Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaydin View Post
    You could make the argument that Scalia is starting to go senile and that he should, if he had a conscience, resign from the court, as he no longer has the mental capabilities to perform his duties. But he won't; he'll hang on and hope the next president is a Republican.
    He said he would resign if Romney was elected. He is clearly playing political games and hoping to make it until a Republican president is elected so his horrible decisions aren't challenged and possibly gutted/reversed.
    Quote Originally Posted by xanzul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So if the states get together and work with the Legislative Branch to write an amendment to the federal constitution, you think the Judiciary (SCOTUS) could strike it down for being 'unconstitutional'?
    Uh...yes. Absolutely.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    He said he would resign if Romney was elected. He is clearly playing political games and hoping to make it until a Republican president is elected so his horrible decisions aren't challenged and possibly gutted/reversed.
    Most justices try to time their resignations, nothing new there. It has less to do with politics and more to do with looking at who is most likely to be nominated to replace them and whether that class of potential Justices follows their leanings on Constitutional interpretation.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    He said he would resign if Romney was elected. He is clearly playing political games and hoping to make it until a Republican president is elected so his horrible decisions aren't challenged and possibly gutted/reversed.
    I know the odds are basically 0, but wouldn't it be amazing if the next 3 presidents were Democrat?

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Kulanae View Post
    Most justices try to time their resignations, nothing new there. It has less to do with politics and more to do with looking at who is most likely to be nominated to replace them and whether that class of potential Justices follows their leanings on Constitutional interpretation.
    Their political leanings.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
    Their political leanings.
    Fortunately, the next Republican president that has/gets to replace Scalia would find it difficult to acquire a like-minded candidate to fill his role without resorting to Tea Party nominations. You can't get much more fundamentalist/right-wing than him.

  6. #46
    Merely a Setback Reeve's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    28,800
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    He said he would resign if Romney was elected. He is clearly playing political games and hoping to make it until a Republican president is elected so his horrible decisions aren't challenged and possibly gutted/reversed.
    That's hardly a Scalia thing only. All justices do this.
    'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
    Or a yawing hole in a battered head
    And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
    And there they lay I damn me eyes
    All lookouts clapped on Paradise
    All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Dendrek View Post
    I know the odds are basically 0, but wouldn't it be amazing if the next 3 presidents were Democrat?
    The next time a Republican wins, I'm not so sure it will be the Republican party we know today. I think it's exceedingly likely that sometime in the next decade the Tea Party will be jettisoned from the (R) party and that they'll reform themselves into something actual moderates and independents (as opposed to the surging numbers of fake independents who are really just missing the (R) tag) could vote for.

    Who knows, they may even like the EPA again. They're the ones who created it in the first place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zantos View Post
    There are no 2 species that are 100% identical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redditor
    can you leftist twits just fucking admit that quantum mechanics has fuck all to do with thermodynamics, that shit is just a pose?

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I suppose it's easier from a publicity standpoint, but it doesn't magically render greenhouse gases an irrelevant consideration. You're right that one can never lose betting on the stupidity of the general public though.
    Some of it just comes down to cost vs unseen benefits. Others just to normal political taking sides and kickbacks, sure. If the sides don't have something to argue about, then how would they raise money?

    A lot of the issues with past environmental bills/treaties come down to the "tax the wealthy" idea, with some nations (like USA) being the wealthy, and less developed nations having reduced responsibility. I've not kept track of stuff, so not sure what the latest.

    I'm no Republican, but I'm disinclined to paint them in quite this negative of a light. Are you really saying that Republicans can comprehend that soot is bad, but are baffled by the idea that things that they can't see in the atmosphere might not be great either?
    Seriously, most of the die-hards that I know that don't understand climate change, also believe in the chem-trail conspiracies.

    So it's simple really, pass laws that reduce green house gases and call it the "Chem Trail Reduction Act For Cleaner Air".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •