John Oliver was years ahead of the Federalists You might recall how, a little over a week ago, John McCain took the very principled stand of announcing in advance that not only would he not allow Barack Obama's radically centrist Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland to ever get a confirmation vote, but he would also automatically
They'd filibuster. Which would mean the nuclear option. And while it's currently overused, and has a checkered past, it might be good to have around some day.
Sure, most programs are. But physics doesn't depend on your ideology. If you want to study in the social sciences, policy, politics, or law with an extreme right wing slant (and be bored to death while doing it) then it's the place to be.
Well, at least USPS will be safe under these strict interpreters. They've been trying to kill it off for years, but it's in the Constitution. Thanks, Ben!
The problem is that a lot of Liberals are appointing Judges to make laws, not to rule on them. The current nominee ruled that a police arrest justifies a search, not only nullifying the 4th amendment, but also meaning that if a police officer illegally searches you (which is now legal) he has no choice but to arrest you (for something) to justify his search. (I foresee a lot of planted evidence in your future). If he searches you and doesn't find anything... he's screwed. "What's this." "It has your fingerprint on it." *wipe, wipe, wipe* "What's this." "You tell me, you just threw it in my bag." This is the problem when Judges create laws rather than enforcing them... this is the reason judges should be conservative. Presidents swing votes in a 50% to 65% margin for 4 years... vetoing or passsing laws that already pass the house and senate... judges have a lot more power and Clinton's choice will potentially cause far more damage than either presidential candidate ever could. Once he's appointed he could potentially damage the law for 36 years. Scalia said it wasn't his job to make policy or law, but to "say only what the law provides." And if he isn't replaced by someone who is every bit his equal... we are screwed... in fact, if we had 4 more judges like him, we would all be better off. I do disagree with many of his rulings, but all of his rulings are firmly founded in the law, and the law is wrong, not his rulings. And the law should be changed, not his rulings. Once you start expecting judges to agree with you... there's an issue.
When you cite Scalia, who, for example, pulled the justification for Heller out of his capacious ass purely to make a law that satisfied HIS base and spent his entire career making law while patting himself on the back for being an "originalist" when it suited him, you become laughable.
Your lack of comprehension of the damage that conservative justices have ALREADY done - including gutting voter rights and consumer protections, allowing the horrific Citizens United bullshit, and trying to nibble the concept of personal autonomy to death, to cite but a few examples - negates your entire premise. Of the great jurists this country has been fortunate to have, not ONE of them was great because he sat there and screamed "I wanna go back to how it used to be!"
And "Liberal" isn't capitalized, cupcake - it's not a proper noun in the sense that you use it.
The Fourth Amendment bans "unreasonable" searches. It's legally reasonable for Customs to search your luggage, a health inspector to search your restaurant or police to search an arrestee.
As for "the equal of Scalia," I can start rolling up all the lint from my dryer lint trap. When I get a big enough mass to put a robe on, I'll send it to Washington.
They'd filibuster. Which would mean the nuclear option. And while it's currently overused, and has a checkered past, it might be good to have around some day.
I just read that 60 Senate votes are required to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. We're fucked.
Isn't the physics program well thought of?
Well, if we're going back that far, let's just add the previous three years... For shits & giggles. And for getting rid of a third of these twits.
Be still my beating heart...
Common sense is why we need physics.
Sure, most programs are. But physics doesn't depend on your ideology. If you want to study in the social sciences, policy, politics, or law with an extreme right wing slant (and be bored to death while doing it) then it's the place to be.
Well, at least USPS will be safe under these strict interpreters. They've been trying to kill it off for years, but it's in the Constitution. Thanks, Ben!
The problem is that a lot of Liberals are appointing Judges to make laws, not to rule on them. The current nominee ruled that a police arrest justifies a search, not only nullifying the 4th amendment, but also meaning that if a police officer illegally searches you (which is now legal) he has no choice but to arrest you (for something) to justify his search. (I foresee a lot of planted evidence in your future). If he searches you and doesn't find anything... he's screwed. "What's this." "It has your fingerprint on it." *wipe, wipe, wipe* "What's this." "You tell me, you just threw it in my bag." This is the problem when Judges create laws rather than enforcing them... this is the reason judges should be conservative. Presidents swing votes in a 50% to 65% margin for 4 years... vetoing or passsing laws that already pass the house and senate... judges have a lot more power and Clinton's choice will potentially cause far more damage than either presidential candidate ever could. Once he's appointed he could potentially damage the law for 36 years. Scalia said it wasn't his job to make policy or law, but to "say only what the law provides." And if he isn't replaced by someone who is every bit his equal... we are screwed... in fact, if we had 4 more judges like him, we would all be better off. I do disagree with many of his rulings, but all of his rulings are firmly founded in the law, and the law is wrong, not his rulings. And the law should be changed, not his rulings. Once you start expecting judges to agree with you... there's an issue.
When you cite Scalia, who, for example, pulled the justification for Heller out of his capacious ass purely to make a law that satisfied HIS base and spent his entire career making law while patting himself on the back for being an "originalist" when it suited him, you become laughable.
Your lack of comprehension of the damage that conservative justices have ALREADY done - including gutting voter rights and consumer protections, allowing the horrific Citizens United bullshit, and trying to nibble the concept of personal autonomy to death, to cite but a few examples - negates your entire premise. Of the great jurists this country has been fortunate to have, not ONE of them was great because he sat there and screamed "I wanna go back to how it used to be!"
And "Liberal" isn't capitalized, cupcake - it's not a proper noun in the sense that you use it.
But nice try.
The Fourth Amendment bans "unreasonable" searches. It's legally reasonable for Customs to search your luggage, a health inspector to search your restaurant or police to search an arrestee.
As for "the equal of Scalia," I can start rolling up all the lint from my dryer lint trap. When I get a big enough mass to put a robe on, I'll send it to Washington.
That's my problem with today's "conservatives." They're all corporatists and statists, with no regard for individual freedom.
That's only because of the filibuster. Which a simple majority can ban as a rule change.
At some point, a conservative may retire, giving liberals a 4-3 majority..
Yeah, I guess I was just reflecting the hard science part of my background...
He was a scary dude. He made Scalia seem enlightened.