Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very sad that the court has become just another vote for the party in power.
Losing presidential elections has consequences. Perhaps if the Republicans weren't so gung-ho on trying to impose Christian Sharia law in an attempt to transform the United States into a Christian version of Iran, and perhaps if the Republicans weren't so enthusiastic for enacting policies to transfer hard earned wealth from the working classes to the 1%, they wouldn't suffer this predicament.
This is the problem. He should choose the best person to serve THE CONSTITUTION. Fidelity to the constitution is what should be paramount, not the opinions and emotions, whims, etc. of the current populace.
It really isn't all that clear what the opinions and emotions, whims, etc. of the current populace are. We have 2nd Amendment advocates who think nothing of trashing the 1st, 4th, and 6th Amendments.
That said, it is definitely true that the appointment should be based on fidelity to the Constitution, not the further weakening of it.
The post I replied to represents a certain viewpoint. Those with an opposite point of view have a different viewpoint of what constitutes love of country and who is displaying patriotism and who isn't. His post, and his choice of words, exemplify his opinion...his point of view. Doesn't make those words facts.
This is terrible news. Obama is probably salivating. He will appoint some anti-Constitution liberal who will work to destroy what remains of our Constitutional Republic.
Very bad news for America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
We are one justice away from having a constitution in name only. The Republicans will do this nation a great service if they can stop Obama from nominating anyone. We will just have to get by with 8 justices. No big deal. A tie vote or two will do little harm.
The paranoia on the right-wing side is truly a marvel to witness. As soon as Obama came into office the fear of Obama taking away people's guns drove up gun sales. I should have bought Smith and Wesson stock. Did Obama try to take anyone's gun away? Um, no. The most that was ever going to happen was sensible background checks and closing the gun-show loophole, something most Republicans want.
I don't know how many times on this forum some right-winger was ranting about 'Obama destroying America,' something those of us in our right-minds didn't see at all. America was still there, children went to school everyday while their parents went to work. Destruction? Hyperbole.
Now, the paranoid rant is, [Obama] will appoint some anti-Constitution liberal who will work to destroy what remains of our Constitutional Republic" and "[w]e are one justice away from having a constitution in name only." Really? We never had a situation on the Supreme Court where justices appointed by liberals were in the majority? The Vindon, Warren, Burger, and part of the Rehnquist Courts were still far more liberal than even if President Obama gets another liberal on the court. The Warren and Burger courts were far more liberal than at any time in history. Yet, not only did the constitution not disappear and remain "in name only," but American justice flourished. The Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ruling gave personal protections against state self-incrimination; Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) declared that public schools cannot be segregated by race; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) gave accused individuals legal representation when the person held couldn't afford a lawyer; Engel v. Vitale (1962) outlawed mandatory school prayer that took away the power of the state to force a child to pray against their will; and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) ruled that privacy is a personal right with respect to contraception. All of these strengthened personal constitutional protections, not weakened them. There is no weight to right-wing fears of a liberal justice but I don't expect the paranoia on the right to abate.
Obamacare, DACA, Iran, Syria, Libya, the economy, taxes, Zika funding, Ebola funding, etc etc... all he ever did was never for "the country" it was to further empower the Democratic party or to give money to Liberal companies who donate to the party... using his position to further the Democratic party is evil, but not solving the issues of the country is truly incompetent...
Obamacare, DACA, Iran, Syria, Libya, the economy, taxes, Zika funding, Ebola funding, etc etc... all he ever did was never for "the country" it was to further empower the Democratic party or to give money to Liberal companies who donate to the party... using his position to further the Democratic party is evil, but not solving the issues of the country is truly incompetent...
Yeah, I know, the right-wing has to double-down that Obamacare was a train wreck, contrary to the evidence.
What’s amazing about their belief is that the good news about Obamacare isn't really debatable. It's a simple fact that there has been a stunningly rapid drop in the number of uninsured, coming from multiple independent sources. It's also a simple fact that outlays on Medicaid and exchange subsidies are coming in well below projections and premiums are below projections too.
I couldn't expect less from an ideology that was convinced that Obama trying to help the unemployed was going to cause hyperinflation, cause high interest rates and devalue the dollar -- none of which ended up in reality. To complain about the economy under Obama, when the unemployment success is better than under Reagan, is stunning. I have no idea what the gripe is about Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Iran, Syria, Libya, the economy, taxes, Zika funding, and Ebola funding as there was no context given -- as if we're supposed to presume there was some kind of Obama-causing failure.
I do have to wonder about Ebola funding. Is Ebola a big problem in the U.S.?
Last edited by Ibginnie; 02-14-2016 at 08:02 AM..
Reason: off topic
I think Eisenhower said his biggest mistake was nominating Earl Warren to the SC. You don't always get what you want or expect. Nonetheless, ...
the Senate R's should hope for the best in this year's elections and reject any Obama nominee to the SC.
I don't see this being put off for at least a year, new president in January and then just starting the vetting, could take well into 2017. Too many important decisions, the candidate needs to be qualified and like you say you never know how it will turn out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
