art by =saintchase

Theoryland Resources

WoT Interview Search

Search the most comprehensive database of interviews and book signings from Robert Jordan, Brandon Sanderson and the rest of Team Jordan.

Wheel of Time News

An Hour With Harriet

2012-04-30: I had the great pleasure of speaking with Harriet McDougal Rigney about her life. She's an amazing talent and person and it will take you less than an hour to agree.

The Bell Tolls

2012-04-24: Some thoughts I had during JordanCon4 and the upcoming conclusion of "The Wheel of Time."

Theoryland Community

Members: 7652

Logged In (1): rtolhurstalle,

Newest Members:johnroserking, petermorris, johnadanbvv, AndrewHB, jofwu, Salemcat1, Dhakatimesnews, amazingz, Sasooner, Hasib123,

Theoryland Tweets

Forums

Home | Chat | Old Forums(Yuku)


Go Back   Theoryland of the Wheel of Time Forums > THEORYLAND STEDDINGS > Non WoT Discussion
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 02-13-2016, 08:56 PM
fionwe1987 fionwe1987 is offline
Youngling
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,680
fionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimon View Post
It shouldn't, and this "originalist" nonsense was mostly Scalia's magnum opus. Hopefully Hades is getting creative with the bastard down in Tartarus.
Precisely. Scalia was the rabid prophet of an insane religion. About time such nonsense was weeded out from the Court, and that is only going to be achieved by putting in place someone who doesn't give a damn about what the original document intended.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-13-2016, 10:35 PM
Nazbaque's Avatar
Nazbaque Nazbaque is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Turku, Finland
Posts: 3,492
Nazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Well the problem there is like with all religions that believing is so much easier than thinking.
__________________
Warder of Freya Sedai
First-brother of Cary Sedai
Great Lord of Fire
Lord Captain Commander of Singing Chipmunks
Master of Nazgul Kitchen
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-14-2016, 02:28 AM
Davian93's Avatar
Davian93 Davian93 is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 20,122
Davian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

17 Justices have been confirmed during an election year including Anthony Kennedy...so please please please make yourselves look stupid, GOP.
__________________
Bonded to Brita

"We caught them in an alley on skid row in downtown Philly and brought them down with Uzi's and dogs. I beat the shit out of one of the guys for resisting arrest. After that, I went home, fried up some tofu with strawberry preserves and melon sticky rice, laid down on the couch with my snuggie and ate rose petals in sweet daisy wine sauce and watched Mamma Mia on DVD and then cried myself to sleep."

Theoryland: Just Some Crazy In A Pot
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-14-2016, 02:48 AM
The Unreasoner's Avatar
The Unreasoner The Unreasoner is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,382
The Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davian93 View Post
17 Justices have been confirmed during an election year including Anthony Kennedy...so please please please make yourselves look stupid, GOP.
I'm worried Ted Cruz won't care how it looks. McConnell might even publicly distance himself, while privately approving.

A filibuster may even be a sort of imposed penance, to remove the Establishment opposition to a Cruz nomination.
__________________
Exfeuck? Not quite...
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-14-2016, 04:31 AM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,845
GonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davian93 View Post
Right to bear arms is qualified as being part of a well-regulated militia. Do all the handgun owners in DC belong to such an organization? Is it well-regulated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southpaw2012 View Post
Those are two separate things.
In that case, the prohibition on inmates having firearms while imprisoned is unconstitutional, and you should oppose that. The 2nd very explicitly says "shall not be infringed", and thus does not allow any lesser laws to infringe on this right by, for instance, prohibiting convicted felons from carrying arms while in custody.

If you don't accept that argument, then your only ways out are either to accept that the militia bit is actually relevant (in which case Davian was right) or to declare the US Constitution a dead letter that can be ignored whenever an activist judge wants.
Or, alternatively, you could show a subsequent Amendment limiting firearm rights for felons and such, of course.
__________________
I do not anticipate the invention of a working time machine in the foreseeable future.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-14-2016, 12:02 PM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,845
GonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I have just come up with an amusing semi-hypothetical:
The Republicans have already announced they'll not accept any SCOTUS nomination made by Obama. Suppose that continues, and eventually the last Supreme Judge dies unreplaced. Then what? How long could the USA last without having a Supreme Court at all?
__________________
I do not anticipate the invention of a working time machine in the foreseeable future.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-14-2016, 12:54 PM
Kimon's Avatar
Kimon Kimon is offline
Ancient
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,361
Kimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat View Post
I have just come up with an amusing semi-hypothetical:
The Republicans have already announced they'll not accept any SCOTUS nomination made by Obama. Suppose that continues, and eventually the last Supreme Judge dies unreplaced. Then what? How long could the USA last without having a Supreme Court at all?
The bottom line is that the Republicans control the Senate. So they could either refuse to even allow a vote, or could allow it, and simply vote down any candidate, regardless of qualification or philosophy. And from a political standpoint, it would nearly impossible for any Republican, regardless of whether they are up for re-election, to vote in favor of any nominee, considering just how vitriolic this country, and their party in particular, has become. The consequences of either would however be dire. It would guarantee that every confirmation process moving forward would be a battle, and that it would be nigh impossible for any president to get a nomination through the senate if his party didn't control it.

If they really want this process to become so transparently and irreparably politicized, which it certainly has, the situation would be better resolved by switching to direct election of these justices, and for a defined rather than permanent duration.

Last edited by Kimon; 02-14-2016 at 01:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-14-2016, 01:07 PM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,845
GonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Technically, the president can appoint a judge whenever Congress is on recess. Then the judge serves until the next elections, whereupon the position becomes vacant again. So, if the president decides to simply ignore Congress entirely, that is possible. My hypothetical assumes this won't be done; that whoever is president now or in the future will expect the Senate to do its job.

As an aside: Congress is on recess right now. So if he really wanted to, then Obama could push whoever he chose onto the Supreme Court without even having to bother asking any Republican.

Caveat: this is based on what I've read is the law, not on what I have read in those laws, let alone on what actual lawyers read in those laws.
__________________
I do not anticipate the invention of a working time machine in the foreseeable future.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-14-2016, 01:13 PM
Kimon's Avatar
Kimon Kimon is offline
Ancient
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,361
Kimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat View Post
Technically, the president can appoint a judge whenever Congress is on recess. Then the judge serves until the next elections, whereupon the position becomes vacant again. So, if the president decides to simply ignore Congress entirely, that is possible. My hypothetical assumes this won't be done; that whoever is president now or in the future will expect the Senate to do its job.

As an aside: Congress is on recess right now. So if he really wanted to, then Obama could push whoever he chose onto the Supreme Court without even having to bother asking any Republican.

Caveat: this is based on what I've read is the law, not on what I have read in those laws, let alone on what actual lawyers read in those laws.
Better optics to force the Republicans to reject nominees at least first. If they then have made clear that they are blockading his constitutional right, especially if they are not even allowing a vote, then perhaps you resort to that. Doing that in the beginning would only let them off the hook, and make himself look bad. I suspect that he'll try to find a moderate with which there is no clear and reasonable grounds for rejection. And then force them to make a rejection that none could argue is based upon anything but partisan warfare.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-14-2016, 01:37 PM
Davian93's Avatar
Davian93 Davian93 is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 20,122
Davian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

He should keep nominating completely legitimate people and force them to keep rejecting them. He should go with Sri Srinivasan first. Nominated to the DC circuit and confirmed 97-0 by pretty much the current Senate. Let them explain why he's suddenly unqualified.

And go from there.
__________________
Bonded to Brita

"We caught them in an alley on skid row in downtown Philly and brought them down with Uzi's and dogs. I beat the shit out of one of the guys for resisting arrest. After that, I went home, fried up some tofu with strawberry preserves and melon sticky rice, laid down on the couch with my snuggie and ate rose petals in sweet daisy wine sauce and watched Mamma Mia on DVD and then cried myself to sleep."

Theoryland: Just Some Crazy In A Pot
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-14-2016, 01:55 PM
Southpaw2012 Southpaw2012 is offline
Youngling
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 691
Southpaw2012 is a jewel in the roughSouthpaw2012 is a jewel in the roughSouthpaw2012 is a jewel in the rough
Default

I think you all forgot about the trouble Dems gave Repubs with the nomination of Robert Bork.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-14-2016, 02:11 PM
Kimon's Avatar
Kimon Kimon is offline
Ancient
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,361
Kimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southpaw2012 View Post
I think you all forgot about the trouble Dems gave Repubs with the nomination of Robert Bork.
Bork, like Clarence Thomas (due to Anita Hill), had legitimate ethics questions. Bork's role in Nixon's firing of Archibald Cox, the Watergate Special Prosecutor, after Cox requested that Nixon hand over the Oval Office tapes was such an obvious ethics problem that Nixon's own Attorney General, Richardson, resigned rather than go along with Nixon and Bork's demand. If Obama's choice has a similarly obvious ethics question, then they will have legitimate grounds for voting against the nominee. Keep in mind, that when Reagan nominated Kennedy instead, the vote was 97-0. They confirmed another Reagan nominee, Sandra Day O'Connor, by a similar margin, 99-0.

Southpaw, Bork was so controversial that even 6 Republican Senators voted against him.

Last edited by Kimon; 02-14-2016 at 02:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-14-2016, 02:58 PM
Davian93's Avatar
Davian93 Davian93 is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 20,122
Davian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southpaw2012 View Post
I think you all forgot about the trouble Dems gave Repubs with the nomination of Robert Bork.
And you apparently forget how grossly incompetent and unqualified Bork was. I say forget but you likely weren't even alive when that happened or you'd know that they allowed Thomas afterward with no filibuster. Either way, they voted on both and allowed a far right wing idiot in the end.
__________________
Bonded to Brita

"We caught them in an alley on skid row in downtown Philly and brought them down with Uzi's and dogs. I beat the shit out of one of the guys for resisting arrest. After that, I went home, fried up some tofu with strawberry preserves and melon sticky rice, laid down on the couch with my snuggie and ate rose petals in sweet daisy wine sauce and watched Mamma Mia on DVD and then cried myself to sleep."

Theoryland: Just Some Crazy In A Pot
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-14-2016, 06:10 PM
Southpaw2012 Southpaw2012 is offline
Youngling
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 691
Southpaw2012 is a jewel in the roughSouthpaw2012 is a jewel in the roughSouthpaw2012 is a jewel in the rough
Default

No, the Constitution is not a 200 year old gospel. It's the greatest document ever created for government, alongside the Declaration of Independence, that set up a system designed to prevent tyranny. What you democrat progressives desire is to have a government of men who ignore the framework established in order to have an overreaching federal government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. That desire is beyond dangerous, and anyone with half a brain should be fighting hand and foot against it. Originalism isn't perfect, but it prevents this idea that the government has free reign. It keeps our system balanced and doesn't change just because a group of men and women in charge want to change it. It's truly sickening to hear people deride it, and really just ignorant.

As for the nomination process:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/06/wh...gn=thffacebook
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-14-2016, 07:17 PM
Kimon's Avatar
Kimon Kimon is offline
Ancient
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,361
Kimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southpaw2012 View Post
No, the Constitution is not a 200 year old gospel. It's the greatest document ever created for government, alongside the Declaration of Independence, that set up a system designed to prevent tyranny. What you democrat progressives desire is to have a government of men who ignore the framework established in order to have an overreaching federal government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. That desire is beyond dangerous, and anyone with half a brain should be fighting hand and foot against it. Originalism isn't perfect, but it prevents this idea that the government has free reign. It keeps our system balanced and doesn't change just because a group of men and women in charge want to change it. It's truly sickening to hear people deride it, and really just ignorant.
So all the presidents before Reagan were tyrants? Likewise all the supreme court justices before Scalia? Washington a tyrant for the Whiskey Rebellion? Jefferson for the Louisiana Purchase? Obviously Lincoln and the Roosevelts, right? All the Amendments, evil? Earl Warren for basically everything he did? The seven justices who made their decision upon an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, privacy and due process in particular, in the Roe decision? Tyrants? All the gun laws that existed before Heller?

This is about interpretation, Southpaw. Not tyranny.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-14-2016, 09:18 PM
Terez's Avatar
Terez Terez is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Corn
Posts: 21,127
Terez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Terez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimon View Post
The bottom line is that the Republicans control the Senate. So they could either refuse to even allow a vote, or could allow it, and simply vote down any candidate, regardless of qualification or philosophy.
McConnell won't allow a vote. Too many GOP Senators defending their seats in blue states.
__________________
Qui nos rodunt confundantur, et cum iustis non scribantur.
@Terez27
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-14-2016, 09:26 PM
Nazbaque's Avatar
Nazbaque Nazbaque is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Turku, Finland
Posts: 3,492
Nazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond reputeNazbaque has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southpaw2012 View Post
No, the Constitution is not a 200 year old gospel. It's the greatest document ever created for government, alongside the Declaration of Independence, that set up a system designed to prevent tyranny. What you democrat progressives desire is to have a government of men who ignore the framework established in order to have an overreaching federal government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. That desire is beyond dangerous, and anyone with half a brain should be fighting hand and foot against it. Originalism isn't perfect, but it prevents this idea that the government has free reign. It keeps our system balanced and doesn't change just because a group of men and women in charge want to change it. It's truly sickening to hear people deride it, and really just ignorant.

As for the nomination process:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/06/wh...gn=thffacebook
Southpaw this rant of yours proves you are treating that document as religious gospel.

Moreover you do not understand what it means to be free. Otherwise you'd know to ask the question: "free to do what?"
__________________
Warder of Freya Sedai
First-brother of Cary Sedai
Great Lord of Fire
Lord Captain Commander of Singing Chipmunks
Master of Nazgul Kitchen
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-14-2016, 11:59 PM
Davian93's Avatar
Davian93 Davian93 is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 20,122
Davian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
McConnell won't allow a vote. Too many GOP Senators defending their seats in blue states.
All this will do is hurt those Senators even more though...he has to know that.

Stupid is as stupid does though I guess.
__________________
Bonded to Brita

"We caught them in an alley on skid row in downtown Philly and brought them down with Uzi's and dogs. I beat the shit out of one of the guys for resisting arrest. After that, I went home, fried up some tofu with strawberry preserves and melon sticky rice, laid down on the couch with my snuggie and ate rose petals in sweet daisy wine sauce and watched Mamma Mia on DVD and then cried myself to sleep."

Theoryland: Just Some Crazy In A Pot
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-15-2016, 12:00 AM
Davian93's Avatar
Davian93 Davian93 is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 20,122
Davian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southpaw2012 View Post
No, the Constitution is not a 200 year old gospel. It's the greatest document ever created for government, alongside the Declaration of Independence, that set up a system designed to prevent tyranny. What you democrat progressives desire is to have a government of men who ignore the framework established in order to have an overreaching federal government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. That desire is beyond dangerous, and anyone with half a brain should be fighting hand and foot against it. Originalism isn't perfect, but it prevents this idea that the government has free reign. It keeps our system balanced and doesn't change just because a group of men and women in charge want to change it. It's truly sickening to hear people deride it, and really just ignorant.

As for the nomination process:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/06/wh...gn=thffacebook
Ironically, I find your complete ignorance of reality sickening...and a bit sad. I wonder how your life will be if you ever get out of your tiny little world and actually think for yourself.
__________________
Bonded to Brita

"We caught them in an alley on skid row in downtown Philly and brought them down with Uzi's and dogs. I beat the shit out of one of the guys for resisting arrest. After that, I went home, fried up some tofu with strawberry preserves and melon sticky rice, laid down on the couch with my snuggie and ate rose petals in sweet daisy wine sauce and watched Mamma Mia on DVD and then cried myself to sleep."

Theoryland: Just Some Crazy In A Pot
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-15-2016, 12:13 AM
Terez's Avatar
Terez Terez is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Corn
Posts: 21,127
Terez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Terez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davian93 View Post
All this will do is hurt those Senators even more though...he has to know that.

Stupid is as stupid does though I guess.
I kinda wish Obama would just do a recess appointment. Surely the senate leader refusing to consider any nomination without even knowing who the nominees would be is reason enough.
__________________
Qui nos rodunt confundantur, et cum iustis non scribantur.
@Terez27
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.