Antonin Scalia dies at 79
This is a catastrophe for anyone who thinks the constitution shouldn't be reinterpreted in favor of the latest liberal clause. We've had a lot of 5-4 decisions, most recently the suspension of the EPA's energy plan.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Bet the presidebt's heart jumped for joy--secretly, of course.
A good man dies and I immediately think balance of political power.
Should I be ashamed of myself?
Or maybe yesterday's loss in a struggle of good versus evil is more important.
We all die.
If our Republican dominated Congress is willing to show some true leadership, it will vigorously fight to keep the "Dark Lord" from seating another of his extreme liberal puppets.
Bader-Ginsburg should be comforted, at least...now they'll probably back off on trying to get her to retire so the President could replace her.
Though Justice Scalia would likely have preferred to stay around to see the court properly "balanced", his days of worrying about his country are over. May he rest in Peace.
We shall see . . .
Godspeed, Justice Scalia.
I hold out hope that the Senate will block his nominations long enough for him to leave office BUT I have no confidence that they will.
All it takes is a no vote from the Senate until Jan 20th then a nomination for
Condoleeza Rice!
Can't you hear the leftists squeal like rats breathing pepper spray! (candidate for replacing rats eating onions.)
It should be reinterpreted but not in terms of the goals of the left. But in terms of the Constitution. Jefferson not Marx.
She did about as much to help HP as Kerry or Hillary has done for the US' foreign relationships.
All that's left is the future. The Present is damned.
Seek the Phoenix rebirth for this Land is lost.
I can't imagine Obama nominating anyone the Republicans are going to accept and with the court running 5-4 on many cases this is going to be a bare knuckle fight.
Cheers
President Obama nominates himself for the Supremes or President Hillary Clinton nominates him. Oh joy.
.
For those that are up to speed, this is so huge in its ramifications, I can only expect that the little spoken of political process will get really wild in the next months.
How this will manifest into the public stage will be very interesting. I am in trepidation.
If the Dimocrats are serious about attaining absolute power, here is what they'll do:
Barack Obama resigns the presidency.
Joe Biden becomes president without having to run for anything.
Biden turns around and nominates Barack Obama to be the replacement Supreme Court justice.
The Republican congress caves again and confirms the nomination, because they don't want to be called "racist".
Is anybody out there scared now?
The other possibility is that the "o" will ignore his term of office, find a "crisis" to use and declare Martial Law, effectively extending his time in the WH until the "crisis" has passed. Which will never happen, of course.
Both of these scenarios scare the crap outta me because I can see the possibility of either one happening given the political climate we have now.
Maybe its just me.
If a liberal justice had died, I suspect there would be more Republican support for letting Obama replace them. It might be interesting for the Republican candidate to select his choice prior to the election so that the debate can begin but I doubt that will happen.
I hate to wish for someone's passing but I can see that happening. At least that is assuming we get a conservative in office next. Though I seriously doubt we get a decent candidate in the foreseeable future.
Of course the odds of that ...
Not even thinking that there is a possibility that Obama won't nominate someone. I am unsure if I want the Senate to move forward or stonewall. Of course which will be heavily weighted by who Obama puts forward .
How did it go :
I have the right without explanation to take all your rights with osolut exception.And do it like a snake in the grass ignoring the rule of law and making such changes with bought and paid for left wing judges and changing Constitutional Law without Amendments.
A CLU-less?
That's not a personal attack that's a general observation using thinking, reasoning, and facts in evidence. from Dartmouth College to the 2004 ruling allowing people with money to run closed elections and interfere where they have no business.
Always pays to be an Objectivist.
It's in the archives wanna prove me wrong....do the work....takes more than repetitive sloganeering.
The Constitution does not require that members of the SCOTUS come from the legal profession, and in fact the intent was that those members come from professions with public involvement in industry and politics, so that they would have a conscious awareness of the impact of their decisions. This is the unforeseen flaw in a "nation of law": that we become subject to the rules created by a society of legal oligarchs.
Citizens United doesn't stop there. They are now going after the right for anyone with money to directly approach and fund candidates and elected officials. In some places that's called bribery or mordida. Here it's not called influence peddling and buying it's called free speech. No more need to use Pacs, super Pacs, or corporations. as bagmen.
Currently Trump is getting the most publicity with the least money. Probably because it's his money and he isn't going to hand it to a "media consultant" to spend. You just have to look at the Bush campaign to see money doesn't buy votes.
It does let you keep talking when no one is listening, though.
Think of it this way If you MAY NOT vote you MAY NOT contribute. Doesn't deny anyone the right to donate at the top level for President or Vice President. Doesn't deny anyone the right to contribute within each State for the State level positions. But it protects the lowest precincts from ward heelers who live fifteen states away. The precinct voters pamphlet and ballot is the guiding factor.
If one has no geo-political interest why, besides being rich, do they have the right to interfere? Use that one sentence and leave the right to donate as much as they want with no limit...within their own voting precinct's.
Tell me what do you get out of this money is free speech crap? Answer: Your vote becomes a corporate commodity but you get nothing. It's a one sided deal. If money is free speech then free speech should have a value for everyone especially those who are registered voters within a precinct, county, state.
What did you get paid? What are you getting paid? Ah yes that's right you didn't get a thin dime. and all the thin dimes in your precinct went to someone from New York City when you live in Elko, Nevada. "
They have the right to buy control and rig your precinct and you got nothing for it? That went o ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN and the New York Times....
Be pragmatic. When you sell out...you should get paid..... when they buy you they should pony up some cash for their purchase....Otherwise money is not free speech it's just another way of rigging the election and another form of slavery.
Why? Because their principle is 'I have the right without explanation to all of your rights without exception." Go through what's left of the Constitution. Their one right trashes five or six of yours. And you get nothing for it.
If some one or some entity MAY NOT VOTE why do have the RIGHT to influence what is NOT THEIR BUSINESS.
In order for money to buy votes you have to use it to buy advertising to get your message to the average voter who isn't paying attention and is swayed by advertising campaign. This is speech.
Yes, if you have more money you get a better "sound system", but in the end, it's speech that makes each voter decide which way to cast his ballot.
Ah yes that's right you didn't get a thin dime. and al the thin dimes in your precinct went to someone from New York City when you live in Elkol, Nevada. "
They not only control your precinct you got nothing for it? That went o ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN and the New York Times....
When you sell out...you should get paid..... when they buy you they should pony up some cash for their purchase....Otherwise money is not free speech it's just another way of rigging the election.
The current effort is to change that deleting the need to go through a PAC or other such organization...
If you want to see those candidates win move there and sign up to vote as a local citizen of the state, city, county or whatever. But then the rest of us don't have the money to buy as much free speech as some of you.....
Fine...you get two choices left wing of left and right wing of left.
No wonder the Constitution and the Republic is dead.
The reason we used to have 50 separate states was to provide for differences and that used to mean much more than your big bank account versus my small one.
It isn't worth fighting for...I am so glad we never swore an oath to the country. Which just leaves the Constitution and I hope the military does do it's duty and take over...
Civilians don't have what it takes to run a constitutional Republic...too many on the take
and willing to crap on everyone else's rights and freedoms for their own narrow interests.
So learn this it' s your thoughts reduced to a sentence.. 'I have the right without explanation to take all of your rights without exception.'
It's exactly what you just said you stood for.
Any entity that may not vote should confine it's activities to it's own group. If the candidate didn't have fight big bucks interfering it might be just a tid bit easier but then I'm talking all levels you are stuck worrying about the upper crust. Which is where those wealthy enough to buy votes usually reside. There is a whole series of articles of information but you have to be able to read...up in the archives...that tracks how this idiotic idea came to be law and not one amendment involved. ust bought and paid for judges....IF you can afford their buying price.
I am a union member we also got to donate tax payer money courtesy of Davis Bacon inflated local wages and watch them laundered into campaign funds. If we wanted to work we had to chip in stated amounts. it's a huge criminal enterprise but when you sought to defend unions you walked right into it and federal employees are the worst of the lot. And that status was one of my unions.
But you dont seem like outside $ is truly your beef. If a tiny town had one fat cat who wanted to throw a disproportionate ( to what the rest of the town folk could donate) amt of $ that sounds like you'd find that unfair too, b/c "everyone" couldnt do likewise.
You are judged by the words you use and a real dictionary....not by the words you try to put in others comments.
I would appreciate being judged by the words I use and a pre-PC dictionary. I'm perfectly capable of putting my own foot in my own mouth assuming some one else hasn't used the space first.
Citizens United is not exactly a Constitutional Centrist forum..the attempt is the kick off for getting the much wanted 'direct contact' prohibition lifted.
One of their biggest supporters is George Lakoff and the Secular Progressives.....read his elephant book. It's in the end pages...along with a really nice but a little twisted version of the whole money as free speech scam.
Except he takes credit for that.