Debate: Republican contenders say no court nominee for Obama

[Pinot]

I'm just glad Justice Thomas isn't alive to see this...oh wait

[boomerangutang]

How would a computer look at the 2nd Amendment?

It would probably interpret it literally and in the spirit it was written, taking into account when it was written, in the context of gun technology at the time (rifling had not even been invented at that time, let along rapid fire weaponry). As such, a computer would sensibly decide that the amendment refers to 'a well-armed militia' and doesn't enable individual rednecks to stockpile many automatic modern-warfare automatic weapons with armor-piercing hollow-point bullets which can blow out a basketball-sized crater in a person's torso. Comparing the 2nd amendment to today's private arsenals is like comparing a birch-bark canoe to a PT boat.

[keemapoot]

Maybe Obama SHOULD do the recess appointment. Why would anyone even accept a regular nomination now knowing they were going to be jerked around by the republicans?

This really sets up some fantastic game theory scenarios:

1. Everyone knows the GOP will block any nominee, and any early nominee knows that so why would they go through the hassle and brain damage? Ans. Obama, Sanders & Clinton make a deal with the early nominee to take one for the team in return for a powerful cabinet appointment in the next administration.

2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office.

Result: GOP has egg on its face, loses voters with obstructionism, and loses the Justice appointment with its worst horror as a new Justice.

On the other hand, the GOP has to be running games theory on this too, so should be interesting watching

"2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office."

His last two weeks in office will be right after a new Congressional session has begun.

There will be no recesses during that period.

The democrat strategy and tactics gamesmen are already at work. I haven't yet read any compelling strategic plans from the GOP. Do you have any citations or ideas?

Obama could win SCOTUS battle — even if GOP wins White House

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-could-win-scotus-battle-even-if-gop-wins-white-house

[SpokaneAl]

How would a computer look at the 2nd Amendment?

It would probably interpret it literally and in the spirit it was written, taking into account when it was written, in the context of gun technology at the time (rifling had not even been invented at that time, let along rapid fire weaponry). As such, a computer would sensibly decide that the amendment refers to 'a well-armed militia' and doesn't enable individual rednecks to stockpile many automatic modern-warfare automatic weapons with armor-piercing hollow-point bullets which can blow out a basketball-sized crater in a person's torso. Comparing the 2nd amendment to today's private arsenals is like comparing a birch-bark canoe to a PT boat.

In other words, the computer programming would be designed to perfectly match your line of thinking.

[mopar71]

Because the President has not once in 7 years given any indication that he is willing to work with the other side, that he is willing to compromise. His first two years were a cakewalk because his party had total control (and they still needed to vote on Obamacare late on Xmas Eve). After two years when his rubber stamp was taken away he developed an attitude that he and he alone decides what the law should be. WHY should anyone, the Senate or anyone else, believe that Obama would try to appoint someone capable of ruling fairly at such a crucial point?

It's amazing just how perceptions can vary (or better still, how much brainwashing has gone on).

And more to the point, why do the Senate have to believe anything? They have full access to the nominees and their past and get to question them at hearings.

You make it sound like it's a done deal the minute he names the name.

This is why Sri Srinisavan is a suggested pick; he passed vetting and hearings not that long ago and was approved unanimously.

Are we supposed to believe, when McConnell says it, that his whole past and views have changed because he's going for a different job?

I'm not that dumb. Are you?

The Republicans want *their* candidate, and they are prepared to ignore the US constitution to do it. That's why they said they would block before any name has been announced.

They are trying to invent an imaginary tradition when none exists, even though 14 judges have been appointed in Election years.

They are trying to quote another existing tradition, but even that explicitly says six months.

I would respect them more if they were honest.

But it's just another example of the GOP not wanting Obama to do *anything*. They don't care what it is or what good it does.

By now everyone here has seen the videos of Schumer and other Dems vowing to block Bush nominees in the last TWO years of his term. So the Senate can do anything they want now, just as they did 8 years ago when the Dems controlled it.

[mopar71]

Far-left nuts? As opposed to what, right- wing nuts?

What an absurd grade school question, for no one on SCOTUS is a nut. Granted, Justice Sotomayer tended to be positioned liberal, just as Scalia and Thomas leaned more conservative. Yet unlike Thomas, who votes strictly conservative, Sotomayer has broken tie votes and sided with Scalia (4th amendment, etc.).

Sotomayer or Ginsberg are not even close to being the most liberal in the court's history. Give that hallmark to Thurgood Marshall.

Speaking of Justice Thomas, now that Scalia is gone, I wonder if Thomas will ever ask a poignant question from the bench? Up to now, for his entire tenure this guy has only opened his mouth maybe once or twice. I give it to Scalia for having an inquiring mind.

While it makes good theater, the back and forth between the justices and the attorneys is probably the most minor part of the legislative process, which is why the court goes into deliberation for months before rendering a verdict. Very little is gleaned from the oral presentations.

As other have said in response to attempted labeling of justices, I suggest we do the same when rendering an opinion on whether or not Justice Thomas has an inquiring mind. I have a friend who is a lawyer and always reads the opinions of Justice Thomas and has mentioned on several occasions concerning how impressed he is with the brilliance of this man.

If Thomas were a liberal one would be labelled a racist for suggesting much of what the left does about him.

[Publicus]

 

Get used to the name of D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan. Dollars to donuts, President Obama will nominate him and Mitch McConnell's face will become an even sadder sack, if that's possible.

One perspective on Appellate Judge Sri Srinivasan is the realpolitik consideration of appointing a person of Indian ancestry. That would be a big score in this region of the world beyond its being gigantic in India itself. (It certainly would tick off the CCP Dictators in Beijing who've got only the cold shoulder from India recently.)

India PM Narendra Modi and his BJP party are openly pro USA and just announced he and the US have been seriously discussing joint naval patrols in the South China Sea, so elevating Judge Srinivasan to SCOTUS would further solidify US-India relations and no doubt enhance PM Modi's already stellar credentials at home generally and in his pro-US policies.

Republicans would suffer among Indians and in East-South Asia regionally as well as among Asian Americans in the US in particular, were the R's to screw this judge out of a SCOTUS seat if President Obama decides to go that way.

As the old saying goes, never stop your (political) enemy while his foot's coming down on his own tossed banana peel.

[Publicus]

 

Far-left nuts? As opposed to what, right- wing nuts?

What an absurd grade school question, for no one on SCOTUS is a nut. Granted, Justice Sotomayer tended to be positioned liberal, just as Scalia and Thomas leaned more conservative. Yet unlike Thomas, who votes strictly conservative, Sotomayer has broken tie votes and sided with Scalia (4th amendment, etc.).

Sotomayer or Ginsberg are not even close to being the most liberal in the court's history. Give that hallmark to Thurgood Marshall.

Speaking of Justice Thomas, now that Scalia is gone, I wonder if Thomas will ever ask a poignant question from the bench? Up to now, for his entire tenure this guy has only opened his mouth maybe once or twice. I give it to Scalia for having an inquiring mind.

While it makes good theater, the back and forth between the justices and the attorneys is probably the most minor part of the legislative process, which is why the court goes into deliberation for months before rendering a verdict. Very little is gleaned from the oral presentations.

As other have said in response to attempted labeling of justices, I suggest we do the same when rendering an opinion on whether or not Justice Thomas has an inquiring mind. I have a friend who is a lawyer and always reads the opinions of Justice Thomas and has mentioned on several occasions concerning how impressed he is with the brilliance of this man.

If Thomas were a liberal one would be labelled a racist for suggesting much of what the left does about him.

My only comment about Clarence Thomas is that in 1990 Prez George H.W. Bush appointed him to the DC federal Court of Appeals and in 1991 GHWB appointed Thomas to the Supreme Court.

Remarkable.

So some people call Clarence "The Streak."

[arjunadawn]

The Republicans once again demonstrate either profound ignorance or stupidity in announcing they will not bring a justice to the floor for a hearing until the next president is seated. This cannot be called a tactic, or strategy; it cannot remotely achieve either hurdle. Its not even lunacy. At every available turn the Republicans give their constituents every reason to feel betrayed and hopeless, and they give opponents every reason to despise and oppose.

Like or dislike Democrats they are determined, consistent, and rarely break ranks in pursuit of their singular goal to "fundamentally transform America." From a purely objective point of view, Republicans are should be despised because they assert a contrary claim, cloaked in god and flags and guns and apple pie, yet consistently achieve the same end as Progressives through cowardice and capitulation.

Of course they should not bring this before the senate. Of course they should have kept their mouths shut.

[SpokaneAl]

The Republicans once again demonstrate either profound ignorance or stupidity in announcing they will not bring a justice to the floor for a hearing until the next president is seated. This cannot be called a tactic, or strategy; it cannot remotely achieve either hurdle. Its not even lunacy. At every available turn the Republicans give their constituents every reason to feel betrayed and hopeless, and they give opponents every reason to despise and oppose.

Like or dislike Democrats they are determined, consistent, and rarely break ranks in pursuit of their singular goal to "fundamentally transform America." From a purely objective point of view, Republicans are should be despised because they assert a contrary claim, cloaked in god and flags and guns and apple pie, yet consistently achieve the same end as Progressives through cowardice and capitulation.

Of course they should not bring this before the senate. Of course they should have kept their mouths shut.

I think that your point that democrats are working to "fundamentally transform America" is valid and absolutely spot on, and the other side is doing its best, with the ammunition it has, to stop that train.

I am on the other side.

Edited February 16, 2016 by SpokaneAl

[NeverSure]

In a perfect world justices would simply recite what the founders said in the context of the times they said it. They wouldn't be influenced by "progression" or "modern times" nor would they see the Constitution as a "fluid document". Yes, they would be "originalists".

It is not within the jurisdiction of the courts to legislate. That's for the Legislative Branch. The courts are to say only what the law (Constitution) is and nothing more. They are to be politically neutral.

Both the courts and the legislatures must follow the Constitution because it's the glue that holds everything together. Without this we have anarchy.

There is a process to amend the Constitution and anytime that enough people think it should be amended then that is the necessary process. It is not a proper function of the Supreme Court whose pronouncements become law.

If it weren't for people wanting to appoint justices who have a political agenda we wouldn't be having this conversation and we shouldn't be. If Obama or anyone else wants to appoint someone due to his politics and therefor his decisions on the bench, he should be stopped. Both sides, all sides, at all times should be stopped.

Cheers.

[sirineou]

The Republicans once again demonstrate either profound ignorance or stupidity in announcing they will not bring a justice to the floor for a hearing until the next president is seated. This cannot be called a tactic, or strategy; it cannot remotely achieve either hurdle. Its not even lunacy. At every available turn the Republicans give their constituents every reason to feel betrayed and hopeless, and they give opponents every reason to despise and oppose.

Like or dislike Democrats they are determined, consistent, and rarely break ranks in pursuit of their singular goal to "fundamentally transform America." From a purely objective point of view, Republicans are should be despised because they assert a contrary claim, cloaked in god and flags and guns and apple pie, yet consistently achieve the same end as Progressives through cowardice and capitulation.

Of course they should not bring this before the senate. Of course they should have kept their mouths shut.

I think that your point that democrats are working to "fundamentally transform America" is valid and absolutely spot on, and the other side is doing its best, with the ammunition it has, to stop that train.

I am on the other side.

"I am on the other side."

the other side or the other side of the other side?

But what I find difficult to understand is why they Republicans telegraphed their intent. Why not wait until Obama made a nomination, and then find all short of faults with whom ever he nominated and run the clock down? Say that they were perfectly prepared to do the right thing and confirm the right candidate just as soon as Obama nominates one.

[Publicus]

 

The Republicans once again demonstrate either profound ignorance or stupidity in announcing they will not bring a justice to the floor for a hearing until the next president is seated. This cannot be called a tactic, or strategy; it cannot remotely achieve either hurdle. Its not even lunacy. At every available turn the Republicans give their constituents every reason to feel betrayed and hopeless, and they give opponents every reason to despise and oppose.

Like or dislike Democrats they are determined, consistent, and rarely break ranks in pursuit of their singular goal to "fundamentally transform America." From a purely objective point of view, Republicans are should be despised because they assert a contrary claim, cloaked in god and flags and guns and apple pie, yet consistently achieve the same end as Progressives through cowardice and capitulation.

Of course they should not bring this before the senate. Of course they should have kept their mouths shut.

I think that your point that democrats are working to "fundamentally transform America" is valid and absolutely spot on, and the other side is doing its best, with the ammunition it has, to stop that train.

I am on the other side.

"I am on the other side."

the other side or the other side of the other side?

But what I find difficult to understand is why they Republicans telegraphed their intent. Why not wait until Obama made a nomination, and then find all short of faults with whom ever he nominated and run the clock down? Say that they were perfectly prepared to do the right thing and confirm the right candidate just as soon as Obama nominates one.

McConnell has to try to show the fringe paranoids on the right that have taken complete control of the Republican party he hears 'em. Nothing more, nothing less than that.

Trouble for McConnell, the Republican senators up for reelection in Blue states and the fringe right the entire electorate hears him and them too. The Republican election campaign has become a circular firing squad. So let 'em fire away!

[sirineou]

 

The Republicans once again demonstrate either profound ignorance or stupidity in announcing they will not bring a justice to the floor for a hearing until the next president is seated. This cannot be called a tactic, or strategy; it cannot remotely achieve either hurdle. Its not even lunacy. At every available turn the Republicans give their constituents every reason to feel betrayed and hopeless, and they give opponents every reason to despise and oppose.

Like or dislike Democrats they are determined, consistent, and rarely break ranks in pursuit of their singular goal to "fundamentally transform America." From a purely objective point of view, Republicans are should be despised because they assert a contrary claim, cloaked in god and flags and guns and apple pie, yet consistently achieve the same end as Progressives through cowardice and capitulation.

Of course they should not bring this before the senate. Of course they should have kept their mouths shut.

I think that your point that democrats are working to "fundamentally transform America" is valid and absolutely spot on, and the other side is doing its best, with the ammunition it has, to stop that train.

I am on the other side.

"I am on the other side."

the other side or the other side of the other side?

But what I find difficult to understand is why they Republicans telegraphed their intent. Why not wait until Obama made a nomination, and then find all short of faults with whom ever he nominated and run the clock down? Say that they were perfectly prepared to do the right thing and confirm the right candidate just as soon as Obama nominates one.

McConnell has to try to show the fringe paranoids on the right that have taken complete control of the Republican party he hears 'em. Nothing more, nothing less than that.

Trouble for McConnell, the Republican senators up for reelection in Blue states and the fringe right the entire electorate hears him and them too. The Republican election campaign has become a circular firing squad. So let 'em fire away!

IMO Both Parties are actin in ways detrimental to their long term well being. evident that the front runner in the Republican party is not a republican, and a major contender in the Democratic party is not a democrat.

"39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling. "

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

[Publicus]

 

In a perfect world justices would simply recite what the founders said in the context of the times they said it. They wouldn't be influenced by "progression" or "modern times" nor would they see the Constitution as a "fluid document". Yes, they would be "originalists".

It is not within the jurisdiction of the courts to legislate. That's for the Legislative Branch. The courts are to say only what the law (Constitution) is and nothing more. They are to be politically neutral.

Both the courts and the legislatures must follow the Constitution because it's the glue that holds everything together. Without this we have anarchy.

There is a process to amend the Constitution and anytime that enough people think it should be amended then that is the necessary process. It is not a proper function of the Supreme Court whose pronouncements become law.

If it weren't for people wanting to appoint justices who have a political agenda we wouldn't be having this conversation and we shouldn't be. If Obama or anyone else wants to appoint someone due to his politics and therefor his decisions on the bench, he should be stopped. Both sides, all sides, at all times should be stopped.

Cheers.

Each potus appoints people to executive or judicial positions who share his/her own philosophy and world view. This is true and it is legitimate, given potus (and vp) are the only office in the land subject to the vote of the entire electorate.

Scalia was a heavily political appointment by a longtime rightwhinger Republican Ronald Reagan. RR had also tried unsuccessfully to appoint Wierd Bob Off The Wall Bork and yet another guy of bizarre legal views before finally finding Anthony Kennedy to be confirmed associate justice unanimously (in an election year and by a Democratic majority in the Senate).

Kennedy has proved to have some measure of legal and philosophical flexibility while Antonin Scalia was nothing more than a dogmatic and fixed ideological fringe rightwhinger, same as Clarence Thomas and more recently, Justice Samuel Alito. Even Roberts as chief justice has shown some legal and philosophical openness.

The post is frankly speaking shockingly naive not to mention self righteous and unfortunately pretentious.

[boomerangutang]

The Republicans once again demonstrate either profound ignorance or stupidity in announcing they will not bring a justice to the floor for a hearing until the next president is seated. This cannot be called a tactic, or strategy; it cannot remotely achieve either hurdle. Its not even lunacy. At every available turn the Republicans give their constituents every reason to feel betrayed and hopeless, and they give opponents every reason to despise and oppose.

Like or dislike Democrats they are determined, consistent, and rarely break ranks in pursuit of their singular goal to "fundamentally transform America." From a purely objective point of view, Republicans are should be despised because they assert a contrary claim, cloaked in god and flags and guns and apple pie, yet consistently achieve the same end as Progressives through cowardice and capitulation.

Of course they should not bring this before the senate. Of course they should have kept their mouths shut.

I think that your point that democrats are working to "fundamentally transform America" is valid and absolutely spot on, and the other side is doing its best, with the ammunition it has, to stop that train.

I am on the other side.

"I am on the other side."

the other side or the other side of the other side?

But what I find difficult to understand is why they Republicans telegraphed their intent. Why not wait until Obama made a nomination, and then find all short of faults with whom ever he nominated and run the clock down? Say that they were perfectly prepared to do the right thing and confirm the right candidate just as soon as Obama nominates one.

Since when do we expect Republican leaders to be smart?

I watched the most recent Rep debate again for the 3rd time. It's blows me away, how they're self-destructing publicly. The audience were Republican fans, and they spent more time booing than cheering. I think when the smoke clears on Super Tuesday, Bush and Cruz will be the front runners for the Reps. Trump and Rubio are scary also, but for slightly different reasons. Trump is pure ignorant bullying hate-everyone-who-doesn't-agree with him. Rubio is fast-talking hate-everybody-who-doesn't-agree. At the schoolyard, I would avoid Trump because he's just pure bully. I would avoid Rubio because he would stick a knife in your sister's back in spiteful revenge for something you may not have even said. They should change the name of their party to The Dividers. Trump's new favorite catch-phrase (his earler favorite was: 'he's a loser'). Now it's 'he's the biggest liar.' I wouldn't tolerate that sort of immature talk from a 3rd grade bully at a recess break, let alone from a person who acts like he wants to be the next US president.

The Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee said today that he hasn't yet decided whether he will delay and otherwise block whichever candidate the president submits. We all know what he's going to do. Yet another proof, if any were needed, that Reps can't speak plainly nor the truth. Obviously, he's under extreme pressure from his buddies to block any nominee regardless of who it is, which is counter to the duties of a congressman.

[SpokaneAl]

The Republicans once again demonstrate either profound ignorance or stupidity in announcing they will not bring a justice to the floor for a hearing until the next president is seated. This cannot be called a tactic, or strategy; it cannot remotely achieve either hurdle. Its not even lunacy. At every available turn the Republicans give their constituents every reason to feel betrayed and hopeless, and they give opponents every reason to despise and oppose.

Like or dislike Democrats they are determined, consistent, and rarely break ranks in pursuit of their singular goal to "fundamentally transform America." From a purely objective point of view, Republicans are should be despised because they assert a contrary claim, cloaked in god and flags and guns and apple pie, yet consistently achieve the same end as Progressives through cowardice and capitulation.

Of course they should not bring this before the senate. Of course they should have kept their mouths shut.

I think that your point that democrats are working to "fundamentally transform America" is valid and absolutely spot on, and the other side is doing its best, with the ammunition it has, to stop that train.

I am on the other side.

"I am on the other side."

the other side or the other side of the other side?

But what I find difficult to understand is why they Republicans telegraphed their intent. Why not wait until Obama made a nomination, and then find all short of faults with whom ever he nominated and run the clock down? Say that they were perfectly prepared to do the right thing and confirm the right candidate just as soon as Obama nominates one.

Since when do we expect Republican leaders to be smart?

I watched the most recent Rep debate again for the 3rd time. It's blows me away, how they're self-destructing publicly. The audience were Republican fans, and they spent more time booing than cheering. I think when the smoke clears on Super Tuesday, Bush and Cruz will be the front runners for the Reps. Trump and Rubio are scary also, but for slightly different reasons. Trump is pure ignorant bullying hate-everyone-who-doesn't-agree with him. Rubio is fast-talking hate-everybody-who-doesn't-agree. At the schoolyard, I would avoid Trump because he's just pure bully. I would avoid Rubio because he would stick a knife in your sister's back in spiteful revenge for something you may not have even said. They should change the name of their party to The Dividers. Trump's new favorite catch-phrase (his earler favorite was: 'he's a loser'). Now it's 'he's the biggest liar.' I wouldn't tolerate that sort of immature talk from a 3rd grade bully at a recess break, let alone from a person who acts like he wants to be the next US president.

The Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee said today that he hasn't yet decided whether he will delay and otherwise block whichever candidate the president submits. We all know what he's going to do. Yet another proof, if any were needed, that Reps can't speak plainly nor the truth. Obviously, he's under extreme pressure from his buddies to block any nominee regardless of who it is, which is counter to the duties of a congressman.

"The republican head of the Senate . . . said today that he hasn't yet decided . . ." And you go on to tell us that "we" all know what he is going to do and that is proof that republicans can't speak plainly nor the truth.

You seem to be leaping to your own conclusions on a number of levels.

[boomerangutang]

Since when do we expect Republican leaders to be smart?

I watched the most recent Rep debate again for the 3rd time. It's blows me away, how they're self-destructing publicly. The audience were Republican fans, and they spent more time booing than cheering. I think when the smoke clears on Super Tuesday, Bush and Cruz will be the front runners for the Reps. Trump and Rubio are scary also, but for slightly different reasons. Trump is pure ignorant bullying hate-everyone-who-doesn't-agree with him. Rubio is fast-talking hate-everybody-who-doesn't-agree. At the schoolyard, I would avoid Trump because he's just pure bully. I would avoid Rubio because he would stick a knife in your sister's back in spiteful revenge for something you may not have even said. They should change the name of their party to The Dividers. Trump's new favorite catch-phrase (his earler favorite was: 'he's a loser'). Now it's 'he's the biggest liar.' I wouldn't tolerate that sort of immature talk from a 3rd grade bully at a recess break, let alone from a person who acts like he wants to be the next US president.

The Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee said today that he hasn't yet decided whether he will delay and otherwise block whichever candidate the president submits. We all know what he's going to do. Yet another proof, if any were needed, that Reps can't speak plainly nor the truth. Obviously, he's under extreme pressure from his buddies to block any nominee regardless of who it is, which is counter to the duties of a congressman.

"The republican head of the Senate . . . said today that he hasn't yet decided . . ." And you go on to tell us that "we" all know what he is going to do and that is proof that republicans can't speak plainly nor the truth.

You seem to be leaping to your own conclusions on a number of levels.

Isn't that what we're all doing here online? ....jumping to conclusions? I'm making judgments based on what Reps say and do, and their track record of putting up roadblocks and delaying. 'Delay, delay, delay' is one of the Republicans' darlings latest sage statements. Just for fun, imagine if a Rep prez were in the power seat - whether he would nominate someone with 11 months left in his tenure. Of course he would. Slam dunk.

Another gem from a Republican leader: "The Constitution is not a living, breathing document." Yup, that was from whiz kid Rubio. He would rather the Constitution be interpreted as a staid bunch of sentences. Does that mean Rubio wants the 2nd amendment mentioning 'a well-armed militia' be interpreted as 'a well-armed militia'? Oh no, in that case Rubio wants to interpret the Constitution as saying rednecks can amass as many automatic weapons as they can afford to buy. Rubio wants it interpreted the way he wants it to read. Any diversion from his view is unconstitutional in his view. In a sick sort of way, I'd rather have Trump than Rubio. One is a bumbling mean person who shouts others down. The other is a high-strung mean person who speaks and decides (usually wrongly) very quickly. Take your pick.

[SpokaneAl]

Since when do we expect Republican leaders to be smart?

I watched the most recent Rep debate again for the 3rd time. It's blows me away, how they're self-destructing publicly. The audience were Republican fans, and they spent more time booing than cheering. I think when the smoke clears on Super Tuesday, Bush and Cruz will be the front runners for the Reps. Trump and Rubio are scary also, but for slightly different reasons. Trump is pure ignorant bullying hate-everyone-who-doesn't-agree with him. Rubio is fast-talking hate-everybody-who-doesn't-agree. At the schoolyard, I would avoid Trump because he's just pure bully. I would avoid Rubio because he would stick a knife in your sister's back in spiteful revenge for something you may not have even said. They should change the name of their party to The Dividers. Trump's new favorite catch-phrase (his earler favorite was: 'he's a loser'). Now it's 'he's the biggest liar.' I wouldn't tolerate that sort of immature talk from a 3rd grade bully at a recess break, let alone from a person who acts like he wants to be the next US president.

The Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee said today that he hasn't yet decided whether he will delay and otherwise block whichever candidate the president submits. We all know what he's going to do. Yet another proof, if any were needed, that Reps can't speak plainly nor the truth. Obviously, he's under extreme pressure from his buddies to block any nominee regardless of who it is, which is counter to the duties of a congressman.

"The republican head of the Senate . . . said today that he hasn't yet decided . . ." And you go on to tell us that "we" all know what he is going to do and that is proof that republicans can't speak plainly nor the truth.

You seem to be leaping to your own conclusions on a number of levels.

Isn't that what we're all doing here online? ....jumping to conclusions? I'm making judgments based on what Reps say and do, and their track record of putting up roadblocks and delaying. 'Delay, delay, delay' is one of the Republicans' darlings latest sage statements. Just for fun, imagine if a Rep prez were in the power seat - whether he would nominate someone with 11 months left in his tenure. Of course he would. Slam dunk.

Another gem from a Republican leader: "The Constitution is not a living, breathing document." Yup, that was from whiz kid Rubio. He would rather the Constitution be interpreted as a staid bunch of sentences. Does that mean Rubio wants the 2nd amendment mentioning 'a well-armed militia' be interpreted as 'a well-armed militia'? Oh no, in that case Rubio wants to interpret the Constitution as saying rednecks can amass as many automatic weapons as they can afford to buy. Rubio wants it interpreted the way he wants it to read. Any diversion from his view is unconstitutional in his view. In a sick sort of way, I'd rather have Trump than Rubio. One is a bumbling mean person who shouts others down. The other is a high-strung mean person who speaks and decides (usually wrongly) very quickly. Take your pick.

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document.

I agree.

[boomerangutang]

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. I agree.

ok, then if you believe the Constitution is just words written on parchment, answer me this:

Does 'a well-armed militia' mean 'a well-armed militia' or does it mean any redneck who can go to a gun show with a few hundred dollars hot in his pocket?

[chuckd]

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. I agree.

ok, then if you believe the Constitution is just words written on parchment, answer me this:

Does 'a well-armed militia' mean 'a well-armed militia' or does it mean any redneck who can go to a gun show with a few hundred dollars hot in his pocket?

Many rednecks make excellent militia members. It's the tree huggers that are the questionable ones.

[SpokaneAl]

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. I agree.

ok, then if you believe the Constitution is just words written on parchment, answer me this:

Does 'a well-armed militia' mean 'a well-armed militia' or does it mean any redneck who can go to a gun show with a few hundred dollars hot in his pocket?

The US Constitution is the highest law of the land. Sections should not be fungible and changeable based on the whims or opinions of those who believe they know what the founding fathers were thinking or that this time it's different.

There are mechanics to change/amend the Constitution. Unhappy with certain parts, follow the process.

[sirineou]

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. I agree.

ok, then if you believe the Constitution is just words written on parchment, answer me this:

Does 'a well-armed militia' mean 'a well-armed militia' or does it mean any redneck who can go to a gun show with a few hundred dollars hot in his pocket?

The US Constitution is the highest law of the land. Sections should not be fungible and changeable based on the whims or opinions of those who believe they know what the founding fathers were thinking or that this time it's different.

There are mechanics to change/amend the Constitution. Unhappy with certain parts, follow the process.

why do we even need a supreme court, a computer searching the appropriate section of the constitution and applying it to the case would be originalist , much cheaper and would not die.

[boomerangutang]

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. I agree.

ok, then if you believe the Constitution is just words written on parchment, answer me this:

Does 'a well-armed militia' mean 'a well-armed militia' or does it mean any redneck who can go to a gun show with a few hundred dollars hot in his pocket?

Many rednecks make excellent militia members. It's the tree huggers that are the questionable ones.

Why am I not surprised you can't answer my question. Reminds me of the Republican debate: rare was an utterance which actually addressed the question being asked.

[boomerangutang]

The Republican candidate (who gets chosen) will have to change his rhetoric a lot more, when he becomes the chosen candidate. 'A lot more,' compared to the Democratic candidate, and here's why: The Democratic candidate says what he/she thinks, and (for the most part) is consistent with views they've held for decades. The same views are expressed for the Democratic faithful as for the general population. The Dem candidates are also better informed on a range of governmental and policy issues.

In contrast, the Republican candidate will show one face when preaching to Republican faithful, and a different face when addressing the general public. Mark my words. Even during the debate process, Republican candidates have been see-sawing on issues and opinions. They'll do it more so later, when trying to appeal to the general public. The main reason: Republican faithful have different ideas/priorities than the general public.

You'll see the Republican candidate trying to appear all-inclusive, nicer, tolerant, etc. Currently, they're trying to appear as tough-guys, and they're looking like uninformed bumblers in the process. It's good entertainment, though. I look forward to their next debate.

[SpokaneAl]

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. I agree.

ok, then if you believe the Constitution is just words written on parchment, answer me this:

Does 'a well-armed militia' mean 'a well-armed militia' or does it mean any redneck who can go to a gun show with a few hundred dollars hot in his pocket?

Many rednecks make excellent militia members. It's the tree huggers that are the questionable ones.

Why am I not surprised you can't answer my question. Reminds me of the Republican debate: rare was an utterance which actually addressed the question being asked.

You seem to be confused. You are not the moderator nor the question generator, but are merely one of many with an opinion. As am I.

Peace.

Edited February 17, 2016 by SpokaneAl

[Chicog]

I watched the most recent Rep debate again for the 3rd time. It's blows me away, how they're self-destructing publicly. The audience were Republican fans, and they spent more time booing than cheering.

In fairness, it seems the RNC managed to load up the audience a tad with the intention of sabotaging both Cruz and Trump.

They are terrified that either would be a disaster as a Presidential nominee - probably rightly so.

[boomerangutang]

I watched the most recent Rep debate again for the 3rd time. It's blows me away, how they're self-destructing publicly. The audience were Republican fans, and they spent more time booing than cheering.

In fairness, it seems the RNC managed to load up the audience a tad with the intention of sabotaging both Cruz and Trump.

They are terrified that either would be a disaster as a Presidential nominee - probably rightly so.

As much as I dislike either Cruz or Trump, it's Rubio who spooks me even more. Bush and Kusich are comparatively ok, but Kusich will unlikely be able to keep campaigning because he just doesn't have the deep pockets of the others. A lot depends on who the Koch brothers put their billions behind.

[Chicog]

I watched the most recent Rep debate again for the 3rd time. It's blows me away, how they're self-destructing publicly. The audience were Republican fans, and they spent more time booing than cheering.

In fairness, it seems the RNC managed to load up the audience a tad with the intention of sabotaging both Cruz and Trump.

They are terrified that either would be a disaster as a Presidential nominee - probably rightly so.

As much as I dislike either Cruz or Trump, it's Rubio who spooks me even more. Bush and Kusich are comparatively ok, but Kusich will unlikely be able to keep campaigning because he just doesn't have the deep pockets of the others. A lot depends on who the Koch brothers put their billions behind.

I think Rubio would be another Bush Jr. You'd be more worried about the people behind him.

Whereas Cruz and Trump are both egotistical and maniacal enough to do all sorts of damage.

[chuckd]

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. I agree.

ok, then if you believe the Constitution is just words written on parchment, answer me this:

Does 'a well-armed militia' mean 'a well-armed militia' or does it mean any redneck who can go to a gun show with a few hundred dollars hot in his pocket?

Many rednecks make excellent militia members. It's the tree huggers that are the questionable ones.

Why am I not surprised you can't answer my question. Reminds me of the Republican debate: rare was an utterance which actually addressed the question being asked.

Maybe when you begin asking questions that don't include disparaging remarks about those you feel are beneath your exalted place in society, you might get some answers.