The Search For The 113th Supreme Court Justice, v1: Obama Nominates Merrick Garland

Status
Not open for further replies.
Supreme court nominations wouldnt be that important if Congress did its fucking job.
 
ehtheist said:
Concerning the people you "snatched" your country back from... It's their country too. They should be represented.
Click to expand...

Snatched back from the perpetrators who have been trying to and have undermined national sovereignty under the guise of globalism.

Otherwise, every American is represented...
 
Rod1 said:
Supreme court nominations wouldnt be that important if Congress did its fucking job.
Click to expand...

Here you are complaining again. Everyone, may I introduce you to the man who will win the "Complainer of the Year" award here in the War Room. I have his gif all ready to go by Jan. 1st.
 
My guess is Senate Dem's filibuster the nominee process and Trump has to appoint when the senate is in recess. I know the Texas AG is already excited that gay marriage will be kicked to the states with the names on Trump's list and Trump already said people will have to go to another state to get abortions under his court.

Should be interesting.
 
Rod1 said:
One case over 200 years ago?
Click to expand...


Do you know how laws work? They don't run out over time. By that logic, any SC decision that is old enough can be disowned right?

Marbury wasn't just "one case". It is by far one of the most significant decisions putting forth the power of the SC granted by the US constitution.

There is a reason it's just one case of its kind. It was important enough that it hasn't been challenged in the court so far. That should tell you something.
 
Sdeev said:
Do you know how laws work? They don't run out over time. By that logic, any SC decision that is old enough can be disowned right?

Marbury wasn't just "one case". It is by far one of the most significant decisions putting forth the power of the SC granted by the US constitution.

There is a reason it's just one case of its kind. It was important enough that it hasn't been challenged in the court so far. That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

Everything the supreme court rules can be changed by congress, thats the point im making, SC nominations are only that important because they are ruling on ancient laws to begin with.
 
ehtheist said:
Concerning the people you "snatched" your country back from... It's their country too. They should be represented.
Click to expand...
Half of those twats should be deported
 
Rod1 said:
Everything the supreme court rules can be changed by congress, thats the point im making, SC nominations are only that important because they are ruling on ancient laws to begin with.
Click to expand...


No, it can't because the SC has the authority to review laws and legislative acts (through... you guessed it Marbury v. Madison) and they have the power to deem unconstitutional laws..unconstitutional.

What do you mean by "ancient" laws? You think modern laws supersede ancient laws because they are old? I am not understanding your reasoning here...

We have this thing called checks and balances in the U.S. Remember that.
 
HomerThompson said:
Please explain using specific examples.
Click to expand...

1. Changing Obamacare on the fly without congressional action

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires that businesses employing 50 or more full-time employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine per uncovered employee. The law schedules this mandate to begin in January 2014. Yet the Administration has already announced that it will put this requirement on hold.

Meanwhile, Congress explicitly considered and rejected proposed amendments to Obamacare that would have created a specific allowance for a congressional health insurance subsidy in the exchanges, and indeed, such an exemption is illegal. But the Administration told Members of Congress and their staffers that it would give them a generous taxpayer-funded subsidy just the same.

Obamacare won’t work as written, and the Administration is just seizing power unilaterally to rewrite it.

2. Implementing the DREAM Act by executive fiat

Congress has repeatedly considered, and rejected, a bill known as the Dream Act that would effectively grant amnesty to many illegal aliens. Yet in June 2012, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a directive to immigration officials instructing them to defer deportation proceedings against an estimated 1.7 million illegal aliens. Oddly, this happened about a year after President Obama admitted that “the President doesn’t have the authority to simply ignore Congress and say, ‘We’re not going to enforce the laws you’ve passed.’”

3. Making “recess appointments” while the Senate was in session

In January 2012, President Obama made four “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, claiming that the Senate was not available to confirm those appointees. Yet the Senate was not in recess at that time. The Recess Appointments Clause is not an alternative to Senate confirmation and is supposed to be only a stopgap for times when the Senate is unable to provide advice and consent. Eventually, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit struck down the appointments to the NLRB as unconstitutional.

4. Waiving welfare work requirements

In July 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services gutted the work requirements out of the welfare reform law passed in 1996. It notified states of Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s “willingness to exercise her waiver authority” so that states may eliminate the work participation requirement of Section 407 of the 1996 reforms. This flatly contradicts the law, which provides that waivers granted under other sections of the law “shall not affect the applicability of section 407 to the State.” Despite this unambiguous language, the Obama Administration continues to flout the law with its “revisionist” interpretation.

5. Encouraging federal contractors to violate the law

The WARN Act requires that federal contractors give 60 days’ notice before a mass layoff or plant closing. Employers who do not give notice are liable for employees’ back pay and benefits as well as additional penalties. With defense-related spending cuts set to start on January 2, 2013, defense contractors should have issued notice by November 2, 2012 (just four days before the presidential election). Yet, the Department of Labor instructed defense contractors not to issue notice for layoffs due to sequestration until after the election—and assured them they would be reimbursed with taxpayer funds for any subsequent liability for violating the law.

One of the Constitution’s strongest features is its simplicity. It doesn’t serve as a laundry list of rights, as many modern constitutions attempt to do. Instead, it lays out a governing framework, divides power among three co-equal branches, and protects Americans from having their rights usurped by an overreaching government.

But for the Constitution to survive the next quarter-millennium, we need leaders who are dedicated to maintaining it, not stretching it to suit their immediate political needs.
Click to expand...

http://dailysignal.com/2013/09/17/morning-bell-5-ways-obama-has-trampled-the-constitution/

More:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428882/obama-violate-constitution-top-ten-2015

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...ck-on-the-constitution-part-1-immigration.php

Good enough for you? Now, please explain, in specifics, how these are not violations. Thanks.
 
Sdeev said:
No, it can't because the SC has the authority to review laws and legislative acts (through... you guessed it Marbury v. Madison) and they have the power to deem unconstitutional laws..unconstitutional.

What do you mean by "ancient" laws? You think modern laws supersede ancient laws because they are old? I am not understanding your reasoning here...

We have this thing called checks and balances in the U.S. Remember that.
Click to expand...

The constitution can be amended.

As you pointed out everything has checks and balances including the SC.

Thats one of the points Scalia loved to make when he ruled against something he was opposed to, like gay marriage.

The court has been defacto making laws through new rulings therefore usurping functions of Congress, because Congress cant really get its shit together.
 
EvilWasLittle said:
http://dailysignal.com/2013/09/17/morning-bell-5-ways-obama-has-trampled-the-constitution/

More:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428882/obama-violate-constitution-top-ten-2015

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...ck-on-the-constitution-part-1-immigration.php

Good enough for you? Now, please explain, in specifics, how these are not violations. Thanks.
Click to expand...

That's all opinion from right wing news sites. Show me a case in a court that showed any of those actions to be illegal. Of course, all this is ignoring the fact that you said, "they", referring to all people who don't hold your political beliefs in this country. Thereby making your post meaningless and impossible to support since, "they" didn't so anything to you.
 
It'd be nice if he nominated justices that got the gay marriage ruling overturned, but I'm afraid that's a battle conservatives have surrendered.
 
Ruth Bader-Ginsberg is old as dirt and said she wants to leave America and move to New Zealand, so that'd mean TWO SCOTUS Justices! Trumpmendous!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,619
Messages
55,430,935
Members
174,776
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top