Possible SCOTUS scenario. . .

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by DSK

There are many people like me, who want fairness, not 60 years of affirmative action promoting hatred of white men.

Paranoid much, grand dragon?

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Paranoid much, grand dragon?

At least they hate you as well paleface, and discriminate against your sons and grandsons, also.

I'll just keep baking my cakes in my stand alone, paid for building, then go home to my mortgage free house, or go to my mortgage free ranch when the shit hits the fan and they kill liberal faggots like you for being white.

I'll be picking them off in self defense, if needed, with my arsenal of AR-15's with scopes. Long live the 2nd amendment!!

BTW, you can buy a years worth of food at the Mormon's store. Likable people, though their religion is fucked up. That Joseph Smith guy is a drunk lunatic.

http://store.lds.org/webapp/wcs/stor...7_-1_N_image_0

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

Doesn't matter, either scenario he shits the bed for Republicunts.
If he gets the nomination, his negatives with Women, Hispanics and Blacks have him doomed in a general election. . . lets say the Party locks him out of the nomination, who in their right mind thinks Trump will say thank you, I now support the nominee?!?!

not a chance, he will probly run as a third party candidate. . . making it easier in Hillary, either way.

If Repubs were smart they would approve Garland and be happy they got away with a moderate justice.

What a dope. All of the candidates are nothing but puppets. I am beginning to realize this election like all others is really nothing but a vaudeville act. If they can deny Trump the nomination they can shew in Clinton, and she's no more qualified to be President than you are. It's hilarious how some of you goof balls try to make sense out of something that is designed to confuse you, lol.

Jim

[Headkeeper]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

What a dope. All of the candidates are nothing but puppets. I am beginning to realize this election like all others is really nothing but a vaudeville act. If they can deny Trump the nomination they can shew in Clinton, and she's no more qualified to be President than you are. It's hilarious how some of you goof balls try to make sense out of something that is designed to confuse you, lol.

Jim

WOW. I could not have said it better.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You probably spent hours thinking this up while take about 10 seconds to blow it up. The GOP will have to go before the American people and educate them to the purpose of three branches of government and the Constitution. Let Hillary explain in her shrill voice her view (and the experts will contradict her).

you got that backwards. he takes 10 seconds to think about it then hours getting pummeled up the ass for it.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

You mean like Obama did? All those lost Senate and HOR seats? At a historic level? You are correct in that a Trump nomination could be disastrous but are fooling yourself if you think you are the only person who has thought of it.

BTW, have you thought how disastrous a Sanders nomination would be?

My understanding is that a 4 - 4 tie means the lower court ruling stands.

it does. Obama has made his nomination, now it's up to Congress to act. or not. If Obama nominated a moderate Liberal then he made a smart choice. as some unnamed poster said .. "they should take him and run"

but of course there's the Biden Rule to consider. so if the Republicans want to block it, they can, there's president for it.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by DSK

They are doing their job - the nomination is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate - which Obama has failed to earn.

the constitution doesn't state the POTUS needs to earn advice and consent. the repubs have failed to uphold their constitutional duty.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by bambino

Oh, you think you're on to something that nobody has thought of? You're an imbecile. Garland is no moderate. So who gives a fuck. The chips will fall where they may. Here's a question for you dumbfuck, what's the odds that the FBI will recommend criminal charges against Clinton dumbfuck?

childish insults shows you have no adult argument, fail.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You probably spent hours thinking this up while take about 10 seconds to blow it up. The GOP will have to go before the American people and educate them to the purpose of three branches of government and the Constitution. Let Hillary explain in her shrill voice her view (and the experts will contradict her).

you don't make sense, a 4-4 court split will leave portions of the country operating under different "constitutional" law, its clearly a horrible plan. But that's the best plan the right wing has these days, we'll see how it works out.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

You mean like Obama did? All those lost Senate and HOR seats? At a historic level? You are correct in that a Trump nomination could be disastrous but are fooling yourself if you think you are the only person who has thought of it.

BTW, have you thought how disastrous a Sanders nomination would be?

My understanding is that a 4 - 4 tie means the lower court ruling stands.

gerrymandering and voter suppression laws helped repubs gain seats, there is a tipping point to voter suppression laws. Im sure they will test that limit.

im not claiming to be the only or first person to have thought of it but I haven't heard it discusses much in the media and I thought it was an interesting discussion.

Sanders would not be the best of the two choices, but a choice between him and either bigot trump/cruz should be an easy one.

u r correct, the problem is the courts below SCOTUS have regional jurisdiction. . so if one region has a different ruling than another on the same subject matter and the supreme court splits 4-4. . . we would have different regions of the country living under different "constitutional" law. Not good for the union.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

the constitution doesn't state the POTUS needs to earn advice and consent. the repubs have failed to uphold their constitutional duty.

Why do you demand that the Congress uphold the Constitution, but you don't demand that of your President?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

the constitution doesn't state the POTUS needs to earn advice and consent. the repubs have failed to uphold their constitutional duty.

All Odumbo need do is withdraw Garland's nomination and select someone the Senate finds much more appealing, suckclown.

[Yssup Rider]

Who is suckclown?

And why?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Who is suckclown?

And why?

You are, and the reason why. Because you suck, lol.



Jim

[DSK]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

the constitution doesn't state the POTUS needs to earn advice and consent. the repubs have failed to uphold their constitutional duty.

You are wrong! Nowhere are they required to even hold a hearing!!

from Wikipedia:

Constitutional provision[edit]
The term "advice and consent" first appears in the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, referring to the senate's role in the signing and ratification of treaties. This term is then used again, to describe the Senate's role in the appointment of public officials, immediately after describing the president's duty to nominate officials. Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

This language was written at the Constitutional Convention as part of a delicate compromise concerning the balance of power in the federal government. Many delegates preferred to develop a strong executive control vested in the president, while others, worried about authoritarian control, preferred to strengthen the congress. Requiring the president to gain the advice and consent of the senate achieved both goals without hindering the business of government.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by DSK

You are wrong! Nowhere are they required to even hold a hearing!!

from Wikipedia:

Constitutional provision[edit]
The term "advice and consent" first appears in the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, referring to the senate's role in the signing and ratification of treaties. This term is then used again, to describe the Senate's role in the appointment of public officials, immediately after describing the president's duty to nominate officials. Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

This language was written at the Constitutional Convention as part of a delicate compromise concerning the balance of power in the federal government. Many delegates preferred to develop a strong executive control vested in the president, while others, worried about authoritarian control, preferred to strengthen the congress. Requiring the president to gain the advice and consent of the senate achieved both goals without hindering the business of government.

Hahaha, I would say you eloquently handed Southclown his ass. Lets just make that clear before he starts running his mouth again, lol.

Jim