America - The Official Thread

[FoolKiller]

I don't think they are that confident - & what if the new Republican President is Trump? How could they be sure that a President Trump wouldn't nominate Gary Busey ... or Meatloaf?

Then why attempt to put off a nomination until after the election?

And Trump wouldn't be able to do anything of that nature, since the Senate must confirm the nomination.

 

[Keef]

I think I'd rather have somebody with a basic grasp of morality rather than somebody who knows all about judicial precedent. In fact, I think we need to overturn whatever that court case was that cemented the Supreme Court's oligarchical position over constitutional interpretation.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Your point?

Like, they don 't routinely do that now?

Never in an election year, which was the whole point of the 1960 resolution. Scalia's death, though tragic, can illustrate how the court can operate with only 8 Justices:

- There are up to 14 outstanding decisions (according to FantasySCOTUS) that Scalia voted in that hasn't been published by the court. His vote in each of those decisions are now void. This means that any preliminary votes that Scalia may have told any of the other Justices of his intent are now invalid and have no legal standing.

- IF, prior to his death, the result of those votes were anything above 6-3, those decisions would stand as the "law of the land". However, if the result of those votes would be 5-4, and would cause a 4-4 tie, the appellate court's decision would stand, but not be formally adopted by the Supreme Court. This means that the court could hear any particular case a second time once Scalia's replacement is confirmed by the Senate.

Cases that could be affected are Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case arguing against mandatory union fees, and two cases out of Texas, one involving Affirmative Action in at the University of Texas, and another trying to strike down Texas's anti-abortion law.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...up-deadlocked-4-4-on-a-case-heres-the-answer/

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I will grant that up until vaguely 30 years ago, the Senate was pretty good about filling voids in an order that varied from liberal to conservative, averaging out as necessary, without regards to packing the court too much one way or another. Despite biased changes to that process, why does a Republican-majority Senate trouble you? Is a moderate really the worst-case scenario?

I am not troubled by a Republican Senate, quite the opposite. My worry is that President Obama will choose another liberal for the court. My guess is that it will be someone that he appointed to a lower court. Someone that has already been confirmed by the Senate, so he will have more leverage to have that person confirmed to go to the Supreme Court.

I don't think they are that confident - & what if the new Republican President is Trump? How could they be sure that a President Trump wouldn't nominate Gary Busey ... or Meatloaf?

Trump could do better than those two.

 

[Pupik]

I am not troubled by a Republican Senate, quite the opposite.

I meant, if they hold sway in the ultimate nomination, why worry?

Or you know, hire on merit.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I meant, if they hold sway in the ultimate nomination, why worry?

Or you know, hire on merit.

Republicans have always liked their justices to interpret the Constitution, not make make law from the bench. By, hopefully, having a Republican President, they can cut the fat out of the whole nomination process, while maintaining court balance (4 republicans, 4 democrats, and one swing vote)

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I meant, if they hold sway in the ultimate nomination, why worry?

My worry is that President Obama will choose another liberal and the Republican Senate will cave. They don't exactly have a stellar record of standing up to the man.

Even if the Republicans stand their ground, I wouldn't put anything past this President. A recess appointment, or a January 2017 appointment after the Senate adjournes comes to mind.

 

[Pupik]

Republicans have always liked their justices to interpret the Constitution, not make make law from the bench. By, hopefully, having a Republican President, they can cut the fat out of the whole nomination process, while maintaining court balance (4 republicans, 4 democrats, and one swing vote)

I don't mind the balance, to which I'm socially liberal and fiscally more conservative (although probably not purely so on either side).

The reasoning behind judges helping to re-write law is touchy. For one, the judicial process is backed up, that waiting to see if a re-written law or vague ruling is valid might take even longer.

Sitting from my armchair, if a law takes another 2-3 years to be hammered out properly, and reviewed once more, then the process seems to be taking its course over time. But I'd say those who need a decisive ruling after already waiting years on further decision, that might be construed as a "broken" system.

I don't buy the excuse that there's too much going on politically to get another judge in office. At last check, a handful of candidates are in the running for the Oval Office, and another handful are prepping their resumes for the veep job. The rest can do the jobs we've elected and expected them to do.

 

[squadops]

I don't mind the balance, to which I'm socially liberal and fiscally more conservative (although probably not purely so on either side).

The reasoning behind judges helping to re-write law is touchy. For one, the judicial process is backed up, that waiting to see if a re-written law or vague ruling is valid might take even longer.

Most Americans like a bit of gridlock, nothing is sometimes something and that is why our powers are usually split by voter intent.

.....

I disagree with your second point and I omitted the rest as I have nothing to say in particular. A backed up system is no excuse for an improper use of the system.(it's why I said the court has to much power imo )

 

[Crash]

- Any attempt by Obama to fill Scalia's seat while the Senate is in recess will fail. According to the research arm of the Washington Post, in 1960, the Democrat Senate passed Resolution S.RES.334

That resolution was, very importantly, non-binding, and also specifically for recess appointments. If Obama nominates someone on one of these days while the Senate is in recess, then that resolution would be relevant (though non-binding). If Obama nominates someone while the Senate is in session, which there are numerous more days of in 2016, then that resolution is completely irrelevant.

Is there a maximum amount of time whereby a new associate justice must be nominated?

No.

I don't think they are that confident - & what if the new Republican President is Trump? How could they be sure that a President Trump wouldn't nominate Gary Busey ... or Meatloaf?

Trump could, but I highly doubt the Senate would confirm Gary Busey or Meatloaf.

Never in an election year, which was the whole point of the 1960 resolution.

Not true. Anthony Kennedy was nominated in late 1987 and confirmed by the Senate in early 1988, during an election year. And Kennedy was the most recent of other election year Supreme Court nominations or confirmations.

 

[Joel]

Trump could, but I highly doubt the Senate would confirm Gary Busey or Meatloaf.

They would do anything for Trump but they won't do that?

 

[DK]

Apple have ordered by the courts to develop a special version of iOS to allow the FBI to decrypt all of the data on the iPhone of Syed Farook. Apple have since released this statement.

 

[mustafur]

The constitution really doesn't seem to mean anything to these vultures.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The constitution really doesn't seem to mean anything to these vultures.

Quite right, it's good to see Apple holding out against them.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Obama to skip Justice Scalia's funeral. Media believes he will go golfing:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ule-out-obama-golfing-during-scalias-funeral/

 

[TenEightyOne]

Obama to skip Justice Scalia's funeral. Media believes he will go golfing:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ule-out-obama-golfing-during-scalias-funeral/

So what? It's not mandatory for a President/VP to attend as history proves.

Of more concern to me was this statement;

the president will pay his respects at the Supreme Court on Friday and he'll be joined with the first lady when he does that.

Now that would be an interesting press opportunity.

 

[DK]

Is there a specific funeral arrangement for Supreme Court Justices who've died during their tenure? The first thought I had in my head when I heard Obama wasn't attending was the possibility that Scalia mightn't have invited him.

 

[Sanji Himura]

So what? It's not mandatory for a President/VP to attend as history proves.

When the last Chief Justice died back in 2005, not only did President Bush attended the funeral, but he delivered the eulogy as well.

For someone who campaigned in 2008 to be against Bush's policies, doing things like this is not going to win the next Democratic candidate many votes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

For someone who campaigned in 2008 to be against Bush's policies, doing things like this is not going to win the next Democratic candidate many votes.

Perhaps so, but Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any President ever... despite having not attended the funerals of two SCJs.

 

[CodeRedR51]

*Sigh*

http://www.projectq.us/atlanta/Georgia_Senate_passes_sweeping_anti-gay_bill?gid=17608

 

[Johnnypenso]

Perhaps so, but Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any President ever... despite having not attended the funerals of two SCJs.

I heard cigar sales were at their peak when he left office too. You never know what people find important or relevant.

 

[Crash]

They would do anything for Trump but they won't do that?

If they do so, Senators might just fear that their constituents will vote them out like a Bat Out of Hell.

 

[Liquid]

If they do so, Senators might just fear that their constituents will vote them out like a Bat Out of Hell.

Whenever Trump talks it's a case of You Put The Foot Right Into My Mouth

 

[TenEightyOne]

Whenever Trump talks it's a case of You Put The Foot Right Into My Mouth

Surely Bad Attitude, or Hell in a Handbasket? Maybe even Los Angeloser in time...

 

[Sanji Himura]

Suspicious package found at the Joint Reserve Base here in Fort Worth, and the base is on lock down for the past four hours. According to the base's Facebook page, the package was reported at 9:20am local time, and the Naval Security forces, the 301st Fighter Wing Explosive Ordnance Disposal team and Fort Worth Police Department Explosive Ordnance Disposal team have responded to the package, and is ordered to be on lock down until further notice.

The base is home to a Federal Women's prison where it housed Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme. Fromme, is known as one of the followers of Charles Manson, who attempted to assassinate U.S. President Gerald Ford in 1975. Fromme was released on parole in 2009.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Melissa Harris-Perry, a journalist who "sees" a racist bogeyman in every corner (she once argued that Star Wars as a whole is racist because "Darth Vader was black" [Note: Darth Vader was originally portrayed by a Scotsman, but the decision to use James Earl Jones as a voice over was made during post production]), was fired this week by MSNBC for calling her bosses racist who wanted to preempt her show in favour of reporting actual news three weeks ago. You see, Ms. Perry wanted to cover the Beyonce Super Bowl show three weeks ago, and she voiced her displeasure by way of an email to her staff.

Here is the full email:

Dearest Nerds,

As you know by now, my name appears on the weekend schedule for MSNBC programming from South Carolina this Saturday and Sunday. I appreciate that many of you responded to this development with relief and enthusiasm. To know that you have missed working with me even a fraction of how much I’ve missed working with all of you is deeply moving. However, as of this morning, I do not have any intention of hosting this weekend. Because this is a decision that affects all of you, I wanted to take a moment to explain my reasoning.

Some unknown decision-maker, presumably Andy Lack or Phil Griffin, has added my name to this spreadsheet, but nothing has changed in the posture of the MSNBC leadership team toward me or toward our show. Putting me on air seems to be a decision being made solely to save face because there is a growing chorus of questions from our viewers about my notable absence from MSNBC coverage. Social media has noted the dramatic change in editorial tone and racial composition of MSNBC’s on-air coverage. In addition, Dylan Byers of CNN has made repeated inquiries with MSNBC’s leadership and with me about the show and what appears to be its cancellation. I have not responded to reporters or social media inquiries. However, I am not willing to appear on air in order to quell concerns about the disappearance of our show and our voice.

Here is the reality: our show was taken — without comment or discussion or notice — in the midst of an election season. After four years of building an audience, developing a brand, and developing trust with our viewers, we were effectively and utterly silenced. Now, MSNBC would like me to appear for four inconsequential hours to read news that they deem relevant without returning to our team any of the editorial control and authority that makes MHP Show distinctive.

The purpose of this decision seems to be to provide cover for MSNBC, not to provide voice for MHP Show. I will not be used as a tool for their purposes. I am not a token, mammy, or little brown bobble head. I am not owned by Lack, Griffin, or MSNBC. I love our show. I want it back. I have wept more tears than I can count and I find this deeply painful, but I don’t want back on air at any cost. I am only willing to return when that return happens under certain terms.



Undoubtedly, television nurtures the egos of those of us who find ourselves in front of bright lights and big cameras. I am sure ego is informing my own pain in this moment, but there is a level of professional decency, respect, and communication that has been denied this show for years. And the utter insulting absurdity of the past few weeks exceeds anything I can countenance.
I have stayed in the same hotels where MSNBC has been broadcasting in Iowa, in New Hampshire, and in South Carolina, yet I have been shut out from coverage. I have a PhD in political science and have taught American voting and elections at some of the nation’s top universities for nearly two decades, yet I have been deemed less worthy to weigh in than relative novices and certified liars. I have hosted a weekly program on this network for four years and contributed to election coverage on this network for nearly eight years, but no one on the third floor has even returned an email, called me, or initiated or responded to any communication of any kind from me for nearly a month. It is profoundly hurtful to realize that I work for people who find my considerable expertise and editorial judgment valueless to the coverage they are creating.

While MSNBC may believe that I am worthless, I know better. I know who I am. I know why MHP Show is unique and valuable. I will not sell short myself or this show. I am not hungry for empty airtime. I care only about substantive, meaningful, and autonomous work. When we can do that, I will return — not a moment earlier. I am deeply sorry for the ways that this decision makes life harder for all of you. You mean more to me than you can imagine.

Yours always,

Melissa

 

[Johnnypenso]

Melissa Harris-Perry, a journalist who "sees" a racist bogeyman in every corner (she once argued that Star Wars as a whole is racist because "Darth Vader was black" [Note: Darth Vader was originally portrayed by a Scotsman, but the decision to use James Earl Jones as a voice over was made during post production]), was fired this week by MSNBC for calling her bosses racist who wanted to preempt her show in favour of reporting actual news three weeks ago. You see, Ms. Perry wanted to cover the Beyonce Super Bowl show three weeks ago, and she voiced her displeasure by way of an email to her staff.

Here is the full email:

She's the one that mocked Mitt Romney's black grandchild and objected to the use of the term "hard worker" because it somehow had a link to picking cotton. MSNBC is swinging back to the political centre now as it's ratings continue to decline in the midst of it's mostly leftist agenda in recent years. Perry just gave them an easy excuse to fire her by refusing to do her job and by playing the race card. Good riddance I say.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Random quote: "[t]he power to make the necessary laws is in Congress; the power to execute in the President." - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

 

[Dennisch]

LAPD Investigating After Knife Found Buried on Former O.J. Simpson Property.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Ohio Supreme Court rules that 59 year old Romell Bloom, the only person in US History to have survived a botched lethal injection execution attempt (and the second person in US history to survive a botched execution), can be executed again in a 4-3 ruling. Bloom survived the attempted execution in 2009 after two hours and 18 attempts to find a suitable vein before state officials called off the attempt. Bloom, in his case before the Supreme Court, argued that a second attempt amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and double jeopardy, an argument that the court rejected.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-put-inmate-to-death-after-botched-execution/