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: 8
120
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

They want another Scalia.

They're acting like 3 year old's. "If I can't have it my way, no one can have it".


We want someone who would not destroy the U.S. Constitution. There is a big difference, only 2 year olds can't understand why anyone would want to defend the U.S. Constitution. Are you 2 years old?




posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I didn't vote for obama either, and will be voting my republican representative in this year...
so, just who's team am I on??
But, I am also conveying my concern on this issue to his office.

it is wrong to allow the supreme court to go through four years with an even number of judges, period!


I'm not sure how to answer the "who's team" question with as little info as I have. However...the Supreme Court, in my view, should conduct their business in one of two manners. The first being to follow the Constitution. Please note the word "follow". I purposely didn't say "their perceived intent", "they assumption", etc. The Constitution is a document that states many things. If it says it...that is what it says and that is what it means. If it doesn't say it, then it didn't cover that contingency.

The other is a balanced representation of the entire country. If there is something not answered by the Constitution but still requires a ruling, then the entire country's opinions must be taken into account. Not the opinion of the Judges themselves. Especially when a sitting President attempts to stack the court with a non-balanced set of judges...which Obama is attempting and Clinton would continue...on steroids.

Again, and I would call the same about a president from the left or right. The president and the courts are there to represent America...all legal citizens. If the country was 50% left and 50% right...decisions should be made to support that. That obviously isn't what happens. We are run by a government that takes the agenda of those who put the individual in their position which can be unfairly skewed.

If the government of the USA does not represent, support and attempt to satisfy ALL the people of the country (as best they can) then they don't represent the country...they represent only a portion of the country. I believe that when stated like that...that simply it is obvious why we are so divided. People can point fingers and say "The Republicans need to approve a Judge" and by itself...that is true. But when you look at the whole picture and see that the President and others are forcing a one-sided agenda...it would be stupid for the representatives from the other side, the other Americans to not fight fire with fire.

Our government must be a government of ALL the people. It isn't. Obama is not my President...Reid is not my Representative and such individuals to not represent my views, wants and values. And so long as they don't...the representatives that do must stand up to these people.

I think it is really that simple. Without fair and complete representation of all legal citizens...however that is done...we are divided, not united.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: yuppa

They have not voted on Garland thus not showning consent or dissent to his nomination. The Senate has not done its job at all.


They have said he will be rejected though. It does not need to be held then. The Dissent has already been noted without a vote.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Annee

They want another Scalia.

They're acting like 3 year old's. "If I can't have it my way, no one can have it".


We want someone who would not destroy the U.S. Constitution. There is a big difference, only 2 year olds can't understand why anyone would want to defend the U.S. Constitution. Are you 2 years old?


Yes, and Scalia wanted to take everything back to when the Constitution was written.

I assume you also do not think it is a flexible document that needs to evolve as society evolves.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Krazysh0t

it has to do with integrity. I fully understand why that's a foreign idea to you. If you look it up, at least you might comprehend the verbiage.


Subverting democracy is not integrity. It is arguably treason.

It is an oddly circular argument; this proposition that to protect the Constitution we must ignore the rule of law and the will of the people by only allowing Conservative activists to participate in the process of selecting justices. Assuming that our democracy survives it, which might be overly optimistic, history will not look kindly on those who are attempting by hook or by crook to guarantee this nation to Conservative radicals. In general, to say that people will be on the "right" or "wrong" side of history is a bit of rhetorical flourish and drama. Today, I think, people underestimate the truth of it. If you deploy sophistry, intimidation, and propaganda in order to deprive your countrymen of their democratic rights to participate in the most crucial decisions of our government, you will be remembered. If we do survive this most dire turn of events, we may see something not unlike new Nuremberg trials.
edit on 5-11-2016 by JohnnyElohim because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

Yes, and Scalia wanted to take everything back to when the Constitution was written.

I assume you also do not think it is a flexible document that needs to evolve as society evolves.


When you talk about evolved it is 100% certain that you mean for it to "become left wing toilet paper "... As in for example your views that there should be gun control which is not very in favor of the U.S. Constitution...



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Republican obstructionism will come back to bite them in the ass.

Not only are they obstructionists, but they are also lazy, do-nothingings.

They control congress and have not tried to push the changes that they and the party claim they would like to make.


I do so love the smell of propaganda in the evening.

Props with the political neologism.

'Obstructionists' eh.

The founders called that checks and balances.

Or did some people in the thread forgot why the Democrats got their rears handed to them in 2010 when that party held the trifecta of governmental power.

After giving us the affordable 'care' act



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Well they don't want to believe that the people by vote and not voting upset the power libs had......and it was because of the flagrant partisan party social agenda......cant get the rich to pay for it tax then middle class......AHCA.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Annee

Yes, and Scalia wanted to take everything back to when the Constitution was written.

I assume you also do not think it is a flexible document that needs to evolve as society evolves.


When you talk about evolved it is 100% certain that you mean for it to "become left wing toilet paper "... As in for example your views that there should be gun control which is not very in favor of the U.S. Constitution...


I am a gun owner. Have been for many years. And have been a member of the NRA.

I also know - - - NO ONE - - - knows for sure what the 2nd Amendment actually means.

However, the NRA pushed and pushed - - - until their version is recognized. Yes, Scalia was instrumental in clarifying the 2nd amendment via the NRA.

But, of course, according to him the Constitution should never be changed or modernized.

I guess - - unless he's in favor of it.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

evolved, as in hey, women get to vote, and no one has to worry about being owned as a slave, and poor little boys and girls can go to school just like rich little boys can... and innocent women can't be burnt at the stake as witches.

evolved as in we all, weather you want to admit it or not, get to enjoy far more rights that the framers of the constitution could ever imagine! not only because our attitudes have changed over time, but also because our advancements in technology, and such.

you bring up gun rights, but well, if you want to take the true meaning of what the founders meant, it would be muskets, not semi-automatic rifles that can spit out enough bullets to kill a whole herd of deer in a minute! and they might have reconsidered their position if they had people living in their town going into public places with those semi-automatic rifles and and insanely killing anything that moved.

and oh ya, the great obamacare that isn't that great...
well, at least they tried! it's not like they managed to break the most perfect healthcare system known to man anyways. it was pretty much a broken system before they got a hold of it.

and, how much you want to bet that if trump gets in, he'll gut most of it, but that stupid mandate that says we all have to have insurance will still be there, all that will be gutted will be any gov't help so the people can afford the stupid insurance to begin with. and of course, the costs will continue to rise, and even with insurance more and more people will still find the actual healthcare unaffordable, unless they are very well off, or lucky enough to qualify for medicaid/medicare/chips...






edit on 5-11-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
While that wasn't directed to me, I'll take the opportunity to respond.


Society isn't evolving. We simply keep lowering the bar of what is acceptable. There are things that happen in life like losing a job, getting pregnant by accident, shoplifting, etc. These used to be things that while not always controllable...but still "bad". You tried to avoid them, you were a bit embarrassed by them. But not today. Today people want to be accepted for their unacceptable behavior, accidents and problems. My wife works in Asset Protection (security) and repeatedly stops people who say..."What? I didn't take much.". Yup...they think it is fine to steal or at least fine to steal if you can't afford something you want.

People think it is fine and normal for politicians to lie. They act like getting pregnant by accident is not something that should be embarrassing. Hell...some black communities think it should be fine and legal to riot, destroy and steal if they get pissed off. You have people proud to use your tax dollars for their food...proud and think their smart to use your tax dollars and not working...happy to lie, cheat and steal and how dare you say something you racist, politicians who do nothing but lie and their supports accepting that behavior as acceptable...etc. You have people who will tell you how happy they are to milk the system and too dumb to realize you are part of the system...and the milking.

So no...society has not evolved. Society has been going deeper into the gutter for decades and has been lowering the bar of what is acceptable, embarrassing and what should be avoided.
edit on 11/6/2016 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Annee

Yes, and Scalia wanted to take everything back to when the Constitution was written.

I assume you also do not think it is a flexible document that needs to evolve as society evolves.


When you talk about evolved it is 100% certain that you mean for it to "become left wing toilet paper "... As in for example your views that there should be gun control which is not very in favor of the U.S. Constitution...


I am a gun owner. Have been for many years. And have been a member of the NRA.

I also know - - - NO ONE - - - knows for sure what the 2nd Amendment actually means.

However, the NRA pushed and pushed - - - until their version is recognized. Yes, Scalia was instrumental in clarifying the 2nd amendment via the NRA.

But, of course, according to him the Constitution should never be changed or modernized.

I guess - - unless he's in favor of it.


I know exactly what the 2nd Amendment means. So do many, many others. If you don't...you should ask. But more likely you instead pretend (as in saying that NO ONE knows) that it could be taken different ways. No...it can't. Read the words...what it says is what it is meant to say and what it doesn't say it wasn't meant to say. It may not spell out every different circumstance one by one, but it doesn't have to.

If I put in writing "Every American has the right to drive"...does that mean the have the right to have government purchase them a car? Nope...doesn't say that. Does it mean that a man with no arms has the right to drive...Yes...but they can't...they aren't able to drive. Does it mean that an illegal alien deserves a license...Nope...it doesn't mention licenses and it says "American". An illegal is not an American.

This really isn't difficult...unless you are trying to make it so to push an agenda.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Society isn't evolving.


Fun fact: you just described society evolving. Evolve is to just change over time. Whether it is a positive change or not is irrelevant.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



As in for example your views that there should be gun control which is not very in favor of the U.S. Constitution...


Odd, I seem to remember something in the 2nd Amendment that says "well regulated".


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


There's lots of room for weapon regulation within that context.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Yes well regulated militia like regulated organized not a mob ect able to assist regular troops.......but none of this has anything to do with personal possession.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Very disappointed in you but suspect you are simply obfuscating play acting. At least you should have availed yourself of the many over the years who have demonstrated the meaning. But then you have demonstrated a real lack of understanding about the constitution as a whole.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock




Yes well regulated militia like regulated organized not a mob ect able to assist regular troops.......but none of this has anything to do with personal possession.


The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with personal possession?!

I think you need to look up and compare the definitions of the words "regulated" and "organized".



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock



Yes well regulated militia like regulated organized not a mob ect able to assist regular troops.

Have a look at Article I, section 8.
The militia is defined as is the ultimate authority over it.

edit on 11/7/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Logarock



Yes well regulated militia like regulated organized not a mob ect able to assist regular troops.

Have a look at Article I, section 8.
The militia is defined as is the ultimate authority over it.


Yea I have seen that and posted about it.

When Madison discussed the 2nd in the Federalist Papers he talked about unarmed citizens and the rise of despots. Used well known European despots and how they could have been crush early if the citizens had been armed. I.E. that regional organized resistance could be implemented. In our case state vs state was given as a case. But be sure that the idea of personal possession outside of an armory was clearly intended.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

And the 2nd would seem to apply to that militia.
The ultimate authority over which would be the federal government, as defined in Article 1.


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


A militia acting against the federal government would be acting illegally.

edit on 11/7/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join