Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Quote:If you think that those things are happening now (aside from the gas which is more to do with OPEC's response to the Shale boom than anything Obama did) then you're clearly in over your head.
Since I'm crazy in another thread (to you), it should come as no surprise that I'm in over my head, too (again, also to you*).
I mean, why the hell not.
BHO is on a roll. He's even got gay marriage and a ton of people on health insurance to boot. And thanks for helping me sell the house I bought in 2005 at a profit, Mr. President.
*and jj and JW
Quote:Since I'm crazy in another thread (to you), it should come as no surprise that I'm in over my head, too (again, also to you*).
I mean, why the hell not.
BHO is on a roll. He's even got gay marriage and a ton of people on health insurance to boot. And thanks for helping me sell the house I bought in 2005 at a profit, Mr. President.
*and jj and JW
So Obama got gay married? When did this happen? And you know as well as I do that the ACA is in it's death spiral now that UHC is going to own Aetna and pull out of the exchanges. All these bad things you see as good really does show how your perception is skewed. It's sad really.
Just gonna leave this right.. here.. <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/'>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/</a>
Quote:Its not their job to rubber stamp his pick. It is their job based on the seperation of powers to fight for the role of the legislature if infringed upon by executive fiat, as it has been.
Quote:It's their job to vet his nomination.
Kotite, vetting the nomination
is based upon separation of powers. Stacking the Court with left-leaning justices would tip the balance of power too far to the left. Despite what McConnell and his clown car act are saying, they have no intention of rejecting any and all comers. They want to force Obama to nominate another Anthony Kennedy instead of another Sonia Sotomayor. Srinivasian looks like he might actually fit the bill, assuming Obama has the good sense to nominate a well-respected judge rather than the Attorney General overseeing a DOJ that was riddled with scandal and forcing its way into unprecedented mission creep.
I'm not saying they should be forced to confirm anyone. And I don't think we need another way left leaning justice. But to say you won't even consider someone is absurd and unconstitutional (in addition to being a Richard move).
Quote:I'm not saying they should be forced to confirm anyone. And I don't think we need another way left leaning justice. But to say you won't even consider someone is absurd and unconstitutional (in addition to being a Richard move).
It's a political ploy. The only thing worse than being railroaded into another Sotomayor for the GOP would be rejecting every nomination, regardless of qualifications, and stalling out the process entirely. All the Republicans want to do is force Obama to nominate someone close to the center, and right now they have the numbers to do it.
If they stick to their words, it's good to know most of them are "eligible for unemployment" soon.
Quote:http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/obam....mhgnm8vky
Just terrible, terrible people. You republicans ought to be ashamed of the people you elect to represent yourselves.
Funny how you would feel the same way if the roles were reversed. You can preach from your soapbox that you wouldn't, but we all know it's true. It's politics, the ugliest form of human interaction.
I found this quite interesting. A nomination like this would be tough for the republicans to refuse to vote on, or outright vote down. I admit, I don't know much about him, but I can certainly live with his stance on certain issues.
From the article:
Quote:
Sandoval, a 52-year-old Mexican-American, is considered a moderate Republican, particularly on social issues. He supports abortion rights and abandoned the state's legal defense of a same-sex marriage ban before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such bans were unconstitutional.
Sandoval has supported gun rights as governor, which could prompt concerns from gun-control advocates. He was appointed as a federal judge by Republican George W. Bush, Obama's predecessor, before being elected governor in 2010.
Moderates are liberals to this party.
Quote:Funny how you would feel the same way if the roles were reversed. You can preach from your soapbox that you wouldn't, but we all know it's true. It's politics, the ugliest form of human interaction.
Jagibelieve is apparently a bigger man than you and the congressional republicans. He is actually approaching this objectively and not playing politics. I would like to think I would have a similar take if the roles were reversed.
Quote:I found this quite interesting. A nomination like this would be tough for the republicans to refuse to vote on, or outright vote down. I admit, I don't know much about him, but I can certainly live with his stance on certain issues.
From the article:
If Obama nominates a Mexican-American Republican to the Supreme Court, a guy I have seen described as the most popular Mexican American politician in the country, and Republicans block it, that could play right into the Democrats' hands in November, because you know Hillary Clinton will hammer them on denying a Supreme Court spot to a Mexican American.
For gosh sakes, this guy ran for re-election as Governor of Nevada and won 70% of the vote!
Dang. McConnell says, "We aren't going to approve any of your judicial nominations," and Obama says, "Oh, yeah? How about this guy? You going to turn down the most popular Mexican American in the country, a guy who was nominated to a federal judgeship by George W. Bush, you going to turn down this guy???"
Man, what a throw down that would be.
Quote:If Obama nominates a Mexican-American Republican to the Supreme Court, a guy I have seen described as the most popular Mexican American politician in the country, and Republicans block it, that could play right into the Democrats' hands in November, because you know Hillary Clinton will hammer them on denying a Supreme Court spot to a Mexican American.
For gosh sakes, this guy ran for re-election as Governor of Nevada and won 70% of the vote!
Dang. McConnell says, "We aren't going to approve any of your judicial nominations," and Obama says, "Oh, yeah? How about this guy? You going to turn down the most popular Mexican American in the country, a guy who was nominated to a federal judgeship by George W. Bush, you going to turn down this guy???"
Man, what a throw down that would be.
Exactly what makes it interesting. Throw in the fact that he (the potential nominee) is republican and appointed to the courts by President Bush, he is to the left on social issues (abortion, gay marriage) but leans to the right when it comes to the 2nd Amendment (gun control). An appointment like this blocked by republican "leaders" simply because of partisan politics will hurt whoever the republican nominee for President is.
The question is, will President Obama really make such a nomination, or are these "leaks" about potential candidates simply a way to force the republican "leadership" to change their tune?
Actually, here is the REAL question. Is this possible nomination being considered for the good of the country, or is it being played as part of the political game? Is this potential nominee really a potential nominee, or is it just a "name" thrown out to make republicans look bad in an election year?
In my opinion, I would sit on the sidelines and wait until President Obama actually appoints somebody. My guess is that Governor Brian Sandoval will for some reason not be the nominee.
Is Justice Scalia's body cold yet?
First of all, let me reiterate that all the libs in this forum playing the wounded statesmen is just abhorrent. Chuck Schumer, the ascending leader of the Senate Democrats, Said in 2007... 2007 that with Democrats in power in the US senate G.W. Bush wouldn't get anymore nominees through to the high court. Joe Biden Said the same thing about George H. W. Bush. They said the same thing about Eisenhower. This kind of blatant hypocrisy is frankly appalling!
What about justice Kennedy?
1.) Bork was qualified to serve on the high court, and his nomination was to fill a vacancy by a retiring justice who chose to have Reagan Choose his successor that was created a full 7 months before the Iowa Caucuses of the next election cycle.
2.) In Justice Kennedy Democrats forced the republicans to nominate someone who was pro choice, who allowed the Affordable care act to be rewritten by the SCOTUS so that plainly illegal subsidies were kept in place and last but not least Wrote the majority opinion mandating that an institution that had never existed in the history of man, that had never carried a majority in any chamber of congress and had never been held by a president seeking office would become the law of the land for all 50 states.
If you want to make a logical comparison to the nomination of Justice Kennedy then Obama would have to nominate someone who was pro life, pro traditional marriage and willing to personally write the majority opinion to declare obamacare unconstitutional.
Most importantly, you have executive actions on immigration before the court, you have executive regulations on emissions before the court (that could cost average Americans thousands of dollars) and now you have a push to allow illegal aliens the right to vote.
NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO APPOINT ANOTHER OBAMAITE WITH A LITTLE MODERATE GLITTER SPRINKLED ON HIM OR HER!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:Exactly what makes it interesting. Throw in the fact that he (the potential nominee) is republican and appointed to the courts by President Bush, he is to the left on social issues (abortion, gay marriage) but leans to the right when it comes to the 2nd Amendment (gun control). An appointment like this blocked by republican "leaders" simply because of partisan politics will hurt whoever the republican nominee for President is.
The question is, will President Obama really make such a nomination, or are these "leaks" about potential candidates simply a way to force the republican "leadership" to change their tune?
Actually, here is the REAL question. Is this possible nomination being considered for the good of the country, or is it being played as part of the political game? Is this potential nominee really a potential nominee, or is it just a "name" thrown out to make republicans look bad in an election year?
In my opinion, I would sit on the sidelines and wait until President Obama actually appoints somebody. My guess is that Governor Brian Sandoval will for some reason not be the nominee.
Do you really need to ask?
Quote:First of all, let me reiterate that all the libs in this forum playing the wounded statesmen is just abhorrent. Chuck Schumer, the ascending leader of the Senate Democrats, Said in 2007... 2007 that with Democrats in power in the US senate G.W. Bush wouldn't get anymore nominees through to the high court. Joe Biden Said the same thing about George H. W. Bush. They said the same thing about Eisenhower. This kind of blatant hypocrisy is frankly appalling!
Come on man, you know how this works. Both sides play the side of the coin that's politically beneficial to them at that point in time, then whine and moan when that same card is played against them. The way this whole thing is playing out is disappointingly hilarious and predictable, especially when you consider that there are plenty of candidates out there (like Srinivasian and Sandoval) who would at least be an annoyance to both parties equally.
Quote:Jagibelieve is apparently a bigger man than you and the congressional republicans. He is actually approaching this objectively and not playing politics. I would like to think I would have a similar take if the roles were reversed.
You wouldn't and neither would he. Politics is what it is, a dirty power struggle waged by those with the worst personality disorders.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12