Fast forward to 2016...President Obama will nominate a candidate that "indisputably is qualified for the seat and...would serve with honor and integrity on the court." <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eXvIkcGJ564" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> To then claim that my ability to comprehend the same man making two very different assertions, how exactly is that logical fallacy? To me it just shows how quickly he is willing to pander to his political constituents when it suits him, and then expects these very same Senators to not play along party lines." That is hypocritical. When he decides to provide the Senate with his nominee, the Senate will do her job...He just wont like it. A kid...i am no longer... but old enough to be worried about how the rest of my life may be impacted by political parties that are NO longer able to work together even in the face of differences. Trust me I am not thrilled at all about either party or its candidates...I just don't believe that the nation has been going in the right direction currently.
Samantha Bee on the USSC topic: http://www.salon.com/2016/02/16/samantha_bee_to_mitch_mcconnell_what_better_way_to_honor_americas_greatest_champion_of_original_intent_than_by_wiping_your_obstructionist_ass_on_the_very_document_he_holds_so_dear/
First let me congratulate you for at least attempting to respond in somewhat good faith? That's generally been in short supply in 2008 around here and has paralleled the descent of the GOP into extremist to the point where it's sole big tent offering is a cocktail of nihilism with dash of Angostura crazypants. Second, here is something that would be hypocritical: If Obama back in Alito's time declared something like "we should not even consider this nomination for a vote because the people didn't even vote for W in 2000 and he was handed the election by judicial fiat despite effectively losing to his opponent!" This is not what happened of course. Alito was given a hearing, a vote, and those Senators who voted against him knowingly cast what amounted to a meaningless protest vote on the substance of the nominee, rather than a flimsy pretext of procedure (i.e.- the "no nominees in election years" excuse, newly invented on Sunday. If there is a nominee and an ensuing vote, well, maybe your argument gets a bit stronger, but thus far that has been categorically ruled out, therefore your "hypocrisy" charge collapses. Third, if you're truly of the belief that this is some sort if reversal of the Alito situation, why did you post earlier in the thread that this was suitable payback for the Bork rejection of 1987? Which is it? My assessment of your previous good faith may need to be retracted. Again this analogy suffers from the same flaws as the Alito example, also from the flaw that it was 29 years ago and the opportunity for "payback" has already been exacted hundreds of times to the point where the payback now vastly exceeds the supposed crime. So if you're truly concerned about partisanship, it's obviously absurd of you to proclaim your unabashed support for what amounts to the latest in a series of new lows. Government shutdowns, unprecedented use of the filibuster, naked obstruction of the highest order. None of this is the result of tired "both sides do it", it's empirically true that this is largely the result of one sides extremism, see Ornstein & Manns work on this for empirical evidence. Though you really don't need to, the spectacle of the slow motion clown car crash that is a walking orange hued insult comic leading a field of equally sad and ridiculous sacks by mouthing lowest common denominator slogans at each other repeatedly and clutching a mad libs book of policy prescriptions which consist of a few flavors: disproven, cruel, stupid, absurd or just bat**** insane....this is what I learned, a long time ago, at 1111 East 60th, is res ipa loquitor It's actually too bad that the personalities of the candidates are in focus more so than the policies, because they are even more ridiculous. To pretend to be the candidate of 'fiscal responsibility" while proposing trillions in tax giveaways to the very richest Americans and be labeled "mainstream " is on a certain level more absurd than Trump himself. So if you're looking for hypocrisy, my advice is to look inward. But I doubt you really are.
He said both sides depress him and he doesn't like any candidates. Is it kind of like Reservoir Dogs then, with his amazing post, and everyone falls dead from the "Boom. Head shot. CASE CLOSED, etc."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ams-hurtful-conspiracy-theories-about-fathers Scalia's son slams 'hurtful' conspiracy theories about father's death By Jesse Byrnes The eldest son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday sought to dispel swirling conspiracy theories that his father died as the result of foul play. "It’s, I think, a distraction from a great man and his legacy at a time when there’s so much to be said about that and to help people even more fully appreciate that. And, on a personal level, I think it’s a bit of a hurtful distraction for a family that’s mourning," Eugene Scalia said on Laura Ingraham's radio show. GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump this week expressed skepticism about the death of the conservative icon, saying, "They say they found a pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow." Scalia died unexpectedly over the weekend at a ranch in Texas. A state judge had declared him dead over the phone, allowed under Texas state law, and Scalia's family didn't push for an autopsy for the 79-year-old justice. "He had a pillow over his head, not over his face as some have been saying," John Poindexter, the owner of the Cibolo Creek Ranch where Scalia was found dead, told CNN. "The pillow was against the headboard and over his head when he was discovered. He looked like someone who had had a restful night's sleep. There was no evidence of anything else," Poindexter added. Scalia said Wednesday that his father "would have been the first to tell you ... that we’re from dust, we return to dust, your life could be taken from you at any instant." "He was a month shy of 80 years old. He lived this incredibly full and active life, but I knew, and he knew, that he was at a place in life where he could be taken from this world at any time," Eugene Scalia continued. "Our family just has no doubt he died of natural causes. And we accept that. We’re praying for him. We ask others to accept that and pray for him," he added. Antonin Scalia's funeral will be held Saturday in Washington, D.C.
Even as no fan of Scalia, I can't imagine the extra hurt that a public death, attended by vehement conspiracy nuttery, would cause.
A "restful night sleep" Wasn't he found at 9 pm........ On Valentines Day.................... Without his family and an undisclosed "guest"...... At a luxury resort............................................... Hopefully it comes out someday.
I did what you asked. I paid him the same respects I did to George Wallace and Strom Thurmand. And I'll be sure to pay the same respects to Clarence Thomas when his time comes.
You have to admit it's apropos for a looney segment of society that championed him. There'll be Scalia murder conspiracy theories floating on the net for twenty or thirty years. Something about how Obama had the CIA poison Scalia's fruit cocktail at dinner and then snuck in a ninja assassin to finish him off with a pillow while he was sleeping. Sucks for his family but these are the people that Scalia basically got in bed with.
