NY compliant AR's & AK's

[The_Field_Ager]

LOL!!

 

I just heard Liberals are having a fit because Garland is white!

 

Maybe they'll sink his ship for us.

 

You can't make this stuff up.

 

The problem is Liberals have a tendency to burn the whole house down if they don't get their way, with you and I still inside.

[philoshop]

Garland is considered a 'moderate'. But he's still a moderate Liberal.

He was appointed to the Federal bench by Bill Clinton, and he's now being nominated by Obama. Need I say more?

[Elmo]

Just read it again…You're right

 

I'm just going by what was written.  We all know the politicians can and will spin it to which ever way they feel like.

[ants]

They're all slowly capitulating on this now. That is what the GOP does these days, caves in. Historically it is very rare to have a Judge nominated in an election year. It would be quite normal to have the nomination denied.

A Judge hasn't been confirmed, during a lame duck term, in over 80 years. And while this nominee is considered a "moderate" people should look at his 2nd amendment record.

[philoshop]

An internet 'friend' of mine nailed it precisely: This is a game of "liars poker", and the Democrats are better at it.

[Huntscreek]

This election is more about Judges for me than a 4 yr term president. Its going to set the tone for generations, we need to put conservative's on the bench. So we need to win in November. If you think we have it bad here in NY with Safe Act, imagine what's to come if Hillary wins. I think sending Garland a message that his past has caught up with him is justice. If we ever want a chance of getting heard and repealing safe act, we need to win.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Huntscreek

[BellR]

A Judge hasn't been confirmed, during a lame duck term, in over 80 years.

 

Well, you're wrong.  There is no other way of going about that.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

 

Justices confirmed in the last year of a presidency (which isn't considered a "Lame Duck", that is when a new president is elected but hasn't taken office):

1. Oliver Ellsworth, 1796
2. Samuel Chase, 1796
3. William Johnson, 1804
4. Philip Barbour, 1836
5. Roger Taney, 1836
6. Melville Fuller, 1888
7. Lucius Lamar, 1888
8. George Shiras, 1892
9. Mahlon Pitney, 1912
10. John Clarke, 1916
11. Louis Brandeis, 1916
12. Benjamin Cardozo, 1932
13. Frank Murphy, 1940
14. Anthony Kennedy, 1988

So, there actually is a LONG history of this happening.  Really, try to actually look up statistics before you go saying things that are completely wrong.  It makes you look like you are either ignorant or a liar. 

 

Not saying that I agree with the appointment, but the lies need to stop.  Plus, aren't the hardline conservatives who are opposing this always complaining about "creative interpretation" of the Constitution and not reading more into it than was actually written? Why then are those same people making up criteria that don't exist in the constitution when it suits their needs?  There's a word for that... it starts with "Hippo" and ends with "crate".

Edited March 17, 2016 by BellR

[The_Field_Ager]

 

 

Justices confirmed in the last year of a presidency (which isn't considered a "Lame Duck", that is when a new president is elected but hasn't taken office):

 

 

 

There are a couple of definitions for the lame-duck period:

 

 

 

lame duck

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

noun

1.

an elected official or group of officials, as a legislator, continuing inoffice during the period between an election defeat and a successor'sassumption of office.

2.

a president who is completing a term of office and chooses not to run or is ineligible to run for reelection.

 

I don't see how 14 appointments in 220 years constitutes a 'long history' during these periods.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Papist

[BellR]

I don't see how 14 appointments in 220 years constitutes a 'long history' during these periods.

 

Really?  The 10th justice appointed from the beginning of the supreme court all the way to the 9th from the end, as well as a dozen in between?  You don't see that as a long history? 

 

Show me a 14 times that the Senate refused to consider an appointment because it was an election year.  I'll wait...

Edited March 17, 2016 by BellR

[ants]

Well, you're wrong.  There is no other way of going about that.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

 

Justices confirmed in the last year of a presidency (which isn't considered a "Lame Duck", that is when a new president is elected but hasn't taken office):

1. Oliver Ellsworth, 1796
2. Samuel Chase, 1796
3. William Johnson, 1804
4. Philip Barbour, 1836
5. Roger Taney, 1836
6. Melville Fuller, 1888
7. Lucius Lamar, 1888
8. George Shiras, 1892
9. Mahlon Pitney, 1912
10. John Clarke, 1916
11. Louis Brandeis, 1916
12. Benjamin Cardozo, 1932
13. Frank Murphy, 1940
14. Anthony Kennedy, 1988

So, there actually is a LONG history of this happening.  Really, try to actually look up statistics before you go saying things that are completely wrong.  It makes you look like you are either ignorant or a liar. 

 

Not saying that I agree with the appointment, but the lies need to stop.  Plus, aren't the hardline conservatives who are opposing this always complaining about "creative interpretation" of the Constitution and not reading more into it than was actually written? Why then are those same people making up criteria that don't exist in the constitution when it suits their needs?  There's a word for that... it starts with "Hippo" and ends with "crate".

I admit you're right. I should have checked it out further…But as far as me lying????? nope. I failed to look it up further. Your two latest examples are from 1988 and 1940…Would you admit that such appointments are rare??

[BellR]

Yep, definitely.  Justice appointments at all are fairly rare as well, and then you throw into the loop the conditions of happening to fall on an election year and you see why there have only been a few.  I don't fault you particularly, but I have heard that statement repeated so much over the last few weeks that its staggering. 

[The_Field_Ager]

Really?  The 10th justice appointed from the beginning of the supreme court all the way to the 9th from the end, as well as a dozen in between?  You don't see that as a long history? 

 

Show me a 14 times that the Senate refused to consider an appointment because it was an election year.  I'll wait...

 

 

Note how 99% of the appointment you presented for us are pre WW2. Politics changed dramatically after this period. It makes little sense to  attempt to see all of political history as a contiguous flow of sentiment and practice.Post WW2 style politics, which we still enjoy today, has elected a massive 1 justice to-date. It is no longer the common practice it was way way back in the mists of time. This becomes obvious when one looks at the massive divergence of time between appointments pre and post ww2. It is simply disingenuous to look all the way back in time. It hasn't been 1796 for a very long time. Politically, and socially it's hard to give too much weight to events that occurred before most of our great-great-grandparents were born. The political culture is a different animal today versus before WW2.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Papist

[BellR]

Note how 99% of the appointment you presented for us are pre WW2. Politics changed dramatically after this period. It is comparing apples to oranges to attempt to see all of political history as a contiguous flow of sentiment and practice.Post WW2 style politics, which we still enjoy today, has elected a massive 1 justice to-date. It is no longer the common practice it was way way back in the mists of time. This becomes obvious when one looks at the massive divergence of time between appointments pre and post ww2. It is simply disingenuous to look all the way back in time. It hasn't been 1796 for a very long time.

 

So by your logic we shouldn't uphold any of the constitution or base our government on it because it was written before WW2?  That's seriously your position? 

[The_Field_Ager]

So by your logic we shouldn't uphold any of the constitution or base our government on it because it was written before WW2?  That's seriously your position? 

 

 

You've have missed the point by a country mile somehow. The culture of politics has changed since WW2. It has nothing to do with the Constitution. The lack of post WW2 appointments speaks to this loud and proud.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Papist

[Grouse]

I don't care about any of that.

 

I demand the Senate NEVER confirm any Supreme Court nominee that has ever voted against the Constitution.

 

I don't care what president nominates him, or when.

 

[BellR]

The constitution lays out how justices are appointed. Either you follow it, or you don't.  Tell me what I'm missing here. 

 

Just because you are scared that the justice appointed may not match your views is no reason to sabotage the process.  What happens when on the next nomination cycle the democrats refuse to consider an appointment for the last 2 years of a presidency?  There is as much precedent for that as for what you are supporting, yet somehow I would imagine you wouldn't support it so wholeheartedly.

 

The Democrats and Republicans both need to stop being obstructive and DO THEIR JOB.  Their job is clearly defined in the consitituion.  They are to approve or reject justices nominated by the president.  No where in there does it say they can just decide to not do it until they get a president they agree with.  If I refused to do my job I would be fired.  How come you are fine with them getting away with it?

 

I don't care about any of that.

 

I demand the Senate NEVER confirm any Supreme Court nominee that has ever voted against the Constitution.

 

I don't care what president nominates him, or when.

 

And that's a stance I can get behind.  Like I said, I don't support this nomination.

Edited March 17, 2016 by BellR

[The_Field_Ager]

The constitution lays out how justices are appointed. Either you follow it, or you don't.  

 

 

 

It says nothing about Reps having to accept or approve a Democratic nomination in a lame-Duck election year. Here is the full Constitutional text of the Appointment Clause:

 

 

 

[The President] shall have the 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 Councils, 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.

 

 

That's it. No words indicating the need to rush into any nomination at any given time. And as someone else has pointed out, where is the compulsion to use the Constitution to appoint anti-Constitutional judges? Makes no sense.The facts stand. Post WW2 lame duck appointments are as rare as hens teeth.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Papist

[BellR]

It also doesn't say anything about NOT having to consider appointments during lame duck years either, does it?

 

Would you be fine with a Democratic Senate refusing to consider any supreme court nomination for the full 4 years of a republican president?  It doesn't say they need to rush into a nomination at any given time and by your logic they can wait as long as they want. 

Edited March 17, 2016 by BellR

[The_Field_Ager]

It also doesn't say anything about NOT having to consider appointments during lame duck years either, does it?

 

 

 

You'll be chewing on your own tail next. Sounds like YOU are getting "creative" with your interpretation now. How ironic.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Papist

[Grouse]

What I want to know is how do we go about REMOVING Supreme Court Justices for violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution?  

 

Some of the rulings are so obviously in violation of the written word in the Constitution, it's treason.  If 5 Justices can find a "right" to gay marriage in the 14th Amendment, but not find an individual right to firearms ownership in the 2nd Amendment, those 5 Justices should be removed with extreme prejudice.

 

[The_Field_Ager]

What I want to know is how do we go about REMOVING Supreme Court Justices for violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution?  

 

 

 

This is a must bigger and more important question. Well spotted.

[Grouse]

It also doesn't say anything about NOT having to consider appointments during lame duck years either, does it?

 

Would you be fine with a Democratic Senate refusing to consider any supreme court nomination for the full 4 years of a republican president?  It doesn't say they need to rush into a nomination at any given time and by your logic they can wait as long as they want. 

 

This can be easily done by any Senate.  It's a signal to the President to appoint someone that they can support.  If a President keeps nominating Communists, Socialists or Terrorists, the Senate should never consider any of them.

[BellR]

What I want to know is how do we go about REMOVING Supreme Court Justices for violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution?  

 

Some of the rulings are so obviously in violation of the written word in the Constitution, it's treason.  If 5 Justices can find a "right" to gay marriage in the 14th Amendment, but not find an individual right to firearms ownership in the 2nd Amendment, those 5 Justices should be removed with extreme prejudice.

 

Section 1 of Article 3 of the Constitution says:

 

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

 

Justices can be impeached, and if they have been impeached they can be forced out.  It's not an easy process (it wasn't meant to be), but it is possible.  Actually getting it going is something you need to speak with your representatives about.  In the past, one justice has been impeached but not forced out, and one has stepped down due to impending impeachment, so it is possible.

Edited March 17, 2016 by BellR

[BellR]

You'll be chewing on your own tail next. Sounds like YOU are getting "creative" with your interpretation now. How ironic.

 

...still waiting for an actual response to the argument presented instead of a petty attempt to divert attention from the lack of platform...

 

This can be easily done by any Senate.  It's a signal to the President to appoint someone that they can support.  If a President keeps nominating Communists, Socialists or Terrorists, the Senate should never consider any of them.

 

So my question to Papist goes for you here as well... you would be okay with this? If the Democrats take control of the senate and the Republicans take control of the Presidency, would you be fine with the Democrats refusing to even consider ANY nominations until there was a Democrat president?  If Republicans can delay because they don't want to consider any candidates, then logically it should be okay for the Democrats to do the same thing correct?  And since as Papist has pointed out, the constitution doesn't give a time line it should be well within their rights to hold any potential nominations for 4-8 years or more, correct?

[The_Field_Ager]

...still waiting for an actual response to the argument presented 

 

 

Oh here we go. You come on here, Lording it over everyone , accusing people of being liars, pretending to be some kind of strict Constitutional expert. I provide 2/3 perfectly reasonable rebuttals to your views and now all of a sudden you have gone deaf or can no longer read. Take your BS off somewhere else. Another one for the ignore list.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Papist