Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Aaand you made a post filled with links from fringe sites. There's nothing new here. Crooked politicians have always abused governmental powers for personal or political gain. 

 

Read what you just wrote. 
The solution is to reduce government power, not to increase it.

 

The Constitution limits government power, but it is being ignored or twisted ("penumbras and emanations") by people with an idea that they know better, so their opinion should be the law of the land.

Quote:RIP Justice Scalia.  Should you be looking down on us, you'll no doubt be laughing at some of the tricky political positions that you've put the Senate in.

 

Presidential candidates who have been saying President Obama has not been doing his job are now calling for him to ignore the Constitution and not do his job, which is to nominate a replacement.  11 months is apparently not enough time to confirm one.

 

So the Senate will obstruct the nomination of next Supreme Court justice, effectively making the US public elect the next justice this fall when they choose which party to vote for.  Which is exactly what the framers of the Constitution DIDN'T want.

 

Justice Scalia would have loved the irony.


 

Looks like he is prepared to nominate a black, female, lesbian....that's like a triple whammy. 'Merica going straight to hell.

Quote:Broken as it might be, it's still the best system on the planet because of the document that it is built upon.  If we allow an activist court to basically re-write a document to suit their political whim, all is lost.  Losing Scalia is a serious blow to this nation, and potentially to the Bill of Rights itself.  There are several landmark cases to be determined during this session.  Some opinions have already been written, while others are coming soon.  Without a true originalist on the court, there is nobody there to truly defend the intent of the document.

I agree.

Just found this, Very Interesting

 


Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments


 

Quote:Flair.

Oh good, I was worried no one would get that.

Quote:And I should never have a background performed to get my missiles of course.

Crickets.

Quote:Crickets.

 

Knock yourself out.

Quote:America is better with Scalia 6 feet under. May he RIP.

Stay classy.

Quote:And as I said before the only gun control measures discussed are how to keep them away or take them away from legal owners and nothing about how to take/keep them away from criminals. Enough mass shootings happen and you think they won't crack down on legal owners? We're the only ones they know to go after, the criminals are simply suspect.

What are you trying to say? Do you think we should ban people who have been convicted of a crime from having firearms? Confiscate their weapons?


I think it's fair to say most 'criminals' buy their guns legally. It's not like they need to utilize a black market. They can just go to a gun show and pay cash.


I'm not sure I follow the logic of cracking down on 'criminals' as opposed to the general public.

As people debate when the next man/woman up should be, there's still the hope to those on the right that a Republican conservative wins the election. The way they're destroying each other at the current pace, it won't matter. If Obama doesn't appoint, Clinton will.

So these debates are moot, and the GOP better focus on regrouping rather than being side tracked on the nomination process.

Then there's the elephant in the room, and with his election, he'd appoint Ivanka.

Quote:Then there's the elephant in the room, and with his election, he'd appoint Ivanka.

That would be fun to watch though.

Quote:Then there's the elephant in the room, and with his election, he'd appoint Ivanka.

Might be the first time in American history that the Supreme Court had a vacancy for five years.

 

On a more serious note, this, "The next President should appoint Scalia's replacement," nonsense is just that--nonsense. The GOP knows, and it's safe to assume that even the "mavericks" like Cruz and Trump know that refusing to confirm a Supreme Court nominee for almost an entire year would leave them looking like crybabies and further torpedo their chances against Clinton. It's just rhetoric on their side, as is par for the course in both parties, designed to try and bluff Obama into nominating a more centrist judge to fill the vacancy.

Sri Srinivasan will probably be the nominee.  That will terrify some people, though I wonder how much those same people know anything about him.  For the record, it wouldn't be my ideal pick either.

Quote: 

Just found this, Very Interesting

 

Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);">

 
 

</div>

 

 

Confused as to why it is interesting at all.  Not talking about the same thing.

 

From what I gather, the President has stated that he will not be going the route of a recess appointment, even though I believe they are currently in recess.

 

 

I'm sure that this is confusing to the hard right, as this goes against their notion that the President overreaches on things.

 

Maybe I'm missing the point here, or maybe people are confusing things as far as appointments.

Quote:Sri Srinivasan will probably be the nominee.  That will terrify some people, though I wonder how much those same people know anything about him.

 

 

People will freak out no matter who is nominated, and the fact that this fella clerked for a Reagan Justice won't matter.

 

They will also quickly forget that he was confirmed by a vote of 97-0, including votes from Rubio and Cruz.

 

I'd love to see him nominated, although as I say that I know that sadly the above will be pushed to the side and will be attempted to be ignored.

I can hear Donald Trump already.


"He's not even an American! You can't even pronounce his name!"

Quote:Crickets.

 

No man, you won. We can't have missiles, therefore we cant have guns either. Unbreakable argument.

My point is some argue I should be able to have missiles, but nobody feels it would be prudent to tack on the most minimal of background checks with that freedom.

Quote:My point is some argue I should be able to have missiles, but nobody feels it would be prudent to tack on the most minimal of background checks with that freedom.

Come on man, you're better than that. You're taking an argument so extreme that even Eric wouldn't defend it (no offense) and casting it as mainstream. I think you'd find that the number of people who believe that Americans have the right to own and use Stinger missiles is on the very, very low side.

Quote:Come on man, you're better than that. You're taking an argument so extreme that even Eric wouldn't defend it (no offense) and casting it as mainstream. I think you'd find that the number of people who believe that Americans have the right to own and use Stinger missiles is on the very, very low side.

 

That's true, but where is the line drawn? Gun rights activists oppose any line, yet you infer there is a limit.