New Opening On The Supreme Court.

Post Reply New Topic

/\ Oh, God----I hope that doesn't happen----Holder, are you kidding me!!

On the days I wasn't hating Scalia's decisions, I was loving them. I hope he is replaced with another Conservative, and that Mitch McConnell sits on this 'til 2017!

Well, if we ignore the many pages of irrelevant banter and return to the topic at hand...

Several sources are mentioning Sri Srinivasan (currently a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) as a highly likely pick by Obama as a nominee to fill the vacancy after Antonin Scalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan

And Srinivasan was previously (2011-2013) a Deputy Solicitor General of the United States... a position once held by John G. Roberts Jr. (1989-1993)... the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Since Sri Srinivasan was appointed unanimously with a 97-0 vote to his current position (and since McConnell, Cruz and Rubio all voted for Srinivasan's appointment to the DC circuit), it will put a lot of pressure on Mitch McConnell to bring the vote to the floor despite his current stance on the subject.

Obama can try to nominate whoever he wants, he isn't getting anybody thru.

They need 60 votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster, Republicans control 54 seats.

We will get to vote on the make up of the Supreme Court with our vote for president, simple as that. No pressure at all, Obama and the Democrats are really powerless here. They really can't do anything as long the GOP has the majority in the Senate. They're not going to win over the hearts and minds of the people, everyone knows the implications of this appointment. This will just further galvanize conservative voters who have turned out in record numbers so far this primary season.

How about a hand up instead of a hand out?

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

And then there are those that can and have worked but won't, which is what this was targeted for. The one's whose primary interest in anything liberal is how much free stuff they can get at the expense of others. This thread was doomed by yesterday evening, anyway.

After WWII many poor people in the U.S. moved north into ghettos. So many people needed relief that rules were put in place to better manage the situation. One of these rules was (and still is) that a woman with children could only get the relief she needed IF THE HUSBAND DID NOT LIVE WITH THE FAMILY. It didn't matter if the male had a job or not....
...and what do you expect this created? Roaming males, and poor women and their families permanently wedded instead, to the government "husband."

The truth is the government JUST DOESN'T KNOW (or care) what the unemployment rate of poor people is. I agree I've know many people who would take advantage of the system but I've known HUNDREDS more who were just in poverty, with no way out.

This is how the 1% tries to use our more fortunate against the poorest of us.

And next they allow millions of poor immigrants into the U.S. to slave for them. Immigrants sorely in need....and of course the 1% would deny them benefits....isn't that why they've been made illegal in the first place?

It's not a matter of being a "liberal" or a "conservative" but more just being human.

I've worked hard all my life so I certainly see your point and agree there are better methods to use that don't tear apart families. But there is also very high unemployment in many areas (our area here also)....30 to 50%, in the poorest of neighborhoods would be the blackest scenario. Government figures say overall unemployment is under 6% (what ever that's supposed to mean).

And all the time millions of undocumented economic refugees cross our borders to add to the millions already here (plus also H-1B workers), which puts, especially, the unskilled laborer (and even computer programmers and technicians) at a huge disadvantage.

This is just another corporate plan, using government control to provide workers for the machine. And I think you may agree they're quite successful.

Whoever is generating this anti-humanistic propaganda obviously doesn't give a crip about people.

And you mentioned: "And then there are those that can and have worked but won't, which is what this was targeted for." And I'd have to wonder who came up with the numbers to prove it's "won't" instead of what I believe to be the correct term "can't." If you can direct me to a study, please do. Thanks.

There's only so much you can teach though. The Right doesn't like to admit it, but not everybody is equal. The playing field is not level. Some people (myself included) are less capable than others, no matter how much we learn. If society doesn't step in to assist those such as myself, what would happen to us? Slow death on the street. If this is the case, then the Right might want to rethink abortion.

Shameless partisan bickering does that to a thread.

If I said any more I'd be in violation of the terms of use.

On the abortion issue, that only became a partisan matter when Ronny Raygun turned it into one (even though one of his Hollywood ex girlfriends claimed he had forced her to have an abortion). Prior to that, you had Republicans, who were strong adherents of eugenics, who were proponents of abortion, including Preston Bush, the father of George Herbert, and grandfather of George W.

Well, I think this every-man-for-himself attitude is counterproductive.

Wealthy people attribute their success to their character and believe enjoyment of the benefits is their due. But it's not a matter of character, it's genetics and the bias of society to those who can succeed at its challenges.

Nothing wrong with voluntary eugenics.

Isn't the senate the 99%?

Don't know much about the US, but they're elected officials, right? So, if the majority of the senate block it, then the majority of the people agree.

Just FYI and all, Obama is clearly a far left social liberal. It's just that the US president doesn't wield total power, so it doesn't matter if he's far left, right or whatever if the rest of the people aren't.

Now, if you think far left = communism, then no, he's not that, but we don't really consider communism as a valid part of the modern left and right dichotomy in the same way as fascism isn't a part of it.

If someone feels pressured, just the same, not to reproduce for reasons of race or disability, it certainly is. Are we Aspies supposed to voluntarily not have children? Because in that case, we might very well be denying the world of science the next Einstein, or the world of literature the next Lovecraft, or Kafka.

If being a far left social liberal means providing healthcare to those denied coverage due to poverty or disability, or extending civil rights to our LGBT brothers and sisters, then I'm all for it.