Top trending topics on Ted Cruz: 3. What is Ted Cruz real name? wtf
edit: Scalia died ;o. RIP
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
RvB
Netherlands6077 Posts
February 14 2016 13:18 GMT
#58441
Top trending topics on Ted Cruz: 3. What is Ted Cruz real name? wtf edit: Scalia died ;o. RIP | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41096 Posts
February 14 2016 13:30 GMT
#58442
Senate Republicans can claim some precedence for blocking any of President Obama’s nominees to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia until a new president is elected -- if they reach back to the mid-1800s. The GOP’s insistence -- immediately upon news of Scalia's death -- that the Supreme Court must wait until the next president to gets its ninth seat refilled is not unprecedented, but is nonetheless very rare. In fact, all the unsuccessful Supreme Court nominees of the last century ran into problems because of their own traits, rather than some arbitrary obstruction aimed at the president. The closest comparison to the wholesale rejection President Obama is about to face with his nominee is President John Tyler, who holds the unenviable record of having four of the five men he put forward fail to make it to the Court. The fight was part of a larger clash between Tyler and the Whig-controlled Senate, where Whig lawmakers hoped Sen. Henry Clay of Kentucky would win the next presidential election in 1844. Over the course of 15 months in 1844 and 1845, in an effort to fill two Supreme Court vacancies, Tyler submitted and resubmitted his nominees a total of nine times. Samuel Nelson was finally confirmed in the last weeks of Tyler's presidency. But the second vacancy wasn't filled until well after Tyler left office, with the confirmation of Robert Cooper Grier in 1846, more than two years after the seat was opened up by the death of Henry Baldwin. It seems unlikely the Scalia vacancy will break that record, assuming the Senate takes up a nomination in the months after the 2017 inauguration. The next closest scenario is what happened to President Andrew Johnson's 1866 nomination of his Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who was otherwise well-liked by lawmakers. The Senate, however, did not like Johnson, so it opted to pass legislation that reduced the number of seats on the Supreme Court from 10 to seven, preventing Stanbery from ever being considered. In 2010, the Congressional Research Service issued a report studying the circumstances of Supreme Court nominees who were not confirmed. It found that out of the 36 times a president’s Supreme Court nominee was not confirmed by the Senate, the Senate’s opposition to the president himself played a role 16 times. Seven of those nominees -- all in the 19th century -- were submitted during a president’s lame-duck period between the election and the inauguration of the new president. Source | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
February 14 2016 14:01 GMT
#58443
| ||
GreenHorizons
United States21792 Posts
February 14 2016 14:04 GMT
#58444
On February 14 2016 23:01 Doublemint wrote: I think this sums up the debate and all that comes with it pretty well. https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/698711170702643205 I almost feel bad for Frank Luntz, but that quote is him projecting. I personally liked this one This isn't just insane, this is suicidal. This is pathetic. Frank Luntz makes more sense after one reads this though. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-agony-of-frank-luntz/282766/ | ||
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4254 Posts
February 14 2016 14:26 GMT
#58445
On February 14 2016 21:19 Doublemint wrote: holy crap. trump actually went full ham on W. and the iraq war - breaking the spell on like a decade of republican (bullshit) talking points. and getting booed on stage. it's completely bizarre. what a world we live in lol. Audience was probably stacked.Most Republicans agree that the mid east wars have been a disaster.Trump said it best, 5 trillion spent on achieving nothing.One thing is for sure though, if the USA had not abandoned the gold standard in 1971 we wouldn't be talking about these wars.Because they would never have happened.They are only possible because of the fiat currency easy money system we have. | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
February 14 2016 14:38 GMT
#58446
On February 14 2016 23:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Show nested quote + On February 14 2016 21:19 Doublemint wrote: holy crap. trump actually went full ham on W. and the iraq war - breaking the spell on like a decade of republican (bullshit) talking points. and getting booed on stage. it's completely bizarre. what a world we live in lol. Audience was probably stacked.Most Republicans agree that the mid east wars have been a disaster.Trump said it best, 5 trillion spent on achieving nothing.One thing is for sure though, if the USA had not abandoned the gold standard in 1971 we wouldn't be talking about these wars.Because they would never have happened.They are only possible because of the fiat currency easy money system we have. Becuase the gold standard was so effective at stopping that misguided adventure in Vietnam? | ||
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4254 Posts
February 14 2016 14:47 GMT
#58447
On February 14 2016 23:38 Mindcrime wrote: Show nested quote + On February 14 2016 23:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: On February 14 2016 21:19 Doublemint wrote: holy crap. trump actually went full ham on W. and the iraq war - breaking the spell on like a decade of republican (bullshit) talking points. and getting booed on stage. it's completely bizarre. what a world we live in lol. Audience was probably stacked.Most Republicans agree that the mid east wars have been a disaster.Trump said it best, 5 trillion spent on achieving nothing.One thing is for sure though, if the USA had not abandoned the gold standard in 1971 we wouldn't be talking about these wars.Because they would never have happened.They are only possible because of the fiat currency easy money system we have. Becuase the gold standard was so effective at stopping that misguided adventure in Vietnam? Yes, that is why they had to abandon it.Because they could no longer afford it.You seriously can't see how easier it is to fund huge wars by just printing money instead of needing gold on hand? Anyway Rubio said something about a new American century? If that doesn't get alarm bells ringing nothing will. PNAC was the think tank that came up with attacking seven countries in 5 years.General Wesley Clark blew the whistle on the whole thing.Looks like they are running a little behind schedule but cross Libya, Syria and Sudan off since Obama was elected. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCwCgthp_E | ||
Deathstar
9150 Posts
February 14 2016 14:47 GMT
#58448
Poll: When will the new SCOTUS justice be picked? Within 1-2 months (3) 3-4 months (13) 5-6 months (7) 7-8 months (0) 9-10 months (0) New President will pick SCOTUS justice (7) 30 total votes Your vote: When will the new SCOTUS justice be picked? (Vote): Within 1-2 months | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
February 14 2016 14:48 GMT
#58449
I find it highly fascinating that both GOP and DEMs have alienated a too large part of the population by playing bullshit politics, that they now have to use every dirty trick in the book to keep "their" candidate from drowning in the pool of rage that is out there. also here is a very nice one on scalia by FP. I have a friend who is a lawyer - he is not only insanely smart, but in addition he also works his ass off. Dr. jur. with ~24 years of age. to put in in perspective. he totally also shares this sentiment that where he works, and among his colleagues - this sentiment is shared ^^ There was no love lost between Justice Scalia and foreign jurists. Scalia was famously dismissive of foreign and international law, which he considered good enough for, well, foreigners — but not for the great United States. “I doubt whether anybody [in the United States] would say, ‘Yes, we want to be governed by the views of foreigners,’” he scoffed in 2005. ... A decade later, his views hadn’t mellowed much. Foreign laws can “never, never be relevant to the meaning of the U.S. Constitution,” he told a law student audience in May 2015, because “who cares? We have our laws, they have theirs.” Scalia’s wrath fell frequently upon those justices who demonstrated a distressing tendency to offer “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” as the Declaration of Independence so unpatriotically put it. Justice Stephen Breyer, for instance, triggered apoplectic fits in Scalia by insisting that the interconnected “nature of the world itself… demands” that U.S. judges read and reflect on foreign legal rules and precedents. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor aggravated Scalia by taking a similar view: when judges look to international and foreign law to resolve what some might see as “domestic issues,” she argued, it will “not only enrich our own country’s decisions; it will create that all-important good impression.” | ||
KwarK
United States40776 Posts
February 14 2016 15:21 GMT
#58450
The man was a colossal piece of shit who was unfortunately in a position to be a colossal piece of shit to huge numbers of Americans. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
February 14 2016 15:29 GMT
#58451
On February 14 2016 12:50 JW_DTLA wrote: Off topic: Rubio's Lame Duck answer is making me mad. The "lame duck" period has an actual meaning. It means the time after a successor/replacement has been elected for Person X, but Person X is still in office until the newly elected person is sworn in. That is after the Nov 3/4th election in 2016 when it comes to Obama. We are in February. His "It's not a living document" line made me mad. Scalia's "originalism" needs to die now (quotes used because it was completely cherry picked and informed by his biases). The constitution is, and was intended to be, a living document. Thomas Jefferson fucking wrote that it is. It's both disingenuous and inaccurate whenever "what would the forefathers think about _____?" is used. | ||
KwarK
United States40776 Posts
February 14 2016 15:54 GMT
#58452
| ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
February 14 2016 16:36 GMT
#58453
On February 15 2016 00:54 KwarK wrote: Btw GH your Walmart sucks. In the UK they'd be fined for that with an additional fine for any other produce in that state. typical EU socialist attitude. smothering businesses and job creators with too much red tape and regulations. | ||
RvB
Netherlands6077 Posts
February 14 2016 16:38 GMT
#58454
| ||
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
February 14 2016 17:03 GMT
#58455
On February 15 2016 00:29 Jibba wrote: Show nested quote + On February 14 2016 12:50 JW_DTLA wrote: Off topic: Rubio's Lame Duck answer is making me mad. The "lame duck" period has an actual meaning. It means the time after a successor/replacement has been elected for Person X, but Person X is still in office until the newly elected person is sworn in. That is after the Nov 3/4th election in 2016 when it comes to Obama. We are in February. His "It's not a living document" line made me mad. Scalia's "originalism" needs to die now (quotes used because it was completely cherry picked and informed by his biases). The constitution is, and was intended to be, a living document. Thomas Jefferson fucking wrote that it is. It's both disingenuous and inaccurate whenever "what would the forefathers think about _____?" is used. I was genuinely curious about this Jefferson comment and looked up what you may be referring to. Is this what you were referring to? It's from a letter Jefferson wrote. Which seems to argue more for amendments and not so much for changes to the constitution. Edit: But definitely leaves it open that he wouldn't agree with statement that constitution isn't a "living document" "I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors...[it] will be said it is easier to find faults than to amend [the Constitution]. I do not think...amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly And now I'm totally sidetracked reading federalist papers lol | ||
Surth
Germany456 Posts
February 14 2016 17:06 GMT
#58456
Personally, I propose that the supreme court forcibly drafts 20 year olds for 10 year terms. that would be hilarious at least. Or the cumulative age of the 9 judges has to be between 440 and 460 years and whenever the upward boundary is reached the president has to kick one of them out and find somebody knew. basically, just anything that makes it more hilarious than boring partisan hackery. | ||
Biff The Understudy
France7653 Posts
February 14 2016 18:01 GMT
#58457
Meanwhile Obama is there for 342 more days (!!!) and the whole Republican panel of candidates claim that he shouldn't appoint the next judge and threaten to sabotage the nomination in the Senate. Those are the people who pretend to respect and admire the constitution and basically present it as if it were the f... Bible every time it suits them. Which is by the way what Scalia was famous for. Nice tribute guys. It's amazing, amazing that people don't seem to realize that those people are a bunch of utterly dishonest hypocrites. But well... I guess in politics and especially in the US, one shouldn't expect too much intellectual integrity from the public. After all, almost all those Republican liars got elected fair and square. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
February 14 2016 18:05 GMT
#58458
I disliked Scalia and many of his rulings, but he is part of a process. He even said that he considers the Constitution a dead document, but he worked within a system there other justices disagreed with him. He even said that the Constitution could be a living document for all nine justices, but that would be after he left the bench. That he is reflective of the views of the people who appointed him, who reflected the will of the people who elected them. And those views and will would be part of the process until he left. Remember the Scalia opposed the ruling in Roe v Wade, but also was strongly against overturning it. | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
February 14 2016 18:14 GMT
#58459
| ||
Biff The Understudy
France7653 Posts
February 14 2016 18:18 GMT
#58460
On February 15 2016 03:14 xDaunt wrote: I find the attacks on Scalia around here to be hilariously uninformed. Knock his judicial views and philosophy all you want, but he was consistent, which is really all that you can ask for out of a judge. And he certainly was not one of the judges who was prone to crapping out unworkable majority opinions (like O'Connor). I think the consensus is that the guy was consistent and probably had some integrity. Thing is that you can be consistent, have integrity AND be a piece of shit. Which is Kwark's point (correct me if I am wrong). His position against gay sex (I didn't know that) is just plain horrible. | ||
| ||
Next event in 10m
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games tarik_tv39019 gofns12102 summit1g8526 FrodaN2991 Grubby2184 Beastyqt1174 shahzam385 sgares318 JimRising 259 shoxiejesuss258 NuckleDu243 Hui .170 semphis_36 Mew2King32 mouzStarbuck22 Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • printf 177 StarCraft: Brood War• Hupsaiya 73 • musti20045 45 • Kozan • IndyKCrew • Poblha • Migwel • aXEnki • Laughngamez YouTube • intothetv • Gussbus • LaughNgamez Trovo Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
Gypsy vs Bonyth
Mihu vs XiaoShuai
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Pro Tour
[ Show More ] ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
Online Event
ESL Pro Tour
Hatchery Cup
BSL
ESL Pro Tour
|
|