It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Dies

page: 14
40
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

More reasonable than anything I'm hearing here from the Right ... (and in that, I'm not kidding ...)

(Sadly.)

Hey, while we've got the Time Machine, we should go get those other two well-known historical Communists ...

Thomas Paine and Jesus Christ ...



Do you have something against Mao?

He may not be Jesus or a Founding Father, but a supreme court seat is logical....is it not?

Or is turning fish in to loaves a prerequisite these days?
edit on 13-2-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Gryphon66

One thing is the presidential seat, she may be ok as president like you say, but another to be seated in the supreme court where justices job is to interpret and protect the constitution, I don't think she will want a supreme justice job.


Senator Warren? Oh, I agree with you. I think she knows that she can do her best for the American people right where she is, which is why she didn't get into the silly-massed White House race.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I really think that Christ would prefer to be crucified than to come to this time period and deal with us crazies...

but, well, I see this thread seems to have gone into the twilight zone, so I will say good night...



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Well, Mao you're just being crazy.


I think it'd be great to have Christ on the Court ... then, at least, when you have someone (*cough*like Scalia*cough*) who believes believed (oops) they speak for GOD ... there'd at least be a somewhat reasonable basis for it.


edit on 13-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Do you have something against Mao?


Most people do considering how many people died under that delusional ideology.

Anywhere between 45 million to 75 millon.

Mao's Great Leap Forward 'killed 45 million in four years'

Oh yeah that sure was some 'great' leap forward.

In to mass graves.


(post by fartlordsupreme removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, you're right.

Mao couldn't speak for god, so one point for Jesus.

a reply to: neo96

I think our little "exercise" just went over your head.

My apologies.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You must have those on file, Neo ... ready to go!

Besides that, Mao has nothing on God's death toll, now does he? Now there's a real pro!

A few million is small potatoes, comparatively.

Back to SCOTUS though ... do you have anybody in mind that you'd like to see appointed to replace Scalia?

If you could ... who would be your choice? John Ashcroft? Franklin Graham?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Side note ... your post got me thinking ... didn't Texas approve a textbook that had Moses listed as one of the "Founders"?

I should look that up.

Seriously though ... what would you think of Dr. Condoleezza Rice on the Court? ... that might be a fair compromise.

Or maybe General Colin Powell?

I'd probably go for either of them.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Arizonaguy




The sitting Chief justice remains Chief Justice until he steps down or dies.


That's a problem which people should have problems with.

If term limits are good enough for a Potus. They are good enough for the Scotus, and should also be enforced on the Congress.

I can see your point, but what length would the terms need to be to circumvent any long term political trends? The 20th Century saw both parties dominate for a couple of consecutive decades. The Democrats from 1932 until 1952, and the Republicans from 1968 until 1992. With simple 10 year terms the court is at risk of becoming much more politicized than the current system is during long periods of political domination by 1 party,



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

Side note ... your post got me thinking ... didn't Texas approve a textbook that had Moses listed as one of the "Founders"?

I should look that up.

Seriously though ... what would you think of Dr. Condoleezza Rice on the Court? ... that might be a fair compromise.

Or maybe General Colin Powell?

I'd probably go for either of them.




cant say i know quite enough about either of them to agree with you or not
do either of them have the legal backround/experience that would be required though?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I vote Vice Admiral James W. Crawford, III for the supreme court.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Arizonaguy




The sitting Chief justice remains Chief Justice until he steps down or dies.


That's a problem which people should have problems with.

If term limits are good enough for a Potus. They are good enough for the Scotus, and should also be enforced on the Congress.


Hey we can agree here Neo.
I also think that term limits for both our judges and for congress would be great.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
You know ... there's no hard Constitutional limit on the number of Justices that could be appointed ...



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Besides that, Mao has nothing on God's death toll, now does he? Now there's a real pro!


God has nothing of government's death toll.

Democide should ring a bell.


(post by fartlordsupreme removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Gryphon66

I vote Vice Admiral James W. Crawford, III for the supreme court.


Nice.

Exceptional jurist from what I can see!



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

Side note ... your post got me thinking ... didn't Texas approve a textbook that had Moses listed as one of the "Founders"?

I should look that up.

Seriously though ... what would you think of Dr. Condoleezza Rice on the Court? ... that might be a fair compromise.

Or maybe General Colin Powell?

I'd probably go for either of them.



I don't think they listed him as a Founding Father, but instead the textbooks said he was more important than the Founders.
I'd have to look it up as well to be sure.

Anyway, I cannot support Colin Powell because that leaves the potential of a military coup from the top down.

My support for Rice would depend on what she wore to the confirmation hearings.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Arizonaguy




The sitting Chief justice remains Chief Justice until he steps down or dies.


That's a problem which people should have problems with.

If term limits are good enough for a Potus. They are good enough for the Scotus, and should also be enforced on the Congress.


Hey we can agree here Neo.
I also think that term limits for both our judges and for congress would be great.


That may have been the first time I've ever agreed with him also, I just didn't want to give him the satisfaction of telling him directly.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join