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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Obama Nails Republicans For Hyper-Partisan Reversal On Supreme Court Nominees

page: 2
120
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

See, what did I tell you? Anti-American, lazy do-nothings.




posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I can easily pick out unrealistic exceptions where a tied court isn't beneficial to the public.

There ... fixed it for you.

Gotta love the Mud-Pit.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

They really need to go reread the Founding Fathers' words about compromise and government. I feel like they've missed the mark somewhere...



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I can easily pick out unrealistic exceptions where a tied court isn't beneficial to the public.

There ... fixed it for you.

Gotta love the Mud-Pit.

Unrealistic? Ok fine my hypothetical isn't good enough. Let's try some real world bills. I'll start with the Patriot Act. Hell what if Brown v. Board of Education was held up in a tied court? Hell Segregation was ruled constitutional for a long time anyways without even being HELD up in a tied court. So we know what would have happened. More blatant state sponsored racism.

You make it seem like unconstitutional laws are ALWAYS overturned unanimously or something controversial couldn't be held up with tied decisions or something.
edit on 3-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Oh good. This shtick again. I'm stupid because I don't share your opinion. Yeah yeah. I've heard that before. Move along son.


no, you are stupid becasue you refuse to acknowledge the facts.
Luckily, the facts are just that, and they don't need your approval.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You make it seem like unconstitutional laws are ALWAYS overturned unanimously or something controversial couldn't be held up with tied decisions or something.

The mechanism to overturn laws is Nullification. If the courts weren't 'in on it' they would specifically instruct juries on this responsibility. Instead, we have an education system which flushes Civics ... and people like you, and your sycophant Introvert, (... yeah I caught your remark -grin-) who wait with bated breath for a Communist takeover.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Objectively, I wonder how it is that they can support this state of affairs, if they truly love the country in which they live, or respect the constitution which was its founding document. This position the Republicans appear to have adopted on this matter, appears to piss in the face of the very constitution they often tout as their guiding force.

It is hard to understand in the extreme, how they can legitimise their position in this fashion, and still claim to respect that document.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

If you think hamstringing the Presidency on a technicality for partisan reasons is in the spirit of the Constitution that our Founding Fathers wrote then I have a bridge to sell you. Plus I wouldn't call what the Senators are doing currently as "advising and consenting". I see it as doing nothing.

They are taking their time, that's all.
Again, what is the time limit set forth in the US Constitution?

No. They are actively stating that they aren't going to do anything until a Republican is in the Presidency which is basically preventing the President from doing his job. You DO know that the President nominating judges was largely a non-partisan fight traditionally right? Congress would usually just check off the nominees without a fight.

It's a good thing that if the Democrats take control of the Senate they are planning on killing the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees.

It is similar to a pocket veto, in which no action is taken.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You make it seem like unconstitutional laws are ALWAYS overturned unanimously or something controversial couldn't be held up with tied decisions or something.

The mechanism to overturn laws is Nullification. If the courts weren't 'in on it' they would specifically instruct juries on this responsibility. Instead, we have an education system which flushes Civics ... and people like you, and your sycophant Introvert, (... yeah I caught your remark -grin-) who wait with bated breath for a Communist takeover.


Communist takeover?



Sometimes the best comedy is found observing the paranoid.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Sometimes the best comedy is found observing the paranoid.

Exaggeration makes a point with the hard-headed.




posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Oh children, you guys said Obama would take over america, fill in fema death camps,kill amerca with ebola, take away all your precious guns.

Why the heck would anyone sane take you guys seriously, go enjoy your trump tv, and enjoy another losing election.

Just a few more days to go till the excuses go overload.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
If Democrats do it = genius stroke of legit politics

If Republican do it = obstructionist lazy terrible excuse for human beings

That about sum it up?



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: introvert
Sometimes the best comedy is found observing the paranoid.

Exaggeration makes a point with the hard-headed.



Exaggeration is for drama queens.




posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
remember the poor little sisters and the birth control mandate?
well, there's a good chance that the supreme court couldn't come up with a majority vote, so they kicked that down to lower courts in hopes that they could find a compromise.
I really ain't sure how that one was going, but I think the idea was that if a compromise couldn't be found, they'd take the case again, when they had the full nine members.

that case had more than just the little sisters involved, there were a few others in it from many different states, who's state supreme court has ruled in different ways. if the court had voted a tie, for most of them, the state courts had agreed with them but for the little sisters, the court agreed with the obama administration I do believe.
so, if the supreme court had delivered a tied vote instead of doing what they did, the decision of the lower courts would have held and many of those who were involved in the lawsuit would have won their case, the very same case that the little sisters raised, and yet, the little sisters would not have won theirs.
in a country where everyone's rights are to be protected equally, that the little sisters would have gotten screwed because of their location and their state court system.
now, imagine that it was your precious gun rights they were ruling on and not just a stupid form that the gov't wanted to be filled out, and, you are the little sisters...
your friend who lives across the state line is telling you about the great gun he has just bought, how he'd like to come visit and take you out into the woods and fire it, but he just can't take it across the state line.
you'd probably be considering packing up, leaving your job, defaulting on you home mortgage, and moving to his state...
america is divided enough, without people moving for rights!!



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Oh good. This shtick again. I'm stupid because I don't share your opinion. Yeah yeah. I've heard that before. Move along son.


no, you are stupid becasue you refuse to acknowledge the facts.
Luckily, the facts are just that, and they don't need your approval.

Uh huh. Whatever you say son.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You make it seem like unconstitutional laws are ALWAYS overturned unanimously or something controversial couldn't be held up with tied decisions or something.

The mechanism to overturn laws is Nullification. If the courts weren't 'in on it' they would specifically instruct juries on this responsibility. Instead, we have an education system which flushes Civics ... and people like you, and your sycophant Introvert, (... yeah I caught your remark -grin-) who wait with bated breath for a Communist takeover.

Communist takeover? Lol what is this the 1950's and the Red Scare?
edit on 3-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Just read the thread, they are managing to do it. Trust me. It's baffling to me too.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
If Democrats do it = genius stroke of legit politics

If Republican do it = obstructionist lazy terrible excuse for human beings

That about sum it up?

How about pointing out a situation where Democrats stalled on a SCOTUS nomination until an election then walked back there reasoning so they could stall further until the next election four years later after they found out a Democrat wasn't going to win the Presidency? I'll wait.
edit on 3-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

If you think hamstringing the Presidency on a technicality for partisan reasons is in the spirit of the Constitution that our Founding Fathers wrote then I have a bridge to sell you. Plus I wouldn't call what the Senators are doing currently as "advising and consenting". I see it as doing nothing.

They are taking their time, that's all.
Again, what is the time limit set forth in the US Constitution?

No. They are actively stating that they aren't going to do anything until a Republican is in the Presidency which is basically preventing the President from doing his job. You DO know that the President nominating judges was largely a non-partisan fight traditionally right? Congress would usually just check off the nominees without a fight.

It's a good thing that if the Democrats take control of the Senate they are planning on killing the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees.

It is similar to a pocket veto, in which no action is taken.

Is it now? Considering the level of unprecedence I'm surprised you are deeming to compare it to anything. But then again. Anything to defend the partisan narrative, no matter how idiotic it makes you look.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

no democrat has ever suggested just not appointing a judge for the entire term of a newly elected president! you can't fall back on your finger pointed "Well, they did it first." excuse this time...

the supreme court does more than just decide a few cases every year, they all have a group of districts that they are in charge of helping and advising, and in case you haven't noticed, they are rather old... we wouldn't want to stress them out by overworking them to the point of death.. and have to go without a supreme court until the republican party gets their act together enough to be able to put forward a candidate that the american people could support.
and I wouldn't discount the idea that there might be a way for the supreme court to step in and act on it's own in this. after all what is being suggested is for the republicans to just not full fill their constitutional duty here. it wouldn't surprise me if they knew of a way to enforce that constitution in a judicial way and in effect throw all those republicans out of office. if they can't there's would be a democratic administration that could bring a case to them. or, heck, let a few tied votes go through, and probably any group of citizen could do it claiming that they believe that a supreme court that acting handicapped like this harms all citizens.



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join