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.

 

Obama To Nominate Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...


Second Amendment....non-negotiable.



The second amendment does not mean what the NRA keeps trying to force.

But, that is a different topic.




posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Who said anything about what the NRA has said. I'm talking about what the Constitution has said and what the Court has upheld. But, you are right....that is for a different discussion and we don't want to derail this thread.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nyjet67

Yea with them planning on trying to steal the nomination away from Trump, it may not be politically wise to stack unpopular fights like this ontop of each other so close to election time.


Its not going to happen. If he has the most delegates going in they will go with him. It would be Republican suicide if they don't. In the thoughts of L. Johnson, they would lose the south for a few generations .



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Sparkymedic

Yup he led those prosecutions.

His view on the 2nd amendment is concerning as is his views on the EPA. He was appointed by Clinton to the DC bench. While they use the word centrist I dont think he actually is one. Looking at his record he is in lock step with Obama on guns and the EPA and his actions in the business realm was not all that stellar with regards to business law / anti trust actions.

It also appears, at least to me, that should anything Hillary related come to the court that he would side in Clinton's favor given his connections to them.

To those running their mouths about Republican threats to block nominations, do some research before making comments as Democrats have done the same thing in the past. Ironic that they want to call out Republicans while ignoring the very same actions by Democrats.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
The republicans won't confirm or even discuss the appointment.

And they should TAKE HEED.

This type of political grandstanding is one of the biggest reasons they are going DOWN.

People are sick of it, sick of the tea party, and sick of them behaving like stupid idiots. Clearly they care NOTHING about the country, but only about gaining more power for their dying party. The more they try with antics like this, the more people hate them.

DO you hear me MITCH McConnell?



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I am sure that the republicans will be free to explore the guys position as far as gun rights go.... IF they allow the hearings. which, some have promised to prevent from being held since the justices death.

I won't have a gripe against the congress if they hold hearings and have a vote on the guy and the guy is voted down... I just don't like the idea that they are refusing to hold hearings and give anyone obama puts up a chance to begin with. The guy leans left on some issues, right on others.. neither side of the political arena should be expecting a supreme court justice to always stand on their side of the fence, and neither side should think that any one candidate's leaning on any one particular issue should deem him to be unfit for the job..



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What is sad and pathetic is that a Supreme Court nomination should be a no-brainer.

Supreme Court Justices duties are to deliver judgment on laws based on the US Constitution.

But partisan "interpretation" of the Constitution has so tainted the judicial system, that this "impartial" court is just as partisan as any other aspect of government.

As long as there are partisan morons on the bench, I'll take their rulings with a grain of salt and do what I interpret as right (by the US Constitution) since we're just going with partisan interpretations now.

(flipping the Supreme Court the bird)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Obama and Biden both have filibustered Supreme Court nominees in the past.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy


But partisan "interpretation" of the Constitution has so tainted the judicial system, that this "impartial" court is just as partisan as any other aspect of government.


You don't think a document written more then 200 years ago needs to be interpreted to fit society and issues of today?



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I heard about this while getting reading in the bathroom. I yelled this out of the bathroom at the news, "Obama could nominate Rush Limbaugh himself and the GOP would still block it!"

Pretty much. The GOP will seem weak and "establishment" (I'm really hating that stupid, poorly understood buzzword these days) if they allow ANY nomination.

The GOP will look obstructionist and petty if the block any nomination.

They've backed themselves into a wall here.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy


But partisan "interpretation" of the Constitution has so tainted the judicial system, that this "impartial" court is just as partisan as any other aspect of government.


You don't think a document written more then 200 years ago needs to be interpreted to fit society and issues of today?


No.

Because your interpretation would differ from mine.

So who is right?



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Really?

For the first two years, there was a super majority. After that, Reid held the senate and simply stalled every single thing that came out of the House. McConnell had no say in anything. It wasn't until this past mid-term that McConnell had any say in anything about the Senate's business, and he's been indifferent in fighting anything. If he actually had been keen to really fight, Ted Cruz wouldn't be as hated as he is for actually fighting or attempting to fight things in the Senate.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

It's pretty straightforward and applicable as it is.

And if there is an issue it actually doesn't address, there is a true means of altering it. The problem most of you progressives have is that it requires a true consensus of citizens in order to that legal process to actually occur, and like it or not, your ideas don't have the kind of consensus in this country.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
The Republicans came out tough (for once thank God) that they wouldn't rubber stamp whatever random far left liberal loonie Obama surely wanted to nominate. Obama saw this and was advised to nominate someone more moderate.

Checks and balances for the win.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

If you were seriously injured in a car accident and wheeled into a trauma room of the ER, barley holding on to life ....

Would you allow a doctor from 200 years ago to operate and treat you?

Times changes, society changes, demographics change, and technology evolves thus altering the paradigm. When you stagnate you rot.

When you stop swimming and begin to tread water it's only a matter of time before you drown.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

So truth doesn't matter anymore.

Okay.

Just your interpretation vs mine.

If I'm in power, my interpretation wins.

If your in power, your interpretation wins.

Why not just measure d#cks fer chripes sake!

This is wrong no matter where you are on a political spectrum.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I can't honestly believe that you would be okay with a Supreme Court filled with Ted Cruz nominees that okayed every gun issue, banned abortion, banned gay marriage and banned pot.

Because partisan is partisan, no matter where you are.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
so, just how does anyone interpret the constitution to mean that empty supreme court chairs should be left empty for probably over a year so that "the voters can have a choice", or a say in the matter? please, someone enlighten me.
I could interpret the republican justification for not holding hearings on any nominee obama appoints as meaning:

"we will just stall and deflect any attempt to fill this seat till we get our candidate into office so we are sure that that candidate will have the same partisan leanings as we do... " all the while griping about how partisan the court has been acting in the past...



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What is sad and pathetic is that a Supreme Court nomination should be a no-brainer.

Supreme Court Justices duties are to deliver judgment on laws based on the US Constitution.

But partisan "interpretation" of the Constitution has so tainted the judicial system, that this "impartial" court is just as partisan as any other aspect of government.

As long as there are partisan morons on the bench, I'll take their rulings with a grain of salt and do what I interpret as right (by the US Constitution) since we're just going with partisan interpretations now.

(flipping the Supreme Court the bird)



The Supreme Court has worked this way since 1803 when they appropriated judicial review as a partisan means to stick it to Thomas Jefferson who was trying to battle John Adams' last minute (partisan) court appointments before leaving office.

Marbury v. Madison establishes judicial review
edit on 16-3-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

IMO, the Constitution has been under attack for the last several years. We can't afford to put someone in there that is going to erode it further.

Antonin Scalia was a strict constitutionalist. He did not believe it was a living breathing document, but was to be interpreted as our founders intended. I think most Americans agree with that and don't want someone who will legislate from the bench like so many have tried (and succeeded) in recent years.

When changes are demanded, we have a process for amending the Constitution through the States. But, there have even been attempted attacks against States' Rights in recent years.

This one is important. We cannot afford to get it wrong. We don't need "fundamental transformation". We need leaders and jurists that understand what their place is and stay in it within the boundaries of our Constitution.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join