1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

RIP Antonin Scalia

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Steak Snabler, Feb 13, 2016.

  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

  2. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Bush was running for reelection and could have had four more years. Obama cannot and does not.

    That's one difference right there.
     
  3. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Agreed. And I don't blame the GOP for the attempt. But just say:

    "We think this vacancy is too important for President Obama to appoint a left-leaning jurist to replace the revered Antonin Scalia, so we are going to refuse to hold hearings until after the election. That will give the American people the chance to elect a president who will nominate a justice who respects the intent of our Founding Fathers!"

    Don't act like Obama is pulling a sneaky, political end around. You're the ones doing that. He's doing what he is supposed to do.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2016
  4. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

  5. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Nah. Obama is doing exactly what he should do in making a nomination. It's not his fault that his own party and his own VP played politics with SC nominees way back in the day.
     
  6. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Played politics with who? Mr. Saturday Night Massacre?
     
  7. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    The Biden Doctrine is inapplicable because the facts show that neither he nor anyone else ever ignored their Constitutional duty and refused to hold confirmation hearings for 10 mos simply on basis of waiting for a new president.
     
  8. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    None of which was in the link you previously posted. Nor did Tapper mention it.

    Dems talked about impeaching Bush.

    There will be talk of impeaching whoever the next president is.

    But, it wasn't congressional leaders who were talking about it, and no steps toward doing it were ever taken by congressional leadership.

    Obama, and you, are tearing down a straw man. Congratulations.
     
  9. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    The difference, again, is that Obama challenged them on it, after years of them screeching about it, and then the Republicans blamed him for all the impeachment talk.

    Just like they're blaming him now for "politicizing" his nomination, when in reality, he's doing his job and he nominated someone that several of them have already said is qualified.
     
  10. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Then why not just vote him down? Unless a vote by the members of the democratically Elected Senate was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. And unless DaVinci took their picture with Jesus, at the Last Supper, I don't see why their legislative intent is relevant where the clear language of the Constiution is not vague but unmistakably clear. Unless the REPUBLICANS don't think Scalia was correct in his legal interpretation analysis over the last 50 years.
     
  11. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Because I think fallback position A is to vote him in during the lame duck session if Hillary wins -- unless Obama withdraws him first.
     
  12. swingline

    swingline Well-Known Member

    Because, Kentucky.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page