Justice Scalia found dead

Given the current winnowed crop of clowns there is only one viable candidate, Kasich, who can move to the center in order to gain the support of Independents necessary to win. However because he has that ability he doesn't stand a hope of making it through the primaries so his only hope is a brokered convention and he is the "none of the above" choice that they compromise upon. As you said, that it a virtually impossible scenario as a path the Whitehouse. But if he did make it then I don't see him appointing a knee-jerk wingnut to replace Fat Tony.

On the other hand if this nation suffers from a communal brain fart and T-Rump or Creepy Cruz do make it into the Oval office then yes, the Dem Senate will have no option but to obstruct that unsatisfactory nominee to the bench.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Anarchism is a subset of Progressive Socialist Marxism. If you understood the U.S. Constitution and it's Amendments you'd understand that your ilk seek to destroy it and the country that has been built around it.

 

I see the *********s have come up with a new code word.

 

Well with that statement you have proven to everyone who understands anything about anarchism that you do not have any clue whatsoever what you are talking about. I know far more about the constitution than you will most probably ever know and what I seek is a way to save this country from the path of destruction it is on.

It is really depressing reading posts from Americans who are so undereducated that they cannot make a comprehensive argument. I wish more of them spent more time educating themselves, we would not be in the trouble we are.

 

No, I've used it many times in my communications of politics on these and other boards. I guess you should continue in your uninformed imperfect state of stasis.

 

Ah yes, anarchists are the useful tools of Marxist Communism as Marx, Engels and Lenin have stated. Anarchist, and Communists both reject capitalism and the state while embracing unions, collectivism and communal ownership of property. All failures as have been shown time and time again.
"Anarchists pursue “simultaneously . . . economic and political revolution”, namely “complete destruction of the State” and “[a]ll productive capital and instruments of labour . . . confiscated” by workers associations.
[**]
Bakunin himself argued that strikes “create, organize, and form a workers’ army” which will “break” the “bourgeoisie and the State, and lay the ground for a new world.” And this notion of building the new world in the old is an important one in anarchism.[10]
Anarchists are cut from the same cloth as Marxist Communists and are just tools as means to the end. When that is reached anarchists become redundant and as in Russia and China sent to the Gulags, re-education camps or simply eliminated.

See:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/marxism-and-anarchism

 

Yeah. I posted that thing about January 3rd, ten pages ago. Post # 103.

But, some people apparently are still willing to argue that Obama could still be prevented from executing that move.

 

There are no 4-4 SCOTUS decisions. The decision would revert to the lower court's decision.

 

Didn't bother to look at the link?

First, it's about Recess appointments (not what's being discussed...)

Also, it was a ""KEATING MOTION TO RECOMMIT TO JUDICIARY COMM." Meaning it was a vote for the pubs to recommit

Final vote: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s416

The vote failed.

 

A person at the site explains it further:



"This is NOT a law Democrats passed. In 1960, Eisenhower had made a bunch of recess appointments, and the election was getting close (less than 3 months), so Senate Democrats tried to pass a resolution simply saying they'd prefer he not make any more recess appointments, except in emergencies, but instead make normal nominations, or wait until the next President took office. It was in no way binding, and it in no way blocked Eisenhower from making a normal nomination (which is what Obama is planning to do, so this has ZERO relevance to today's situation).

But I notice most conservatives here are too dumb, or too willfully ignorant, to understand what they're even looking at, so eager are they to claim Democrats are being hypocrites. But there is nothing hypocritical here at all, except perhaps by conservatives.

FYI, Oct 15, 1956, just ONE MONTH from election day, Ike nominated Brennan to the USSC. No delays, no obstruction, no whining about "leave it for the next guy", Democrats held a hearing and then voted to confirm Brennan, 95-1. So the claim that there are no nominations during a last year of a President's term is total nonsense!"

I found that last bit (bolded) extra interesting.

 

Kasich has no chance outside of his state and a few 'moderate' NE states...I suspect he will get whupped pretty badly in the south

 

I prefer 'minion'....though ilk works, as does 'thrall' and 'troglodite'

 

But, of course there is a major distinction between the "last year of a President's term", and the
"last year of a LAME DUCK President's term".

Ike was a mortal lock for reelection, so there was no reason to stall the nomination.

 

LOL. You think I support Bernie Sanders!? Wow! Amazing.

 

He's still dead, right? Whew...