Printable View
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;446140]Good Job TL I think you gave everyone a good laugh, insulted every liberal on the board but don't you think 13 is a little old for Bill?[/QUOTE]A Big Thank You There Good Buddy!
Ok Boys , sorry to break my promise of posting on this thread only 1 time every 5 years or so.
I will try to wait another 5 years.
TL
Damn , couldn't do it.
Some good news to start your days.
[URL]http://nbc.com.co/obama-announces-third-term-presidential-run/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1226070/Pres-Obama-blasts-GOP-candidates-NYC-fundraiser.html[/URL]
As a conversation starter, here is my theory that I have not seen published anywhere else yet.
Trump is using the birther argument against Cruz as a feint. Cruz is saying he is a constitutional lawyer and Trump does not know what he is talking about. Who is the other American president that was a constitutional lawyer? To save you the the research, it's Obama. So I would create an ad that shows soundbites of Cruz saying he has been a constitutional lawyer his whole life in the last debate juxtaposed against Obama saying he was a constitutional lawyer from the recent State of the Union speech. If it comes down between Trump and Cruz, I think this will be the closing argument. What do you want? A man who has built a great business or a man who was a lawyer most of his life? We just had eight years of the constitutional lawyer. Cruz will be more of the same. Cruz has far different ideas than Obama but the question remains, can he execute. Really it is the same argument Kasich, Christie and Bush are making. As governors, they have managed through crises.
I have no dog in this fight as I am a Democrat. However I do not think we have a winning candidate running as of now although we will get our 47% as Romney pointed out. I am hoping that if Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden jumps back in. Clinton on top of all her baggage is making mistake after mistake in her campaign. I do not think physically she up to the challenge. I think her exhaustion and fatigue are creating errors in judgement. Remember the last month in the State Department she had to take a leave of absence due to health.
A good show to watch is "In All Due Respect." Halperin and Heileman were guys that wrote "Game Change". They are focused on the strategy and tactics of the campaigns.
Why do they lie or do they just not do their homework?
[URL]https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-gop-claims-carpet-bombs-kurds-031530748--finance.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;446909]Why do they lie or do they just not do their homework?
[URL]https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-gop-claims-carpet-bombs-kurds-031530748--finance.html[/URL][/QUOTE]The thread is dead, the battle has been won.
The President will be able to pick a new Supreme Court Justice!!!
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;447011]The President will be able to pick a new Supreme Court Justice!!![/QUOTE]The President can pick all he wants to, but if the Senate does not confirm his pick, the choice will go nowhere. Do you really think a Republican controlled Senate is going to confirm an Obama pick?? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. That's high school civics, WT.
Tres3.
[QUOTE=Tres3;447014]The President can pick all he wants to, but if the Senate does not confirm his pick, the choice will go nowhere. Do you really think a Republican controlled Senate is going to confirm an Obama pick?? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. That's high school civics, WT.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]Depends on who they send up. They have pressure due to the rules for when there are not 9 justices. From what I understand if they hear a case (and they have open cases) and they tie then the lower court ruling is confirmed.
Additionally if Bernie wins... They can't tie it up for the next 5 years.
Yes, it has been a long, long time since I was in High School.
But what I learned then was part fiction. Sort of.
The law I believe says something about the Justices not taking party sides on their decisions.
How many fund raisers did Scalia attend and give money to.
He should have been kicked out. As should a few others.
So, If the Republican Senate does not confirm a pick, isn't that Obstruction of Justice?
[QUOTE=Tres3;447014]The President can pick all he wants to, but if the Senate does not confirm his pick, the choice will go nowhere. Do you really think a Republican controlled Senate is going to confirm an Obama pick?? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. That's high school civics, WT.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;447017]So, If the Republican Senate does not confirm a pick, isn't that Obstruction of Justice?[/QUOTE]It's known as balance of powers.
There are many appointments the Senate has to confirm. It's the way the Founders intended for it to work.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;447017]Yes, it has been a long, long time since I was in High School.
But what I learned then was part fiction. Sort of.
The law I believe says something about the Justices not taking party sides on their decisions.
How many fund raisers did Scalia attend and give money to.
He should have been kicked out. As should a few others.
So, If the Republican Senate does not confirm a pick, isn't that Obstruction of Justice?[/QUOTE]"No matther whether th’ constitution follows h’ flag or not, th’ Supreme Coort follows th’ election returns” wrote Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936) in 1901, through his comic character Mr. Dooley. The language has often been cleaned up to say “the Supreme Court follows the election returns” or “judges follow the election returns” or “the Supreme Court reads the elections returns.” The statement means that judges often tailor their decisions to currently popular social and political trends, sometimes without proper regard for the Constitution.
Don B.
[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;447018]It's known as balance of powers.
There are many appointments the Senate has to confirm. It's the way the Founders intended for it to work.[/QUOTE]Yes. And there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. But I don't think that the Founders ever anticipated politicians who put party before country. And, of course, we should not send such politicians to Congress. But too many of us vote based on the sound bites we hear in 15 second commercials on TV.
[QUOTE=AllIWantIsLove;447020]Yes. And there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. But I don't think that the Founders ever anticipated politicians who put party before country. And, of course, we should not send such politicians to Congress. But too many of us vote based on the sound bites we hear in 15 second commercials on TV.[/QUOTE]100% I don't think the founders ever envisioned the current state of the body politic in the US. I think if they were alive today they would all probably be in jail for smacking every other person they spoke to across the mouth.
The Republicans aren't going to tie up the appointment because the person is good nor bad, they will tie it up for 11 months (nearly 1/4 of a term) because until Scalia died the appointments were 5/4 Republican appointees. Segue; that always made me scratch my head when neo-cons would talk about "liberal law making" judges.
To be fair and balanced, this administration should try and send up an appointee that is a strict constructionist to replace the strict constructionist that left. A friend of ours says that the court is best when it is a mix of conservative and progressive judges, I agree with that sentiment. I personally think the court should lean towards real, not neo conservatism.
[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;447021]100% I don't think the founders ever envisioned the current state of the body politic in the US. I think if they were alive today they would all probably be in jail for smacking every other person they spoke to across the mouth.
The Republicans aren't going to tie up the appointment because the person is good nor bad, they will tie it up for 11 months (nearly 1/4 of a term) because until Scalia died the appointments were 5/4 Republican appointees. Segue; that always made me scratch my head when neo-cons would talk about "liberal law making" judges.
To be fair and balanced, this administration should try and send up an appointee that is a strict constructionist to replace the strict constructionist that left. A friend of ours says that the court is best when it is a mix of conservative and progressive judges, I agree with that sentiment. I personally think the court should lean towards real, not neo conservatism.[/QUOTE]“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”.
However, that was back in 2007. Looks like Chucky Schmucky has evolved a little on this topic now that the shoe is on the other foot.
It depends on who is doing the nominating and who is doing the confirming.
Don B.