock we've seen since the civil war. The campaign would no longer concern just the presidency, it would be about control of the courts. I think Republicans want to avoid this because voters will probably blame the Senate as occurred during the last government shutdown, not to mention setting a precedent of ****ing with Supreme court nominations--democrats could pull this same shit in the future.
Keep in mind he's not any court justice he was clearly the most conservative one.

**** that. Why should he appease Republicans? Make the next SC Judge liberal as shit and let the Republicans either cry and accept it or further damage the party's reputation

[FillJackson]

Oh come on, you know better than this. No, he doesn't.

[NumberSix]

Citizens United v. FEC: SuperPACs can spend as much money as they want on a candidate, because this counts as "political speech."
Citizens united didn't have anything to do with superpacs, it was a free speech case.

The case was about the attempt to ban a movie about Hillary Clinton from being shown or advertised on TV. The Supreme Court was like, obviously you can't ban that. People and groups of people obviously have the right to political speech or to create political speech media. It's an unintended consequence that some people figured out that they can make "political speech" commercials as long as they aren't directly involved with a campaign.

[NumberSix]

**** that. Why should he appease Republicans? Make the next SC Judge liberal as shit and let the Republicans either cry and accept it or further damage the party's reputation
Why would it damage the party's reputation? You know congress is fully within its right to decline a president's suggested appointment. The democrats have done it to republican presidents plenty of time. The only difference now is that Obama only has a small amount of time to get one through before the clock runs out.

[Draz]

Well, if Obama wants to select someone NOW during his term, he'd have to select a very moderate nominee. That, or not do it and hope Democrats take the Presidency. However, if a Republican takes office, he may have wished to have selected a moderate nominee instead. This is a HUGE topic. How this plays out, will change the course of law for the next 30+ years. Also, we have more to come considering some of the justices are very old and can die by natural causes in the next 4-8 years.

Right now it's 4-4, whoever is nominated will be the tie breaker. If it's liberal, it'll be more progressive for the next 4-8 years.

[KyrieTheFuture]

What's to stop the Republicans from blocking the nom, and let's say a Dem wins the election, what's to stop them from blocking the other 3 noms that are supposed to come up.

[Draz]

What's to stop the Republicans from blocking the nom, and let's say a Dem wins the election, what's to stop them from blocking the other 3 noms that are supposed to come up.
They can't block it for long. It'll ruin their image. If a DEM wins, that's another 4 years. I'm not 100% sure on the time frame, but I'm sure they can continue to block it for that long. However, it'll look VERY bad on their end.

Also there are 34 U.S. Senate seats to be contested in 2016
The current U.S. Senate has 54 Republicans and 45 Democrats (including one independent). The 2016 Senate election takes place on November 8, 2016. There are 34 seats up in 2016, of which 24 are held by Republicans. Democrats will need to gain 4 or 5 seats to take control.

[Jailblazers7]

What's to stop the Republicans from blocking the nom, and let's say a Dem wins the election, what's to stop them from blocking the other 3 noms that are supposed to come up.

Having multiple SC seats open because the Senate refuses to work with the President would be pretty ****ing outrageous. Doubt the party could remain united in the face of that sort of lunacy.

[FillJackson]

So recess appointments need to be confirmed for the lifetime spot.

Obama should appoint his dream nominee and then offer another candidate up for confirmation.

The longer they stall on confirmation, the longer his nominee stays on the bench.

[DonDadda59]

From Robert Reich's facebook:

[INDENT]Robert Reich
My mole in the White House tells me Obama will nominate 46-year-old Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American jurist who Obama nominated in 2013 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- and the Senate confirmed unanimously. Having confirmed him unanimously just three years ago, it would be difficult (but hardly impossible) for Republicans to oppose him now. (Twelve former Solicitors General, including Republican notables as Paul Clement and Kenneth Starr had endorsed his confirmation. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has long been a Supreme Court farm team

[FillJackson]

a few other folks mentioned this name. what's the youngest a justice was appointed.

[oarabbus]

Oh shit an Indian supreme court justice nomination? Wasn't expecting that.

[DukeDelonte13]

Of course it's Obama's job to replace Scalia. Even though I don't like it, that's the appropriate course of action. I won't shed any tears if the republicans shamelessly block it though given the last two democrat presidents' (Clinton & Obama) history of appointing judges who openly don't care about what the constitution says or case law.


Scalia in a nutshell.

[NumberSix]

Scalia in a nutshell.
What the hell are you talking about? Scalia is well known for taking the most literal interpretation of the constitution.

[DukeDelonte13]

What the hell are you talking about? Scalia is well known for taking the most literal interpretation of the constitution.

He was the most political judge of the past 50 years. Legal reasoning came second to his personal ideas on what should be and what shouldn't be. His behavior and record was everything a SC justice should not be. Justices should be able to make decisions that they personally don't agree with because of how the law lays. Scalia could never do that.

Stop pretending that you know about the supreme court.

[lil jahlil]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]From Robert Reich's facebook:

[INDENT]Robert Reich
My mole in the White House tells me Obama will nominate 46-year-old Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American jurist who Obama nominated in 2013 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- and the Senate confirmed unanimously. Having confirmed him unanimously just three years ago, it would be difficult (but hardly impossible) for Republicans to oppose him now. (Twelve former Solicitors General, including Republican notables as Paul Clement and Kenneth Starr had endorsed his confirmation. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has long been a Supreme Court farm team

[NumberSix]

He was the most political judge of the past 50 years. Legal reasoning came second to his personal ideas on what should be and what shouldn't be. His behavior and record was everything a SC justice should not be. Justices should be able to make decisions that they personally don't agree with because of how the law lays. Scalia could never do that.

Stop pretending that you know about the supreme court.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. He was a strict textualist and originalst. If you can point to any instance of that not being the case, go right ahead.

[DukeDelonte13]

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. He was a strict textualist and originalst. If you can point to any instance of that not being the case, go right ahead.


gonzales v. raisch 2 seconds of the top of my head

[Draz]

President Obama, whose term expires in 342 days. The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn in 25 days. But few presidents have successfully filled vacancies announced in their final full year.

[NumberSix]

gonzales v. raisch 2 seconds of the top of my head
Ok. What about his decision do you think was inconsistent with the constitution?

[NumberSix]

President Obama, whose term expires in 342 days. The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn in 25 days. But few presidents have successfully filled vacancies announced in their final full year.
I don't know why you're making this argument. We all get what's going on here. There's no precedent or principle. It's just blocking the nomination for the sake of blocking it. There's no need to get into the details. We all understand that it's a purely political move to prevent Obama from having a 3rd appointment.

[Draz]

I don't know why you're making this argument. We all get what's going on here. There's no precedent or principle. It's just blocking the nomination for the sake of blocking it. There's no need to get into the details. We all understand that it's a purely political move to prevent Obama from having a 3rd appointment.
I'm not making an argument, I posted that as an informative message for those that need to reference the length of the process.

[longhornfan1234]

Why no autopsy? :facepalm

[UK2K]

I don't know why you're making this argument. We all get what's going on here. There's no precedent or principle. It's just blocking the nomination for the sake of blocking it. There's no need to get into the details. We all understand that it's a purely political move to prevent Obama from having a 3rd appointment.

Democrats being democrats.... as usual :oldlol: :oldlol:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/

[QUOTE]During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC

[TheMan]

Democrats being democrats.... as usual :oldlol: :oldlol:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/



It would be such an injustice if Obama's nomination was 'blocked' (we all know the MSM will try to paint it as such).

But yet....



Like I said, Democrats being democrats. The thing is, they have the media on their side. So while, when Bush was president, it was all the rage to block and obstruct him at every
turn, it would be treason if the same behavior was exhibited toward King Obama.

:lol :lol :lol :lol

The left stays losing (but winning at the same time as long as their sheep stay ignorant).
So we lose but win at the same time, da fuq are you trying to say :oldlol:

Actually, you fit the description of sheep better than anyone else here.

We realize that politics is cut throat, double speak and often times hypocritical. BOTH sides engage in shit tactics to reach their political goals, I am well aware of this (in an ideal world both sides would work together to accomplish the betterment of the nation, but in real life, it doesn't happen), OTOH you believe the Right is a bunch of hapless do gooders who've never resorted to dirty politics, are never in the pocket of interest groups and are always being taken advantage of the big bad meanie leftists.

You're the perfect example of a blind sheep :coleman:

[Sarcastic]

Why no autopsy? :facepalm

He was 79 and fat. Do you really suspect foul play?

[FillJackson]

Why no autopsy? :facepalm
Talk to the Texas Justice of the Peace and talk to his family.

[UK2K]

So we lose but win at the same time, da fuq are you trying to say :oldlol:

Actually, you fit the description of sheep better than anyone else here.

We realize that politics is cut throat, double speak and often times hypocritical. BOTH sides engage in shit tactics to reach their political goals, I am well aware of this (in an ideal world both sides would work together to accomplish the betterment of the nation, but in real life, it doesn't happen), OTOH you believe the Right is a bunch of hapless do gooders who've never resorted to dirty politics, are never in the pocket of interest groups and are always being taken advantage of the big bad meanie leftists.

You're the perfect example of a blind sheep :coleman:
Then I am not talking about you.

I appreciate the post though, cause I didn't know how I viewed Republicans until you cleared it up for me. Thanks.

[longhornfan1234]

Liberals are too blind to see Obama admin is dirty as fvck. Why would high end rancher come out this statement?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s head was under a pillow when he was found dead at a Texas ranch, according to the ranch owner who found his body.

“We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bedclothes were unwrinkled,” Texas millionaire John Poindexter told the San Antonio Express-News Sunday, describing how he found the 79-year-old jurist in the “El Presidente” suite at Poindexter’s 30,000-acre luxury ranch on Saturday.


http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/scalia-found-dead-with-pillow-over-his-head-ranch-owner/


Pillow over head, asked for no secret service protection for this trip, and immediate ask of no autopsy. :facepalm :facepalm

[FillJackson]

Liberals are too blind to see Obama admin is dirty as fvck. Why would high end rancher come out this statement?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s head was under a pillow when he was found dead at a Texas ranch, according to the ranch owner who found his body.

“We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bedclothes were unwrinkled,” Texas millionaire John Poindexter told the San Antonio Express-News Sunday, describing how he found the 79-year-old jurist in the “El Presidente” suite at Poindexter’s 30,000-acre luxury ranch on Saturday.


http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/scalia-found-dead-with-pillow-over-his-head-ranch-owner/


Pillow over head, asked for no secret service protection for this trip, and immediate ask of no autopsy. :facepalm :facepalm
You're pathetic. The family has the option of ordering an autopsy and they did not. Probably for two reasons, he had chronic health issues and reported went to bed early because he was tired.

The justice of the peace who in Texas who is not part of the Obama admin has the option to order an autopsy. Also has the option not to order an autopsy if there no indication of anything other than a natural death.

No secret service protection? Because Scalia turned it down?

It takes about 5 minutes to suffocate somebody to death. It leaves spots of blood on the face and eyes and tends to wrinkle your clothes.

And let's involve the local justice of the peace and the window in our conspiracy, but leave the weapon in place......got it.

And to be very, very clear the rancher is not making any accusations. (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php)
When Poindexter tried to awaken Scalia about 8:30 the next morning, the judge's door was locked and he did not answer. Three hours later, Poindexter returned after an outing, with a friend of Scalia who had come from Washington with him.
RELATED: Inside the West Texas ranch where Antonin Scalia was found dead

"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter.
"He was lying very restfully. It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap," he said.
Scalia,79, did not have a pulse and his body was cold, and after consulting with a doctor at a hospital in Alpine, Poindexter concluded resuscitation would have been futile, He then contacted federal authorities, at first encountering a series of answering services because he was calling on a weekend.
"Ultimately they became available and handled it superbly. They flew in by helicopter. They told me to secure the ranch, which I did until this morning," he said.

[DonDadda59]

Liberals are too blind to see Obama admin is dirty as fvck. Why would high end rancher come out this statement?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s head was under a pillow when he was found dead at a Texas ranch, according to the ranch owner who found his body.

“We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bedclothes were unwrinkled,” Texas millionaire John Poindexter told the San Antonio Express-News Sunday, describing how he found the 79-year-old jurist in the “El Presidente” suite at Poindexter’s 30,000-acre luxury ranch on Saturday.


http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/scalia-found-dead-with-pillow-over-his-head-ranch-owner/


Pillow over head, asked for no secret service protection for this trip, and immediate ask of no autopsy. :facepalm :facepalm

Ended the right wing conservative movement with one pillow. Axed the autopsy.

http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/obamaMachiavelli1.jpg

:bowdown:

[TheMan]

Let's just say for the sake of argument he was suffocated with a pillow...how many seconds would it take the killer to remove the pillow from his face? Half a second? :lol

You conspiracy nuts are going overboard.

I've absolutely no problem with an autopsy but even if one is done and confirms that he died because he was old and fat, you tin foil hats already made your minds up, Barack sent a ninja and wacked the fat fvck :rolleyes:

[NumberSix]

It is kinda sketchy that Obama wasn't wearing a tie when he talked about Scalia. Possible murder weapon?

[Lakers Legend#32]

Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead!

[UK2K]

It is kinda sketchy that Obama wasn't wearing a tie when he talked about Scalia. Possible murder weapon?

Obama, with the tie, in the bedroom. :lol

[Sarcastic]

Right is so obsessed with the pillow, they didn't even notice the bullet hole in the back of his head :lol

[longhornfan1234]

Found with a pillow over his head, pronounced dead of natural causes over the phone without viewing the body, the initial cause of death has already be retracted, and no autopsy.


Not suspicious at all?:lol


It's a waste of time bothering with you Obama slurpers.

[Sarcastic]

How ironic is it that the "originalist" of the Supreme Court dies, and now the Senate wants to interpret the Constitution in their own way, and not the original meaning.

[UK2K]

How ironic is it that the "originalist" of the Supreme Court dies, and now the Senate wants to interpret the Constitution in their own way, and not the original meaning.

Which part?

[FillJackson]

Found with a pillow over his head, pronounced dead of natural causes over the phone without viewing the body, the initial cause of death has already be retracted, and no autopsy.


Not suspicious at all?:lol


It's a waste of time bothering with you Obama slurpers.
Learn what ****ing rational suspicion is you child. There is literally nothing suspicious about this other than a muslce-memory of a well trained paranoid brain. Your evidence is I don't like Obama. You were already doing 99mph in paranoia-pool lane in your first post, acting like this was another in series of ongoing murders.

Why does his family not want an autopsy?
Why would the rancher who found him not be raising holy hell if thought something was amiss.
What about his friends who were with him on the ranch?
Also since the rancher talked to the medical authorities, he would have to be in on the coverup, wouldn't he?



FWIW, I use a pillow to block sunlight in bed all the damn time. Sunrise in south Texas is before 7am.

[Sarcastic]

Which part?

Where the President has the power to nominate justices.

[FillJackson]

The justice of the peace determined it was natural causes after speaking with the law enforcement officers on the scene indicating no sign of foul play and after speaking with his doctor in Washington who mentioned he had several chronic conditions.

[UK2K]

Where the President has the power to nominate justices.

Yes he does. Nothing is stopping him from nominating one.

So which part of the constitution is being ignored?

[FillJackson]

Yes he does. Nothing is stopping him from nominating one.

So which part of the constitution is being ignored?
I'd go with this part.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years

and this part

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ....and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ......Judges of the supreme Court,

If they ignore that part, he should do this
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

[UK2K]

I'd go with this part.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years

and this part

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ....and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ......Judges of the supreme Court,

If they ignore that part, he should do this
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

So with the consent of the Senate, he can absolutely nominate who he wants. Just don't nominate someone you know the Senate won't consent to appointing. Doesn't seem too difficult does it? Think Obama can handle it?

I don't understand what part you think is being ignored.

[FillJackson]

So with the consent of the Senate, he can absolutely nominate who he wants. Just don't nominate someone you know the Senate won't consent to appointing. Doesn't seem too difficult does it? Think Obama can handle it?

This is absolutely not what Republicans are proposing. They are arguing he shouldn't even nominate anyone because it's an election year. Ignoring the fact that he has another year on his term.

McConnell flat out said, we should wait until we have a new president. It's a load of horseshit but they are going to go for it.

[NumberSix]

This is absolutely not what Republicans are proposing. They are arguing he shouldn't even nominate anyone because it's an election year. Ignoring the fact that he has another year on his term.

McConnell flat out said, we should wait until we have a new president. It's a load of horseshit but they are going to go for it.
This is correct.

The senate is fully within its right to vote to decline Obama's nomination. The republicans however are saying they're not even going to vote and they won't even pretend to consider any nomination.

I don't know that this in itself is unconstitutional though.

[FillJackson]

This is correct.

The senate is fully within its right to vote to decline Obama's nomination. The republicans however are saying they're not even going to vote and they won't even pretend to consider any nomination.

I don't know that this in itself is unconstitutional though.
You could say it's extra-constitutional.

And you could be sure if President Romney were in office, they would have the date set by the end of the week.

[NumberSix]

You could say it's extra-constitutional.

And you could be sure if President Romney were in office, they would have the date set by the end of the week.
I don't know about that. It usually takes a few months to choose and vet a replacement for a Supreme Court justice and the presumption would be that Romney would be re-elected against these weak democrat candidates, so there would be no rush.

[FillJackson]

I don't know about that. It usually takes a few months to choose and vet a replacement for a Supreme Court justice and the presumption would be that Romney would be re-elected against these weak democrat candidates, so there would be no rush.

A few months is not a year.

And yeah, OK.

[FillJackson]

Rand Paul just declared it's a conflict of interest for Obama to pick a nominee.

:facepalm

[UK2K]

This is absolutely not what Republicans are proposing. They are arguing he shouldn't even nominate anyone because it's an election year. Ignoring the fact that he has another year on his term.

McConnell flat out said, we should wait until we have a new president. It's a load of horseshit but they are going to go for it.
And you were just as appalled when democrats suggested the same thing when Bush was president, yeah?

In case you forgot (cause it was years ago)...
https://youtu.be/qnpjs45D7OY

What goes around, comes around. Sucks to suck.

Go ahead and spin it all you want. You'll try at least.

[Sarcastic]

Rand Paul just declared it's a conflict of interest for Obama to pick a nominee.

:facepalm

Rand Paul is obviously not an originalist.

[NumberSix]

Rand Paul just declared it's a conflict of interest for Obama to pick a nominee.

:facepalm
:wtf:

What was his reasoning?

[bladefd]

This is correct.

The senate is fully within its right to vote to decline Obama's nomination. The republicans however are saying they're not even going to vote and they won't even pretend to consider any nomination.

I don't know that this in itself is unconstitutional though.

That would hurt GOP politically. Obama can seriously damage GOP in the eyes of American people if they refuse to allow nomination. That could cost some votes in general election.

We all know Clinton and her superPACs will juice this out as an attack on GOP once they shift battleground to GOP after Bernie is eliminated in early April. Bernie may not care enough to make it personal but Clinton sure as hell will go out of her way to bring it up every single day. :lol

[NumberSix]

That would hurt GOP politically. Obama can seriously damage GOP in the eyes of American people if they refuse to allow nomination. That could cost some votes in general election.

We all know Clinton and her superPACs will juice this out as an attack on GOP once they shift battleground to GOP after Bernie is eliminated in early April. Bernie may not care enough to make it personal but Clinton sure as hell will go out of her way to bring it up every single day. :lol
You should know by now that it won't matter what she wants to talk about. It will be completely overshadowed by whatever new outlandish thing Trump does to monopolize all the attention.

[KyrieTheFuture]

You should know by now that it won't matter what she wants to talk about. It will be completely overshadowed by whatever new outlandish thing Trump does to monopolize all the attention.
Has Trump commented on the situation?

[NumberSix]

Has Trump commented on the situation?
Not extensively, but he said the republicans in the senate should "delay, delay, delay".

[KyrieTheFuture]

Not extensively, but he said the republicans in the senate should "delay, delay, delay".
Not related to Trump but,
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-analyst-loretta-lynch-most-likely-candidate-replace-scalia?cid=sm_fb_allin

I wasn't even aware she COULD be a SC judge. Not sure about this one.

[Draz]

My GOD these Republicans are complete shit. :lol Vowing and shit to block any Obama nominee :lol

[UK2K]

My GOD these Republicans are complete shit. :lol Vowing and shit to block any Obama nominee :lol
Schumer in '07: 'We Should Not Confirm Any Bush Nominee to the Supreme Court'

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/eric-scheiner/schumer-07-we-should-not-confirm-any-bush-nominee-supreme-court

Yeah... they're complete shit.:lol :lol

But... but... that was different :lol move along 'pretending to be upset' guy.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Jesus Obama nominated a black lesbian. No ****s given about crying.

[Patrick Chewing]

My GOD these Republicans are complete shit. :lol Vowing and shit to block any Obama nominee :lol


C'mon son, you gotta brush up with your political history here. Both parties attempt to block the President all the time.


It's politics. The Supreme Court is a joke to be honest. 9 old farts making decisions for 350 million Americans. No one should be in favor of that.

[Sarcastic]

Schumer in '07: 'We Should Not Confirm Any Bush Nominee to the Supreme Court'

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/eric-scheiner/schumer-07-we-should-not-confirm-any-bush-nominee-supreme-court

Yeah... they're complete shit.:lol :lol

But... but... that was different :lol move along 'pretending to be upset' guy.

You conveniently leave out the exact next words out of his mouth. "except in extraordinary circumstances.

[UK2K]

You conveniently leave out the exact next words out of his mouth. "except in extraordinary circumstances.”

I would say the death of a Justice is pretty extraordinary.


“I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (Justices John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito,” and recommended the Senate, “should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

Under normal circumstances, **** you. But, under circumstances I deem 'extraordinary', I will approve whoever you nominate.

That's what he really meant to say, right?

Yeah, good try. What goes around comes around, so if you are going to cry about it now, then you should have been crying when Obama denied and filibustered two separate nominees from Bush. You didn't care then though.

[NumberSix]

Under normal circumstances, **** you. But, under circumstances I deem 'extraordinary', I will approve whoever you nominate.

That's what he really meant to say, right?

Yeah, good try. What goes around comes around, so if you are going to cry about it now, then you should have been crying when Obama denied and filibustered two separate nominees from Bush. You didn't care then though.
Both Obama and Hillary when they were senators voted to filibuster W's SCOTUS nomination. They have absolutely no credibility to complain about this, even though they happen to be right.

[TheMan]

As a Dem, I hope the GOP try to block any nominee.

Dems could paint the GOP as obstructionists and in a year where politics as usual is seen in a very negative light, this could hurt the GOP big time in the GE.

Dems should target the more vulnerable GOP senators and paint them as obstructionists, politicians not wanting America to go forward, for putting politics over the good of the nation, business as usual, shady politics etc etc.

Then when the GOP lose the GE because of blowback from their obstructionist ways (among other things like nominating the most polarizing GOP POTUS nom), and now with control of the Senate, Hillary/Bernie can push the most liberal judge they can find and conservatism will be one more step towards irrelevancy. :applause:

Everyone's happy :cheers:

This is political gold if the Dems know how to use it.

In Obama I trust :bowdown:

[Patrick Chewing]

As a Dem, I hope the GOP try to block any nominee.

Dems could paint the GOP as obstructionists and in a year where politics as usual is seen in a very negative light, this could hurt the GOP big time in the GE.

Dems should target the more vulnerable GOP senators and paint them as obstructionists, politicians not wanting America to go forward, for putting politics over the good of the nation, business as usual, shady politics etc etc.

Then when the GOP lose the GE because of blowback from their obstructionist ways (among other things like nominating the most polarizing GOP POTUS nom), and now with control of the Senate, Hillary/Bernie can push the most liberal judge they can find and conservatism will be one more step towards irrelevancy. :applause:

Everyone's happy :cheers:

This is political gold if the Dems know how to use it.

In Obama I trust :bowdown:

You want a Liberal utopia!

Go ahead and have your judge appointed by Obama. I think the next President will have to appoint three if I'm not mistaken. If a Republican wins, and I'm pretty sure they will, you could be looking at a 6-3 or 7-2 majority in the Supreme Court. Buh-bye abortion and buh-bye gay marriage!

http://i.imgur.com/b15fP2a.gif

[TheMan]

You want a Liberal utopia!

Go ahead and have your judge appointed by Obama. I think the next President will have to appoint three if I'm not mistaken. If a Republican wins, and I'm pretty sure they will, you could be looking at a 6-3 or 7-2 majority in the Supreme Court. Buh-bye abortion and buh-bye gay marriage!

http://i.imgur.com/b15fP2a.gif
The GOP would have a puncher's chance if they elect a moderate like Kasich.

If they elect Trump or Cruz, they'll get stomped on. Trump has way too many negatives with way too many demographics.

Cruz trying to win like W in 2000 and 2004 with the evangelical vote won't cut it in America in 2016.

Jeb! has that Bush last name dragging him down like an albatross.

Marco Rubio looks way in over his head when he is knocked off his talking points and doesn't seem quick on his feet. I can see Hillary taking his lunch money on a 1 v 1 debate.

The SCOTUS has had conservative advantages before (Bush v Gore was decided on ideological lines) yet they've never tried to abolish a women's right to choose :confusedshrug:

[DeuceWallaces]

The GOP would have a puncher's chance if they elect a moderate like Kasich.

If they elect Trump or Cruz, they'll get stomped on. Trump has way too many negatives with way too many demographics.

Cruz trying to win like W in 2000 and 2004 with the evangelical vote won't cut it in America in 2016.

Jeb! has that Bush last name dragging him down like an albatross.

Marco Rubio looks way in over his head when he is knocked off his talking points and doesn't seem quick on his feet. I can see Hillary taking his lunch money on a 1 v 1 debate.

The SCOTUS has had conservative advantages before (Bush v Gore was decided on ideological lines) yet they've never tried to abolish a women's right to choose :confusedshrug:

Marco seems to be the only one, if he could survive the primaries. I mean, his best finish is 3rd so far and it won't get much better in SC. Then again, like you said, I can see him getting smacked around in debates as he has a case of the jitters and sweating like Nixon in '60 while on camera. Plus, his foreign policy strength during the primary would be completely overshadowed by Hillary.

[BasedTom]

Marco seems to be the only one, if he could survive the primaries. I mean, his best finish is 3rd so far and it won't get much better in SC. Then again, like you said, I can see him getting smacked around in debates as he has a case of the jitters and sweating like Nixon in '60 while on camera. Plus, his foreign policy strength during the primary would be completely overshadowed by Hillary.
What makes you say that?

I'm assuming you're referring to her tenure as Secretary of State, or perhaps her husband's hand in bombing Yugoslavia, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[NumberSix]

Hillary and Rubio are identical on foreign policy.

[DeuceWallaces]

Rubio has no accomplishments, and his major issue of substance is sitting in foreign relations committee meetings. Hillary kills him on both those fronts. She may be phony, unlikeable, whatever, but she's got a lot done in terms of domestic and foreign policy; more so than anyone else running on either side.

[9erempiree]

Rubio has no accomplishments, and his major issue of substance is sitting in foreign relations committee meetings. Hillary kills him on both those fronts. She may be phony, unlikeable, whatever, but she's got a lot done in terms of domestic and foreign policy; more so than anyone else running on either side.
:facepalm

Lets not act like Hilary got a lot of stuff done in domestic and foreign policy. She was given a position and did her job. That is it.

Put other candidates her position and we can be saying they've done a lot too.

[FillJackson]

Not related to Trump but,
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-analyst-loretta-lynch-most-likely-candidate-replace-scalia?cid=sm_fb_allin

I wasn't even aware she COULD be a SC judge. Not sure about this one.
Anyone can be nominated

[greymatter]

Found with a pillow over his head, pronounced dead of natural causes over the phone without viewing the body, the initial cause of death has already be retracted, and no autopsy.


Not suspicious at all?:lol


It's a waste of time bothering with you Obama slurpers.

You know how hard it is to avoid being suffocated with a pillow? It's as easy as turning your head sideways. Besides that, suffocation leaves telltale physical evidence: bloodshot eyes.

Murder has been ruled out. Perhaps in the next life you can be born to parents who weren't first cousins or brother and sister. No guarantees that you wouldn't still be dumb as shit, but it certainly couldn't hurt if you had an even number of chromosomes.

[NumberSix]

Rubio has no accomplishments, and his major issue of substance is sitting in foreign relations committee meetings. Hillary kills him on both those fronts. She may be phony, unlikeable, whatever, but she's got a lot done in terms of domestic and foreign policy; more so than anyone else running on either side.
Hillary is a woman. Women aren't leaders. If god wanted her to be a leader, he would have made her a man.

[greymatter]

The Repubs have already shot themselves in the foot by coming out stating that they'll block any nominee just b/c Obama.

All Obama has to do is nominate a moderate like Srinivasan. Conservatards of the McConnell/Cruz variety will reaffirm to the public that they're blind/partisan obstructionists if they vote to decline a guy who they helped get elected unanimously for his current position as Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

They will guarantee themselves to do even worse with moderates and minorities than they did in 2012. If Srinivasan gets declined, the Democrats are all but guaranteed the presidency and Hillary/Sanders will be free to nominate someone far more liberal. Ginsberg will be able to retire and not have to worry about holding out until 2020.

[NumberSix]

The Repubs have already shot themselves in the foot by coming out stating that they'll block any nominee just b/c Obama.

All Obama has to do is nominate a moderate like Srinivasan. Conservatards of the McConnell/Cruz variety will reaffirm to the public that they're blind/partisan obstructionists if they vote to decline a guy who they helped get elected unanimously for his current position as Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

They will guarantee themselves to do even worse with moderates and minorities than they did in 2012. If Srinivasan gets declined, the Democrats are all but guaranteed the presidency and Hillary/Sanders will be free to nominate someone far more liberal. Ginsberg will be able to retire and not have to worry about holding out until 2020.
Unless nominee is Trump, who isn't actually a republican.

[greymatter]

I never mentioned anything about wanting Texas back :confusedshrug:

All I said was that while my family can trace their roots in Texas to the 1800s, your roots in America only goes as far back to when the US offered your banana republic brethren assylum from Castro. Those first wave of Cubans were a bunch of entitled rich fascist mafiosos who knew they'd end up behind bars because they were sucking Cuba dry for their own wealth. I'm pretty sure you're a product of that, hence your support for rightwing politics.

BTW, Mexican Americans tend to be Democrats but they've also been prominent GOP members whereas Cubans are always Republicans. Then they have the nerve to critisize black Americans for voting Democrat when they all vote GOP to a man (Chewing is your typical Cuban GOP supporter, there has never been a Cuban who voted anything but Repub) :yaohappy:

It wasn't until I lived in Texas when I found out that all the different Hispanics generally don't like one another very much. But the one thing that they all had in common was that they disliked Cubans the most because they basically have a welfare queen's entitlement mentality.

Republican administrations were the most ardent supporters of offering handouts to the waves of Cuban refugees. Back in the late 80s, early 90s, your typical Cuban refugee's welfare check was bigger than the average Floridian retiree's social security check.

[NumberSix]

Republican administrations were the most ardent supporters of offering handouts to the waves of Cuban refugees. Back in the 90s, your typical Cuban refugee's welfare check was bigger than the average Floridian retiree's social security check.
Obviously. Because they knew they would vote republican. There's no principle involved and it's certainly not "racism". Each party is either for or against certain immigrants based on which way they would vote.

[UK2K]

The Repubs have already shot themselves in the foot by coming out stating that they'll block any nominee just b/c Obama.

All Obama has to do is nominate a moderate like Srinivasan. Conservatards of the McConnell/Cruz variety will reaffirm to the public that they're blind/partisan obstructionists if they vote to decline a guy who they helped get elected unanimously for his current position as Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

They will guarantee themselves to do even worse with moderates and minorities than they did in 2012. If Srinivasan gets declined, the Democrats are all but guaranteed the presidency and Hillary/Sanders will be free to nominate someone far more liberal. Ginsberg will be able to retire and not have to worry about holding out until 2020.
Are they going to do as poorly as the last election, cause if so, I'm all for it.

[FillJackson]

Why no autopsy? :facepalm
Another bit of consparicy idiocy that lasted about 36 hours. Long enough for Trump to promote it

[UK2K]

https://youtu.be/CEHdSMxlec0

Someone want to decipher his answer for me?

[FillJackson]

And you were just as appalled when democrats suggested the same thing when Bush was president, yeah?

In case you forgot (cause it was years ago)...
https://youtu.be/qnpjs45D7OY

What goes around, comes around. Sucks to suck.

Go ahead and spin it all you want. You'll try at least.
This is not the same. I'm not saying the Democrats haven't also played hardball, but this Schumer example is not "we won't consider a nominee at all because it's the last year year of the president's term." It's "unless we get more information on prospective justices, we shouldn't confirm anyone."

Schumer's argument was the Bush Administration was subverting the process because the two previous nominees and the Bush Administration did not give Congress enough information so they could accurately evaluate the judges. And the information and answers they did get was vague almost to the point of dishonesty. His complaint was that the previous nominees were "misleading" about how they would rule and then once they were confirmed they went on to rule in ways, that were the opposite of their answers to the Senate. That is, the way the administration deliberately picked judges with very thin judicial records and then those justices and the Senate could not accurately assess their judicial philosophy which is a valid role for the Senate.

Also from that Schumer speech.

"It appears we were not given the most accurate picture of the nominees we confirmed," Schumer said. "We were presented a misleading portrait." He accused both justices of making decisions that "flouted precedent" and, essentially, legislating from the bench.

He argued that Senate had to "engage in conjecture" to understand the nominees' way of thinking and method of reasoning because their records were thin.

"As we have seen, a stealth nominee with a sparse record has scarce incentive to provide meaningful answers to the questions about judicial philosophy and constitutional interpretation," Schumer said. "They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream, rather than we have to prove that they are not."

He basically was saying, unless we get more info on the next nominee we should vote no. He was not saying, we should not even get a nominee.

TL/DR
Schumer: Process needs to improve or NO.
McConnell: NO process

[FillJackson]

Several GOP folks have already softened their hardline stance. I'm guess they got put on blast.

It's going to be interesting to see how the GOP Senators up for reelection act.

Also if you're not aware of the process (http://www.theonion.com/graphic/how-supreme-court-justices-are-chosen-52365)

Here is a step-by-step guide to how U.S. Supreme Court justices are selected:

Step 1: Supreme Court vacancy opens after a sitting justice dies, retires, or is promoted to the Galactic Circuit
Step 2: President wistfully crosses out own name from list of potential candidates
Step 3: Official presidential nominee slowly lowered by rope into Senate Judiciary Committee pit
Step 4: Nominee charged one-time $30 background check fee
Step 5: Candidate asked whether they see themselves in exact same place 35 years from now
Step 6: Judiciary Committee members ask nominee whether they capable of writing a dissent that could be described as “blistering”
Step 7: Candidate attests they have no opinion whatsoever on issue of abortion, don’t know what it is, and frankly have never heard such a word uttered before
Step 8: Senate takes nominee out to drinks to see how they act in casual, informal setting
Step 9: Nominee stands as their predecessor’s robe is draped over them to see if government can save a few bucks on not ordering a new one
Step 10: Following months of direct questioning, witness testimony, and poring over the nominee’s qualifications and judicial history, the Senate votes on whether they like the president or not
Step 11: If confirmed, justice takes oath of office and is assigned a bench buddy to help them through their first few opinions
Step 12: If candidate not confirmed, process repeats indefinitely until other party holds White House or country is awash in the hot, crimson blood of neighbor killing neighbor, whichever comes first

This one is also good. (http://www.theonion.com/article/obama-compiles-shortlist-gay-transsexual-abortion--52361)

[FillJackson]

Hillary is a woman. Women aren't leaders. If god wanted her to be a leader, he would have made her a man.
Inside the mind of NumberSix.

[FillJackson]

Another bit of consparicy idiocy that lasted about 36 hours. Long enough for Trump to promote it
36 hours. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scalia-conspiracy-20160217-story.html)

[DeuceWallaces]

My favorite scenario is they railroad the nomination, Hillary is elected, and then she puts up Obama for the position. Now that would be hilarious.

[greymatter]

Obviously. Because they knew they would vote republican. There's no principle involved and it's certainly not "racism". Each party is either for or against certain immigrants based on which way they would vote.

It's funny seeing GOPers decry the Dems "keeping blacks on the Democratic plantation" via offering "free gubmint sh1t" while Republicans certainly had no bones about brazenly doing this with Cubans. Except the difference is that welfare is made available to anyone who requires it, not just a select group.

[greymatter]

Unless nominee is Trump, who isn't actually a republican.

Only an inbred retard would believe that Trump would appeal to moderates or minorities.

A moderate by definition isn't an unhinged imbecile who holds reactionary views.

Trump has Klan members showing up to his rallies because they just love his messages:

Mexicans = rapists
N.African/ME Muslims = potential terrorists that need to be interned if already here
Blacks = bunch of thugs who commit 81% of murders on whites, 97% of murders on other blacks

[KyrieTheFuture]

Hillary is a woman. Women aren't leaders. If god wanted her to be a leader, he would have made her a man.
This is one of the many reasons no one takes you seriously.

[Knicks102]

This is one of the many reasons no one takes you seriously.
He's a well known idiot.

[NumberSix]

This is one of the many reasons no one takes you seriously.
Can you people honestly not recognize that that was a joke?

[Knicks102]

Can you people honestly not recognize that that was a joke?
No, who jokes around like that and is an adult? Unless you're like.. 14?

[KyrieTheFuture]

Can you people honestly not recognize that that was a joke?
It's shockingly in step with the rest of your beliefs

[Jailblazers7]

My favorite scenario is they railroad the nomination, Hillary is elected, and then she puts up Obama for the position. Now that would be hilarious.

I saw a funny hypothetical where the nomination gets denied and we get another Bush/Gore 2000 situation. Goes to the SC and its split 4-4. What happens next? :lol

[FillJackson]

TL/DR
Schumer: Process needs to improve or NO.
McConnell: NO process

Just saw someone who said everyone who didn't listen to the full speech got punked.

No there there at all.

[Dresta]

Hillary and Rubio are identical on foreign policy.
Yes, both warmongering maniacs who are clearly owned by special interests, and yet foreign policy is his supposed strength, and he's overshadowed by Hilary's brilliance as Secretary of State. Jesus :facepalm

When did the Democrats and their supporters become such big fans of war and of bombing people to spread freedom?

[Patrick Chewing]

Obama doing what Obama do. Gonna be the first President TO NOT attend the funeral of a Supreme Court Justice.


Unprecedented. Obama is the goddamned anti-Christ.

[9erempiree]

Obama truly does not care for anyone.

I wonder if he would go if it was Clarence Thomas.

[Patrick Chewing]

Obama truly does not care for anyone.

I wonder if he would go if it was Clarence Thomas.

No, he cares for Muslims and young black men in hoodies.

[FillJackson]

Gonna be the first President TO NOT attend the funeral of a Supreme Court Justice.


Unprecedented.
Utter nonsense.

Biden went to the funeral mass. Obama went to the wake.
3 of the last 7 funerals Justices did not have the president or VP attend.

[bladefd]

Utter nonsense.

Biden went to the funeral mass. Obama went to the wake.
3 of the last 7 funerals Justices did not have the president or VP attend.

Wow, all that media coverage of Obama not attending at all was crap. Can't believe everything has been politicized.

[NumberSix]

Wow, all that media coverage of Obama not attending at all was crap. Can't believe everything has been politicized.
I don't really care that he didn't go. Keep it real though. He would have gone if it was RBG.

[bladefd]

I don't really care that he didn't go. Keep it real though. He would have gone if it was RBG.

Attending wake is not the same as not going though. :confusedshrug:

[Jailblazers7]

Attending wake is not the same as not going though. :confusedshrug:

I think it's actually more honorable that he paid his respects privately instead of showing up for the press coverage. Especially considering the criticism he knew that he'd receive.