U.S. Politics

[mj2sexay]

So just out of curiosity, how are we rationalizing Obama skipping out on the funeral of a sitting supreme court justice?

[Tommy]

So just out of curiosity, how are we rationalizing Obama skipping out on the funeral of a sitting supreme court justice?

To be fair he was no longer a sitting Supreme Court justice after he died.

[mj2sexay]

To be fair he was no longer a sitting Supreme Court justice after he died.

You know what I meant you leftist retard.

[Tommy]

You know what I meant you leftist retard.

Haha.

I agree that all presidents should go to a justice's funeral, but this isn't without precedent at least.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

So just out of curiosity, how are we rationalizing Obama skipping out on the funeral of a sitting supreme court justice?

I would hope no one is.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

Haha.

I agree that all presidents should go to a justice's funeral, but this isn't without precedent at least.

W went when Rehnquist died while still a sitting member of the SC.  I don't recall the last time before that a justice died prior to retirement.

[Miamipuck]

So just out of curiosity, how are we rationalizing Obama skipping out on the funeral of a sitting supreme court justice?

This is easy, you know in life,  1 queynte never gets along with anyone, now imagine 2 cunts and it's easy to see the alive queynte wants nothing to do with the dead one.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

This is easy, you know in life,  1 queynte never gets along with anyone, now imagine 2 cunts and it's easy to see the alive queynte wants nothing to do with the dead one.

So you're saying the President of the USA can't rise above personal disagreements to do his freaking duty?

[Miamipuck]

So you're saying the President of the USA can't rise above personal disagreements to do his freaking duty?

Yeah he sucks.

[Tommy]

So you're saying the President of the USA can't rise above personal disagreements to do his freaking duty?

That's asking a bit too much from a Nobel Peace prize winner.

[Fenwyr]

So you're saying the President of the USA can't rise above personal disagreements to do his freaking duty?

DOES NOT say in the constitution that a sitting president needs to got to a SCOTUS wake.

DOES say in the constitution that he needs to nominate a replacement ASAP.

On a side note, he met and paid his respects privately with the family.  And not for nothing, but isn't Scalia one of the justices that protested one of Obama's SOTUA?

[Ignatius J Reilly]

DOES NOT say in the constitution that a sitting president needs to got to a SCOTUS wake.

DOES say in the constitution that he needs to nominate a replacement ASAP.

On a side note, he met and paid his respects privately with the family.  And not for nothing, but isn't Scalia one of the justices that protested one of Obama's SOTUA?

The Constitution doesn't say he has to nominate a replacement ASAP.  It simply says he has the power to nominate candidates to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court, etc.  There's nothing in the Constitution about expediency.  It's expected that he do so in a timely fashion, just like it should be expected that as the Head of State, he should do things like attend the funeral of a sitting SC justice.  Like I said, now isn't the time to worry about personal or political disagreement.  Put on a good face and then nominate his replacement.  Let the other party look bad.

[Fenwyr]

The Constitution doesn't say he has to nominate a replacement ASAP.  It simply says he has the power to nominate candidates to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court, etc.  There's nothing in the Constitution about expediency.  It's expected that he do so in a timely fashion, just like it should be expected that as the Head of State, he should do things like attend the funeral of a sitting SC justice.  Like I said, now isn't the time to worry about personal or political disagreement.  Put on a good face and then nominate his replacement.  Let the other party look bad.

You missed a spot.  Scalia preferred to skip the State of the Union address.  'He should do things like attend' those.  Obama met privately with the family to pay his respects.

'Let the other party look bad.'  This is my point.  Scalia was a pawn of the republican party.  All this crap about about he was adamant about preserving the constitution is utter nonsense.  Revisionist history would be a generous way of putting it.  The republican appointees to SCOTUS worship the bible, not the constitution.  Where in either document it tells them that corporations should be able to buy elections is beyond my understanding, as I am not an expert in either publication.

[Tommy]

You missed a spot.  Scalia preferred to skip the State of the Union address.  'He should do things like attend' those.  Obama met privately with the family to pay his respects.

'Let the other party look bad.'  This is my point.  Scalia was a pawn of the republican party.  All this crap about about he was adamant about preserving the constitution is utter nonsense.  Revisionist history would be a generous way of putting it.  The republican appointees to SCOTUS worship the bible, not the constitution.  Where in either document it tells them that corporations should be able to buy elections is beyond my understanding, as I am not an expert in either publication.

How is that any different than the other party nominating a justice to push their own agenda? You can hate one side all you want, but don't think for a second you're not just a shill for the other side.

[Fenwyr]

How is that any different than the other party nominating a justice to push their own agenda? You can hate one side all you want, but don't think for a second you're not just a shill for the other side.

This would be as ignorant as me calling you 'a shill' for the republicans.  Nothing in life is that black and white, and you know it, so stop saying stupid excrement like this.  I am 'a shill' for my family, the people I care about, and what I believe, based on my decades of experience, is best for them.

You were gargling Scalia's balls for being an unbiased constitution worshiper.  I am calling bullshit on that.  I provided a ruling that had nothing to do with the constitution, and everything to do with republican money, and you keep ignoring it.  Show me who on the liberal side of the court is pushing a non-constitutional agenda.  Just give me one example for us to debate and I will at the very least respect your opinion.