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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
I like the pick a good decision by our President. If the Republicans block the nominee like they said they would I will not vote for any republicans in november it will be all independents and democrats.




posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Theres only one thing a supreme court justice should be, and thats a constitutionalist. None of them should be much left or right politicaly.
edit on 17-3-2016 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Government grid lock caused by petty partisanship is funny to you?



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I believe Obama can do better than Merrick Garland for the supreme court nominee, yes I have read extensively on Garland, he have some pros and cons, equally, and that troubles me, because it makes his views murky and hard to interpret.

Obama already have two justices appointed to the supreme court, we don't need a third one under his rule

I agree that the next elected president should do the honors.



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

There isn't a cap on the number of judges the President can appoint during his term... That's a silly reason to deny this appointment.



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its only silly if you don't agree with the president, don't see it the same way, he have his agendas, everything a president does during his term is in order to leave a legacy, I don't like the one Obama is been leaving behind.



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its only silly if you don't agree with the president, don't see it the same way, he have his agendas, everything a president does during his term is in order to leave a legacy, I don't like the one Obama is been leaving behind.



No. It's silly because there is no precedent where a president was denied a nomination because he nominated several other judges prior in his term. Plus your bolded part describes you to a T. You disagree with this nomination because you disagree with the President; hell you admitted as such at the end of this post. You are just trying to hide it behind some flimsy excuse about too many prior nominations because you don't have a real reason to deny this nomination.

Face it. This nomination is a good pick because he is moderate and likely to be the least partisan choice possible. He's been agreeable to Republicans in the past and the only reason to deny his nomination now is because of petty partisanship. The kind that you are trying to peddle in your posts.
edit on 17-3-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
I believe Obama can do better than Merrick Garland for the supreme court nominee, yes I have read extensively on Garland, he have some pros and cons, equally, and that troubles me, because it makes his views murky and hard to interpret.

Obama already have two justices appointed to the supreme court, we don't need a third one under his rule

I agree that the next elected president should do the honors.

If Hillary is the next POTUS, she will be putting in young far left judges. Obama is a centerist overall regardless of personal views.
If the reps want some sanity left in scotus, they would do well to bring this guy in. If they want to play party politics instead, they can block, and end up with a extreme alternative.
Hard to negotiate when you have all your cards showing...and unless they can stall for about 5 years...



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

if we wait till after the next election, well, that will be after the next congress starts it's session and gets settled in, according to scotusblog, I believe we can expect to get the chair filled around april or may if my memory is right. That's over a year of the supreme court working with one less supreme. and each of those justices has the duty of overseeing a portion of the lower appellate courts so, that means placing the burden of that work that was Scalia's responsibility unto the remaining justices. it also means that any tied decisions just may be reheard after that chair is filled which might backlog the court system somewhat...
if there was a justifiable reason for waiting, I might feel differently, but I haven't heard of a justifiable reason as of yet. the fact that Garland can't be clearly identified as being left or right is really a good thing, since justice itself should not be dictated by political views. and, no one is going to convince me that the true reason that the republicans want to keep that seat open isn't so that during the elections they can continually tell the voters just how they should be voting republican to stop the judicial system from destroying the country.... which, in itself is putting pressure on those supreme court justices to let political parties influence their decisions?


edit on 17-3-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
It seems pretty clear the Republican's have doubled down on stupid and will stay the course on not holding any confirmation hearings at all. I believe this is actually part of the plan anyways, since the obstructionism will likely tip the senate Democratic and the next (overwhelmingly likely Democratic) president will appoint a younger and much farther left justice than Garland. It seems like Obama is playing chess while the Republican's are walking right into it thinking they're playing checkers. Apparently they are blind enough to let the Democrats have their cake and eat it too.


(post by b1brightnow removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: pirhanna
Theres only one thing a supreme court justice should be, and thats a constitutionalist. None of them should be much left or right politicaly.


The Constitution is written extremely vaguely, it is also meant to change in interpretation over time. A strict constitutionalist in the sense that you mean is inherently political.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
NICE try ,he isn'y going to drop the 2nd amendment so, NOPE.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
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.


That GD piece of paper is timeless.

Funny thought since we let politicians write our laws, about medicine,education,finance etc.

In other words people that have no idea of what they are talking about.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

We wouldn't use the maps from the 1300's to try and navigate, as they'd say we'll fall off the Earth if we go to far from shore.

Things change Neo, awareness broadens and the universe becomes larger. You can stick your head in the sand only for so long before you suffocate.

I'm not advocating for any changes to the document -- but we have to look at it through the eyes of Americans TODAY, while at the same time through the eyes of the founders THEN.

It's not just a black and white document. The founders were intellectuals, and no intellectual is a strictly black/white thinker who deals in absolutes only. There's a reason they also formed the supreme court...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join