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: 4
120
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Snarl

Merrick Garland is a moderate.

On top of that, do you recall how many members the Supreme Court originally consisted of? Do you see a problem today?

The point is that we have an odd number of judges so that there isn't a tied decision.

Even Richard Burr said nine years ago that a bench without nine judges wouldn't work. How are you not seeing the hypocrisy?


He's being sold to us as a "moderate".

He, along with 3 other judges, tried to overturn the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling. Garland also voted to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement.

Voting? Here.



In 1997, Judge Garland wrote the opinion in LaRouche v Fowler. That decision upheld the rights of political parties against the federal Voting Rights Act. The year before, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Morse v Republican Party of Virginia, 517 US 186, that the Voting Rights Act applies not only to state and local governments, but to the actions of political parties. Notwithstanding that, Judge Garland wrote in LaRouche v Fowler that the Voting Rights Act cannot be used to control the actions of the national convention of a political party.

Source

Doesn't look that moderate to me.




posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

i can agree with you on that - and it's good we're specifically pointing this out together then.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Oh, boo hoo. If the Dems could do it, they would, and they have. Just look at the history of appointments and you'll see a lot more obstructionism on the part of Democrats as opposed to Republicans. It's an easy Google. And I want the GOP to keep obstructing. Tipping the balance of the court now will ruin the country, imo. We cannot afford any ore liberals on the court. So if the GOP can hold off the Huns a few more months, it's fine with me and I don't really care what the libtards have to say about it.

Flail away. Scream and shout. Have an embolism.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Yeah he nailed us after he quit his job and went on tour for killer. That's what we pay him to do ? Ah, now we are in the KKK, lie, as if there isn't enough racial division in the country thanks to him, what an idiot.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

SC i slike a jury. it dont need a odd number to actually work. They want a odd number so they can be stacked one way or another. better to have ties than bad decisions.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He's attempting to set the table for a massive push to ramrod a replacement for Scalia into the bench after Clinton loses and prior to him leaving office. I suspect we will hear an unending cacophony from that side of the aisle, desperate to seat a left leaning justice before Trump seats a proper Constitutionalist judge in January.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Alt-right radicalism and obstructionism is going to be the DEATH knell to the Republican party.

America's demographics are changing and becoming more liberal each YEAR. We are seeing the DEATH THROES of an INCREASINGLY IRRELEVANT and OUTDATED party.

DESPERATE people act crazy. DESPERATE people believe crazy things. DESPERATE people cling to beliefs that times and POPULATIONS never CHANGE. We are seeing that NOW.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Lol never before in the history of politics has anyone ever done anything like this its unprecedented. Oh the outrage oh the humanity how will our democratic republic ever function again!


You guys play dirty then cry when its directed back at you. Seems the democrats only want to play fair when its in their favor to do so then lie, cheat and steal when they think nobody is watching. how do I know this you ask? wikileaks provided the evidence feel free to search the emails.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You a parent aren't aware this tactic was used twice by democrats. They rejected Nixon appointments leaving the court vacant for 2 yrs and only agreed to a Nixon choice because another Judge was retiring meaning there would have only been 7.

Then there's Reagan his appointments were again blocked by democrats leaving the court vacant for 2 yrs. So it's happened before and will happen again.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
Oh, boo hoo. If the Dems could do it, they would, and they have. Just look at the history of appointments and you'll see a lot more obstructionism on the part of Democrats as opposed to Republicans. It's an easy Google. And I want the GOP to keep obstructing. Tipping the balance of the court now will ruin the country, imo. We cannot afford any ore liberals on the court. So if the GOP can hold off the Huns a few more months, it's fine with me and I don't really care what the libtards have to say about it.

Flail away. Scream and shout. Have an embolism.

Really? Name ONE situation that is comparable to the current situation that the Democrats have attempted. Just one. I keep seeing you conservatives make this point, but none of you will man up and actually present a counterexample.
edit on 4-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am DEFINITELY not a Democrat, lol. And I did not vote for President Obama.

But have to say he's not wrong on this one.

Give Mr. Garland his confirmation hearings already!!



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He's attempting to set the table for a massive push to ramrod a replacement for Scalia into the bench after Clinton loses and prior to him leaving office. I suspect we will hear an unending cacophony from that side of the aisle, desperate to seat a left leaning justice before Trump seats a proper Constitutionalist judge in January.

Irrelevant. The Republicans had their chance to play ball. They declared that we needed to wait until the election for the people to choose. Well it looks like the people are choosing a Democrat so the Republicans in Congress need to get right with that and play ball. If that means there will be a liberal SCOTUS going forward then so be it. The Republicans (and the people like you who supported their stupid gamble) made their bed and now they need to lie in it.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: digital01anarchy
Lol never before in the history of politics has anyone ever done anything like this its unprecedented. Oh the outrage oh the humanity how will our democratic republic ever function again!


You guys play dirty then cry when its directed back at you. Seems the democrats only want to play fair when its in their favor to do so then lie, cheat and steal when they think nobody is watching. how do I know this you ask? wikileaks provided the evidence feel free to search the emails.

Go ahead and name a time where the Democrats attempted to stall a SCOTUS nomination for the length of an entire Presidency.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You a parent aren't aware this tactic was used twice by democrats. They rejected Nixon appointments leaving the court vacant for 2 yrs and only agreed to a Nixon choice because another Judge was retiring meaning there would have only been 7.

Then there's Reagan his appointments were again blocked by democrats leaving the court vacant for 2 yrs. So it's happened before and will happen again.

First off. Thank you for actually coming back with a counterexample unlike your lazy peers who keep trying to just dismiss this with the stupid cop out that Democrats do it too. I really appreciate at least SOMEONE attempting a logical debate instead of just mindless partisan prattle. I gave you a star for that.


Now to your point. Yes you are right these events happened in the past, but those are the only two occurrences in the 20th century. Oh yeah, the length of time of vacancy wasn't two years either. It was 391 days for Harry Blackmun's swearing in (1970) and 237 days until Anthony Kennedy's swearing in (1987). (Source). As you can see those lengths of time are for a year and less than a year respectively. Also, this vacancy is now at 264 days as of today, so it's already exceeded one of the two. The longest vacancy was in 1844 for 841 days (which is 2.3 years).

All of those vacancies would be trivial compared to the fact that the Republicans are threatening to have a vacancy for FOUR years. Actually, more than that since Scalia died in February; so near 5 years actually. Keep in mind that 2 other justices are close to retiring and will probably do so during the next Presidency. So that would be 3 vacancies going unfilled because of petty partisan politics. And you agree with this?
edit on 4-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You started your post off with a lie. You have always been liberal, and your post history is available for everyone to see.

So Bill Clinton didn't appoint any Justices?



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
You're right my post history is for view for everyone. Here are some of my oldest threads I wrote:

Let's talk about unemployment
It doesn't matter who you vote for, we are heading for collapse.
Vote for Johnson equals a Vote for Obama
Mental Illness and your right to bear arms
Israel holds the record for breaking the most UN resolutions
Obama Signs Law Gutting Insider Trading Regulations for Congress
Can whites be victims of racism?
The Debt to GDP Ratio Lie

So clearly you are a liar. But thanks for trying to derail my thread by making it about me. Very useless contribution you brought to the thread.
edit on 4-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Cherry picking doesn't cover up your lie.

You consistently support planned parenthood and abortion.Source
You consistently support legalization of drugs. Source (And there are plenty of threads for that one)
You consistently pro lgbtq rights and marriage Source And plenty more like that.

We could play this game all day. Bottom line is you started off your thread with a lie. Just be honest. We are Liberals. With the exception of abortion I agree with your other stances. There is no reason to lie and deny you aren't something when you so obviously are. The good arguments can still be made nonetheless.

My contribution beyond that was a question. Did Clinton not appoint Justices? Has Obama not appointed Justices? Republicans control the house and senate largely because their constituent base wants them to "protect the SCOTUS" and keep liberal justices off of it. If that's what they were elected to do, then that's probably what they will do.
edit on 4-11-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I'm not lying. Granted I wasn't a hard core conservative and more was just moderate with conservative leanings, but I wasn't truly a liberal either. Nor am I denying my liberal beliefs now. To be honest, I don't like being called either liberal or conservative anyways. I'm me and my beliefs aren't packaged into a brand name.
edit on 4-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
This is an example of not respecting one another. This is a 2 part process. The president nominates and the senate gives consent. If they break tradition by not looking carefully at the list of nominees and saying "no we want a Republican president to nominate" then that won't do at all. That's simply not carrying out their duties by not studying the nominees. Now, if the list of nominees is too far out there for what represents this country then that is different, but the people who have been presented appear to have a nice record of being able to correctly carry out their judiciary duties. At this point there is no reason to prevent the justice from being appointed except a lack of compromise and respect.


Whoever the culprit is for refusing to compromise is to blame for this problem.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

those issues that you raised weren't always the top issues of the republican party were they.
I mean, there was a time when they were more about conservative budgeting, and help the economic issues above those moral issues.... that aren't shared by all of the american population by the way!!! maybe if they would quit being the moral police and go back to building sound economic policies.... they'd have less people stepping away and looking for alternatives.
and then to have themselves standing on their moral podium chastising us while supporting some one like trump..
well, what can I say, it almost seems like they've thrown close to half the population into an alternate reality.

I'd just about be willing to bet that hillary would put up garland, since obama already put his name up and if the republicans would come back down to earth, they would support him.
and, anyone who actually thinks they know who trump would put up, well, they are forgetting his knack for lying... the republicans might stall on the nominations even with him in, and we'd all be supporting them.... because unlike him, we wouldn't care how beautiful the justices are, we'd be more concerned with how well they understood the laws and constitution.



new topics




 
120
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join