Latest Breaking News

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)

24. I love the way your title was truncated

Reply to bemildred (Original post)

Thu Feb 18, 2016, 05:15 PM

Feb 2016

Scalia replaceme!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme [View all] bemildred Feb 2016 OP

its the republican hypocritical way to all aspects of life MariaThinks Feb 2016 #1

Scalia was not a strict constructionist. He could twist his opinions like a pretzel to support Skwmom Feb 2016 #2

A grifter is what I see, and not a particularly smart one. bemildred Feb 2016 #4

I never saw the brilliance of the man either. He was a bully. n/t Skwmom Feb 2016 #6

I disagree a bit The Second Stone Feb 2016 #41

He always has droidamus2 Feb 2016 #19

In short, Scalia thought is judicial shit did not stink, however... Raster Feb 2016 #30

I remember that show. YankmeCrankme Feb 2016 #31

Thanks droidamus2 Feb 2016 #36

I enjoyed watching that as a kid. Codeine Feb 2016 #32

that is the very definition of a partisan hack Skittles Feb 2016 #35

They are only for a strict read of the constitution when it fits their interests. lark Feb 2016 #3

What, exactly houston16revival Feb 2016 #14

Have I mentioned lately, how much I like the "no-fucks-left" Obama? phantom power Feb 2016 #5

If he didn't nominate a justice they could impeach him, couldn't they? Gregorian Feb 2016 #7

He's not required to do. Leontius Feb 2016 #21

"The President SHALL nominate..." spooky3 Feb 2016 #25

There's no time limit though Yupster Feb 2016 #38

then he hasn't followed the "shall." spooky3 Feb 2016 #39

This is all silly lawyering, but then neither has Yupster Feb 2016 #40

Any "silly lawyering" is in the argument that he be the first pres spooky3 Feb 2016 #42

It would certainly be silly and he won't do it Yupster Feb 2016 #43

He is obligated to do so LanternWaste Feb 2016 #27

They could just try filibustering it... PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #8

There would be no need for a filibuster if they never schedule a vote Major Nikon Feb 2016 #9

Filibustering is a minority party tactic. The GOP is in the majority. longship Feb 2016 #12

Wouldn't be the first time for that jackass alcibiades_mystery Feb 2016 #15

Who will he be filibustering? His own party? AlbertCat Feb 2016 #17

He just wants a Green Eggs and Ham redo. kairos12 Feb 2016 #18

They should run Reagan's words in a commerical on Fox about him letting him nominate a judge in his kimbutgar Feb 2016 #10

Of course the president is correct. And after all if the Republicans could elect a president then totodeinhere Feb 2016 #11

LOL ROFLAMO houston16revival Feb 2016 #13

so voters can have a say on the selection AlbertCat Feb 2016 #16

Maybe they should delay a vote L.A.C. Feb 2016 #20

Its the exact same way they read the Bible. bunnies Feb 2016 #22

It's about the end of one's term OldRedneck Feb 2016 #23

Good one! maddiemom Feb 2016 #26

I love the way your title was truncated passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #24

Obama nails it! "Amused" is absolutely perfect Arazi Feb 2016 #28

Yes, understated, I considered "baffled" and "confused" but "amused" is better. bemildred Feb 2016 #37

he should nominate the replacement in a couple weeks regardless 0rganism Feb 2016 #29

Nothing strict about "strict constructionism." DirkGently Feb 2016 #33

Mr. President when will you realize you have a Mussolini loving Fascist House and Senate ? geretogo Feb 2016 #34