Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[AiliailiA]

That's the expression Republicans themselves used to describe the refusal to raise the debt ceiling. It wasn't literally a shutdown ... that would be the cessation of all government activities and Congress doesn't have the power to do that unless they can pass bills over the President's veto. Which obviously Republicans couldn't at the time (or now for that matter).

So neither of these is literally a shutdown. Blah, what boring word play.

The Republicans also admitted the debt ceiling was worse than a shut down.

But honestly if debt ceilings and shutdowns which actually effected large numbers of people did not turn the tide against the republicans I doubt refusing to consent to a scotus appointee would have any effect against them.

I sort of agree. It probably won't be a major issue in the elections.

This week it's bad news for Republicans, though. Without gloating about the actual death, we can have a chuckle about how badly the R candidates are handling it can't we?

[Greed and Death]

If he appoints a clearly liberal justice they will just vote him no on the grounds his views on X are known.

whats the process? Does it go to the senate judiciary committee first? or does it go to the full senate? Can McConnell just not schedule a hearing?

Judiciary committee first, that is where the candidate is asked the questions. Once they approve it goes to the full senate.

The process takes 1-2 months as the Senate fits them into their schedule. The committee can vote no, table hearings, or otherwise not move the candidate forward.

The whole Senate can filibuster or vote no.

[Godular]

The current GOP candidates are in the far-right corner of the spectrum. Much further right than the last election, I'll pass.

I am sorry you will lose abortion rights and SSM rights.
But my right to bear arms, be free from affirmative action in university admissions, and right to be free of union dues take more precedence than those.

IF you could only propose a candidate who would protect those rights I cherish perhaps your rights could be saved as well.

I'm curious how union dues and affirmative action constitute a violation of your rights on par with the ability to marry or the ability to control your own body.

[Ethel mermania]

in the real world, people advocate for their interests. get use to it.

People can advocate for their interests. Doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

The simple fact is the constitution would have to be amended to get rid of gun rights. All a liberal SCOTUS can do is uphold regulations on the kinds of guns you can buy. Not being able to buy an AR-15 is an inconvenience. Not being able to marry is a travesty.

he is not gay, he wants a AR-15.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

People can advocate for their interests. Doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

The simple fact is the constitution would have to be amended to get rid of gun rights. All a liberal SCOTUS can do is uphold regulations on the kinds of guns you can buy. Not being able to buy an AR-15 is an inconvenience. Not being able to marry is a travesty.

he is not gay, he wants a AR-15.

And avoiding his inconvenience should somehow supersede avoiding oppressing an entire group? Just because injustice doesn't affect you doesn't give you the right to ignore it.

For the record, I'm not a lesbian.

[Washington Resistance Army]

in the real world, people advocate for their interests. get use to it.

People can advocate for their interests. Doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

The simple fact is the constitution would have to be amended to get rid of gun rights. All a liberal SCOTUS can do is uphold regulations on the kinds of guns you can buy. Not being able to buy an AR-15 is an inconvenience. Not being able to marry is a travesty.

Not being able to buy an AR most certainly is a travesty.

[Ethel mermania]

whats the process? Does it go to the senate judiciary committee first? or does it go to the full senate? Can McConnell just not schedule a hearing?

Judiciary committee first, that is where the candidate is asked the questions. Once they approve it goes to the full senate.

The process takes 1-2 months as the Senate fits them into their schedule. The committee can vote no, table hearings, or otherwise not move the candidate forward.

The whole Senate can filibuster or vote no.

does the senate get to ask more questions, or is it schedule a debate and vote? (which could either not be done or filibustered)

[Greed and Death]

I am sorry you will lose abortion rights and SSM rights.
But my right to bear arms, be free from affirmative action in university admissions, and right to be free of union dues take more precedence than those.

IF you could only propose a candidate who would protect those rights I cherish perhaps your rights could be saved as well.

do lawyers have a union? are you thinking of going back to school? seems to me the only right that you might be worried about there is the right to bear arms. youll probably still be able to shoot coyotes while jogging no matter who is on the court.

In some govnerment jobs yes, they like to form them when budget cuts are coming since it makes it more difficult to lay off or cut pay for attorneys in the department that unionized since it might be viewed as retaliation for unionizing. That's why Teachers normally bear the brunt of Layoffs they are not a newly formed union.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

People can advocate for their interests. Doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

The simple fact is the constitution would have to be amended to get rid of gun rights. All a liberal SCOTUS can do is uphold regulations on the kinds of guns you can buy. Not being able to buy an AR-15 is an inconvenience. Not being able to marry is a travesty.

Not being able to buy an AR most certainly is a travesty.

You can kill an intruder just as easily (many would argue even more easily) with a 9mm. A bolt action, .30-06 hunting rifle will kill a deer just as (if not more) efficiently than an AR-15. You don't need an AR-15 to hunt or defend yourself.

[Ethel mermania]

he is not gay, he wants a AR-15.

And avoiding his inconvenience should somehow supersede avoiding oppressing an entire group? Just because injustice doesn't affect you doesn't give you the right to ignore it.

we will try this again

in the real world, people advocate for their interests. get use to it.

[Myrensis]

That's the expression Republicans themselves used to describe the refusal to raise the debt ceiling. It wasn't literally a shutdown ... that would be the cessation of all government activities and Congress doesn't have the power to do that unless they can pass bills over the President's veto. Which obviously Republicans couldn't at the time (or now for that matter).

So neither of these is literally a shutdown. Blah, what boring word play.

The Republicans also admitted the debt ceiling was worse than a shut down.

But honestly if debt ceilings and shutdowns which actually effected large numbers of people did not turn the tide against the republicans I doubt refusing to consent to a scotus appointee would have any effect against them.

The shutdown battle was over a year before the election, and it was a midterm with historically low turnout and an electoral map that heavily favored the Republicans.

This is a Presidential election year which means higher turnout, Republicans have more seats vulnerable, and they will be fighting this battle throughout the duration of the election season with the Democrats calling them out on it every step of the way.

Yes American voters have the attention span of a goldfish, but for the Republicans to achieve their goal here they have to remind them of what they're doing every single day from now until at least November 9th.

[Greed and Death]

Judiciary committee first, that is where the candidate is asked the questions. Once they approve it goes to the full senate.

The process takes 1-2 months as the Senate fits them into their schedule. The committee can vote no, table hearings, or otherwise not move the candidate forward.

The whole Senate can filibuster or vote no.

does the senate get to ask more questions, or is it schedule a debate and vote? (which could either not be done or filibustered)

Its normally debate.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

And avoiding his inconvenience should somehow supersede avoiding oppressing an entire group? Just because injustice doesn't affect you doesn't give you the right to ignore it.

we will try this again

in the real world, people advocate for their interests. get use to it.

Yes, your right. People advocate for their interests. And I am allowed to oppose those interests and think they are short-sighted and wrong for pursuing them over more pressing matters. Get used to it.

[Greed and Death]

in the real world, people advocate for their interests. get use to it.

People can advocate for their interests. Doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

The simple fact is the constitution would have to be amended to get rid of gun rights. All a liberal SCOTUS can do is uphold regulations on the kinds of guns you can buy. Not being able to buy an AR-15 is an inconvenience. Not being able to marry is a travesty.

Speaking of being wrong.

You know that Assault weapons like the AR-15 are actually small caliber.

[Ethel mermania]

we will try this again

in the real world, people advocate for their interests. get use to it.

Yes, your right. People advocate for their interests. And I am allowed to oppose those interests and think they are short-sighted and wrong for pursuing them over more pressing matters. Get used to it.

thats lovely. they think the same of your opinion about AR-15's, and they are entitled too.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not being able to buy an AR most certainly is a travesty.

You can kill an intruder just as easily (many would argue even more easily) with a 9mm. A bolt action, .30-06 hunting rifle will kill a deer just as (if not more) efficiently than an AR-15. You don't need an AR-15 to hunt or defend yourself.

Yes I'm well aware I can use a 9mm easier which is why I carry a Glock and keep it loaded at home. I don't plan to use an AR to hunt (given I don't hunt at all) but there are plenty of things I do use rifles for. I see things like Assault Weapon Bans and other such nonsense as a travesty just like you do with LGBT's not being able to marry.

Like Ethel said, in the real world people advocate for their interests.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

People can advocate for their interests. Doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

The simple fact is the constitution would have to be amended to get rid of gun rights. All a liberal SCOTUS can do is uphold regulations on the kinds of guns you can buy. Not being able to buy an AR-15 is an inconvenience. Not being able to marry is a travesty.

Speaking of being wrong.

You know that Assault weapons like the AR-15 are actually small caliber.

Yes I am well aware that 5.56 x 45mm NATO is a small caliber round compared to the 9mm fired by many handguns. 5.56 x 45mm NATO, however, can be considered a "high powered" round in the sense that it travels at a higher velocity than other rounds, and causes much more internal damage to the target due to tumbling. I am not comparing it to .50 BMG or other such full-caliber rifle rounds, although I am sure you could find a .50 BMG-compatable upper and lower receiver for your assault-style weapon, if you looked hard enough. You already have .50 Beowulf. Thats not the point. The point is you can live without your AR-15. You do not need your AR-15. Gays need marriage certificates to be on equal footing with straights.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Yes, your right. People advocate for their interests. And I am allowed to oppose those interests and think they are short-sighted and wrong for pursuing them over more pressing matters. Get used to it.

thats lovely. they think the same of your opinion about AR-15's, and they are entitled too.

So its perfectly OK for me to advocate for my interests while they advocate for theirs.

[Ethel mermania]

does the senate get to ask more questions, or is it schedule a debate and vote? (which could either not be done or filibustered)

Its normally debate.

thanx

[Greed and Death]

he is not gay, he wants a AR-15.

And avoiding his inconvenience should somehow supersede avoiding oppressing an entire group? Just because injustice doesn't affect you doesn't give you the right to ignore it.

For the record, I'm not a lesbian.

My view is that I should get my AR-15 and gay people should be able to marry. Since I've been forced to choose I pick the right I am actually interested in exercising.

[Ethel mermania]

thats lovely. they think the same of your opinion about AR-15's, and they are entitled too.

So its perfectly OK for me to advocate for my interests while they advocate for theirs.

correct. that part you are not getting is that their interests are just as valid as yours. People support what is important to them, not what your notion of right and wrong is.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

And avoiding his inconvenience should somehow supersede avoiding oppressing an entire group? Just because injustice doesn't affect you doesn't give you the right to ignore it.

For the record, I'm not a lesbian.

My view is that I should get my AR-15 and gay people should be able to marry. Since I've been forced to choose I pick the right I am actually interested in exercising.

Which is, quite frankly, rather selfish. I, personally, would also rather have both. But that doesn't change the fact that you have no need of owning an AR-15, while a gay person does have a need to get married.

[Lady Scylla]

The current GOP candidates are in the far-right corner of the spectrum. Much further right than the last election, I'll pass.

I am sorry you will lose abortion rights and SSM rights.
But my right to bear arms, be free from affirmative action in university admissions, and right to be free of union dues take more precedence than those.

IF you could only propose a candidate who would protect those rights I cherish perhaps your rights could be saved as well.

I've read some pretty cuntish things on NS but that took the cake. Congrats.

[Lady Scylla]

I am sorry you will lose abortion rights and SSM rights.
But my right to bear arms, be free from affirmative action in university admissions, and right to be free of union dues take more precedence than those.

IF you could only propose a candidate who would protect those rights I cherish perhaps your rights could be saved as well.

So let me get this straight, you think your right to buy a super-high powered assault rifle that your never really going to need for much anyway is much more important than gays and lesbians being treated like normal couples? Im sorry, but I think its more important that the right to marriage is expanded than you get to play with a glorified deadly toy.

Don't feed it, the entire point of that post was to get a rise out of its target. He's not worth the oxygen and energy. Moving on.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I am sorry you will lose abortion rights and SSM rights.
But my right to bear arms, be free from affirmative action in university admissions, and right to be free of union dues take more precedence than those.

IF you could only propose a candidate who would protect those rights I cherish perhaps your rights could be saved as well.

I've read some pretty cuntish things on NS but that took the cake. Congrats.

*** Warned for trolling ***