Elizabeth Warren For SCOTUS

[FA_Q2]

You're being facetious?

Heck no. I'm sick of partisan hacks denigrating very qualified people based on their owned warped political beliefs. She'd be a great justice...

based on what qualifications?

As far as I can tell, you are doing exactly what you are sick of - judging her qualifications in your own political beliefs.

 

[TeaBagger]

---
You must have flunked high school Civics.
You sure you want to go down this stupid hole of yours?
PLEASE cite those "two recent occasions" where SCOTUS made "its own law" ...
Otherwise, eat shit some more.
.

Here ya go, dumbass:

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Obergefell v. Hodges
​

Now eat shit.

Post a link turd boy.

Go find it yourself, asshole.

God, libturds are such whiny petulant pieces of shit.

It doesn't exit liar and we all know it.

"It doesn't exit [sic]?"

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but both cases were ruled on by the SC. It created new law in each case.

It upheld an existing law you Fox News parroting Limbaugh blowing liar. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PK1]

The SCOTUS did not create a law saying that gays can marry you fucking retard. I said that laws prohibiting gays from marrying was unconstitutional. It didn't create a law you moron.

Yeah, it did create a law, moron. There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage. That's up to the states to determine. The USSC preempted state law with its own law.

---
"it's own law"?
Are you just ignorant, or stupid about USA civics & the separation of powers?
.

Making its own law is what the SC does. They have done on two recent occasions.

---
You must have flunked high school Civics.
You sure you want to go down this stupid hole of yours?
PLEASE cite those "two recent occasions" where SCOTUS made "its own law" ...
Otherwise, eat shit some more.
.

Here ya go, dumbass:

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Obergefell v. Hodges
​

Now eat shit.

---
In the Sebelius case, SCOTUS ruled that an existing law was constitutional.
In the Obergefell case, SCOTUS ruled that an existing law was unconstitutional.

Now go out and clean the shit between your ears.
SCOTUS created law??? LOL!!!
.

 

[Desperado]

Obama should nominate Rand Paul to replace Scalia

 

[LeftofLeft]

Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap Obama's constitutional duty is the pick a nominee. I had some thoughts. I was thinking he'd nominate Shotgun Joe Biden, Barney Frank or some lesser known jurist but when I received this Email from Florida Congressman Alan Grayson I knew who I was going to want to see on the US Supreme Court. It's a no brainer. Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice and here's why.


1. Elizabeth Warren is squeaky clean. (There are no clean conservatives, they simply do not exist. Look at what a disaster that scumbag Clarence Thomas is.)

2. Elizabeth Warren is brilliant! She as the ability to arrive at the obvious very quickly.

3. She's a woman of the people and unlike any CONservative she's not mobbed up with the 1%.

4. Even if the criminal Republican scum block her nomination they will get bloodied up in the process.

Grayson's argument is even more persuasive.

Dear Mr. President,

Please appoint Elizabeth Warren to the Supreme Court, before the end of the week.

Why Elizabeth Warren? She started waiting tables at the age of 13, a year after her father was driven into poverty by a heart attack followed by huge medical bills. She later taught children with disabilities. She was a Harvard Law Professor for almost two decades – in fact, the only one there with tenure who had attended a public university. Her scholarly work is renowned; she is one of the most frequently cited law professors of all time.

She has been an indefatigable watchdog over the capital markets for almost a decade, going back to her extraordinarily valuable work on the Congressional Oversight Panel for the federal bailout program. She created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, even though the Senate Republicans wouldn’t let her run it. She electrified the nation with her “you didn’t build that” speech. And she has been a tireless and effective U.S. Senator.

Fourteen Senators and 17 Congressman have been appointed to the Supreme Court. So it wouldn’t be the first time this happened.

One more thing: Senator Warren is an outstanding writer and communicator, something that the Supreme Court badly needs. (Justice Scalia recently attacked a colleague for a writing style “as pretentious as it [is] egotistic.”) In my opinion, the two best judicial writers of my lifetime are Justice Hugo Black, a former Senator, and Judge Abner Mikva, a former Congressman. (I worked with Mikva; I know what I’m talking about.) Serving in either House of Congress is a very effective lesson in communication.

Would obstructionists in the Senate filibuster an Elizabeth Warren appointment, or vote against her? Maybe. But that seems like poor form against one of their own, for a place as clubby as the U.S. Senate.
And the President should appoint Warren right now, before the end of this week. That would make it a “recess appointment,” and Justice Warren could take office immediately. The obstructionists in the GOP couldn’t do anything about it.

One last reason why Elizabeth Warren should be on the U.S. Supreme Court:

She’s earned it. She deserves it. And she’ll be so, so good at it.

It is a given that Liberals are going to push for justices that seek to legislate from the bench. Warren is just one of many that fit that bill. Accepting the fact that this is the top goal and objective of the liberal mind, it is all more important that Republicans be mindful to the Constitution in approving a nominee. Liberals will call this 'obstruction' but I can't think of anything more obstructive than fundamental transformation of the Court to a simple vehicle for Liberals to bypass Congress.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, it did create a law, moron. There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage. That's up to the states to determine. The USSC preempted state law with its own law.

---
"it's own law"?
Are you just ignorant, or stupid about USA civics & the separation of powers?
.

Making its own law is what the SC does. They have done on two recent occasions.

---
You must have flunked high school Civics.
You sure you want to go down this stupid hole of yours?
PLEASE cite those "two recent occasions" where SCOTUS made "its own law" ...
Otherwise, eat shit some more.
.

Here ya go, dumbass:

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Obergefell v. Hodges
​

Now eat shit.

---
In the Sebelius case, SCOTUS ruled that an existing law was constitutional.
In the Obergefell case, SCOTUS ruled that an existing law was unconstitutional.

Now go out and clean the shit between your ears.
SCOTUS created law??? LOL!!!
.

In the Sebelius case, SCOTUS ruled that an existing law was constitutional.

And, of course, it wasn't. The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to force citizens to buy things.

In the Obergefell case, SCOTUS ruled that an existing law was unconstitutional.

And, of course, it was perfectly constitutional. The Constitution doesn't mention marriage at all.

 

[bripat9643]

Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap Obama's constitutional duty is the pick a nominee. I had some thoughts. I was thinking he'd nominate Shotgun Joe Biden, Barney Frank or some lesser known jurist but when I received this Email from Florida Congressman Alan Grayson I knew who I was going to want to see on the US Supreme Court. It's a no brainer. Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice and here's why.


1. Elizabeth Warren is squeaky clean. (There are no clean conservatives, they simply do not exist. Look at what a disaster that scumbag Clarence Thomas is.)

2. Elizabeth Warren is brilliant! She as the ability to arrive at the obvious very quickly.

3. She's a woman of the people and unlike any CONservative she's not mobbed up with the 1%.

4. Even if the criminal Republican scum block her nomination they will get bloodied up in the process.

Grayson's argument is even more persuasive.

Dear Mr. President,

Please appoint Elizabeth Warren to the Supreme Court, before the end of the week.

Why Elizabeth Warren? She started waiting tables at the age of 13, a year after her father was driven into poverty by a heart attack followed by huge medical bills. She later taught children with disabilities. She was a Harvard Law Professor for almost two decades – in fact, the only one there with tenure who had attended a public university. Her scholarly work is renowned; she is one of the most frequently cited law professors of all time.

She has been an indefatigable watchdog over the capital markets for almost a decade, going back to her extraordinarily valuable work on the Congressional Oversight Panel for the federal bailout program. She created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, even though the Senate Republicans wouldn’t let her run it. She electrified the nation with her “you didn’t build that” speech. And she has been a tireless and effective U.S. Senator.

Fourteen Senators and 17 Congressman have been appointed to the Supreme Court. So it wouldn’t be the first time this happened.

One more thing: Senator Warren is an outstanding writer and communicator, something that the Supreme Court badly needs. (Justice Scalia recently attacked a colleague for a writing style “as pretentious as it [is] egotistic.”) In my opinion, the two best judicial writers of my lifetime are Justice Hugo Black, a former Senator, and Judge Abner Mikva, a former Congressman. (I worked with Mikva; I know what I’m talking about.) Serving in either House of Congress is a very effective lesson in communication.

Would obstructionists in the Senate filibuster an Elizabeth Warren appointment, or vote against her? Maybe. But that seems like poor form against one of their own, for a place as clubby as the U.S. Senate.
And the President should appoint Warren right now, before the end of this week. That would make it a “recess appointment,” and Justice Warren could take office immediately. The obstructionists in the GOP couldn’t do anything about it.

One last reason why Elizabeth Warren should be on the U.S. Supreme Court:

She’s earned it. She deserves it. And she’ll be so, so good at it.

It is a given that Liberals are going to push for justices that seek to legislate from the bench. Warren is just one of many that fit that bill. Accepting the fact that this is the top goal and objective of the liberal mind, it is all more important that Republicans be mindful to the Constitution in approving a nominee. Liberals will call this 'obstruction' but I can't think of anything more obstructive than fundamental transformation of the Court to a simple vehicle for Liberals to bypass Congress.

Britain "obstructed" the Nazis from taking over Europe. Obstruction is often a good thing.

 

[HenryBHough]

Yep, Warren would be a great choice.

You're right!

So much to go after when she's borked that the hearings could go on into Spring of '17!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Knock it off. This is Zone 2.

 

[PK1]

---
"it's own law"?
Are you just ignorant, or stupid about USA civics & the separation of powers?
.

Making its own law is what the SC does. They have done on two recent occasions.

---
You must have flunked high school Civics.
You sure you want to go down this stupid hole of yours?
PLEASE cite those "two recent occasions" where SCOTUS made "its own law" ...
Otherwise, eat shit some more.
.

Here ya go, dumbass:

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Obergefell v. Hodges
​

Now eat shit.

---
In the Sebelius case, SCOTUS ruled that an existing law was constitutional.
In the Obergefell case, SCOTUS ruled that an existing law was unconstitutional.

Now go out and clean the shit between your ears.
SCOTUS created law??? LOL!!!
.

In the Sebelius case, SCOTUS ruled that an existing law was constitutional.

And, of course, it wasn't. The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to force citizens to buy things.

In the Obergefell case, SCOTUS ruled that an existing law was unconstitutional.

And, of course, it was perfectly constitutional. The Constitution doesn't mention marriage at all.

---
I'm glad you FINALLY realized that SCOTUS does not create law; it rules on existing law.
Maybe there's hope for you yet.

The fact that you disagree with exceptional law experts is another matter. Coming from someone who did not learn the basics of HS Civics is ... HILARIOUS!

.

 

[Grizz]

A younger Bernie sanders needs to get confirmed and put on the court!

Gag!

You really do want to destroy this country, don't you?

No the Republicans have already destroyed America with their illegal wars. patriot act, and crashing of the economy.

So the Wars in Libya and Syria are "legal" ?

 

[Grizz]

The worst of it is that the party of the scumbag OP wants to pick the next SCOTUS judge, that's the real problem

Hey lying dumb fuck, the president nominates and the congress approves. Sounds to me like you were educated south of the Mason-Dixon line.

No, the President nominates and the Senate may, or may not take it up.

 

[Dr Grump]

based on what qualifications?

As far as I can tell, you are doing exactly what you are sick of - judging her qualifications in your own political beliefs.

what a load of crap. Her qualifications are on Wiki or any other place you care to look. I couldn't give a rats about her politics. She'd be a good jurist, period. I judge them on their record and reasoning, not whether they're anti-abortion or pro-business or whatever other partisan hackery you are for....

 

[Dr Grump]

Knock it off. This is Zone 2.

Can you link me to what Zone 2 is. I've been here 10 years, didn't even know there were zones!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Knock it off. This is Zone 2.

Can you link me to what Zone 2 is. I've been here 10 years, didn't even know there were zones!

I'm pretty sure you were here when those rules came into play, it was a few years ago back when c_k first arrived.

The Zone 2 rules are fairly simple: No off-topic trolling, hit and run posts, or insults by themselves. All posts need to be on topic, or at least direct responses to other posts. You are welcome to insult people as much as you like in Zone 2, as long as you include on-topic material as well.

 

[Dr Grump]

Knock it off. This is Zone 2.

Can you link me to what Zone 2 is. I've been here 10 years, didn't even know there were zones!

I'm pretty sure you were here when those rules came into play, it was a few years ago back when c_k first arrived.

The Zone 2 rules are fairly simple: No off-topic trolling, hit and run posts, or insults by themselves. All posts need to be on topic, or at least direct responses to other posts. You are welcome to insult people as much as you like in Zone 2, as long as you include on-topic material as well.

No, I was on an infinite extended holiday at the time. Thanks for the info...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Knock it off. This is Zone 2.

Can you link me to what Zone 2 is. I've been here 10 years, didn't even know there were zones!

I'm pretty sure you were here when those rules came into play, it was a few years ago back when c_k first arrived.

The Zone 2 rules are fairly simple: No off-topic trolling, hit and run posts, or insults by themselves. All posts need to be on topic, or at least direct responses to other posts. You are welcome to insult people as much as you like in Zone 2, as long as you include on-topic material as well.

No, I was on an infinite extended holiday at the time. Thanks for the info...

I thought that happened after the Zone rules were put into play. But it has been a long time, and these things get mixed up in my memory.

 

[bripat9643]

based on what qualifications?

As far as I can tell, you are doing exactly what you are sick of - judging her qualifications in your own political beliefs.

what a load of crap. Her qualifications are on Wiki or any other place you care to look. I couldn't give a rats about her politics. She'd be a good jurist, period. I judge them on their record and reasoning, not whether they're anti-abortion or pro-business or whatever other partisan hackery you are for....

There's no such thing as a good leftwing jurist. Their view of the law is antithetical to the principles laid down in the Constitution. They don't even believe the Constitution is actual law. Any time some nitwit starts droning on about how "elastic" the Constitution is, you know they mean they believe they're free to ignore it.

 

[FA_Q2]

based on what qualifications?

As far as I can tell, you are doing exactly what you are sick of - judging her qualifications in your own political beliefs.

what a load of crap. Her qualifications are on Wiki or any other place you care to look. I couldn't give a rats about her politics. She'd be a good jurist, period. I judge them on their record and reasoning, not whether they're anti-abortion or pro-business or whatever other partisan hackery you are for....

Qualifications that you have failed to point out. Go on - show us why she is so qualified.

 

[Dr Grump]

There's no such thing as a good leftwing jurist. Their view of the law is antithetical to the principles laid down in the Constitution. They don't even believe the Constitution is actual law. Any time some nitwit starts droning on about how "elastic" the Constitution is, you know they mean they believe they're free to ignore it.

Mate, you guys can't even decide what the second means, let alone the rest of your constitution. Of course the constitution is elastic. That is why there is an amendment process...