SCOTUS Justice Scalia passes today...

[whistlersmother]

The biggest challenge to SCOTUS is states and localities ignoring its rulings, which happens regularly now.

Remember "contempt of court"? That only happens on old TV reruns.

The power of SCOTUS comes from everyone obeying its rulings. Once that has been broken, SCOTUS is nothing. I forsee states ignoring SCOTUS on both sides of the isle - both conservative on abortion and gay marriage and liberal on gun rights.

 

[jasonk1229]

9 people should be deciding the laws that 300 million people follow because these 9 are so diverse and obviously cover all walks of life

edit they are also above being swayed by any outside influences money or the likes

 

[3paul10]

I trust our President to fill the opening with a a good choice. On second thought....not.

 

[EL1227]

And then there's THIS ...

Refusing to consider a nominee is a gamble and very possibly a bad one. The Republicans must defend a lot of Senate seats this fall and hope for the White House. If they lose the White House, they can't hold out for 4 more years If they lose the White House and Senate then the sky is the limit for the douchbaggery that will happen. The Dems will shut down the Senate and the government to get a vote.

A sense of the Senate resolution has no power. It's an opinion, nothing more

Sherman, Crank up the "Way Back Machine" ...

ABCNews.com May 30, 2009 -
First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process

So while there is little indication Republicans intend to filibuster President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the GOP will likely invoke the President's unique history whenever he calls their tactics into question.

In January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.

On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on "This Week" that he would "be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly."

Mixing my metaphors, but has karma come to roost for our pontificator-in-chief bitch ?

I know I said I didn't want to get into it so soon... But...

There is a way that Ofuktard can appease both sides, AND disrupt the R momentum.

He could choose to blow up the R primaries and go with the obviously qualified Ted Cruz, or throw a wrench in the current investigations and put up Trey Gowdy. But, what do I know......

He may have already thrown more than a 'wrench' into current investigations. How about something more effective from the CIA's 'tool box' ? But whad'da I know ...

 

[EL1227]

The power of SCOTUS comes from everyone obeying its rulings. Once that has been broken, SCOTUS is nothing. I forsee states ignoring SCOTUS on both sides of the isle - both conservative on abortion and gay marriage and liberal on gun rights.

I think I know where The PRofMD sits ...

 

[win296]

The power of SCOTUS comes from everyone obeying its rulings. Once that has been broken, SCOTUS is nothing. I forsee states ignoring SCOTUS on both sides of the isle - both conservative on abortion and gay marriage and liberal on gun rights.

http://scottsconstitutionalhistoryb...3/was-andrew-jackson-right-to-ignore.html?m=1

 

[Jim12]

The power of SCOTUS comes from everyone obeying its rulings. Once that has been broken, SCOTUS is nothing. I forsee states ignoring SCOTUS on both sides of the isle - both conservative on abortion and gay marriage and liberal on gun rights.

SCOTUS has the final say in interpreting the laws, which become the law of the land unless properly changed by Congress or the People. The President's job is to implement and enforce the law, using the Justice Department and the other tools that Congress has put to his disposal for that purpose.

If the President doesn't enforce the laws, it's on him. And on the people for electing the wrong guy. And on Congress for not removing him.

 

[whistlersmother]

SCOTUS has the final say in interpreting the laws, which become the law of the land unless properly changed by Congress or the People. The President's job is to implement and enforce the law, using the Justice Department and the other tools that Congress has put to his disposal for that purpose.

If the President doesn't enforce the laws, it's on him. And on the people for electing the wrong guy. And on Congress for not removing him.

This true, but what is SCOTUS going to do about a president that openly defies it or even condones, without enforcement, a state from defying SCOTUS?

 

[EL1227]

And to add ...

http://scottsconstitutionalhistoryb...3/was-andrew-jackson-right-to-ignore.html?m=1

Was Andrew Jackson Right to ignore the Supreme Court?
One of the greatest challenges the Supreme Court has ever faced was when Andrew Jackson refused to follow the will of the Court in regards to a case involving Native Americans in Georgia. The Supreme Court took up the case that challenged President Jackson forcing the Native Americans out of Georgia and ruled in their favor. After the Supreme Court ruled on the case Jackson still defied it, knowing that the Supreme Court did not have the military power to enforce their decisions. Jackson forced the Cherokee Indians out of Georgia and into Oklahoma, leading to the devastating Trail of Tears in which thousands of Native Americans died.​

Ben Shapiro on Breitbart.com -
Antonin Scalia’s Death Could Mark End of Constitution

In the end, Scalia’s death could mark the end of the Constitution itself. That’s because the current Supreme Court rested, until Scalia’s death, on the vague, confused, indeterminate philosophy of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who apparently decides cases on the basis of whether he has a solid bowel movement that morning. That means that half the time, the Constitution has a shot, as in Citizens United; the other half of the time, the Constitution drains away into the mists of Kennedy’s magical social justice thinking, as in Obergefell.

Unlike Kennedy, Scalia represented a consistent vote for a Constitution beyond modern progressive power politics. But with his death, President Obama now has the power to appoint a fifth justice to join hard-left social engineers Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If the Republican Senate allows President Obama to select Scalia’s successor, the left will have a complete monopoly on the Supreme Court. Within the next few years, Citizens United will be overturned, restoring limits on free speech; the Supreme Court will render the Second Amendment meaningless by reinterpreting the right to bear arms as a non-personal right; freedom of religion will be made subservient to same-sex marriage and abortion priorities; the death penalty will be ruled unconstitutional; unions will be allowed to continue confiscating the dollars of people who disagree with them politically; redistricting along leftist lines will return.

Scalia ensured that the Supreme Court wasn’t a transformative institution; now it will become the chief tool in the left’s arsenal.

Keep in mind that Shapiro is no lightweight pundit for Breitbart. He skipped two grades in grade school, then went on to graduate summa *** laude and Phi Beta Kappa from UCLA with a BA in PolySci then graduated *** laude from Harvard Law. He wrote his first book in 2004, Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth, when he was 17 years old. He has been spot on with his political prognostications in his short career in punditry.

So, should WE The People ignore future 'settled law' emanating from potentially a far-left SCOTUS ? Or will the 'Originalists' among us be forced to walk our own 'train of tears' ? Be afraid, be VERY afraid ...

 

[Schipperke]

EL1227 , good research.

I hope the hell the Republicans have enough balls to beat Obama in the head over and over with his record on the filibuster.
These guys are all a bunch of hypocrites, and people wonder why Trump has traction...

 

[jc1240]

Sherman, Crank up the "Way Back Machine" ...

ABCNews.com May 30, 2009 -
First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process



Mixing my metaphors, but has karma come to roost for our pontificator-in-chief bitch ?



He may have already thrown more than a 'wrench' into current investigations. How about something more effective from the CIA's 'tool box' ? But whad'da I know ...

And Schumer before Ophucker: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/

And in 1960 the Dem-controlled Senate blocked Eisenhower's (recess) appointments. A little different, but... http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html

 

[Hollywood Ball]

Source?

The voices in his head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jim12]

This true, but what is SCOTUS going to do about a president that openly defies it or even condones, without enforcement, a state from defying SCOTUS?

Nothing, unless a case is properly before it. The two mechanisms involving SCOTUS that I can think of off the top of my head are: 1) the normal appellate procedure; and 2) the Chief Justice sitting as judge in an impeachment trial held by the Senate, which is first initiated by the House of Representatives, passing Articles of Impeachment based upon the President's "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdeameanors," which one would expect to include failure to enforce the Constitution and laws of the United States.

We've already seen how likely that is. The Republicans in Congress shot their wad and failed miserably with Cliton due to their lack of resolve and follow-through to "get the job done," and they're too gun shy after that to try it with Obama even if there really is good justification. Result: It emboldened Obama, knowing they won't do it.

One site with history and some details about impeachment, though source and accuracy not checked: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/

 

[Second Amendment]

The power of SCOTUS comes from everyone obeying its rulings. Once that has been broken, SCOTUS is nothing. I forsee states ignoring SCOTUS on both sides of the isle - both conservative on abortion and gay marriage and liberal on gun rights.

Yes, I decided back when obongo care was passed that I'm not playing. For me, it also applied to SB281 when that was passed. I'm not complying with any of it.

 

[W2D]

This could be the most important election in my lifetime.

 

[Jim12]

And Schumer before Ophucker: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/

And in 1960 the Dem-controlled Senate blocked Eisenhower's (recess) appointments. A little different, but... http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html

Sen. Schumer (D-NY) has been laying low recently, but he is the most ruthless, dangerous, powerful hypocrite in the Democrat's arsenal. And Schumer will be their next Senate minority (or majority) leader, as the case may be, when Harry Reid stays out past sunrise and burns up.

 

[Schipperke]

Looks like Obama's EO on Illegal Immigration is a go now..

 

[Jim12]

This could be the most important election in my lifetime.

You being funny? They say that every election.

But this one really is. Honest. Enormous amount at stake, in every facet of the economy, Constitution, and the relationship between the People and their government, all at the same time. Binding precedents being set and a vast, mushrooming police state being constructed with the authority and means to enforce them.

 

[W2D]

Not funny at all. We have a ruthless dem and a socialist competing to set the direction of the country, and slightly to the right republicans to compete against them.

 

[MDFF2008]

Every election is important, but this one does take on special meaning.

We will either have a corrupt Clinton or a socialist who seeks to change the very fabric of society as the Democratic nominee.