By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Antonin Scalia dead at 79.

whatever on 13 February 2016
AAA300 said:
JWeinCom said:

The longest it has ever taken to appoint a justice is four months.  If you're ok with one party hijacking the political process to further their agenda, then ok I guess.

Hijacking can be spun both ways. But the way I see it the people have spoken since the last election and voted for Republicans to take over the house and senate. So if Obama with his short time left trys to put a way left judge for a appointment the Senate should block it as the people have voted the last election to go in a different direction. I doubt he'll try to meet half way with this appointment.

Nice to see you don't want to follow the constitution.



Around the Network
mornelithe on 13 February 2016
AAA300 said:
JWeinCom said:

The longest it has ever taken to appoint a justice is four months.  If you're ok with one party hijacking the political process to further their agenda, then ok I guess.

Hijacking can be spun both ways. But the way I see it the people have spoken since the last election and voted for Republicans to take over the house and senate. So if Obama with his short time left trys to put a way left judge for a appointment the Senate should block it as the people have voted the last election to go in a different direction. I doubt he'll try to meet half way with this appointment.

And you'd think given the American public voting the House and Senate to a Republican majority, that the House and Senate's approval ratings would've gone up...and yet...they're at what, ~13%?  And...the President?  47% as of early February.  Yes, the President's approval rating is nearly 4x that of the Republican controlled House and Senate.  Why spin things when there are actual numbers you can look at?  Spin doesn't help anyone. 

Let him nominate someone, debate the merits of the nominee, and leave the spin out of it.



Normchacho on 13 February 2016
Bigsilvs said:

This is a huge blow to America as if the last 7 years have not been enough. America needs to stop "accommodating" it's people because it is not working. Only 68% of people in America are working. That is the lowest percentage since 1977.  The Constitution was not drafted to "accommodate" people. 

Uuuuhhh....what? Are you really quoting that bullshit number that includes everyone between the ages of 16 and 68 and counts work hours rather than jobs? Plus "lowest percentage since 1977"...don't you think that might have to do with our aging population? Or maybe due to the fact that college enrolment has skyrocketed and less people are working full time jobs right out of high school?

What a useless statistic.

Edit: I'd like to apologize for the rather agressive tone, I just have no patience for political scare tactics.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

JWeinCom on 14 February 2016
AAA300 said:
JWeinCom said:

The longest it has ever taken to appoint a justice is four months.  If you're ok with one party hijacking the political process to further their agenda, then ok I guess.

Hijacking can be spun both ways. But the way I see it the people have spoken since the last election and voted for Republicans to take over the house and senate. So if Obama with his short time left trys to put a way left judge for a appointment the Senate should block it as the people have voted the last election to go in a different direction. I doubt he'll try to meet half way with this appointment.

No... the people have not spoken.  More democratic seats happened to be up that year (21 to 15) and fewer of the seats for democrats had incumbents. The seats up for reelection happened to be largely in the south,   Less people tend to vote during election years.  And of course, there are many factors that go into the senate races.  

Most importantly though, only 1/3 of the seats of Senate ar up at any given time.  So, whereas every person had the opportunity to vote for Obama or Romney, only 1/3 of the country had a chance to vote for a senator that year.  By the way, the Senate currently has a 14% approval rate. To say people voted to go in a different direction just doesn't really make sense.  

In the house, the republicans already had a majority there.  So that wasn't a change of direction.  The people voted for a republican house in 2012, and also voted for a democratic president, so people's votes for president and congress can be different.

And who the people voted for in the house is irrelevant.  Because the house and Senate do not make judicial appointments.  That's the president's job in accordance with the constitution.  The constitution doesn't say "It's the President's job until year 7" or "it's a president's job unless seats change in congress".  It's the president's job.  I don't see how the president doing exactly what his job is according to the constitution could be considered hijacking in any way.

The Senate's job is to judge nominees.  If they do this in good faith, then fine.  But if they, as they have stated they would, simply reject anyone who is suggested, that is hijacking the political process.



Puppyroach on 14 February 2016

The senate will not allow anyone that Obama proposes so this will be a drawn out battle that will not look to good for Republicans. If Obama plays his hands right, it could greatly benefit the next presidential candidate from the DNC. What's sad is that it will all happen over the death of a person, but I guess that's politics.



Around the Network
thranx on 14 February 2016
JWeinCom said:
AAA300 said:

Hijacking can be spun both ways. But the way I see it the people have spoken since the last election and voted for Republicans to take over the house and senate. So if Obama with his short time left trys to put a way left judge for a appointment the Senate should block it as the people have voted the last election to go in a different direction. I doubt he'll try to meet half way with this appointment.

No... the people have not spoken.  More democratic seats happened to be up that year (21 to 15) and fewer of the seats for democrats had incumbents. The seats up for reelection happened to be largely in the south,   Less people tend to vote during election years.  And of course, there are many factors that go into the senate races.  

Most importantly though, only 1/3 of the seats of Senate ar up at any given time.  So, whereas every person had the opportunity to vote for Obama or Romney, only 1/3 of the country had a chance to vote for a senator that year.  By the way, the Senate currently has a 14% approval rate. To say people voted to go in a different direction just doesn't really make sense.  

In the house, the republicans already had a majority there.  So that wasn't a change of direction.  The people voted for a republican house in 2012, and also voted for a democratic president, so people's votes for president and congress can be different.

And who the people voted for in the house is irrelevant.  Because the house and Senate do not make judicial appointments.  That's the president's job in accordance with the constitution.  The constitution doesn't say "It's the President's job until year 7" or "it's a president's job unless seats change in congress".  It's the president's job.  I don't see how the president doing exactly what his job is according to the constitution could be considered hijacking in any way.

The Senate's job is to judge nominees.  If they do this in good faith, then fine.  But if they, as they have stated they would, simply reject anyone who is suggested, that is hijacking the political process.

I couldnt vote for romney. I live in CA my republican votes for president havent counted for years. People vote for a president as a figure head, and they vote for congress to make law. I think the latter shows more where people are headed. Not just in congress, but look at local voting and state leadership shift over the last years. Obama Presidency has been the best thing for conservative republicans in decades. It shows just how the left loves to abuse their power. After his presidency ends and he looses his grip on controlling information and the amount he has spent as president people will turn even farther to the right in local and antional elections.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/republican-governors-association-winning-streak-216000

States are poised to take on the fed on many levels and over many issues. The fed has grown to bloated and taken too many powers from the states, and the states will try to take them back soon. Especially if we get Cruz in office. The feds should focus on national security and trade (both items Obama has dropped the ball on, hello a resurgent Russia, and the messiest middle east in my life time) and less on social welfare, a state and city matter. Not to mention the racial divide Obama has brought upon america by his support of thugs over law enforcement



JWeinCom on 14 February 2016
thranx said:
JWeinCom said:

No... the people have not spoken.  More democratic seats happened to be up that year (21 to 15) and fewer of the seats for democrats had incumbents. The seats up for reelection happened to be largely in the south,   Less people tend to vote during election years.  And of course, there are many factors that go into the senate races.  

Most importantly though, only 1/3 of the seats of Senate ar up at any given time.  So, whereas every person had the opportunity to vote for Obama or Romney, only 1/3 of the country had a chance to vote for a senator that year.  By the way, the Senate currently has a 14% approval rate. To say people voted to go in a different direction just doesn't really make sense.  

In the house, the republicans already had a majority there.  So that wasn't a change of direction.  The people voted for a republican house in 2012, and also voted for a democratic president, so people's votes for president and congress can be different.

And who the people voted for in the house is irrelevant.  Because the house and Senate do not make judicial appointments.  That's the president's job in accordance with the constitution.  The constitution doesn't say "It's the President's job until year 7" or "it's a president's job unless seats change in congress".  It's the president's job.  I don't see how the president doing exactly what his job is according to the constitution could be considered hijacking in any way.

The Senate's job is to judge nominees.  If they do this in good faith, then fine.  But if they, as they have stated they would, simply reject anyone who is suggested, that is hijacking the political process.

I couldnt vote for romney. I live in CA my republican votes for president havent counted for years. People vote for a president as a figure head, and they vote for congress to make law. I think the latter shows more where people are headed. Not just in congress, but look at local voting and state leadership shift over the last years. Obama Presidency has been the best thing for conservative republicans in decades. It shows just how the left loves to abuse their power. After his presidency ends and he looses his grip on controlling information and the amount he has spent as president people will turn even farther to the right in local and antional elections.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/republican-governors-association-winning-streak-216000

States are poised to take on the fed on many levels and over many issues. The fed has grown to bloated and taken too many powers from the states, and the states will try to take them back soon. Especially if we get Cruz in office. The feds should focus on national security and trade (both items Obama has dropped the ball on, hello a resurgent Russia, and the messiest middle east in my life time) and less on social welfare, a state and city matter. Not to mention the racial divide Obama has brought upon america by his support of thugs over law enforcement

Not sure what this rant has to do with anything.  



AAA300 on 14 February 2016
JWeinCom said:
AAA300 said:

Hijacking can be spun both ways. But the way I see it the people have spoken since the last election and voted for Republicans to take over the house and senate. So if Obama with his short time left trys to put a way left judge for a appointment the Senate should block it as the people have voted the last election to go in a different direction. I doubt he'll try to meet half way with this appointment.

No... the people have not spoken.  More democratic seats happened to be up that year (21 to 15) and fewer of the seats for democrats had incumbents. The seats up for reelection happened to be largely in the south,   Less people tend to vote during election years.  And of course, there are many factors that go into the senate races.  

Most importantly though, only 1/3 of the seats of Senate ar up at any given time.  So, whereas every person had the opportunity to vote for Obama or Romney, only 1/3 of the country had a chance to vote for a senator that year.  By the way, the Senate currently has a 14% approval rate. To say people voted to go in a different direction just doesn't really make sense.  

In the house, the republicans already had a majority there.  So that wasn't a change of direction.  The people voted for a republican house in 2012, and also voted for a democratic president, so people's votes for president and congress can be different.

And who the people voted for in the house is irrelevant.  Because the house and Senate do not make judicial appointments.  That's the president's job in accordance with the constitution.  The constitution doesn't say "It's the President's job until year 7" or "it's a president's job unless seats change in congress".  It's the president's job.  I don't see how the president doing exactly what his job is according to the constitution could be considered hijacking in any way.

The Senate's job is to judge nominees.  If they do this in good faith, then fine.  But if they, as they have stated they would, simply reject anyone who is suggested, that is hijacking the political process.

The Senate never has high approval rating so that proves nothing. Everybody disapproves the masses in the Senate/house but yet will approve  of there local senators job. It's easy for the president to have better numbers than a faceless Senate. And as for the seats that were up for grab in 2014  the left could have won them back but didn't so stop trying to spin that! The people voted them out for a reason  just because the seats were open for election isn't a good excuse for the left to lose control .



thranx on 14 February 2016
JWeinCom said:
thranx said:

I couldnt vote for romney. I live in CA my republican votes for president havent counted for years. People vote for a president as a figure head, and they vote for congress to make law. I think the latter shows more where people are headed. Not just in congress, but look at local voting and state leadership shift over the last years. Obama Presidency has been the best thing for conservative republicans in decades. It shows just how the left loves to abuse their power. After his presidency ends and he looses his grip on controlling information and the amount he has spent as president people will turn even farther to the right in local and antional elections.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/republican-governors-association-winning-streak-216000

States are poised to take on the fed on many levels and over many issues. The fed has grown to bloated and taken too many powers from the states, and the states will try to take them back soon. Especially if we get Cruz in office. The feds should focus on national security and trade (both items Obama has dropped the ball on, hello a resurgent Russia, and the messiest middle east in my life time) and less on social welfare, a state and city matter. Not to mention the racial divide Obama has brought upon america by his support of thugs over law enforcement

Not sure what this rant has to do with anything.  

"No... the people have not spoken.  More democratic seats happened to be up that year (21 to 15) and fewer of the seats for democrats had incumbents. The seats up for reelection happened to be largely in the south,   Less people tend to vote during election years.  And of course, there are many factors that go into the senate races.  "

 

You are saying the people have spoken in favor of dems. I am saying you need to look at the whole picture. More state governers are repubs now than before the presidential election, congress has more repubs now than before. So the people have spoken, after 8 years of Obama and dems, the people have realized they made a poor choice in leadership and will now rectify the lat reamining spot of dem power in the white house.

 

So in other words, Obama should not apoint the next supreme court justice, the next president should. It the right thing, and its what a president of character would do. But Obama is not a man of character so I am sure he will whine along with the left about it. I can only hope that the republicans in congress do what is right, but I have doubt in that too. Maybe the next wave to overtake the political scene will be the tea party movement.



JWeinCom on 14 February 2016
AAA300 said:
JWeinCom said:

No... the people have not spoken.  More democratic seats happened to be up that year (21 to 15) and fewer of the seats for democrats had incumbents. The seats up for reelection happened to be largely in the south,   Less people tend to vote during election years.  And of course, there are many factors that go into the senate races.  

Most importantly though, only 1/3 of the seats of Senate ar up at any given time.  So, whereas every person had the opportunity to vote for Obama or Romney, only 1/3 of the country had a chance to vote for a senator that year.  By the way, the Senate currently has a 14% approval rate. To say people voted to go in a different direction just doesn't really make sense.  

In the house, the republicans already had a majority there.  So that wasn't a change of direction.  The people voted for a republican house in 2012, and also voted for a democratic president, so people's votes for president and congress can be different.

And who the people voted for in the house is irrelevant.  Because the house and Senate do not make judicial appointments.  That's the president's job in accordance with the constitution.  The constitution doesn't say "It's the President's job until year 7" or "it's a president's job unless seats change in congress".  It's the president's job.  I don't see how the president doing exactly what his job is according to the constitution could be considered hijacking in any way.

The Senate's job is to judge nominees.  If they do this in good faith, then fine.  But if they, as they have stated they would, simply reject anyone who is suggested, that is hijacking the political process.

The Senate never has high approval rating so that proves nothing. Everybody disapproves the masses in the Senate/house but yet will approve  of there local senators job. It's easy for the president to have better numbers than a faceless Senate. And as for the seats that were up for grab in 2014  the left could have won them back but didn't so stop trying to spin that! The people voted them out for a reason  just because the seats were open for election isn't a good excuse for the left to lose control .

Yeah, actually it's a pretty good reason.  If one side has more seats to lose, than that increases the likelyhood that they'll come out behind.  And again, that's out of only 1/3 of the country.  Plus the seats were mainly located in the south, and fewer incumbents were running from the democrats (incumbents win about 95% of the time or so regardless of party).

So, if you're going to want to throw out the senate approval rating (which is low even by historical standards), then fine.  Just don't throw in something just as meaningless to try and give a reason why the president shouldn't do the job according to the constitution, and why the senate should refuse to do theirs.  When you vote for a senator, you're voting for who should gain the powers of a Senator.  You're not voting to strip the current president of their power.