Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Scalia
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Scalia
Tweet Topic Started: Feb 13 2016, 06:12 PM (166 Views)
brumdog44 Feb 13 2016, 06:12 PM Post #1
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Antonin Scalia died in his sleep last night at age 79.

Shame on Ted Cruz for already playing politics with his replacement.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-79-222512088.html;_ylt=A0LEVi98t79WUE8AsFknnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzcjBocHBsBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDRkZSVlBSXzEEc2VjA3Nj
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Feb 14 2016, 06:15 PM Post #2
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
He certainly had a huge impact on shaping the court over the last decade. Makes me wonder how Thomas is going to know how to vote now.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maker13 Feb 15 2016, 10:29 PM Post #3
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,370
Group:
Admin
Member
#37
Joined:
February 5, 2008
I'm not much of a supreme court buff, been doing some reading about the Senate's roll in the nomination process, court decisions when missing a judge, and historical precedent for late-term nominations.

So far, I've mostly learned a lot of interesting facts, and that each side is just screaming the same rhetoric that the other side did during Bush's nomination of Alito in 2005 (R's - Senate has responsibility to vote on nominees, D's - this nominee isn't representative, we'll filibuster and fight to prevent). Is there anything unique here that makes this different, or is it just flipped posturing with a Senate having a majority in opposition to the President this time?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Feb 16 2016, 01:01 PM Post #4
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Maker13
Feb 15 2016, 10:29 PM
I'm not much of a supreme court buff, been doing some reading about the Senate's roll in the nomination process, court decisions when missing a judge, and historical precedent for late-term nominations.

So far, I've mostly learned a lot of interesting facts, and that each side is just screaming the same rhetoric that the other side did during Bush's nomination of Alito in 2005 (R's - Senate has responsibility to vote on nominees, D's - this nominee isn't representative, we'll filibuster and fight to prevent). Is there anything unique here that makes this different, or is it just flipped posturing with a Senate having a majority in opposition to the President this time?
I think most politicians make blowhard public statements about not confirming a justice nominated by the opposite party's president more to say that they fought than to actually fight the nomination.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Feb 16 2016, 01:46 PM Post #5
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
dreachon
Feb 16 2016, 01:01 PM
Maker13
Feb 15 2016, 10:29 PM
I'm not much of a supreme court buff, been doing some reading about the Senate's roll in the nomination process, court decisions when missing a judge, and historical precedent for late-term nominations.

So far, I've mostly learned a lot of interesting facts, and that each side is just screaming the same rhetoric that the other side did during Bush's nomination of Alito in 2005 (R's - Senate has responsibility to vote on nominees, D's - this nominee isn't representative, we'll filibuster and fight to prevent). Is there anything unique here that makes this different, or is it just flipped posturing with a Senate having a majority in opposition to the President this time?
I think most politicians make blowhard public statements about not confirming a justice nominated by the opposite party's president more to say that they fought than to actually fight the nomination.
In election years with a split party between the president and congress, it's rare that a supreme court justice actually does end up getting appointed. I think it's only happened once. The problem lies in that if congress is controlled by and the presidency by the other, congress will delay any nomination until a new president is elected. Saying that the proper thing to do is to 'wait until the next president is elected' is a meaningless saying because if, for instance, the same party controlled both congress and the presidency, it would be rushed through to avoid the other party gaining the presidency.

The way our supreme court is chosen, confirmed, and then given a life long appointment is a farce. We've had in the past supreme court justices who were starting to lose their mental and/or physical facilities who stayed on in an attempt to make sure a president of their political affiliation was in office. And then we have the whole dog and pony show between the president and congress in appointing and confirming a replacement.

And when we only have eight justices on the bench, we have a case where any 4-4 vote automatically reverts to the lower court's previous decision. It's an incredible waste of time and money.
Edited by brumdog44, Feb 16 2016, 01:47 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Feb 16 2016, 08:44 PM Post #6
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
http://iquantamerica.tumblr.com/post/139270842325/unpresidented-24-supreme-court-nominations-have
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rkl15 Feb 18 2016, 08:22 AM Post #7
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
My question to the Dems on the board is simply, Why isn't Obama attending Scalia's funeral?

To me, this would be a pretty important thing for him to attend.
This is a respect thing, in my opinion.

Kudos to Biden for going and showing the respect the man deserves.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Feb 18 2016, 11:01 AM Post #8
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Presidents have only attended 3 of the last 7 supreme court funerals. A VP attended one of those 4, leaving three funerals unattended. Obama and his wife will be paying their respects while Scalia's body lies in repose on Friday.

Really not the story a few media outlets are making it out to be.

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Feb 18 2016, 11:25 AM Post #9
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Great opportunity for Obama to nominate a moderate candidate. Seven years ago I thought he might be a uniter, and sadly, was very wrong.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Feb 18 2016, 11:37 AM Post #10
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
HoosierLars
Feb 18 2016, 11:25 AM
Great opportunity for Obama to nominate a moderate candidate. Seven years ago I thought he might be a uniter, and sadly, was very wrong.
So what you're saying is that Scalia was bad for SCOTUS. we definitely agree on that. I also think a "moderate" should be nominated because the court is no place for politics.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Feb 18 2016, 01:52 PM Post #11
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
HoosierLars
Feb 18 2016, 11:25 AM
Great opportunity for Obama to nominate a moderate candidate. Seven years ago I thought he might be a uniter, and sadly, was very wrong.
LOL at the thought that the republican congress would confirm a moderate candidate.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Feb 18 2016, 01:54 PM Post #12
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Feb 18 2016, 11:01 AM
Presidents have only attended 3 of the last 7 supreme court funerals. A VP attended one of those 4, leaving three funerals unattended. Obama and his wife will be paying their respects while Scalia's body lies in repose on Friday.

Really not the story a few media outlets are making it out to be.

br
Those same media outlets would have been taking Obama to task if he did attend...saying that he 'didn't respect him when he was alive'.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Feb 18 2016, 01:55 PM Post #13
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
rkl15
Feb 18 2016, 08:22 AM
My question to the Dems on the board is simply, Why isn't Obama attending Scalia's funeral?

To me, this would be a pretty important thing for him to attend.
This is a respect thing, in my opinion.

Kudos to Biden for going and showing the respect the man deserves.

Don't get bought into media hype and fake outrage.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rkl15 Feb 18 2016, 02:46 PM Post #14
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
Doesn't bother me. He is going to honor him at the Court, so that's fine.

Just looked like a chance to "Class" up his image.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Feb 18 2016, 06:16 PM Post #15
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
LOL. You just gave away exactly why he can't win with the news outlets you listen to.....if he goes they would have called it a political move to bolster his own image.

He doesn't go, he's classless.

He goes, he's playing politics.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:54 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy