Justice Antonin Scalia has died

[Jack Davenport]

Holding up the nomination will turn out to be a great tactic if Trump wins. When Trump loses and Democrats take back the senate it's going to look as foolish as it always was, Clinton won't nominate the same feller, with a Democratic majority the next Supreme Court justice will be an uber-lib.

You're gonna love Article V Convention of States.

David Stockman has already said the silver lining with a Hillary presidency is that there is a great chance of a stock market crash and another severe great recession during her first term.

That will make it ripe for Article V.

You enjoy trolling conservatives, I am going to sit back and enjoy watching Article V remove every advancement by libs in the past 30 years.

Get ready, because it's coming and win or lose, I am going to enjoy it.

BTW Hillary hasn't won yet.

 

[pool_hustler]

I've never remember a scj dying so I dont know the rules .

Rule is always that the prez nominates a candidate and that it's up to the senate to confirm (or not) that nominee.

He died in August. Shouldnt that have replaced him by now?
What are they waiting for?

No, he died back in February.
After which much republican hand wringing ensued over who Obama might nominate to take his place, with the expectation being that he would nominate a hard leftist with insufficient qualifications. The name Merrick Garland was bandied about and many republican senators, including most outspokenly their president pro tempere Orrin Hatch, expressed the opinion that Garland would be an excellent nominee - that he was well respected and had tons of experience - but that Obama would never nominate him because he wasn't liberal enough. So who did Obama end up nominating? Merrick Garland. At which point the republican senate showed what a pack of infantile hypocrites they are by refusing to even grant Garland a hearing. And that's been their fixed position ever since. So that's why Scalia hasn't been replaced yet. More republican obstructionism.

 

[Supafly]

BC, you are really getting lazy. If you want to bragg around about some potential unconventional conventions, you either flesh out what the fuck this actually means or you stfu

Here, I did your work

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/rob-natelson/what-would-article-v-convention-states-actually-be

Of course, if we look at what Bush, jr took your country through, it is highly unklikely that this would happen. But after the Trump run, what worse could happen?

 

[Jack Davenport]

BC, you are really getting lazy. If you want to bragg around about some potential unconventional conventions, you either flesh out what the fuck this actually means or you stfu

Here, I did your work

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/rob-natelson/what-would-article-v-convention-states-actually-be

Of course, if we look at what Bush, jr took your country through, it is highly unklikely that this would happen. But after the Trump run, what worse could happen?

You didn't know a damn thing about Article V until I mentioned it and it worried you.

Republicans control the majority of state legislatures right now and we can do a lot of things like setting term limits for congress and federal judges. We can clarify birthright citizenship and reinforce the 2nd amendment.

A Hillary Clinton presidency does not mean liberal control of the courts for 30 years. Republicans have won over 900 seats nationwide since Obama took office it is time we cash in.

Thanks for linking a CNS story a conservative outlet.. Being that it laid out the case for Art V, it shows just how clueless your Euro ass is.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Rule is always that the prez nominates a candidate and that it's up to the senate to confirm (or not) that nominee.



No, he died back in February.
After which much republican hand wringing ensued over who Obama might nominate to take his place, with the expectation being that he would nominate a hard leftist with insufficient qualifications. The name Merrick Garland was bandied about and many republican senators, including most outspokenly their president pro tempere Orrin Hatch, expressed the opinion that Garland would be an excellent nominee - that he was well respected and had tons of experience - but that Obama would never nominate him because he wasn't liberal enough. So who did Obama end up nominating? Merrick Garland. At which point the republican senate showed what a pack of infantile hypocrites they are by refusing to even grant Garland a hearing. And that's been their fixed position ever since. So that's why Scalia hasn't been replaced yet. More republican obstructionism.

Orrin Hatch stopped being relevant years ago.

Garland is anti-2A.

That is enough to keep him off of the court and is certainly not a suitable replacement for Scalia.

 

[xfire]

You're gonna love Article V Convention of States.

David Stockman has already said the silver lining with a Hillary presidency is that there is a great chance of a stock market crash and another severe great recession during her first term.

That will make it ripe for Article V.

You enjoy trolling conservatives, I am going to sit back and enjoy watching Article V remove every advancement by libs in the past 30 years.

Get ready, because it's coming and win or lose, I am going to enjoy it.

BTW Hillary hasn't won yet.

You've been making the hollow threat of an Article V convention for at least a year, probably longer. Riddle me this, why hasn't it already come to fruition? I enjoy trolling, full stop, as does everyone here. Jackass.

:1orglaugh

 

[Jack Davenport]

You've been making the hollow threat of an Article V convention for at least a year, probably longer. Riddle me this, why hasn't it already come to fruition? I enjoy trolling, full stop, as does everyone here. Jackass.

:1orglaugh

Why hasn't Hillary Clinton accomplished anything in 30 years?

We just achieved the numbers for an Article V majority in the last mid-term. It is gaining steam and Hillary Clinton just may be the catalyst to set it in motion.

I would exchange a Trump loss for a Hillary presidency and Art V over a Trump win and no Art V any day of the week.

You are also making election victory guarantees as much if not more than Sammy did.

I seem to recall you whining about his guarantees.

 

[xfire]

Why hasn't Hillary Clinton accomplished anything in 30 years?

We just achieved the numbers for an Article V majority in the last mid-term. It is gaining steam and Hillary Clinton just may be the catalyst to set it in motion.

I would exchange a Trump loss for a Hillary presidency and Art V over a Trump win and no Art V any day of the week.

You are also making election victory guarantees as much if not more than Sammy did.

I seem to recall you whining about his guarantees.

The only person that whined about Sam's LANDSLIDE!!!! guarantee was Sam when he had to eat copious amounts of crow, the same trajectory that you and Meester and heading down this time around. I'm not guranteeing anything, merely looking at the bellwether that is fivethirtyeight. Hillary loses, so be it, she's not my candidate anyway. As for an Article V convention, that's a pipe dream, BUT, if it happens, so much kudos to you for calling it. When Hillary wins in a couple of weeks, please don't blow a gasket. Pretty please?

 

[Jack Davenport]

The only person that whined about Sam's LANDSLIDE!!!! guarantee was Sam when he had to eat copious amounts of crow, the same trajectory that you and Meester and heading down this time around. I'm not guranteeing anything, merely looking at the bellwether that is fivethirtyeight. Hillary loses, so be it, she's not my candidate anyway. As for an Article V convention, that's a pipe dream, BUT, if it happens, so much kudos to you for calling it. When Hillary wins in a couple of weeks, please don't blow a gasket. Pretty please?

I am in expect the worst but hope for the best mode. It has served me well during my career. I have made a prediction but I haven't made any outlandish guarantees.

The chest beating by board liberals is starting to gain a following. I still think Trump will win. But if he doesn't there won't be any hair torching.

Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Luxman]

The Founding Fathers Tried to Warn Us About the Threat From a Two-Party System, and you continue to bicker even though you know the truth.
It's class warfare, not liberals vs conservatives. WAKE UP!!!!
It doesn't matter who wins, the rich assholes that be will still control the government and the economy.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...about-the-threat-from-a-two-party-system.html

 

[pool_hustler]

Garland is anti-2A.

Why? Because the NRA says so?
As I understand it their "evidence" of such is at best flimsy, and at worst outright misleading.
And what exactly does anti-2A mean in this situation anyway? Does it mean he allegedly wants to repeal the 2A?

 

[meesterperfect]

Wetworks dude.
Wetworks.
2 days before he died in strange Clinton email.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Wetwork
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6008
What else could it mean.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Why? Because the NRA says so?
As I understand it their "evidence" of such is at best flimsy, and at worst outright misleading.
And what exactly does anti-2A mean in this situation anyway? Does it mean he allegedly wants to repeal the 2A?

He wants to restrict the 2nd. So The NRA can't evaluate potential jurists but some jack leg climatologist from Idaho State has presented solid peer reviewed climate data considered to be liberal gospel.

Got it.

 

[pool_hustler]

He wants to restrict the 2nd.

To what extent?
Btw I'm not trying to be combative here, I'm really trying to understand what basis there is for labeling him "anti 2A".
When I look at his record I'm not seeing that. But then I'm not predisposed to.

So The NRA can't evaluate potential jurists

Of course they can, but if they go on to mislead that ain't right.

some jack leg climatologist from Idaho State has presented solid peer reviewed climate data considered to be liberal gospel

You won't see me making that claim. I'm an agnostic when it comes to climate change; i.e. I admit I don't know enough to have a fixed opinion either way. I don't even know who you're talking about.

 

[pool_hustler]

Wetworks dude.
Wetworks.
2 days before he died in strange Clinton email.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Wetwork
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6008
What else could it mean.

It can also mean attacking/assassinating reputation/character rather than the physical body.

 

[xfire]