[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Free Show | Home]

RIP Big Tony Scalia

This is a red board which means that it's strictly for adults (Not Safe For Work content only). If you see any illegal content, please report it.

Thread replies: 1015
Thread images: 132

File: Untitled.png (531KB, 1351x770px) Image search: [Google]
Untitled.png
531KB, 1351x770px
Pay homage to this based god of the supreme court.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop
>>
Fuck yea. The cancerous conservatard of limited vision and accolyte for a randian dystopia of butt fucking guntards without a clue dies in the land of libertarian fuckwits and racist trailer trash. The universe is a bit brighter today.Fuck you all and welcome to the liberal court.
>>
>>64058494
The homosexual agenda is real and you are part of it. There are absolutely no bad consequences whatsoever flowing from the prohibition of sodomy and everything Scalia says in that opinion is 100% true.
>>
>>64058214
>First Black Women on the Court
If the GOP block it, they will probably be bludgeoned to death by November.
>>
i don't dislike gays and they can do whatever but i don't agree with gay marriage

i thought this stance was fairly common but this all seems to have been very polarized lately
>>
>>64061996
Hell yeah.
>>
I don't get it, who is this guy? What'd he do that was so good?
>>
well about time for another chosen justice
>3 jews
>6 goys
what a holocaust that ratio was
>>
File: liberal_paradise.webm (2MB, 360x640px) Image search: [Google]
liberal_paradise.webm
2MB, 360x640px
>>64061996
>welcome to the liberal court
>>
>>64042063
Conservatives, since the beginning of time.
Leftists are degenerates. Degenerates by definition do not care about morality of action.
QED
>>
I thought John Kasich was also running? Why isnt everyone getting the same amount of time?
>>
anybody sad about this is a fucking idiot.
>>
>>64062715
see
>>64043644
>>
hi fags

I wrote a blog post on an opinion delivered by Scalia that I've always liked.

http://aporeticvoice.com/2016/02/14/rip-justice-scalia/

read it or don't, I don't make a habit of shilling, please don't bully
>>
>>64062458
>6 goys

You mean 6 catholics, how come nobody finds this odd - not a single agnostic or protestant
>>
File: tumblr_mbfj7ek66D1qjvxfho1_500.jpg (68KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]
tumblr_mbfj7ek66D1qjvxfho1_500.jpg
68KB, 500x667px
>>64062715
>>
Did Carson just say $200 trillion?
>>
Do most Americans know who the supreme court judges are? I could name loads of MPs, but not a single serving British judge. I think in my parents' lifetimes they (and I) could name exactly ONE judge.
>>
>>64043417
Ah boston fag.
>>
>>64041599
>Snowden
>NSA shill

How do you fuck up this badly.
>>
>>64063112
average american? no. american who pays attention to politics beyond the election cycle? yes.
>>
>>64062993
You also clicked the wrong post in catalog. This is the Scalia page, not the debate one.
>>
>>64063112
To be honest, if I was questioned at gunpoint on any given day I could name 4/9, and I think that is way above average for most americans
>>
>>64062923
like they would ever let a WASP in the supreme court
>>
>>64041642
The Onion is likely parodying the type of person who would unironically write that sort of article as much as they are poking fun at Scalia himself.
>>
>>64063112
>Do most Americans know who the supreme court judges are?


Yes. At least some of them. If I mentioned Scalia or a few others, the average american would know. They are generally household names.
>>
I honestly don't know who this is, but I assume he's been assassinated by Big Guys?
>>
>>64063713
Deemed 'Natural Causes' so we will never know for sure
>>
Liberal court...liberal court...liberal court. Say it with me bro. Liberal court...liberal court...liberal court.

Fuck you conservatards. You reign of stupid is fast coming to an end.
>>
>>64063605
I'm not sure the Onion is :that: meta.
>>
>>64063251
lol if you don't think he's a false flag
>>
why is trump so angry?
>>
Trump is fucking relentless. No surrender.
>>
>>64062302

I don't see why it was needed. Civil partnerships took care of the legal rights. It seems like they weren't enough purely because of the name, and since that goes hand-in-hand with the tradition of religious marriage, there's no reason that tradition couldn't be kept (and I'm not religious).
>>
>>64063112
Yes, but I read court cases now and again. They're really interesting. It started when I was really mad about some ruling, and was in an involved online debate about it. The debate got a little bogged down in details, so I read the opinion of the court. It really changed everything for me in terms of my ire towards the court system. I have since found that 99% of that ire is totally misplaced, that even Justices I disagree with (like Scalia for instance) are really reasonable people, and that most of my anger should be directed at the legislative branch which utterly fails to do its job.

9 times out of 10, if you don't like a court case, but READ the case, you'll see that the Justices are usually left in an impossible situation left by the legislature. "Judicial Activism" is kind of a bad meme.
>>
>>64063883
say liberal three times in the mirror and a democrat shows up and takes your wallet
>>
>>64063536
Retired in 2010 and two more during the last decade.
>>
>>64044673
link the archive.is version?
>>
>>64064010
>>64063979

Obama is going to steal the SCOTUS slot just like he stole Trumps bike
>>
>>64062845
>>64043644
Agreed.
>>
>>64064157
haha. Suck it. We will butt fuck you and your wallet now. W'ell also put an end to you stupid public religious shit.
>>
>>64064259

stevens was based as fuck, its a shame we don't have anyone close to him in there
>>
>>64061370

A 2L on the East Coast.
>>
“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.” - Scalia

REST IN PEACE SWEET PRINCE
>>
>>64041642
this is bait, right?
>>
B A S E D

quotes incoming

“There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.”
>>
>>64063871
The CBC announcer on TWTW was so gleeful as she announced it. Then she proceeded to whine about how it's snowing in the winter in Canada. Toronto is so disgusting, I hate how the rest of us have to put up with their shit.
>>
>>64059379
Adultery should be severely punished
>>
>>64055974
>states rights you dummy, he argued the Feds have no authority over buttsex you illiterate fuck
>>
JEB BUSH CHICKEN LITTLE


THE SKY IS FALLING
>>
>>64064643
Which school are you at m8?
>>
>>64041947
What is there to question in that macro? Absolutely everything depicted as occurring objectively did occur, and the cake makes a good analogy (though arguably not the best).
>>
>dat awkward Jeb smile
gross
>>
>>64063368

I watch the odd political show most weeks, all year 'round. Judges names just never come up about anything. I couldn't even tell you if any politicians are even involved with appointing judges. As far as I know, judges appoint new judges. We do hear occasionally about a new law being shot down by the courts, and even then if they mention any judges names at all then you'd have never heard of them and they'd be instantly forgotten. Again, as far as I know, courts and judges don't have any strong link to partisan politics.
>>
>>64041642
No respect for the deceased is a sign of poor morals and mannerisms.
>>
Fucking shill crowd.
>>
"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society."
>>
>>64022842
>based god

He was Yuge
>>
>>64065645
Suck it and bend over so the next liberal court can buttfuck your ass.
>>
>>64042530
>implying local gun stores have publicly traded stocks
Here's an alternative suggestion:
>become intelligent
>invest in firearms (ones that will appreciate in value)
>invest your time to become proficient with them
>vote, and encourage others to do so as well
>>
>>64065645
Certainly worse than Citizens United. Good luck being marginalized.
>>
>>64065911

its amazing to me how someone in that position cannot understand his charge or what the difference between de jure and de facto are

good fucking riddance
>>
>>64022842
Just watch Obama nominate a black woman for the Supreme Court and then see the Republicans recoil in horror at the public relations fallout.
>>
>>64065911
>Arguing from democracy: A system where 2 wolves and a lamb decide what's for dinner
>>
>>64065911
I really like that, going to try and find who said it now.
>>
>>64062715
He said "claiming" moral superiority.
>>
>>64066193
I should have guessed it would be Scalia, it sounded like him
>>
>>64060477
And your denigrating a dead man who did much good for the conservative cause because he didn't agree with you 100 percent of the time. Politically your an idiot personally your disgusting.
>>
>>64022842

He was not a real Catholic= because he acknowledges the American People as the supreme authority in law and governance, not Jesus Christ.

To hell with him.
>>
File: 1441422880954.gif (2MB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]
1441422880954.gif
2MB, 250x188px
>>64048292
>>
Shill crowd ruined the debate. Who's with me?
>>
>>64041829
Powerful government is the problem not the money. No power in government, no money in government.

It's as simple as 2+2.
>>
File: cant-keep-getting-away-with-it.gif (2MB, 245x295px) Image search: [Google]
cant-keep-getting-away-with-it.gif
2MB, 245x295px
"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of theCourt’s claimed power to create “liberties” that theConstitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

Justice Scalia, dissenting, Obergefell v. Hodges
>>
>>64066859
Wrong thread. Who's with me?
>>
>>64046507
You forgot "let me be clear"
>>
>>64041917
I hope you're next.
>>
>>64067563
youre number 1000, congrats
>>
>>64066416
I thought you were fucking with me man because the thread is about one guy. i was bout to be mean, glad you figured it out.
>>
File: Scalia.jpg (147KB, 680x967px) Image search: [Google]
Scalia.jpg
147KB, 680x967px
>you will never be as intelligent, well spoken, and hilariously insulting as scalia was.... and now he himself is dead.

why even live? he was feared and respected by the high ranking liberals in US govt and nobody is around to fill that void.

even on the crazy off chance that senate stalls the appointment until the next president gets in, i don't think anyone could properly fill this guy's shoes.
>>
Honestly, the supreme court is more important than the presidency, at least in my eyes. In terms of doing stuff, anyway.

Sucks we lost a good man. If we don't get a republican as president who can appoint another conservative judge, then we're in for a rude fucking awakening if we think everything is awful NOW.
>>
File: scalia_jerk_rect.jpg (295KB, 660x440px) Image search: [Google]
scalia_jerk_rect.jpg
295KB, 660x440px
“To believe in traditional Christianity is something else,” he’s reported as having said. “For the son of God to be born of a virgin? I mean, really. To believe that he rose from the dead and bodily ascended into heaven? How utterly ridiculous. To believe in miracles? Or that those who obey God will rise from the dead and those who do not will burn in hell?”

“God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools … and he has not been disappointed.”

“If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world.”

Amen.
>>
>>64067739

Well unlike 95% of the people on 4chan I know that there is this magical thing called Google, and that I should ask it a question several times and ways before asking 4chan because it makes one look less stupid.
>>
Im happy this retarded piece of shit is dead and now Obama can appoint someone with a brain
>>
>>64067899
Maybe not Day 1, that is asking too much. But maybe we can find someone who has the ability to become another Scalia down the road.
>>
File: 1408543297950.png (29KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]
1408543297950.png
29KB, 633x758px
Fuck this makes me so sad. He was so based. He was a faithful catholic despite the church becoming so liberal. He made friends with people who disagreed with him despite most libtards today being spiteful faggots who would try to destroy people who disagree with him.

F
>>
File: 1453366174798.gif (2MB, 500x285px) Image search: [Google]
1453366174798.gif
2MB, 500x285px
>have a great day with friends
>come home and see this

Not wanting to sound like a bitch but I honestly want to cry. Scalia was a vanguard in our government protecting our rights and trying his best to turn the tide of degeneracy.

Fuck I thought after that one court circuit ruled that it is the constitutional right of any citizen to own whatever rifle they wanted I thought it would go to the supreme court and Scalia would come and save me in CA.

Scalia isn't coming, /pol/.

Nobody is going to save me.

We're so fucked. Nobody gives a shit anymore about what we're supposed to be. A bunch of immigrants came in to my state and told me what my rights were.

fuck.

I'm crying.
>>
>>64022842
Nice hitjob. You murricans must feel really safe now that the goverment has the right to perform extrajuditial killings of it's own citizens.
>>
>>64068264
Lacking one himself, how will he recognize it in someone else?
>>
Fuck so will Obama be a scum and appoint the first transgender Justice now?
>>
>>64068432
If Clinton is elected the USA is going down in flames, and it will be for the best; If she wins it will prove that the rot is too deep, we will need to wipe the slate clean and start over.

I honestly feel like I'm living in the Future History of Hugo Gottfried
>>
>>64068432
Ha ha.
>>
>>64042304
>Australian post actually smart and not shit posting
>Whats going on here...
It's new Zealand actually.
>>
Why does this have a sticky?

Should I know this fag?
>>
Just curious, is there a timeline of events at all?

Scalia missed breakfast/body found by hotel worker(9am?10am?)

Local county officals involved.
US Marshal Service and FBI said to be invovled.

5pm hearse arrives.

I guess this all seems about right, I was just idly curious if there was any other time frames mentioned today?
>>
File: 1444082904013.png (927KB, 1202x833px) Image search: [Google]
1444082904013.png
927KB, 1202x833px
>>64068432
I feel like crying too. Casuals don't realize how huge this is. It's bigger than the election. W will feel the effects of this for decades and could be a huge turning point in American politics going forward.

Given, Scalia was nearly 80 and probably going to resign in the next few years anyway, but the timing could absolutely not be worse.

Obongo was probably smiling ear to ear when he heard this.
>>
>>64068432
>Not wanting to sound like a bitch but I honestly want to cry. Scalia was a vanguard in our government protecting our rights and trying his best to turn the tide of degeneracy.
I think this is pretty overstated. Scalia wasn't on the side of protecting rights at all. He was on the side of keeping the constitution and its principles on stable footing. He's ruled for and against rights, though. Mostly he respected the limits of Federal government, even when it was inconvenient to his own biases.
>>
>>64066233
>Assuming the average drunk male voter is capable of noting the hypocrisy of the common female but not of the common politician.
>>
File: face1295652432320.png (3KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]
face1295652432320.png
3KB, 429x410px
Rest in piece, another hero can leave this world to the next without shame.
>>
File: goptears.jpg (27KB, 400x700px) Image search: [Google]
goptears.jpg
27KB, 400x700px
Cheers everyone
>>
>>64068894
One of the last people keeping the US from dragging the world into a global war.

Don't kid yourself that if we implode into a new Civil war that the rest of the World isn't going to be involved right up to your eyebrows
>>
File: great men of great memes.png (348KB, 651x340px) Image search: [Google]
great men of great memes.png
348KB, 651x340px
Good bye Tony, you inspired me to great heights in academia. I wish I got to see you.
>>
>>64069159
look ma, I posted it again!
>>
>>64069129
>>64069262

At least he won't have to see it all come tumbling down despite his best efforts.
>>
>>64069193
You're fucking retarded.
>>
File: mitch-mcconnell.jpg (182KB, 550x433px) Image search: [Google]
mitch-mcconnell.jpg
182KB, 550x433px
The sheer temerity of this immense faggot McConnel, calling for Obama to leave the appointment of his successor to the next President.

This turtle motherfucker has some incredible ball, I'll give him that.

HOPEFULLY we won't see yet another goddamn Catholic on the bench.
>>
File: 1454815135712.gif (2MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]
1454815135712.gif
2MB, 240x180px
Well fellow conservatives. No matter how much hits we take: we keep going further. Don't let this country become a cuck liberal paradise with no guns, illegals, disease ridden military aged male refugees, PC, and sjw's. We have to stop this fucking madness.
>>
>>64069540
>HOPEFULLY we won't see yet another goddamn Jew on the bench.
ftfy
>>
>>64045124
>Scalia wasn't for oppressing gays just was against gay marriage.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/13/140647230/justice-antonin-scalia-known-for-biting-dissents-dies-at-79

>When the court struck down a state law that made private homosexual conduct a crime, Scalia was outraged.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/13/140647230/justice-antonin-scalia-known-for-biting-dissents-dies-at-79

>[On gay marriage] "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms?"
>>
>>64069471
You think there won't be a Civil war if Clinton is in office and just does more of the same as Obama in the name of 'progress'

If so you are the real retard here.
>>
>>64069647
>gay rights
>right to fuck 16 year old bois assholes

Sorry, no. Not in this country. Not in any civilized nation. Not getting stoned to death is more rights than any sodomite deserves.
>>
>>64069647

How about you read his actually words without the lib-media filter? Because his personal feels about gay marriage had nothing to do with his dissent.
>>
>>64055384

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2011/05/hate-evil-but-dont-celebrate-bin-ladens-death.html
>>
File: liberaltears2_1.jpg (165KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]
liberaltears2_1.jpg
165KB, 1200x800px
>>64062944
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-senate-should-wait-for-next-president-to-replace-antonin-scalia/
>>
>>64022842


TOO FUCKING SOON

I SWEAR IT WAS BLOOM BERG AND OTHER KIKES 5HAT KILLED HIM
>>
>>64069856
It truly is impossible to browse pol for a minute without someone sperging out about fags.
>>
>>64068859
>Take my rights I will laugh
I'm moving to Hungary either way because... well.. fuck this country, but you're a primo cuck dude.
>>
>>64069647
Wow this article makes me fucking mad, and I don't even like Scalia. They make him sound like some partisan fucking hack. I don't think that of ANY of the justices.

Fuck I hate the media so much.
>>
File: Ammon Bundy.jpg (103KB, 1390x1000px) Image search: [Google]
Ammon Bundy.jpg
103KB, 1390x1000px
>>64069654
>You think there won't be a Civil war if

Yeah, we don't think there will be a civil war if

Remember the huge convoys of True Americans who rushed to the last cause?
>>
>>64069647

This makes me hate liberals so much. I'm so fucking mad
>>
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the significance of this man's death?
>>
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>>
>>64069471

You assblasted your cuck conservative god is burning in hell fag?
>>
What did the deleted post say? Must have been triple aussie tier trolling.

As for the death itself, feels like an assassination. A chance to get another uber liberal on the court before obongo leaves.
>>
>>64070664
Evil wins.
>>
File: 1413673739947.gif (443KB, 500x319px) Image search: [Google]
1413673739947.gif
443KB, 500x319px
>>64070650
Stay mad, dickless conservative.
>>
>>64070804
I would actually love this but it's not going to happen
>>
>>64047872
Those lifetime appointments are so that they are removed from the political process, meaning they are safe from outside influence

unfortunately, we aren't safe from the ones who "really like making policy"
>>
>>64070664
Scalia's death is honestly more important than who win's the presidential election

Whoever fills his shoes will influence the next 30 years of judicial decisions
>>
>>64070664

He was the leading Constitutionalist on the Supreme Court, his death makes the court split 4-4 Lib-Conserve, but more like 4-1-3 Lib-Activist-Conserve

it means that Obama gets to trya nd push another one of his ideologues into the SCOTUS, making it 5-4/5-1-3. But even if he doesn't get one in the court will still rule in favor of Liberal causes or at best let lower court ruling stand.
>>
>>64022842

You guys realise he's a shill right?
>>
>>64070834
Uh.. I think you replied to the wrong post?
>>
>>64070964
Or religious ideologues.
>>
>>64071000
>>64070965
Well shit, what horrible timing to die.
>>
>>64071029
There's no such thing as a shill.
>>
>>64071090
Or Ideaologues in general, religious, secular or otherwise.
>>
>>64046441

Why would it be otherwise? Liberals are cucks, by definition they enter into agreements which don't benefit themselves.
>>
>>64070664
With his death a seat on the supreme court has opened up.

If Obama manages to fill that seat, or if dems win the white house in november, the supreme court will be majority liberal

With a Court majority, they will be able to declare any and all liberal legislation constitutional.

For example if a gun rights/grabber case is brought to the supreme court, they will side with the grabbers each time. Don't be surprised if they rule that all guns except for 200 year old muskets with enough powder and ammo for one shot are banned from private ownership.
>>
>>64056746
how do i even reading comprehension
>>
>>64071193
I'd have to see a secular ideologue in action on the Supreme Court to make a judgement on that, desu.
>>
File: 1449608231625.png (102KB, 399x240px) Image search: [Google]
1449608231625.png
102KB, 399x240px
>>64022842
Fucking hell I bet you they killed him
he was at a dinner and just went home early and died??

his actuarial tables gave <5-10% chance of dying this year

Obama fucking jumped on this like a madman, he's fucking trying to influence the election

kill scalia and then get the SC to make all illegals able to vote

FUCKING NIGGER
>>
>>64071211
>cucks

Opinion discarded. This word is on the same tier as le funny banana maymay.
>>
>>64071409
Ruled 'Natural Causes' so even if it was murder there won't be any investigation.
>>
File: Alan_Keyes.jpg (57KB, 416x431px) Image search: [Google]
Alan_Keyes.jpg
57KB, 416x431px
>>64071307
The longest a nomination has been held up was 125 days. Obama has 342 days.
>>
File: 1388548369743.png (587KB, 935x701px) Image search: [Google]
1388548369743.png
587KB, 935x701px
>>
>>64070963
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICERAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>RAND PAUL FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
>>
File: 1443298261845.jpg (149KB, 700x468px) Image search: [Google]
1443298261845.jpg
149KB, 700x468px
>post yfw Obama blows the fuck out of republicans for the 254th time
>>
>>64071556
Records are made to be broken, but yeah, I'm not optimistic.
>>
>>64042507
the Global Environment Facility, a UN organization, look it up. It's an eco Central bank, WORLDWIDE.

its a flimsy excuse to change the rules and send in troops to shut down a 'problematic' nation
>>
>>64071556
There is nothing in the Constitution that says how long Congress can take to approve of an appointee.
>>
>>64042838
Classic Jew, referring the guy to your cousin.
>>
>>64071612
Rand Paul is a meme politician.
>>
>>64071612
Does he have any law experience at all.
>>
File: us}cfpa!!.gif (4KB, 354x216px) Image search: [Google]
us}cfpa!!.gif
4KB, 354x216px
>>64067049
Liberty: The God that failed. It exposes much as to why Scalia, though maybe well-intentioned, still doesn't get it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P9nFumxKp8
>>
>>64071783
I think he was a medical doctor before going into the senate. So no.
>>
>>64071861

Liberty != secular

You can be free and religious
>>
File: Boehner Bawling.jpg (15KB, 299x225px) Image search: [Google]
Boehner Bawling.jpg
15KB, 299x225px
>>64071713
Oh I know, and Turtle Boy will probably make a run for the record at least.
But in his heart, he has to know that the blathering populist who's hijacked his party isn't going to win the Presidency by bullshitting.

Which leaves the prospect of Bill's axe-grinding old wife choosing the next Justice against the reasonable negro Centrist just getting it over with.
>>
>>64072029
We are backed up to a cliff, we don't really have much more we can retreat on.

We have to stand for something at some point, even at the cost of our lives.
>>
God chooses who leaves the earth and it was his time.
>>
Aw shit.

Without Scalia, the supreme court will go downhill really fast now. A good man. One of the few who was great enough to criticize the power grab of his own institution.

May he rest in peace.
>>
>>64022842
rip Scalia
>>
>>64072029
What the funk happens if they put another woman on there?
.oh more women than men how progressive.....
>>
>>64066923
"Let's cut all taxes!"
"Hands off my medicaid/fire department/streets/police department/military"

>Paying taxes
>Having all that stuff

Pick one.
>>
>>64072301
The biggest threat to your life your own choices make is Diabeetus.
>>
>>64072691
Worse the tax cuts have just caused more flat taxes like fucking red light cameras.
>>
>>64072029

>Obama
>reasonable centrist

That's why he appointed Sotomayor, a reasonable centrist :^)
>>
>>64071986

The only freedom you have is the freedom of your will. Otherwise, you are 99% limited.

It is through your will that you can overcome your limitations. If you do not, then you might as well be destined to Hell, for those who say they have no will, only have aligned their will to the easy, natural, and worldly.
>>
>>64072691

Other than Military and a few other things too large for any individual state to fund, all those things should be at the Local/state level

the issue is that we are at a point where many states are dependant on Fed money because they budget deficts, which lets the fed gain more power and the Fed is far easier to influence and control than 50 states and thousands of localities.
>>
>>64022842
Good riddance. I don't give a fuck
>>
File: image.jpg (28KB, 236x343px) Image search: [Google]
image.jpg
28KB, 236x343px
non degenerate music /pol/ ?

youtube.com/watch?v=FXfIsK85fxk

pick related
>>
>/pol/'s response when literally anyone else dies
>"LMAO DUMB CUNT DESERVED IT DEAD NIGGERS DEAD KEKS PRAISE KEK LOL"
>Scalia dies
>"OMG HOW DARE THOSE HEARTLESS FUCKING LIBS STRAIGHT TO THE GAS CHAMBERS WITH THOSE DEGENERATES"

Fuck you /pol/ you bunch of brainwashed morons
>>
literally who?
some fatty in America?
who cares?
>>
>>64073409
This. Nobody gives a fuck about this fatty
>>
>>64073525
>>64073409
NON-AMERICANS LEAVE
>>
File: scalia.png (78KB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]
scalia.png
78KB, 460x259px
>>
File: 1415944713451.jpg (22KB, 635x475px) Image search: [Google]
1415944713451.jpg
22KB, 635x475px
Right now there are Americans in this thread who don't know who this man was.

And their vote is worth the same as mine.

FUCK ME
U
C
K

M
E
>>
File: palin-wink.jpg (28KB, 635x456px) Image search: [Google]
palin-wink.jpg
28KB, 635x456px
>>64073082
>Other than Military and a few other things too large for any individual state to fund

Which amounts to an incredible number of things, not a "few" things.

I see that you really believe that the State governments are LESS power-hungry, corrupt, wasteful and incompetent than the Federal government.

Which shows me that you are almost completely unfamiliar with State and Local govnerment.
>>
was this dude murdered? i'm not familiar with him but did he have any recent activity that could have been a threat to the government?
>>
>>64073819
...
(Breaks pencil)
...
>>
Everyone's saying they hope Obama can get a replacement confirmed before he leaves. Only chance in hell that will happen is if he appoints a milquetoast left-of-center choice.

But what about this...

This is our year. We already have an amazing, true progressive presidential candidate in Trump. Let's go all in. Let's flood the general election with unprecedented progressive/Republican turnout. Let's take back Congress, elect the most progressive President in 60 years, and line him up to appoint a major progressive justice that our new Congress will approve of.
>>
>>64071861
I find this video distasteful. There is no question that laws are based on morals. Suggesting adherence to law is not totally decoupling law from morality, instead it just leaves open the question of where the relationship between law and morality lies. In the US that question is unambiguously answered: the people, with the legislature as their proxy.

>having to defend Scalia on this the day of his death
I wish I could just go to fucking bed and wake up three years ago already.
>>
>UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. X CITEMENT VIDEO, INC., et al.

>I can neither understand nor approve of the disposition urged by the United States before this Court and adopted today, which not only rewrites the statute, but (1) rewrites it more radically than its constitutional survival demands, and (2) raises baseless constitutional doubts that will impede congressional enactment of a law providing greater protection for the child victims of the pornography industry. The Court today saves a single conviction by putting in place a relatively toothless child pornography law that Congress did not enact, and by rendering congressional strengthening of that new law more difficult. I respectfully dissent.

tl;dr - You want a better law - ask congress, not us. Sadly, the rest of the court figured "yes, lawmaking, that sounds like our job."

Scalia will soon be sorely missed.
>>
>>64055384

Leader of the opposition here said it was a tragedy. Yes, he's a leftie nutter.
>>
>>64073839

no, they are just as corrupt but there are a LOT MORE of them so rather than just bribe a handful of Federal officials you have to bribe a handful of State officials in every single state. Which is a much harder task.

As for 'few' going to many, that is just not the case, many of the federal agencies could and should be removed and given to the states.
>>
>>64042813

I'm glad that both are gone, although I did celebrate Osama's death, but will only be glad about the consequences of Scalia's death, not his actual passing or the end of his life on Earth.
>>
Within the first year of the new Supreme Court DC v Heller will be overturned.
>>
File: mccaingitmo1.jpg (10KB, 402x250px) Image search: [Google]
mccaingitmo1.jpg
10KB, 402x250px
>>64074085
>so rather than just bribe a handful of Federal officials you have to bribe a handful of State officials in every single state. Which is a much harder task.
Not only is this entire premise ass-hatted, State and especially local officials can be bought on the super fucking cheap. You can get Mayors of cities like DC or Canada's Toronto for some blow and a hooker.

And not "influence" them, you can fucking OWN them.
>>
File: Current Year.png (334KB, 599x487px) Image search: [Google]
Current Year.png
334KB, 599x487px
>>64054635
>>
>>64074259
I don't think so. Judges are not usually very happy to overturn precedent without a really good reason. Usually.

But I can say that if this happens then it unquestionably signals a need for a civil war.
>>
>>64074259
what case is going to do that
>>
>>64073869
If people were going to murder him, it would have been before/after he handed the Bush v. Gore presidency to Georgieboy on a silver platter, or voting for Citizen's United. There is little point having him removed this late in Obama's presidency, where it is uncertain Obama can appoint some liberal replacement.

He was a fat, old man. Probably some kind of heart attack, or something.
>>
>>64074362

That implies that you cannot do the same with federal officials.
>>
>>64074362

So why aren't you doing it already?

I've been building blackmail on my local & regional government for a decade. it's harder now with apps, smartphones, tablets etc- it was way easier when all people used were PCs. but i still get my keylogging done :)

when the tipping point comes, my region will be home to the RWDS and local government will defend us against all comers, unless they want their affairs, porn, embezzlement, and other vices made public
>>
>>64074536
>this entire post

Jesus christ i didn't think i'd laugh this hard at this thread. You're a card, anon.
>>
He's been on the court for 30 years.

If he gave a darn about his precious Originalist legacy why didn't his geriatric corpse retire during any year from late 2002 through 2006 when the Republicans had Dubya in office plus Majorities in the Senate & House?
>>
>>64042846
>Daily reminder that none of the Founding Fathers endorsed the view that the Supreme Court should have judicial review.

Some did, though.
>>
File: watermellon bucket.jpg (11KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]
watermellon bucket.jpg
11KB, 250x250px
>>64022842
rip fatso
>>
>>64074536
Rural Women's Development Society?
>>
>>64042688
If Trumps get schwacked this nation is going to burn.
Guaranteed civil war.
>Bernie gets cucked for dem nom.
>Trump Beats Shillary
>Trump assasinated
I be ina woods if it be so.
>>
>>64074716
because Bush was just as likely to put an Activist Republican on the bench, which is significantly worse than a liberal Constitutionalist
>>
>>64043409
>Since there are only two possible explanations of the origin of life
false

>any evidence that tends to disprove the theory of evolution necessarily tends to prove the theory of creation science, and vice versa.
also false.

>the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of complex life, and the extreme rarity of transitional life forms in that record, are evidence for creation science
since when does the abrupt appearance of complex life (presumably meaning multiple-cell life) translate into "all life forms now on earth appeared suddenly and relatively recently and have changed little"
life around the time complex life forms appeared were VASTLY different to those alive now.

>The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger.
[in scalias dipshit opinion]. Creationism has fuck all scientific evidence in comparison to evolution.

>Evolution is not a scientific "fact," since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory.
more false bullshit. micro-organisms have been observed evolving all the fucking time, and unless we are discounting the observing the fossil record as observation then we've seen it happen in macro-organisms too.

>Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or "guess.
this cunt doesnt even know what a scientific theory is.
>>
Isn't this the guy that saved video games or something?

Fuck off reddit.
>>
>>
Ayy
>>
>>64074716
Arrogance, I imagine. Remember what Karl Rove said back when he was slightly relevant, something like the Bush presidency would usher in an era of republican dominance. Sounds hilarious in hindsight, but a lot of conservatives back then actually believed that shit.
>>
Nothing can stop us from moving America forward. I hope the fat Fuck is burning in Hell.
>>
File: Bush.jpg (47KB, 442x396px) Image search: [Google]
Bush.jpg
47KB, 442x396px
>>64074882
>because Bush was just as likely to put an Activist Republican on the bench

W famously tried to put his fangirl secretary on the bench, which had even his Republican supporters shaking their heads in disbelief.
>>
>>64074895
yup, but don't ask the Lefties to remember the past, it is all about WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR ME NOW!
>>
File: attack on tyrone.png (508KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]
attack on tyrone.png
508KB, 1024x576px
>>64074949
get off my planet you illegal alien!
>>
>>64022842
Fuck that fat fuck, I'm glad he's dead.
>>
File: dwight-d-eisenhower.jpg (36KB, 620x620px) Image search: [Google]
dwight-d-eisenhower.jpg
36KB, 620x620px
>>64074965
They've also consistently bitten on the idea that "America is leaning to the Right", against the overwhelming evidence that America is leaning to social Liberalism, and Fiscal Conservatism has been dead in this country for over 65 years.
>>
>>64074949
>>64074909
lmao
>>
>>64074456
i cant tell if youre a shill or not... good job
>>
>>64074882
Roberts (a "Moderate Hero/Institutionalist") & Alito voted with Scalia 89-90% of the time.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html

He never cared about his jurisprudence. He just wanted a job for life.

Completely selfish.

I'll freely throw RBG in the same dungeon with him during the Obama era through 2014.
>>
>>64075025
>yup, but don't ask the Lefties to remember the past

Whereas the Right just invents a fictional past where the country was the Andy Griffith Show.
>>
>>64074895
It was 5-4. Elena Kagan was actually the big savior, since she was on the fence about it, and eventually swayed towards violent vidya being protected under free speech.
>>
>>64022842

Good riddance, all these concucks sing him a sweet lullaby, faggots

>>64042999 :


>Scalia has argued that there is no constitutional right to abortion
>Scalia believed that the death penalty is constitutional
>Scalia concurred in the 1990 case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health in which the family of a woman in a vegetative state sought to have her feeding tube removed so she would die, believing that to have been her wish
>Scalia joined the majority per curiam opinion in the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, which effectively ended recounts of ballots in Florida following the 2000 US Presidential election
>In 2004, in Rasul v. Bush, the Court held that federal courts had jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions brought by detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp
>Scalia generally voted to strike down laws which make distinctions by race, gender, or sexual orientation

>Scalia was a devout Roman Catholic

Fuck this asshole.
>>
>>64042923
>>64063713
>>64070878
I wouldn't be surprised if he was assassinated. That was one of the first things I wondered after hearing about it. There's a shitload of people with motives.

If they don't release autopsy results, it'll be time to get the pitchforks.
>>
>>64075228
>Roberts (a "Moderate Hero/Institutionalist") & Alito voted with Scalia 89-90% of the time.
Those are relatively normal rates. In fact, it's rare to have agreement rates below 70%. Most hover in the 70-80% range.
>>
>>64075375

Based as fuck tbqh. Why don't you get some cream for that sore anus libcuck?
>>
>>64044074
>Obama gets to add a 3rd liberal :^)

Sage doesn't know the senate has to confirm.

Who controls the senate right now?

REDDIT FAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH
>>
>>64075375
>muh death penalty

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the death penalty, faggot.
>>
>>64075375
But none of those things are mentioned in the Constitution so it should default to the States, which is what Scalia said every single time.

If you want something to be legal go through the fucking legislature, that is what it fucking exists.
>>
>>64068432
I am with you dude. My mom texted with the news today. She is an appelate judge in Florida, appointed by /pol/'s latest meme — Yung Bush.

I just said, "oh fuck," when she texted me.

The implications of this are huge.. I mean mind is blown.

I work for a newspaper and last week I wrote a story about SCOTUS' precedent-setting stay in the Clean Power Plan case. It was a 5-4 decision, Scalia was the swing vote.

Goddamn man..history in the making.
>>
File: HarrietMiers.jpg (56KB, 259x345px) Image search: [Google]
HarrietMiers.jpg
56KB, 259x345px
Anyone remember when W tried to appoint his personal lawyer and girlfriend to the Supreme Court?
>>
>>64075253
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass%27n#Opinion
Is this it? Because it was 7-2 with Thomas & Breyer dissenting.
>>
>>64043076

>reply for awareness
>>
>>64075623
fuck my typos, son. Im faded for Big Scalia. Pour one out
>>
>>64068995
Why is Jeff Gerstmann crying?
>>
>>64075597

how in the god damn fuck are people this fucking stupid

read up on what fucking de jure and fucking de facto are
>>
File: Dog Poop funny poo shit-thumb.jpg (30KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]
Dog Poop funny poo shit-thumb.jpg
30KB, 400x300px
>>64022842
I hope that fat useless fuck does not rest in peace. I hope his grave is broken into, and a rioting gang take turns dumping huge shits into it.
>>
>>64075375
Wow this guy was based as fuck, if the sjw really want to take a chance on fucking the world over this is their chance to take the spot
>>
>>64075905

edgy/10
>>
Why couldn't that kike Ginsburg have died instead
>>
>>64075890
>read up on what fucking de jure and fucking de facto are
Look, it's simple. You want the law to reflect the current situation - you change the law, in the legislative body responsible. You don't go to court, it's not their fucking job. Their job is looking at a law, and checking if it fits with the constitution, and that is all. Practicality is the job of legislation.
>>
File: red.jpg (341KB, 717x880px) Image search: [Google]
red.jpg
341KB, 717x880px
>>64075905
>>
God rest your soul, Scalia-senpai.
>>
>>64043838
The people should be able to decide who lives and who dies. Penalties should be decided by the Jury.

>>64044143
Honestly they will be replaced by adapted fish pretty fast. Might be mass starvation.
>>
>>64075999

because she's not even in the bottom half of bad justices currently seated

>>64076068

alright fuckface

if something is deemed unconstitutional, there are no laws making it illegal, that is DE FACTO legality

they didn't create a statute, DE JURE, making something legal

you're right, its real god damn stupid, and total fuckups like you can't wrap their god damn head around it
>>
http://butthatsnoneofmybusiness.com/new-jersey-gay-couple-discovers-they-are-in-fact-long-lost-twins/
>>
>>64075984
l eddit/10
>>
>>64066467
>conservative cause

Fuck off with that shit, it doesn't mean shit and it never did. Trump exposed this charade for what it is. He did nothing for the common people, everything for Beltway cucks. "Conservative cause" is code for "I don't give a shit about Conservative values, I just want Republicans to win while the country rots".
>>
>>64075375
>Scalia generally voted to strike down laws which make distinctions by race, gender, or sexual orientation
If you're calling someone an asshole, it's a compliment. Are you a liberal or a nazi, just out of curiosity, since you sound like both?
>>
File: osama3.jpg (614KB, 799x1024px) Image search: [Google]
osama3.jpg
614KB, 799x1024px
We are so fucked as a country.

Buy your guns now. You won't be able to by most of them soon.

Say goodbye to freedom of speech and the 2nd Amendment.

Say hello to unfettered immigration, affirmative action and hate-speech laws.

Transgender bathrooms for everyone by Christmas.
>>
>only 5 Goy-publican Senators between us and a gun-grabbing Supreme Court

It's all ogre. Goodbye friends.
>>
>>64043493

>BS in chemistry
>finishing this semester

Your opinion doesn't matter until you spend time in industry. Stfu and get off our /pol/
>>
>>64076396
You're right. We are fucked.
>>
Not arguing with you, thanks for da facts. Imma embellish a bit.

>>64075375
>Scalia has argued that there is no constitutional right to abortion

There isn't an explicit Constitutional right to abortion. The Justices ruled it was implied based on an expectation of privacy. Scalia's dissent is a great example of his notorious strict interpretation of the Constitution.

>Scalia believed that the death penalty is constitutional

Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty.

>Scalia concurred in the 1990 case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health in which the family of a woman in a vegetative state sought to have her feeding tube removed so she would die, believing that to have been her wish

Seriously? The Constitution obviously never fucking addressed this. States' rights. Leave it to local legislatures.

>Scalia joined the majority per curiam opinion in the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, which effectively ended recounts of ballots in Florida following the 2000 US Presidential election

Not abreast of this one.

>In 2004, in Rasul v. Bush, the Court held that federal courts had jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions brought by detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp

SCOTUS is infallible because it is final, but final because it is infallible.
>hate the game, not the player

>Scalia generally voted to strike down laws which make distinctions by race, gender, or sexual orientation

>Constitution...
>>
Another homophobic cunt down.

Love wins! LIBERALISM WINS! WE ALWAYS WIN!
>>
>>64076538
Not final because it is infallible*
>>
>>64069901

The case quoted in >>64069647 wasn't about gay marriage. It was about Lawrence vs. Texas (2003) where two men were arrested having sex in private (in a home belonging to one of the men) The Court basically struck down Texas' sodomy law, arguing that they violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

Scalia's dissent essentially focused on the slippery slope argument (e.g. striking down sodomy will eventually lead to beastiality, bigamy, etc.) and the argument that intimacy was not a right guaranteed in the constitution.

I disagree with Scalia's views severely, but he was brilliant and committed and his death was tragic.
>>
EAT A SALAD
A
T

A

S
A
L
A
D
>>
File: image.jpg (82KB, 608x480px) Image search: [Google]
image.jpg
82KB, 608x480px
how do we fix women?
>>
File: 1328415951805.gif (2MB, 300x196px) Image search: [Google]
1328415951805.gif
2MB, 300x196px
How does that progress taste? /pol/ BTFO
>>
>>64066539
B-b-b-but he advanced the conservative cause. As right as you are, there's no point stating such obvious facts here. /pol/ talks tough when it comes to fighting leftism and degeneracy, but when one of the mainstream Republican milquetoast darlings dies they act as if modern day Mussolini died. This is the most pathetic /pol/ thread that I have ever seen, even more pathetic than the actual cuck threads. At this point I won't be surprised if /pol/ mourns if Jeb or George W die.
>>
File: 1454366351491.png (54KB, 501x600px) Image search: [Google]
1454366351491.png
54KB, 501x600px
>>64076703

the real Jews

enjoying that women's suffrage?
>>
>>64076709
>/pol/ talks tough when it comes to fighting leftism and degeneracy, but when one of the mainstream Republican milquetoast darlings dies they act as if modern day Mussolini died.
It's not so much about Scalia's personal views, but rather about a consistency in his judical decisions to me. Bending the constitution for a law in your favor won't do you good in the long run.
>>
LOVE WINS LOL

HOMOPHOBES BTFO

LOVE WINS LOL

HOMOPHOBES BTFO

LOVE WINS LOL

HOMOPHOBES BTFO

LOVE WINS LOL

HOMOPHOBES BTFO

LOVE WINS LOL

HOMOPHOBES BTFO

LOVE WINS LOL

HOMOPHOBES BTFO

LOVE WINS LOL

HOMOPHOBES BTFO
>>
shit america. this is bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWfRc9e9GJE
>>
>>64076396
gun shill detected
>>
File: 2012-04-21-CEFUK.jpg (38KB, 385x500px) Image search: [Google]
2012-04-21-CEFUK.jpg
38KB, 385x500px
In 2005, Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid said at the time of Sandra Day O'Connors retirement that she should be replaced by someone with the "same temperament and beliefs" as not to disrupt the "careful balance" of the court.

I'm sure we'll hear him call for the same when it comes to Scalia, right?
>>
>>64076974
This, I don't like Scalia but he was a reasonable man. We need more reasonable people, not necessarily more people that share the same views as me. Of course libcucks could never understand this distinction.
>>
>>64077086

o'conner was a solid swing vote, scalia never was
>>
>>64076181
>Penalties should be decided by the Jury.
I'll agree to this. Which is why I liked the Florida case that was just decided a month ago.
http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-floridas-death-penalty-system-for-giving-more-power-to-judges-over-juries/Content?oid=2464118
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurst_v._Florida

Alito was the only dissenter in this case.
>>
>>64076703
I think the real issue is that Buzzfeed is run by hacks who should be given a helicopter ride over the Pacific.
>>
http://efukt.com/21214_Jew_Boy_VS_Swedish_Pornstar.html
I didn't know where else to post this.
>>
>>64077200
bait
>>
>>64076974
The consistency doesn't matter because Scalia sat on the same bench with Jews and made rulings in favor of Jewish owned businesses and banks. Free market bullshit is opium for mainstream conservatives, I thought that /pol/ was smarter than that. Freedom of business in america is freedom to become debt slaves to Jews and freedom to let them suck this country dry.
>>
Real talk here.


Does the republican controlled Senate have a real chance of keeping President Obama from appointing a liberal supreme court justice?
>>
>>64077460

its fucking fact dipshit

she was relatively conservative early on but later on she was the swing vote in almost every case, anyone who thinks she was liberal is a god damn moron
>>
>>64077475
>Free market bullshit is opium for mainstream conservatives, I thought that /pol/ was smarter than that.
In other words, you want him to do the opposite of his job and instead follow your economic opinion.

That's not going to happen.
>>
>>64077533

depends how liberal he goes but its not likely and if they go too long, people will grow very weary of it and create some backlack
>>
>>64077200
Not the point.
Replacing him with someone who doesn't vote like him will disrupt the current "balance" of the court.

Just more Democrat hypocrisy.
>>
>>64022842
RIP, it's a shame you passed before I could meet you, you titan of constitutionalism.
>>
>>64077557
haha

got em
>>
>>64075375
Those seem pretty consistent and decent.
>>
>>64077533
I mean they could all they want. The issue is that Obama will run it through the ringer in the MSM and hurt the Republicans' popularity big time. I think their best bet is to let Obama confirm whatever hack he wants after the primary season is over (Trump'll have a field day if they let Obama have his way) and then use that to fire up their base to vote.
>>
Besides DC vs Heller and Bush vs Gore, what has he done for you, /pol/?
>>
>>64077533
Obama probably will go with a moderate liberal, since that'll shift the court more liberal and hedge against a conservative that might be chosen to replace Ginsberg when she leaves soon.
He won't want to make the issue of selecting a court justice one that republicans can point to and say "this is who liberals want in the courts"
Also, three candidates are senators, republican and democrat.
If he picks too liberal, Sanders might side against it, and that'll look baaaaaad.
>>
>>64022842
Good fucking riddance.

Should have died sooner.
>>
>>64022842
>the supreme court will now be left leaning as shit
well shit, there goes democracy.
goodbye based scalia.
>>
>>64077562
Just noticed your flag flair. Why the fuck am I talking to you? American politics based on the constitution enable degeneracy and self-destruction.I'm just pointing out how it's hypocritical for /pol/ to push alt-right/anti-degeneracy politics while embracing a milquetoast Beltway Republican judge. This has nothing to do with his job. His job as it currently exists is an abomination that's a result of almost two centuries of judicial overreach.
>>
>>64077533
Definately.

3 options:
1) Hold the hearings and then vote down any nominee. They have the majority.
2) Fillabuster. Hold the hearings but have 40+ Senators vote to not invoke cloture which keeps the nominee stalled.
3) Senate Leader simply doesn't schedule a hearing. He controls the calendar.

All have risks for different reasons. Obama will definitely nominate someone. Then we will see which option they choose. I predict they will try #3 first, but Democrats may throw a fucking tantrum over it.
>>
>>64077533
Most judges seem relatively moderate. Unfortunately it's not easy for either side to ferret out judges before they're nominated, which is why the nominations are so contentious.
>>
>>64077086

Did Bush listen to Reid then? No?

Sounds like Obama has all the precedent he needs then.
>>
these le lerrddit scum think they've won something. The unfortunately nees for them is that the last adult on the SCOTUS is gone, for aobama rompelace with some psychotic liberal negrees,
Won't be"feeling the bern" when society is fucking imploding around,
>>
>>64077973
>I'm just pointing out how it's hypocritical for /pol/ to push alt-right/anti-degeneracy politics while embracing a milquetoast Beltway Republican judge.
>/pol/ is one person

That aside, you gotta work with what you have. Scalia was among the best options in the court.
>American politics based on the constitution enable degeneracy and self-destruction.
So in short, you simply hate freedom, and can't foresee a future where your political opponents hold all the power you want to hand to the government.

Also, it's amazing how you rant against judical overreach and against the one justice who has consistently complained about judical overreach.
>>
>>64077824

>If he picks too liberal, Sanders might side against it, and that'll look baaaaaad.

You fucking wot? I can't imagine any candidate being "too liberal" for Sanders to support short of (maybe) a literal communist.
>>
>>64078096
>implying obama isn't a piece of shit
>implying bush wasn't a piece of shit
>implying making literal kangaroo courts are a good thing
oh boy but good thing we will throw them "right wing extremists" into gitmo eh?
>>
>>64022842
...did Obama have Scalia assassinated?
>>
>>64078286

If Obama had his way Gitmo would be closed, I'm not sure what point you're making.
>>
>>64078300
Yes
>>
>>64078300
Hopefully.
>>
>>64078176
>you simply hate freedom

OMG can you be anymore cucked? And once again why are you arguing about this with me? Don't you have some rapefugees to shelter?

>Also, it's amazing how you rant against judical overreach and against the one justice who has consistently complained about judical overreach.

Gonzales v. Raich. Scalia was a hypocrite on this subject.
>>
>>64077824
>If he picks too liberal, Sanders might side against it, and that'll look baaaaaad.

This is the stupidest thing I've read all week.
>>
>>64078345
>If Obama had his way Gitmo would be closed
I'm not sure you realize this, but what obama says and what obama wants are wholly different things.
>>
>>64078300
nah probably shillary did though for when the election is inevitably brought to the supreme court again and she auto wins because of a pack of she boons on the supreme court.
>>
>>64078345
anon obama had a supermajority of dems in congress at one point, its literally his own damn fault gitmo is still open.
>>
>>64078286
>literal kangaroo courts
>LITERAL KANGAROO COURTS
Dear God, NO! The marsupial world order has begun! Their powerful hind legs, massive tails, and child-rearing pouches will destroy our judicial system!
>>
>>64078417

He really does want Gitmo closed though. He's still trying to find a way to do it, even though Congress has made it all but impossible.
>>
File: 1454977535852.gif (374KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]
1454977535852.gif
374KB, 1200x900px
Libertarian here for Scalia

We must stop Obama for putting in a a political separatist from being on the Supreme Court
>>
Scalia was assassinated for blocking the Obama administration on carbon taxes.
>>
>>64043872
Small government types love it when you obstruct the legislative process to a screeching halt. There's nothing more they love than electing people to not do their jobs, and then act as if its a virtue. And as far as "independents/moderates" go, the Republicans gained even more seats in Congress after "shutting down" the government.
>>
>>64078386
>Gonzales v. Raich. Scalia was a hypocrite on this subject.
Why? Because he didn't argue against the feds have a power no one disputed they have?
>>64078561
No, not "even though", but "because".

It's a PR issue for him. So he gets to keep gitmo while looking anti-gitmo.
>>
>>64077533

No chance. Historically, appointing a supreme court justice takes about 2-3 months.
>>
>>64022842
Now if all the other shitbags would just keel over we might have some hope for the future...
>>
>>64022842
Gonna miss his defense of the second amendment.

Not going to miss him placing his religious affiliation above his duty to the country.
>>
What happens in these situations where votes have already been taken, and they are just waiting for june to release decisions?
The negroes wist ne celebrating bc the most outspoken critic of "affirmative blacktion" on the court is dead. I.d bet evrn some of the liberal scum on court aren't thrilled bc thry could count on him to say whst they were actually thinking.
Given thst obams has appointed 2 radical nebroes as AG, will he hsb balls to do same with a Supreme opening?
>>
>>64078561
By looking for a way to close it, you mean looking for a way to get Congress to share responsibility for anything bad that comes from closing gitmo. It's a military base. He can close gitmo just by ordering it closed. What he wants is to hide behind "bipartisan agreement" if the inmates go back to being terrorists,
>>
RIP
CONDOLENCES
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO5y2O_hv3I

I guarantee you the Republicans won't want to nominate someone but the media will launch a huge shilling campaign basically saying "HURRRDURRR THESE PEOPLE WON'T NOMINATE SOMEONE" and it'll be Government Shutdown 2.

It's only a matter of time until some ultracuck goes over and nominates some libshit to the court. Good bye gunrights. Good bye closed borders. Good bye constitution.
>>
>>64078763
> feds have a power no one disputed they have

Growing weed in your backyard is interstate commerce? Thomas made the right conservative argument in this case. Thomas is what Scalia pretended to be while shilling for Beltway Republicans.
>>
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA
FUCK SCALIA
WHAT A PIECE OF SHIT

he wasn't even trying to make sense towards the end, he was just being a corrupt shitbag

good riddance
>>
I'm not a political geek like the rest of you but didn't this guy side with corporations owning elections in the Citizens United case? He can rot
>>
>>64078763

>It's a PR issue for him. So he gets to keep gitmo while looking anti-gitmo.

Except he's been persistently releasing inmates or transferring them to other countries. The PR from closing Gitmo would be a bigger accomplishment than just being anti-Gitmo but unable to do anything.

>>64078873

The inmates could have been transferred to federal prisons within the US but Congress wouldn't allow that.
>>
>>64078862
CNN said opinions aren't valid until they are released, so since Scalia isn't around anymore his vote doesn't count for jack.

Expect 4-4 deadlocks all day, every day.
>>
>>64079062
Yeah just like corporations own Trump and Bernie in this election, fuck off you prick.
>>
>>64078980
The President nominates, while Congress confirms.
>>
>>64078982
>Growing weed in your backyard is interstate commerce?
Effectively, it ends up being just that, and you bloody well know it. But surely there's no massive black market to be expected. All that weed will never cross state borders. No sire, nothing to see here.
>>64079065
>Except he's been persistently releasing inmates or transferring them to other countries.
... after they were no longer useful, and being glad he can dump them on someone else.
> The PR from closing Gitmo would be a bigger accomplishment than just being anti-Gitmo but unable to do anything.

Sure. But it would lose him Gitmo.
>>
>>64078375
Well we found the butt-sex fanatic
>>
>>64078862
Kagan recused herself from the affirmative action case so it was always going to be 5-3 or 4-4. Now it will be either 4-3 or 3-4
>>
>>64079104
4-4 deadlocks uphold in favor of lower court decisions, and the majority of lower courts are stacked blue. A metric shit-ton of liberal decisions can, technically, go through in the next 11 months.
>>
>>64079263

He's in his last year of the presidency, he doesn't "need" Gitmo anymore, if he ever needed it to begin with. It's not like there aren't plenty of other black sites probably still operating that don't serve the same purpose with none of the visibility.
>>
>>64079159
There are a lot of RINO's in the senate. The media will launch a huge shill campaign. We need Trump now more than ever.
>>
>>64079062
No offense, Anon, but you've been misinformed on Citizen's United.
It said Labor Unions (Democrats) and Corporations (Republicans & Democrats) cannot be restrained in spending money on political actions. There are still limits on how much you can donate to any one candidate though. Also, Democrats NEVER bring up the fact it included Labor Unions, which give HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to Democrats (and Democrats only) every election period.

In other words, it's bullshit boogie man that liberals cite that has nothing to do with reality.
>>
>>64079130
You assume I support any candidate this election and that I'm not thoroughly disgusted with the rampant corruption on both sides . No how about you fuck off ass clown
>>
>>64077689
Agreed, I really wanted to meet the man.
>>
>>64079425

what about the liberals that don't support either being able to do that

or is that too complex for you
>>
>>64079425

>There are still limits on how much you can donate to any one candidate though.

But there's no such limit when it comes to donations to SuperPACs, which you conveniently neglected to mention.
>>
>>64044662
Im pretty left by /pol/ standards but I agree. Solar and wind are jokes. Why the fuck the green movement shoots itself in the foot by being anti-nuclear, we could be living in the clean-energy utopia they envision, except they prevent it by failing to have an ounce of pragmatism.
>>
>>64079492
>implying
>>
>>64079425
>It said Labor Unions (Democrats) and Corporations (Republicans & Democrats) cannot be restrained in spending money on political actions.
It's also a very important decision, because it's broader than that, because it bases the decision on associations of citizens, and the fact that you always need to spend money to exercise your right to free speech.

A wrong ruling could have been a serious cut on the freedom of the press, the right to demonstrate, and other "collective" speech.
>>
>>64079554
The "Not In My Backyard" effect is too strong. Everyone likes the idea of nuclear power, but no one wants a nuclear reactor in their neighborhood.
>>
Being against Citizen's United is being against Free Speech. It's that black and white.
>>
>>64079529
Presumably such people, if they exist, have died through various means that people with an IQ above 70 manage to avoid, like drowning the bathtub.
>>
>>64079773

not even remotely true

>>64079776

so too complex for you to comprehend, got it
>>
>>64043872
>they will stonewall for the entire year.
They won't do it. over 20 seats in the senate are up for the election and they're not going to risk those trying to stall for 11 months.
>>
>>64079725
There's also the matter that at least we here are getting a raw deal on nuclear. Long-term fuel storage, insurance, post-dismantling material storage, all that is left to the taxpayer under the guise of being too important for the company to handle.
>>
>>64079263
>Effectively, it ends up being just that, and you bloody well know it.

No, I don't because I'm not a German cuck. "Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value"-Justice Thomas.
>>
>>64079554
Most nuclear is blocked because of waste not because of whatever propaganda you think people are totally gaslit by. Nuclear had a chance but it's extremely expensive to get rolling and the total cost of ownership is a lot higher than the pro-nuclear camp wants to admit, because they *also* want to eliminate the laws that make it so fucking expensive, even though most of those laws are actually quite reasonable.
>>
>>64079531
>"cannot be restrained in spending money on political actions"
>You didn't say SuperPAC!!!

Do you even know what PAC stands for, idiot?
>>
>>64079920
Of course, he's right. And he would stay right, if posession is all people did. But as a matter of fact, they don't - black market trade is rampant. The feds have the right to react to said black market, and to attempt to fight it at its root.
>>
>>64079554
Solar and wind have their places but they're not, at least currently, viable replacements for all other types of energy generation. They pair nicely though with nuclear, with the nuclear plant providing baseline energy that adjusts to the variable output of solar and wind. Not all greens are against nuclear. Some are very much in favor and are very passionate about it. There has been a huge divide in the environmental community on the issue. That you don't know this makes me think you're a simple minded rightwing reactionary who lets political tribalism determine his views instead of actual science and implementation.
>>
Wasn't Scalia a disgusting papist?
>>
>>64080033
Yeah he was Italian.
>>
>>64079828
>so too complex for you to comprehend, got it
lel

>citizens united is overturned because corporations aren't people
>suddenly organizations are some kind of weird new entity that law cannot deal with
>unions can't rent space to hold meetings because you can't contract with these weird new entities
>businesses lose all their property because only people can own property and businesses aren't people
>entire economy collapses as legislators scramble to define what these weird new entities are and no one can agree on anything
but at least they're not buying attack ads against your pet communist!
>>
>>64080016
>But as a matter of fact, they don't - black market trade is rampant. The feds have the right to react to said black market, and to attempt to fight it at its root.

This is pure drivel. Judicial activism,at its finest. Supreme Court is suppose to rule on the immediate facts of the case, not consequentialist speculations,
>>
i can't believe how happy this greasy wops death had made me
>>
>>64080118

shocking how they did all that before the ruling

its almost like CU had nothing to fucking do with that at god damn all
>>
>>64080223
>Supreme Court is suppose to rule on the immediate facts of the case, not consequentialist speculations,
Don't be ridiculous, this isn't even possible in principle, nevermind in practice.
>>
>>64080118
Half of those consequences wouldn't happen.

It's just that everything that now goes through businesses would have to go through business owners, which can be odd groups.
>>
>>64080232
Gas yourself, you inbred hillbilly fuck. Italians are have more intelligence in one pinky than you do in your brain..or all of your three teeth. You are an embrassment.
>>
>>64080312
>It's just that everything that now goes through businesses would have to go through business owners, which can be odd groups.
Yeah, millions of owners in the case of a lot of companies that are publicly traded. Great.
>>
File: Burbling Britbongs.jpg (49KB, 464x444px) Image search: [Google]
Burbling Britbongs.jpg
49KB, 464x444px
>>64080334
>Italians are have
>embrassment
>>
>>64080411
Even in those cases, the CEO could probably, as their representative, keep things together. It's less of an issue than people think. What would change a lot is liability issues - without companies as people before the law, you have to idendify a specific person you can sue, which can be very hard to track down.
>>
>>64080310
>nevermind in practice

Supreme Court isn't about "in practice". It's about upholding the Constitution and precedents. The coirt didn't do so in Gonzales v. Raich. Consequentialist speculation is the ideological basis for judicial activism. There is no "spirit of the constitution" or anything else like that. There's only Consitution, the precedents, and facts of the case. Consequentialist speculation goes beyond that. Just because it's practically impossible, doesn't mean the Supreme Court should strive to perform its duties to thefullest and without overreach.
>>
>>64079425
>There are still limits on how much you can donate to any one candidate though
I read the entire opinion and it's spawn Mccutcheon v. FEC, which boiled down to a denial that since Parties or Candidates can ever really be corrupted so I honestly don't understand why they even bothered to leave the hard money limits in place.
>>
>>64079921
Waste disposal would be easier if the US and Russia got rid of their antirecycling treaty (Since recycling the waste apparently brings it closer to weapons-grade?)
>>
>>64022842
How is jew Gingsberg still alive

Fuck
>>
>>64080664
>There's only Consitution, the precedents, and facts of the case.
And the facts of the case included the rampant black market for drugs, which very much goes past state lines, and does include weed from all sources it can gobble up. The facts of the case include that legalized growth includes a large option for the mafia to grow, which would and already did end up as interstate commerce. That's the basis the feds acted on, and hence they were allowed to.
>>
>>64076396
AUDIT THE SCOTUS MEDICAL RECORDS BILL

RAND PAUL WHEN
>>
>>64080334
any italian who wants to claim Scalia as their own can piss in their own mouths
>>
1/8 deaths are people dying in their sleep.

What is the percentage of old people that die in their sleep with no prior symptoms rather than going to a hospital or taking weeks to die on life support?
>>
>>64080746
i could have sworn ginsburg was one of the lot who died under obummer.
fucking barenstein universe shit.
>>
>>64080635
Companies functioned perfectly well as legal entities prior to Citizens United, and were very well-established in their legal rights and responsibilities. CU simply gave them a right they should not have had: to influence politics collectively, when previously their individual employees/investors contributed as they willed. Now, an employee or investor can see portions of the profits they helped create go to an arbitrary politician.
>>
>>64080859
>Ozzy
>pretending like anything going on in the real world has anything to do with you

I hear a dingo eating your baby abbo.
>>
>>64022842
>“disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression.” -Antonin Scalia

Godspeed, big guy.
>>
>>64081187
LIBERAL SPOTTED
>>
>>64080854
>facts of the case included the rampant black market for drugs
> large option for the mafia to grow, which would and already did end up as interstate commerce

Once again, consequentialist speculation isn't a valid basis for jurispudence and constitutional rulings. By that logic milking a cow is illegal because there's a large market for illegal unpasteurized milk,and all milk starts unpasteurized. Funny how the potential for illegality is only considered to be a valid cause for activist judges when it comes to drugs or free speech. What makes you think you're an American constitutional scholar Germancuck?
>>
>>64022842
Good riddance to bad garbage.
>>
>>64077876
>there goes democracy
>based scalia
Republitard delusion knows no bounds. This man rigged a fucking election.
>>
>>64080664
>Supreme Court isn't about "in practice".
That's exactly what it is.
> It's about upholding the Constitution and precedents.
If this is all it were, the Supreme Court would hear one case a term. Legislation is not totally clear and legislatures are not in any way bound to make laws consistent even if they are clear. Then it is up for the courts to manage.

> There is no "spirit of the constitution" or anything else like that. There's only Consitution, the precedents, and facts of the case. Consequentialist speculation goes beyond that.
It totally doesn't and it's hard to imagine how anyone could be so narrow-minded to see this. Here's a question for you: the Fourth Amendment is totally clear, right, that warrantless search and seizure is against the law. Question: is a drug-sniffing dog a "search"? Please let me know which section of the Constitution you plainly read to come to such a conclusion.

>Just because it's practically impossible, doesn't mean the Supreme Court should strive to perform its duties to thefullest and without overreach.
They do. I have yet to read a single court case in which I felt they radically overstepped their bounds, after having found out what exactly was in contention and why it was in contention.
>>
>at model un
>people literally cheering after hearing he died
fuck melbourne
>>
>>64080746
>>64081154
the evil ones always live the longest

fuck I already see gross disgusting cat lady liberals tlaking all cynically about who it should be and why the republicans have no upsides
>>
File: US-Supreme-court.jpg (195KB, 919x928px) Image search: [Google]
US-Supreme-court.jpg
195KB, 919x928px
PREDICTIONS /pol/
>Roberts
>Kennedy
>Alito
>Thomas
>Ginsberg
>Sotomayor
>Kagan
>Breyer

WHO DIES AND WHO RETIRES?
It was abundantly clear years ago that Scalia was never going to leave the bench in anything other than a coffin.
>>
>>64081181
>CU simply gave them a right they should not have had: to influence politics collectively, when previously their individual employees/investors contributed as they willed.
It gave them a right they were due for a long time, because it's not a right for the corporation, but for the owners, who build an association. Since that's a common thing (people associating to influence politics through speech together, instead of alone, because it makes their voice easier to be heared) there's no reason to make an exception for business owners. The press operates under the precise same basis.
>>64081282
>Once again, consequentialist speculation isn't a valid basis for jurispudence and constitutional rulings.
It's not speculation. Speculation would mean that you assume consequences that haven't happened yet.
> By that logic milking a cow is illegal because there's a large market for illegal unpasteurized milk,and all milk starts unpasteurized.
That may be the case if such a large market existed. It doesn't.
>>
>>64081287
you seriously think the retards obama throws in is gonna be any better? the court system is best when its balanced, with this highly left leaning shit its gonna cause all kinds of brands of retardation to happen in the court system.
the fact we had retards on both sides is why it was ok, removing one side means its gonna go from a reasonable middle to going extremist on one side, besides your a europoor, why the fuck are you even on this thread, this literally has fuckall to do with you other then you want to shitpost.
>>
>>64080735
No, there's a huge Cosean bargaining problem with nuclear waste because of State's rights. Between states that want nuclear power and states that don't mind storing nuclear waste are states that don't want either, for reasons that I am not wholly unsympathetic to. Transporting nuclear waste across the ocean doesn't seem particularly more safe than across a highway.
>>
>>64081388
My personal predictions
>Roberts
Retires
>Kennedy
Dies
>Alito
Retires
>Thomas
Dies
>Ginsberg
Dies
>Sotomayor
Dies
>Kagan
Retires
>Breyer
Retires
>>
>>64081402
>defending citizens united
Fuck off cucklord jew
>>
>>64081465
>Transporting nuclear waste across the ocean doesn't seem particularly more safe than across a highway.
It's significantly less safe, because it includes the possiblity of the waste simply being lost at sea, and then rotting away in the ocean. That's not a popular idea.

On the highway? Those containers are sturdy. Really sturdy. And you can't lose them on land.
>>64081550
Citizens united in effect guarantees the freedom of the press. Stop hating because you've been told to hate.
>>
>>64081463
Everything you said is literally irrelevant. I don't have allegiances to Obongo or anyone else. I'm simply pointing out how fucking retarded people are in praising this man simply because he was on their team.
>>
>>64081609
anon i was simply saying this is the death of democracy because having a court full of leftist she-boons means everything right or center is gonna be suppressed hard and this will allow stupid shit to happen. the supreme court is supposed to be a safeguard against stupid shit from one side, not enable the shit out of it,
>>
>>64081609
He isn't on my team and I still praise him. Fuck yourself.
>>
>>64081343
>It totally doesn't and it's hard to imagine how anyone could be so narrow-minded to see this. Here's a question for you: the Fourth Amendment is totally clear, right, that warrantless search and seizure is against the law. Question: is a drug-sniffing dog a "search"? Please let me know which section of the Constitution you plainly read to come to such a conclusion.

When did I mention plain reading? And you got your analogy backwards. In the spirit of consequentialist speculation you're embracing, search dogs would be made completely illegal since they have the potential to violate all sorts of civil rights in hypothetical scenarios. There's a thin line between interpreting the Constitution and judicial activism and the court must tread this line. Consequestialist jurispudence taken to its logical conclusions can lead to all sorts of bizzare legal rulings. The Supreme Court crossed a line it shouldn't cross in Gonzalez v. Raich and many other rulings.
>>
>>64081402
The owners of a business should contribute their OWN funds, not the funds of their business. They should not have the right to hijack the profits of their company for their own personal beliefs. If one wants to band together to influence politics, that's what political parties are for. Corporations should be in the business of making products and profit, not public policy.
>>
>>64081227
>“tradition is a valid basis for restricting marriage.” -Antonin Scalia
Fuck that guy, at least disgust is technically harm on some level.
>>
>>64081742
>The owners of a business should contribute their OWN funds, not the funds of their business. They should not have the right to hijack the profits of their company for their own personal beliefs.
Do you believe this should be true for ALL businesses? No public issuing an opinion through your business?
>>
>>64081402
>Speculation would mean that you assume consequences that haven't happened yet.

Because they fucking haven't. Raich was growing weed for herself, not for gangs, mafia, or cartels.

>That may be the case if such a large market existed. It doesn't.

Define "large" market. And you can apply the same logic to illegal arms trading. Once again WTF makes you an American Constitutional scholar, Germancuck?
>>
>>64081906
>Because they fucking haven't. Raich was growing weed for herself, not for gangs, mafia, or cartels.
But Raich is only one individual case in a large context. You can always find exceptions to broad-stroke laws where the law isn't needed. Doesn't mean the law can't persist.
> And you can apply the same logic to illegal arms trading.
And you should, if arms posession wasn't a guaranteed right.
>Once again WTF makes you an American Constitutional scholar, Germancuck?
Same thing that makes you one, nothing. Don't pretend you've studied law.
>>
>>64081609
>you only like him because he liked what you like!
Well... duh. I liked that he regularly checked the powers of the court. I shared many of his conservative values, and I liked that he stood up for the little guy against imminent domain in Keller vs New London, despite losing that battle.

He was alright by me. I hate the slow March of progressivism. Democracy has outlasted its usefulness in my opinion. The people in this country are vastly different and largely incompatible with one another.
>>
>>64081721
>>64081729
You don't get more anti-democracy than rigging elections.

>>>/closet/, GOP shills
>>
>>64081739
>There's a thin line between interpreting the Constitution and judicial activism and the court must tread this line.
We will continue to disagree on this point for basically ever. Courts are routinely presented with cases they are bound to decide in which any decision at all will have the ramifications you suggest they should be incapable of having.
>>
>>64081802
Yes. Corporations comprise widely varied individuals, with diverse opinions. Their common bond is to make products or services for profit; the political opinions of the CEO should not be forced upon his employees or investors, nor the reverse.
>>
>>64047592
Who the fuck invited you to the world at large
>>
>>64082005
>your not for communism
>so you are a pro bush corruption faggot
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
fuck off you stupid shit, take your redditard ways and get out of here, centrists exist you know, theres shit beyond your faggot 2 party homosexuality circlejerk you undemocratic faggot,
>>
>>64082114
Congratulations. You just killed the freedom of the press, in its entirety.
>>
>>64082024
I'm not talking about ramifications themself, I'm talking about putting ramifications on the same level or above as Constitution and precedent when making the ruling.
>>
File: TIE_Fighter.png (259KB, 640x352px) Image search: [Google]
TIE_Fighter.png
259KB, 640x352px
>>64081758
It is though.. the institution of marriage provides benefits because the couple has a high probability of providing children for the machine of the society, and even better chance of doing so if they had more money
>>
>>64082209
What don't people understand about this. If a faggot wants to spend all his life or even marry out of some fag religion then go ahead. Just don't give them any benefits that are meant to support nuclear families.
>>
File: futurama-xmas-story-14.jpg (57KB, 450x364px) Image search: [Google]
futurama-xmas-story-14.jpg
57KB, 450x364px
>>64047592
>>64082122
>tfw liberalism can only live when the daddy conservatives are supporting them

liberals would be so lost if it was just them
>>
>>64082002
>But Raich is only one individual case in a large context.

Meaningless. Supreme Court should rule on individual cases.It regularly throws out cases with enormous context because of standing and other minor technicalities.

>Same thing that makes you one, nothing. Don't pretend you've studied law.

I'm not. But you keep on applying assumptions that work in German civil law to American common law.
>>
>>64022842
His death proves that there is no god or if there is he doesn't support you cuntservatives. You think if there is a god and he's on your side he would have just killed Scalia almost a year before a new president would be put into office. Your god is not real. And if there is a god he obviously favors liberals. Why else would he kill Scalia now?
>>
File: 1455416629985.jpg (304KB, 1280x1705px) Image search: [Google]
1455416629985.jpg
304KB, 1280x1705px
rip
>>
>>64082327
>Just don't give them any benefits that are meant to support nuclear families.
Honestly, I'm in favor of redirecting all those funds supporting marriages towards supporting children. If need be, starting with proof of conception by a doctor, to permit preparations.
>>
File: ZoidJesus.png (548KB, 725x549px) Image search: [Google]
ZoidJesus.png
548KB, 725x549px
>>64082327
Yea, that's what I'm saying.. in this modern world we need to retool these kinds of things, if people want to "change society" then so should we, so they don't destroy it
>>
>>64082171
>me
>undemocratic
Are you seriously this dense that you don't get what I'm saying? You don't get to call someone who rigs elections a champion of democracy. Period, end of story.
>>
>>64082432
>he thinks god is a merciful god
>he thinks god is inherently good
>he legitimately believes everything liberals do is right and holy no matter how much they lie and cheat the system
reddit plz your retardation hurts like hell.
>>
>>64022842
He a real nigga dawg.
>>
>>64082187
The "Press" sucks anyway and should just stick to reporting facts and other things are defenable against libel and slander. I would shed no tears for the loss of their endorsements and opeds (which shouldn't be shoved as the representation of all their employees in the first place).
>>
>>64082361
>Supreme Court should rule on individual cases.
With this argument, you could invalidate damn near every law. It doesn't work like this. SCOTUS has heared the reason - black market interstate traffic fueled by homegrowth - and given it the nod, over the individual argument. Because that's one of the basic reasons we have governments, so we can make individuals take the fall to a certain extent for the benefit of the whole.
>>
File: futurama-20060707013233299.jpg (215KB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]
futurama-20060707013233299.jpg
215KB, 480x320px
>>64082432
maybe it does, maybe it doesn't

my god is different form yours
>>
>>64082187
The press merely expresses opinions and, one would hope, relates news and facts. There's a big difference between saying something, and contributing money to something. The CEO of a corporation is perfectly entitled to express his opinion on a political issue, but should not use his corporation's funds to lobby for it. In the same way, a newspaper that endorses a candidate is entirely different from that newspaper contributing money to that candidate.
>>
>>64082209
>It is though..
>tradition is rational basis
>that a law has existed for at least 2 generations is good enough reason for it to be immune to rational basis review
Why even have rational basis review at that point?

>the institution of marriage provides benefits because the couple has a high probability of providing children for the machine of the society, and even better chance of doing so if they had more money
And you think IVF and/or surrogacy are free?
>>
>>64082193
How is this to be avoided? Use the drug-sniffing dog example for concreteness so maybe I can understand what difference you think could exist but isn't being honorably adhered to.
>>
>>64082583
>With this argument, you could invalidate damn near every law.

No you can't, because all laws are assumed to be constitutional until the Supreme Court rules on them.

>black market interstate traffic fueled by homegrowth - and given it the nod, over the individual argument.

6 out of 9 justices did. The court has reversed their positions and reasoning before. My argument is that the dissents were more logical and consistent with Constitution and the precedents.

>so we can make individuals take the fall to a certain extent for the benefit of the whole

There is no precedent for such legal logic in American law.
>>
>>64082558
I don't think god exists at all, moron.
>>
>>64082572
>The "Press" sucks anyway and should just stick to reporting facts
There is no such thing as truly neutral reporting. You can report facts all day and still have one hell of a bias.
> I would shed no tears for the loss of their endorsements and opeds (which shouldn't be shoved as the representation of all their employees in the first place).
It's not just endorsements and opeds. It's explanations, interpretations, individual opinion pieces by people clearly idendifying themselves, ability to select news to publish and not publish, as well as the ability to select what parts to publish and not to publish.

It's also, again, blatantly violating people's right to free speech. Just because they have more means than you doesn't mean you get to drag them down to your level.
>>64082684
>There's a big difference between saying something, and contributing money to something.
When saying something, money is inevintably always involved. The usage of money to make your voice heared is nearly universal. That was one of the key points in the ruling. Even you are, right now, spending money to make your voice heared.
>In the same way, a newspaper that endorses a candidate is entirely different from that newspaper contributing money to that candidate.
And now off you go to read CU again. Because CU doesn't permit the company to hand over money to the candidate. Just to act as the press, even if that's normally not their business.
>>
File: AYPgg.jpg (38KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]
AYPgg.jpg
38KB, 640x480px
>>64082694
have you ever heard of a little thing called stare decisis?

or jurisprudence?

do you not understand that laws were in place for practical reasons, not to please peoples emotions?
>>
>>64082854
>There is no precedent for such legal logic in American law.
Of course there is. All age restricting laws work that way. People who are ready for the responsiblity earlier take the fall to protect those (or from those) who are not.
>>
>>64022842
rip american dude, no idea what's going on but god speed
>>
>>64082864
>do you not understand that laws were in place for practical reasons, not to please peoples emotions?
Sodomy sex was illegal until 2003, your move.
>>
>>64081063
There's always prior symptoms, it's just ignored a lot of the time.

So much shit gets swept under the rug of "I'm just feeling old". Heart failure? Nah I'm just old it's normal for me to not be able to walk for more than 30 seconds.
>>
>>64082980
do you think technicalities are going to prove laws aren't in places for reasons

>>64082943
the most conservative of our supreme court justices has died, he was the 4th conservative, of the 7

obama and the jews killed him prolly
>>
>>64082816
>Drug dogs are Constitutional for law enforcement searches
>Military police can use the drug dogs to detect drugs in private residences that they wouldn't otherwise
> They can use the knowledge of drug posession that they wouldn't otherwise have to intimidate the homeowner/resident into quartering them
>Third Ammendment violation
>Therefore sniffing dogs are unconstitutional

This is what I could think of off the top of my head. My point is you could stretch out the potential ramifications into all sorts of fantastical scenarios.
>>
>>64083138
>the most conservative of our supreme court justices

no, that would be thomas
>>
>>64083138
>do you think technicalities are going to prove laws aren't in places for reasons
My point is not that laws aren't put in place for practical reasons but that not all laws are put in place for practical reasons.

And it's an exception, not a technicality.

And if they are put in place for practical reasons ARGUE THOSE FUCKING REASONS.

That "we've always done it that way" isn't a fucking reason. If you can't even come up with the reason used at the fucking time for the law in the first place, fuck off with that shit.

Tradition alone cannot form a rational basis for any law.
>>
>>64083229
>>
>no, that would be thomas
Scalia is more conservative than Thomas.
>>
>>64082921
> All age restricting laws work that way. People who are ready for the responsiblity earlier take the fall to protect those (or from those) who are not.

Age restricitng laws aren't a precedent for universal application of common good in legal rulings. The Supreme Court has stated multiple times that it rules based on Constituion, not common good.
>>
>>64083289

no he isn't

not even fucking close
>>
>>64083186
I simply don't understand your position at all. I thought you were levying the ramification charge at the justices themselves (and by extension me, who is supporting their activities in this conversation), but now it seems like you're using to to explain your position, but I don't see how it resolves the problem of justices deciding constitutionality, which is the very overreach you wish to curtail.
>>
>>64081739
>Question: is a drug-sniffing dog a "search"?
Yes, it is an evidence-gathering technique that exceeds the limits of human senses in a significant way.
>>
>>64083309
>Age restricitng laws aren't a precedent for universal application of common good in legal rulings
Nice subtle moving of goalposts there.
>>
File: hqdefault.jpg (19KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]
hqdefault.jpg
19KB, 480x360px
>>64083229
yea i mean 5th of 9 right?

either way, it puts the majority down

and puts conservatives in a shitty situation

Because if they block a supreme court justice form getting put there, the liberal media will put a huge fuss up

which will make it look like they are trying to control shit

when if it was the liberals, it would be seen as a great political move
>>
>>64083289
If you define Conservatism by toeing the modern GOP line then Scalia was more conservative. If you define it by Constitutional conservatism then Thomas was more conservative.
>>
>>64083289
Nowadays even Alito has been
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices
>>
>>64045723
Agreed. We're right on schedule for social collapse in 2020 with this one.
>>
>>64082994
>So much shit gets swept under the rug of "I'm just feeling old". Heart failure?
This is true. It was just recently reported that a major symptom of having a heart attack in women is merely shortness of breath, nausea, and back or neck pain.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-women-heart-attacks-idUSKCN0V32QN
>>
>>64083351
My point is that the Justices are free to decide Constitutionality, but not to put the potential ramifications of their rulings on the same level as Constitution and precedent when deciding the constitutionality. Law=!application of the law. It's a tricky distinction, but an important one.
>>
File: blacula_03.jpg (520KB, 1350x1746px) Image search: [Google]
blacula_03.jpg
520KB, 1350x1746px
>>64083253
rationally argue that life matters.

you can't, cause you're asophist

liberals dont listen to reason, they say "these are just reasons"
>>
>>64050675
Indefinite detention.
>>
>>64045941
Ginsburg confirmed SJW libtard. Who will stand in her way now?

Shit's not looking good.
>>
>>64083526
>rationally argue that life matters.
I want to live. If I die this interest would be harmed. My life therefore matters to me and as I am a citizen, to this country.
>>
I HOPE HE ROTS IN HELL

Thank God we have Obama to fix the supreme court now. Hopefully whoever he appoints is flat out opposed to corporate personhood. That's really the top priority over all others at this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wai6OM3YKTk
>>
>>64083526
>>64083577
if they listened to reason, they would not be liberals

I can hear the liberals squealing with excitement from here

I am /Bay Aryan/, and on the news they are already talking about "the republicans will block whatever we do!"
>>
>>64083524
I really don't see the distinction, my apologies.
>>
>>64045372
>nstead of beheading people for some bullshit? :(

I bet you failed decapitation 101, nerd.
>>
>>64083382
I'm not moving any goalposts, I'm just explaining how the Constitutional jurispudence works. At no point did the Supreme Court rule "Age restricitng laws exist, therefore we should rule based on the common good" The fact that laws exist in USA doesn't mean that the Supreme Court approves of the logic behind them,it means that the law hasn't been succesfully challenged in the Supreme Court.
>>
File: 1426477270993.jpg (3MB, 2560x2880px) Image search: [Google]
1426477270993.jpg
3MB, 2560x2880px
>>64083666
>Hopefully whoever he appoints is flat out opposed to corporate personhood.
Let me guess, you get your political opinons from facebook and youtube?
>>
File: 1453754011073.png (8KB, 542x328px) Image search: [Google]
1453754011073.png
8KB, 542x328px
>>
File: fic-fcyb.gif (6KB, 336x216px) Image search: [Google]
fic-fcyb.gif
6KB, 336x216px
>>64083790
GERMANY PLS
>>
>>64083683
All good, this distinction is the reason why the Supreme Court has been such a shitshow for decades. If you want to understand where I'm coming from read some of Thomas's decisions.
>>
>>64083790
>>64083825
That's a relief.
>>
>>64083751
No, I don't use either. My core philosophy at this point stems from this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

All else follows. Currently Sanders is the only one who gets it.
>>
>>64083731
>At no point did the Supreme Court rule "Age restricitng laws exist, therefore we should rule based on the common good" The fact that laws exist in USA doesn't mean that the Supreme Court approves of the logic behind them,it means that the law hasn't been succesfully challenged in the Supreme Court.
Yes, but that wasn't what you asked me to provide. You asked me to provide that it exists in american law. And it does, challenged or not.

It's a concept that's all over the place. There's criminal law, which is mostly universal, and then there's the shitton of other laws which were made because a few people ruined good things for everyone, so everyone else now can't have good things anymore either. It's all the regulations on businesses, all those city ordinances, the traffic laws, and so on and on.
>>
File: 1434241185272.jpg (56KB, 406x476px) Image search: [Google]
1434241185272.jpg
56KB, 406x476px
>>64083863
>No, I don't use either.
>posts a youtube video
>>
>>64082861
>The usage of money to make your voice heared is nearly universal
Thus giving the wealthy proportionately more power economically AND politically. Why would one amplify that problem even further by giving them the ability to spend the profit of a corporation, in addition to their personal wealth? Corporate political contributions serve to inhibit free speech, not increase it: they drown out smaller, individual voices by sheer force of wealth. To treat a corporation as a person results in actual people becoming less-than-persons, never able to compete with the massive size and resources of multi-billion dollar businesses.
>>
>>64083876
>It's a concept that's all over the place. There's criminal law, which is mostly universal, and then there's the shitton of other laws which were made because a few people ruined good things for everyone, so everyone else now can't have good things anymore either. It's all the regulations on businesses, all those city ordinances, the traffic laws, and so on and on.

See, this is what I mean when I say you're applying German law logic to American law. This is why this conversation is so fruitless.
>>
>>64083833
I love Thomas, he's my favorite Justice.

Maybe my drug-sniffing dog is a bad example. Can you use some other example and show the contrast between actual court opinion, your view on what it should be, and finally how that decision would somehow not be "elevated"?
>>
>>64083914
It's a lecture. Are you retarded enough not to understand that? Do you have an alternative ubiquitous video sharing site that works on all bandwidths and countries?
>>
>>64084014
>I love Thomas, he's my favorite Justice.

...holy dogshit
>>
>>64083951
>Why would one amplify that problem even further by giving them the ability to spend the profit of a corporation, in addition to their personal wealth?
Because the corporation is the personal wealth of its owners. I don't see how that's so hard to get.
> To treat a corporation as a person results in actual people becoming less-than-persons, never able to compete with the massive size and resources of multi-billion dollar businesses.
And this is why people team up in large numbers, form demonstrations, political activist groups, unions and so on and on. Unions, notably, were given the exact same rights by CU.
>>64083994
Elaborate. Are you trying to tell me that laws that apply to everyone after a few people abused the lack of them aren't a thing in america?
>>64084031
I'm saying that if you can't explain it yourself, odds are you're just repeating someone elses opinion.
>>
>>64084125
Ban lobbying
>>
>>64084014
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz. The decision elevated the consequences of drunk driving above the Fourth Amendment rights when it came to constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints.
>>
>>64084158
Yes, that'll work. We'll just forbid people to talk to politicians. I'm sure that's constitutional.
>>
>>64084231
Go on.
>>
>>64022842
who is the fatty?
>>
File: fic-fdce.gif (5KB, 336x216px) Image search: [Google]
fic-fdce.gif
5KB, 336x216px
>>64083851
>>64083825
you're welcome, that was close
>>
>>64084240
>lobbying
>not legalized bribery
Pick one.
>>
>>64084231

this, dui checkpoints are one of the most blantant infringements possible and i still don't understand how anyone manages to support them

>>64084240

>i don't know what lobbying is

you are so far out of your league here its not even funny
>>
>>64084125
>Elaborate. Are you trying to tell me that laws that apply to everyone after a few people abused the lack of them aren't a thing in america?

They are, but ruling on the Constitutionality of the law is a completely separate matter from lawmaking in the United States. Laws that are ruled unconstitutional remain on the books despite changed enforcement. Federal and state government have defied the enforcement of Supreme Court rulings before. Supreme Court cannot create new law codes. It just creates precedents through their rulings.
>>
>>64084338
Lobbying is, in its purest form, only talking. Pure speech. Everyone who attempts to influence a politician through speech is effectively lobbying for their cause.

If you mean "extend the bans on bribery" then say that, and I'll probably be right on board. Just state in which direction.
>>64084402
>They are, but ruling on the Constitutionality of the law is a completely separate matter from lawmaking in the United States.
And it's not what you asked for.

Now, taking laws from this category - should all of them be ruled unconstitutional, once someone who hasn't abused the lack of them shows up and demands their removal? Or is it specifically the point of government to uphold those broad laws, to ensure that both laws are universal and the abuse stops?
>>
>>64084293
The majority opinion said that a sobrierty checkpoint had a "negligible impact on the drivers' Fourth Amendment right". It shouldn't matter whether the impact was negligible or not. They essentially admitted that the sobriety checkpoints violate Fourth Amendment rights,
>>
>>64084125
>Because the corporation is the personal wealth of its owners.
No, the personal wealth of the stockholders is their personal wealth. The corporation is a separate legal entity that exists to both generate profit and diffuse liability. The sole purpose and responsibility towards the stockholders is to grow, increase profits, and thus provide return on investments. The stockholders are then free to spend their return on whatever political issue they please; but for the corporation to spend profits itself is a betrayal towards investors or stockholders who may disagree with those political stances, or who may be apolitical and thus expect those funds to go towards growth, expansion, and thus more profit.
>>
>>64084641
I understood that. My question is to understand how you think ruling some other way would somehow have less legal force.
>>
>>64084568
I never talked about lawmaking. I was talking about Supreme court rulings the whole time.

>should all of them be ruled unconstitutional, once someone who hasn't abused the lack of them shows up and demands their removal

The laws can't be removed by being ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court makes a ruling on their enforcement, and it's usually respected. Only a party hurt by a law can take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Amicus Curae briefs allow third parties to present their opinion on the case to the Court regardless of investment, but the Court is free to disregard them without even reading them.
>>
>>64084797
I think the way they ruled was bad legal logic when judged against the Constitution and precedent. It didn't have less legal force, but it should because it created a precedent of "violating constitutional rights is OK when the violation is minor enough".
>>
>>64045948
Better question is why are so many replies deleted?
>>
File: fic-fspr.gif (8KB, 448x217px) Image search: [Google]
fic-fspr.gif
8KB, 448x217px
>>64085229
>>64045948
Because it could be the fall of the west as we know it, and we already know it's shitty

replies are probably deleted because this site is ran by weeb libs
>>
>>64085229

old replies deleted as new ones are posted because of post limit
>>
>>64085229
Old replies get cycled out so that the thread doesn't break.
>>
>>64084901
>I never talked about lawmaking. I was talking about Supreme court rulings the whole time.
You can't act like those are not related to each other. It's the constitution that grants the power of lawmaking, and hence the court has to respect said power. If the government passes a law that is within its power to make, but negatively impacts someone who has profited from a lack of said law, how do you want them to rule, once that someone brings it before the court?

It's in the nature of lawmaking that people sometimes have to take the fall, and it's in the nature of the courts that they need to respect the power of legislation to cause this. Otherwise, all legislation turns moot, or the courts are ignored and moot.

As such, sometimes a law - and here we can also include >>64085040 - will limit someone's constitutional rights, and still be upheld. Because the alternative may limits someone elses constitutional rights, or will simply have a too grave impact. By the way, there's the example you wanted. You provided it yourself. Good job.
>>
>>64085497

you need to get the fuck out, now
>>
>>64085353
>>64085355
Okay, this makes sense. Thanks, fellas.
>>
>>64022842
SCALIA WAS MURDERED SO A COMMUNIST COULD TAKE HIS PLACE!!
>>
File: 176_zoid-earth-flag-fire.gif (20KB, 502x556px) Image search: [Google]
176_zoid-earth-flag-fire.gif
20KB, 502x556px
>>64086047
that's what I was thinking

what, all the evidence we have is that someone said that he wasn't feeling good a couple days ago

the fuck is that?

I DEMAND WE DIG UP HIS BODY FOR ANOTHER AUTOPSY
>>
>>64083390

The media will hate them regardless. They should delay, block, delay, block as much as possible. Obama already used his hand for the wise latina and Kagan, I'm sure he'll pick a minority or a woman that will let them use the boogeyman of the hateful bigoted right but at least the blow will be diluted.

It wasn't even a fucking day before Scalia was kill and Obama already noted the obvious that he'll put forth a successor just to troll the right. Such a crock of shit that he gets off scott free in the blame of partisanship.
>>
File: hqdefault (1).jpg (8KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]
hqdefault (1).jpg
8KB, 480x360px
>>64086171
I know, it's the biggest crock o shit

seriously, we need trump to get into power, day of the long knives all of these politicians, blame it on the israelis, elect conservative politicans cause wartime, then us and the russians make a concerted effort to get the american public into thinking the israelis got what was coming to them.
>>
test
>>
RIP Tonie
Thanks for defending my rights all those times
>>
Rip in peace
>>
he'll bee fine
>>
File: 1453990054183.jpg (387KB, 998x924px) Image search: [Google]
1453990054183.jpg
387KB, 998x924px
>>64076703
>>
wew obama voting in two dykes
>>
>>64022842
Fear not, in the event that some SJW libshit type is his replacement our Glorious Leader only needs to look as far as how Andrew Jackson regarded the Supreme Kikes of the United States. Remember is the executive branch that is commander and chief not the SKOTUS.
>>
OBAMA WILL APPOINT HIMSELF TO THE SUPREME COURT AND BECOME THE SUPREME PRESIDENT
>>
>>64022842
Well shit. Skalia, we all hoped you'd retire as late as possible (no earlier than 2017 though). Godspeed you magnificient bastard, say hi from us all to Bork.
>>
"I believe in the Constitution! That's why Obama shouldn't be allowed to appoint a replacement for His Holiness Scalia!"
>>
>>64086346
>elect conservative politicans cause wartime
You pussy-ass little bitch.
It's wartime because ISIS has some pickup trucks?
What the fuck would you have done when the Soviets were at their peak in the 50's? Wet yourself?
>wartime
drama queen
>>
>>64022842
Who tf is scalia?
>>
>>64087930
Antonin Scalia was a US Supreme Court Justice
>>
>>64022842

> f
>>
>>64022842
I hope white ppl keep dying
>>
File: image.jpg (220KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]
image.jpg
220KB, 1000x750px
>>64022842
>>
>>64022842
>A conservative is finally dead
It's 2016 americucks, get ready to get cucked into the 21st century.
>>
>>64076225
what the fuck, how do you not understand that it means the state gets to have legislation that bans certain activities you retard holy fuck how can anyone capable of writing english be so fucking dense fucking christ
>>
>>64051051
Fuck off with your gerrymandering. That shit should be illegal so neither party can us it.
>>
1000 get
>>
>>64088447
"Kekd" or whatever these idiots say.
I laughed, okay.
>>
>>64088517
Scalia was fucking murdered.
>>
>>64087924
(you) lol
>>
?wat now?
>>
Not going to lie, I fucking hated Scalia for all his partisan hackery but I will sorely miss his fucking awesome dissents because they were legitimately interesting and fun to read.

Who the fuck is going to step up and replace Scalia in writing fucking awesome dissents?
>>
First
>>
File: 1454552205875.jpg (482KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]
1454552205875.jpg
482KB, 900x600px
>>64089305
Rand "Constitution Man" Paul
>>
File: 1450692924611.jpg (43KB, 636x360px) Image search: [Google]
1450692924611.jpg
43KB, 636x360px
>>64022842
So, has anyone found why he ded? Did he have a heart attack or go full Carradine? I will miss his trolling dissents.
>>
File: 1453608329687.gif (301KB, 136x240px) Image search: [Google]
1453608329687.gif
301KB, 136x240px
>>64071628
>>
>>64048263
Kennedy is the ONLY decent man of the bunch. The rest are activist filth and must be purged.
>>
>>64022842
whats the legality of congress opening a new justice seat if a republican gets elected as president?
>>
>>64075597
Except when it was something that the states should handle (like a recount vote) he was happy to have the SC overrule that.

And when the ACA passed in the house he voted to block it.

He wasn't a strict constitutionalism, he was a conservative partisan. The only decision he ever made of any principle was to keep flag burning legal.
>>
F
>>
>>64022842
RIP big guy.
Go Republican congress. Don't let Obummer get his nomination.
TRUMP2016
>>
So how exactly did he die again?
I mean one of the factors that make the election of 2016 extreamly important is that the next pres. was projected to appoint 3 new justices. And now, before republicans would have any chance of selecting one, the most conservative justice just drops dead, and a liberal gets to select his replacement.
I'm REALLY looking forward to reading the autopsy and the name/affiliation of the guy doing it.
One could even say this could become podracing.
>>
>>64046655
He can't tie them right so might as well forget it
>>
>>64089987

old age?

he was on a hunting trip with some buddies

he went to bed early complaining he didn't feel well and never woke up
>>
>>64090178
>old age?
He was also fat. Not a good combination.
>>
>>64089875
It's theoretically possible. The Constitution doesn't state how many justices are supposed to be on the court.

Practically, the matter would have zero support with both parties and any likely president, so you can still have the nice number nine for a while longer.
>>
>>64089916
Hell, even in the case of flag burning Scalia didn't adopt his stated "objective originalist" stance.

"In United States v. Eichman, for example, he voted to hold a federal statute forbidding the burning of the American flag unconstitutional, and it was certainly a vote against his ideological grain. But it is a curious example for a textual originalist to give. The relevant constitutional provision—“Congress shall make no law abridging ... the freedom of speech”—does not mention non-verbal forms of political protest, and Scalia and Garner insist that legal terms be given their original meaning lest the intent of the legislators or the constitution-makers be subverted by unforeseen linguistic changes. “In their full context,” they assert, “words mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written—with the understanding that general terms may embrace later technological innovations.” That approach is inconsistent with interpreting “freedom of speech” to include freedom to burn flags, since the eighteenth-century concept of freedom of speech was much narrower than the modern concept, and burning cloth is not a modern technological innovation. According to William Blackstone, whom Scalia and Garner treat as an authority on American law at the time of the Constitution, freedom of speech forbids censorship in the sense of prohibiting speech in advance, but does not prohibit punishment after the fact of speech determined by a jury to be blasphemous, obscene, or seditious. And so an understanding of free speech that embraces flag burning is exceedingly unoriginalist. It is the product of freewheeling Supreme Court decisions within the last century."
>>
>>64022842
F
>>
>>64090258
>Practically, the matter would have zero support with both parties and any likely president
why is that? if theres a republican run congress and a republican president and nothing is getting through the supreme court, wouldnt it be the best option?
>>
>>64047391
>burn in hell
Why are liberals always such fucking vengeful salty faggots
>>
>>64048263
Stevens was the last good one
>>
I wish Hunter S. Thompson was still alive to comment on the absolute clusterfuck this year in politic will be.
>>
>>64047433
If anything that graph shows warming wtf
>>
File: FDR_in_1933.jpg (94KB, 800x941px) Image search: [Google]
FDR_in_1933.jpg
94KB, 800x941px
>>64089875
>whats the legality of congress opening a new justice seat if a republican gets elected as president?

Was tried before by a President, slapped down by Congress. The Legislative branch knows it would be creating a complete political clusterfuck if they let it go down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
>>
>>64047433
If I'm interpreting this correctly, that is showing warming and if that is true then we can share a grave as you honorably kill yourself and I laugh myself to death
>>
File: Bachmann.jpg (27KB, 570x355px) Image search: [Google]
Bachmann.jpg
27KB, 570x355px
>>64090852
Cuckservatives confirmed for crybaby thumbsuckers if they don't control the White House, Supreme Court and have a Supermajority in both parties.
>>
>>64046616
Executive orders still have to be deemed constitutional by the supreme Court and both aca and gay marriage were
>>
>>64046649
Holy fuck are the mods really deleting someone for disagreeing this is worse than Reddit
>>
>>64091083
It's a rolling thread, the old posts self-remove to create space for 1000 posts
>>
Welp it's fucking over.

Scalia was THE fucking backbone of Conservatism in the supreme court. He was smarter, wittier, and better than every other conservative justice combined.

Not only do we lose him, but we're getting a liberal in his place.

This is probably the biggest blow to conservatism in a very long time.
>>
>>64090612
Well it would start an arms race of just increasing the size of the court whenever your bloc happens to be outnumbered but you know what?

Screw it, why not? The stakes are already too high.
>>
>>64091179

It's funny how people KNOW the SCOTUS is politically slanted, but still take their rulings seriously.

It's about time we stop giving a single shit about their decisions, since they are always politically influenced and about as far from objective as possible.
>>
>>64091291
i mean, yeah, theres nothing preventing it from happening if it got support from congress and the president. if republicans start losing major court cases what would they have to lose?
>>
Antonin "Even if they are innocent, they should be executed as to not undermine the original determination of the court" Scalia

Antonin "Homosexuality is literally the same as murder in the eyes of the law" Scalia

Antonin "States Rights unless its a national presidential election where a Republican can win then we need to interfere with state's rights" Scalia
>>
>>64091444
Anon "Only my opponents should in all cases completely adhere to rigidly defined principles, my allies should be Machiavellian tho lol" Fuckface
>>
FUCK ANTONIN SCALIA. He is responsible for shitting all over the Bill of Rights and the 4th amendment. I hope that authoritarian cuck burns in hell.
>>
File: Salmon Mousse.jpg (23KB, 610x318px) Image search: [Google]
Salmon Mousse.jpg
23KB, 610x318px
>>64022842
IT WAS........THE SICILIAN LASAGNA!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>64091563
>authoritarian
>cuck

Pick one. Any non national socialist is a cuckold, end of story.
>>
Trump is going to appoint his sister who is already a federal judge.
>>
>>64091715
>failed pres candidates can appoint justices
>>
>>64022842

Supreme Court Justice Scalia just died an hour or so ago. He will not be missed by everyone. Many of the wimpy Democrats are of course already hailing him as "brilliant." Brilliant, bullshit. He served the powerful corporations and the conniving plutocracy. He pretended to abide by his empty inflated "Originalist" constitutionalism. He battered the weak, stomped on the defenseless, and strutted around dwelling on his judicial contrivances. He died while hunting in West Texas. He died the way he lived, destroying the weak and the innocent. Obama is probably kissing his deceased ass as I write.
>>
>>64091954
>Srbjia having this much insight into the morally bankrupt state of high USA politics

How does he do it?
>>
>>64022842
Why is this a sticky?
>>
>>64092224
Fat people tend to be sticky. The spill food and drinks allover themselves on a regular basis and can't/won't/don't clean it up.
>>
>>64092224
Are you retarded?
>>
Who is he? First time hearing of him, seriously..
>>
>>64048146
So when Democratic Senate fights a Bush appointment, its constitutional and completely legitimate given the circumstances that you are about to Google, but as long as republicans are trying to postpone the nomination by Obama roughly as long as the Dems did, its unconstitutional and they are just trying to wait him out. Kk biggot
>>
dd
>>
>>64092224
Because this is a pretty big fucking deal and vastly changes the political landscape for 2016.

If Obongo is prevented from fully appointing a replacement, then the 2016 presidential election and the senate races are both extremely important now, because SC justices are very rarely replaced and have a fuck ton of long reaching influence.

For fucks sake, Scalia was a Reagan appointment.
>>
>>64092543
Supreme court justice. One of four people who kept America from being as cucked as Europe
>>
>>64022842
Never heard of
>>
>>64092656
damn
>>
File: imageedit_1029_8586061801.jpg (55KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]
imageedit_1029_8586061801.jpg
55KB, 750x500px
>>64092577
The hypocrisy of liberals is ridiculous
>>
>>64082530
>>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEfuck off you stupid shit, take your redditard ways and get out of here, centrists exist you know, theres shit beyond your faggot 2 party homosexuality circlejerk you

> gwb rigging elections
> believing this

Three recounts was plenty.
>>
>>64092697
"That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents . . . During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Anti-federalist rhetoric.”
Scalia, DC vs Heller

Supreme Court case that basically said the second amendment applied to people, own whatever you want, eat shit pink commies
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mby8uukRNqE
>>
>it could have been constitutionalist Ron Paul choosing a replacement
>>
>>64022842
rest in beace
>>
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is "actually" innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged "actual innocence" is constitutionally cognizable. See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390, 400-401, 416-417 (1993); see also House v. Bell, 547 U. S. 518, 555 (2006); District Attorney's Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, ante, at 18. "
- Scalia's dissent in In Re Troy Anthony Davis
>>
Fucking conservative backwards thinking cunt. Glad he's dead.
>>
ITT: Autistic Reddit fucks being autistic
>>
THE GUY SAID NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY! HE RULED ON THIS!!
>>
File: 1423191183199.png (21KB, 323x243px) Image search: [Google]
1423191183199.png
21KB, 323x243px
>>64093805
Fug guess we're all gommies now :DDDD
>>
IF YOU THINK THAT O'BAMA IS GOING TO NOMINATE SOMEONE THAT IS GOING TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION GUESS AGAIN
>>
good thing he finally died, smelly fat fuck

i wish i could piss on his grave
>>
>>64093981

thank god; gonna be fun to watch clarence thomas figure out how to vote without scalia's hand up his ass.

really glad the "gays are icky and morally tantamount to murder" justice is off the court, good riddance.
>>
>>64093795
>>64093981
Serving up spicy (You)s for the non-Americans who have never heard of Scalia until today and are now shitposting some tasty bait.
>>
>>64094126
I read some article that Thomas hasn't said a single thing or asked a single question during court in 10 years of being a supreme court justice.

What the fuck man
>>
>>64094306
He is hoping that no one will notice he is a nigger
>>
Can Ameribro's redpill me on this one? I've read an article but it still isn't that clear.
So how does this work? The Senate appoints the members of the SCOTUS, and they can hold their seat as long as they want?

And what are the strategic consequences of Scalia's death?
>>
so why has nobody mentioned the fact that when the Senate goes on recess in a few months if there's no new Justice approved by then Obama gets to make a recess appointment that is valid until the end of the next session of congress?

do people really think enough of the Senate will refuse their vacation time to get around that when the Rep/Dem split is so close?
>>
RIP :(
>>
>>64094558
President nominates a candidate, Senate votes to confirm or deny nomination. Appointments to the Supreme Court are for life until you retire or die.
>>
SCALIA IS DEAD LOL
>>
>>64090716
You mean like this?
>>64047746
Why can't republicans ever appreciate irony?
>>
>>64047746
Trigger warnings folks, please.
This man has suffered serious sodium overdose thanks to your carelessness
>>
Seriously, I couldn't be happier over Scalia's death.

My dick hasn't been this hard since the assassination attempt on Reagan, and I wasn't even alive back then.
>>
>>64094558
Scalia was some buttfuck retarded "textual originalist" that argued that torture was fine and legal and that executing someone who was proven innocent through appeals or later evidence was also fine. Originalism is prima facie stupid as fuck because it attempts to ignore any possible context or background to legislation and attempts to solely interpret through the written plain text of a law except for the fact that it is impossible to account for all possible situations regarding any law which is why we have the courts in the first fucking place. And whenever Scalia's originalist philosophy ran counter to his Republican ideals he would simply ignore it when convenient.

The president appoints new members of the supreme court, but the senate is the body that reviews and confirms his appointments. It is my understanding that SC appointments cannot be filibustered, but I suppose the senate could just refuse to ever bring up the confirmation for discussion as a sort of reach around filibuster.

Once appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, the member of the SC then serves for life or until they actively retire or resign. It is pretty rare for an SC member to die while serving, and nearly impossible for a member of the SC to be impeached.

Scalia dying makes this 2016 election year extremely important for both the presidency and any contested senate seats because supreme court appointees stay around for a long ass time and thus have a ton of influence. Scalia himself was appointed during Ronald Cocksucking Reagan's presidency back in the 80s.
>>
>>64055974
fuck off fag lover
>>
>>64092656
Which America are you referring to? You seem cucked by mega corporations.
>>
>>64094558
>So how does this work?
President gives the Senate a name for a nominee. Some bureaucratic shit happens that may or may not stall a nomination indefinitely in the Senate, then Senate has confirmation hearings about the candidate which works kinda like a background check and job interview, then the Senate has an up or down vote on whether or not the candidate's okay for the job. Once they sign off the name goes back to the president, who if he still wants the guy in the position, appoints the nominee. The president can pull his nomination at any point during this process.

Scalia was one of the right leaning justices on the court which HAD four left leaning judges, one moderate judge, one moderate right leaning judge and three right leaning judges, effectively tipping the court further left with his death. If he is replaced with a left leaning judge, the court will be locked between left and moderate for probably a long time to come.

Until he is replaced, in instances where the court 4:4s on decisions, the lower court's decision is upheld (most lower courts tend to be liberal), but every time the Senate goes into recess, the president can make a temporary recess appointment until the position has been filled which will last until the end of the Senate's next session (but the Senate can put off going into recess indefinitely by pretending to be in session procedurally with a pro forma session).

At the moment, the leader of the majority party in the Senate has vowed to stall the nomination process in the Senate until after the next president takes power early next year.
>>
>>64095417
I see, thanks man!
>>
File: image.gif (1MB, 338x254px) Image search: [Google]
image.gif
1MB, 338x254px
Rot in hell you fat piece of shit. Couldnt take all those corporate bribe$ with you now, you wicked pig. Fuck you.
>>
File: z6fk7.jpg (89KB, 666x489px) Image search: [Google]
z6fk7.jpg
89KB, 666x489px
>>64052396
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/1nr9hz/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-the-supreme-court-halts-a-global-climate-pact
>>
>>64094558
>>64095417
continued

Th reason for this vow is that he hopes the next president will be a right leaning member of his party and retract Obama's nominee and put forward one of his own that matches his ideology. The reason he's GIVING is that nomination confirmations during election years are unusual, and the people should have a say. The problems with this are several:

1. They are unusual is that justices tend to not step down during election years for obvious reasons.
2. They are unusual but not unheard of, a sitting justice was confirmed during an election year.
3. While confirmations have sometimes been stalled until after the rise of the next president, this far out of the election would likely make this the longest vacancy on the Supreme Court ever if the majority party makes good on their promise once the actual lengthy confirmation process under the next president is taken into account.
4. The court was explicitly designed to not be an elected political body.
>>
>>64095800
Noice :^)
>>
>>64022842
Good riddance. The world has one less ignoramus in power.
>>
>>64095828
Well that's just good timing
>>
Sad to see anyone die.

Glad to see Scalia off the court. He was a tool of the right wing.

Anticipating/dreading the antics McConnell and his boys are going to use to stall Obama's nominee(s) for a whole year. Because, hey, right wing politics is more important than the smooth running of the country.
>>
HAHAHA ROT IN HELL YOU FUCKING FUCKING REPUBLIKKKAN PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT

I HOPE SATAN IS HAVING FUN BURNING AND RIPPING ALL YOUR SKIN OFF IN AGONY
>>
>>64096070
>Anticipating/dreading the antics McConnell and his boys are going to use to stall Obama's nominee(s) for a whole year.

How the fuck can they go a whole year without appointing someone?
>>
>>64096070
>left wing
>anything but smooth

Fuck off cunt you wanna bitch about tools your prime material it's a sad day for justice because now the system is going to be full of leftist agendas which will nose dive your already limping society. Can't wait till your country colapes
>>
>>64096241
filibuster

I know Paul will filibuster anyone whom is pro-drones
>>
>>64096372
>filibuster

In 2013 Harry Reid got rid of the fillbuster rule for judicial nominees.
>>
>>64096241
In the name of defending the US constitution.
>>
>>64096461
Only for lower courts.
>>
>>64096468
>In the name of defending the US constitution.

Fuck of you cunt. The PRESIDENT has the power GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION to APPOINT US Supreme Court justices. Face it, you just hate the US constitution and hate him because he's BLACK!
>>
File: AYYLMAO NIGGA - Copy.jpg (61KB, 768x834px) Image search: [Google]
AYYLMAO NIGGA - Copy.jpg
61KB, 768x834px
>>64096204
>KKK
>as an insult
>on /pol/

kek, good one nigger
>>
>>64096499
>Only for lower courts.

I'm going to have to look that up...
>>
>>64096516
M O O N
A
N
>>
>>64094171
Fuck off shitposting kangaroo
>>
Good fucking riddance. Glad that this shitstain is gone. Maybe we can get somebody halfway-decent in the Court now.
>>
>>64096731
oh look another cockfag liberal
>>
>>64096773
"Liberal"? Hardly. I hate the dems as much as the next guy. I just hate the reps that much more.
>>
>>64096532
Why would he remove it anyway?

Seems a bit like signing away most of your power (Judges in America are more like legislators than Judges are in the UK)
>>
>>64095893
>>64096070
>>64096731
I swear you're just copy-pasting comments from Huffpo or Washpo at this point. Here's a (you) either way I guess.
>>
>>64096842
We need to switch back to the tactics that kept these faggots off of us for years.

Find our crude and disgusting but hilariously entertaining roots.
>>
>>64096842
Actually this thread has been raided by thedemocraticunderground.com since yesterday
>>
>>64096773
>oh look another cockfag liberal

Cuckservative detected

Go back to sucking Cruz's dick.
>>
>>64096828
It doesn't matter. The President under the Constitution has the power to appoint US Supreme Court justices. We cannot go years and years with out appointing one. So you Republicans better do that or you will lose the US Senate this November.
>>
>>64097292
This is the advice the Democrats have been giving for the last two days.
But consider this
Shut down the government:
Won the house
Sequester:
Won the senate
>>
>>64097292
Sounds like Obama should be the bigger man and appoint a conservative judge. He shouldn't lower himself to the level of the Republicans and let partisanship get in the way of our government functioning.
>>
>>64097521
You only won the house and senate because of low voter turnout, because the masses don't give a shit about sequesters or government agencies they don't even understand getting shut down.

Try and take their fee-fees away, however, and you'll see a real shitstorm. If Obergefell had ended differently, the reps would have had a really, really hard time winning anything this election.
>>
>>64097524
If Scalia died four years ago you could have said that, and you MIGHT have been right.

Nowadays? Obama doesn't have anything to lose. He'll appoint whoever the fuck he wants to appoint. His political career has already peaked, he won his campaigns, there's no reason for him to want to play the game anymore.
>>
>>64097694
If he wants to secure his legacy he will go for a Liberal,

If he wants to get it done he will go for a Moderate

If he gives no fucks he'll appoint Loretta Lynch or someone useless via Recess
>>
>>64097620
>If Obergefell had ended differently, the reps would have had a really, really hard time winning anything this election.

Nice meme. Regular people are really not anywhere near as much up in arms over degenerate faggots as liberals like to pretend.
>>
>>64052697
This is like saying the U.S. has native illegals.
>>
>>64097694
I was being facetious to point out that both sides are incredibly partisan and accusing the Republicans of hurting the country to push their agenda can also be applied to Obama.

Like you said Obama doesn't have anything to lose and the Republicans have everything to lose so neither side will make concessions.
>>
Oh god, I can see Obummer just waltzing away from the WH to the SC.
>>
>>64097829
He should appoint Eric Holder via recess. It would be so fucking bizarre I'd only be able to laugh.
>>
File: death - Copy.jpg (180KB, 532x783px) Image search: [Google]
death - Copy.jpg
180KB, 532x783px
>>64097694
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama and Shillary just discuss appointing Obummer as a federal judge? Or was it a Supreme Court Justice?

Was Antonin Scalia murdered by the Clinton family?
>>
>>64022842
>2
dsfdsf
>>
File: noe3 - Copy.jpg (102KB, 1474x733px) Image search: [Google]
noe3 - Copy.jpg
102KB, 1474x733px
>>64098059
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-appointing-president-obama-supreme-court/story?id=36534796

Looks like Scalia was murdered by the Clinton family, or perhaps their foreign accomplices.
>>
>>64097957
My biggest fear.

You guys created any new Czechnology of note lately?
>>
>>64058398

Point to the line in the Constitution related to the pursuit of happiness. I'll wait.

Eh, no, I won't.
>>
>>64047961
Rand Paul would be a great choice therefore it won't happen.
>>
>>64095335
Textual originalism is the only thing that makes sense.

Remember: Congress will often refuse to pass a bill with one wording, and later pass a bill with another wording. The wording itself is something that is negotiated on.

There's no way to know what was in the mind of the particular senators that pass the bill. It doesn't make sense to assume that all senators passing the bill agreed with a popular sentiment of the day.

Hence, you only have the words on the page and what the words meant at that time.
>>
File: scalia.png (47KB, 179x170px) Image search: [Google]
scalia.png
47KB, 179x170px
>>
>>64048121
Evolution is by definition, not science. Science must be able to be observed, and tested.
>>
>>64099170
kill yourself
>>
Obama is going to put a Tumblrina on the supreme court.

You know it be true.
>>
>>64048031
>>64048026
Won't matter, he can force it through before the ten months are up.

Conservatives on death watch.
>>
>>64022842
/pol/ btfo
cuntservatives btfo
fat fucks btfo
>>
>>64092577
>So when Democratic Senate fights a Bush appointment, its constitutional and completely legitimate given the circumstances that you are about to Google, but as long as republicans are trying to postpone the nomination by Obama roughly as long as the Dems did, its unconstitutional and they are just trying to wait him out. Kk biggot
Not OP, but that's implying OP doesn't believe the Democrats dragging their feet isn't also looked upon with scorn.

>>implying everyone is on a liberal/conservative dichotomy and whole-heartedly supports one party or another.
>>
>>64048763
This. Historians determined most of the early Old Testament to be a merger of three older documents and the polytheism censored. But whoever did that did a poor job based on some references to multiple gods they left in.
>>
File: 1453237740629.jpg (106KB, 574x500px) Image search: [Google]
1453237740629.jpg
106KB, 574x500px
2016 really is the year of the happening, huh?
I can't say I feel emotional over his death, but i kinda liked him.
>>
>>64022842
Accelerationism is key. The more unbalanced the system is the better, the closer to collapse we are the better.

Let it burn, only a libtard or cuckservative could enjoy the shit show that is the western world today.
>>
>nine children and several grandchildren.

Jesus christ. This guy was a /pol/ rolemodel.
>>
>>64100116

Live long and prosper

And make lots of babies
>>
>>64052697
>native liberals
you meant naive liberals?
>>
>>64022842
*presses f*
>>
>>64097003
>Actually this thread has been raided by thedemocraticunderground.com since yesterday

a reminder
>>
>>64099935
People belive this bullshit?
>>
>>64098154
One flaw in your scenario. Bernie Sanders is going to be elected President.
>>
>>64022842
Scalia is a piece of shit. Felt relief when I read he was dead. Good riddance. Dying doesn't suddenly erase everything a person did in life. I have no qualms about speaking ill of the dead when all the dead did in life was fuck shit up from top to bottom. Knew lavoy finicum personally. He was an abusive piece of human garbage. All of a sudden, once he's dead, people I know who have hated him his whole life are saying how great he was and what a patriot he was and blahblahblahblah. Not the first time I've seen human filth suddenly become not human filth once they are dead. It's bullshit. Dying doesn't make you great all of a sudden.
>>
>>64099751
Harriet Meirs' nomination drew bi-partisan criticism. But keep lying to paint yourselves as oppressed and picked on.
>>
>>64022842
Literally who and what.

Get this shit off the sticky you faggots. No disrespect to the dead intended.
>>
>>64100866
That's why I'm voting for Trump. Even if he doesn't collapse society, he's basically a protectionist liberal. What other reasonable option is there, Shillary? I guess if you are married to the status quo you can vote for her.
>>
>>64101263
Only one of the most controversial politicians in recent history.
>>
>>64022842
>On hunting trip in Texas
>dies
my fucking sides
>>
>>64022842
Couldn't he have pulled a Weekend at Bernie's until January?
>>
File: scalia.png (207KB, 657x799px) Image search: [Google]
scalia.png
207KB, 657x799px
>>
>>64100993
Really faggot?
Scalia steadfastly protected YOUR rights and the constitution.

Why do you faggots hate freedom?
>>
>>64051983
His justification was that the other branches of Government were "getting in the way.

Criminal.

>>64050675
>I can't back up my statement, YOU DO IT
>>
>>64101263

>saying this on a political board
>albeit a meme-heavy one

It's ok, Nigel. Just keep moving. Serious countries only.
>>
>>64052908
>wants to fuck the rules the moment it becomes inconvenient?

What rule are they fucking?
The Senate confirms SCOTUS justices and they can take how ever long they want.
>>
>>64052908
maybe you should read the constitution then you faggot
>>
>>64022842

R.I.P Big Tony we will never forget you hoss.
>>
>>64102019
goodbye based scalia
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3i1n5-R4ZM
How high is Ben in this video?
>>
>>64052908
>LE RETHUGLIKKANS AREN'T FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION NOW
What is so hard to understand about this situation?
The president can nominate, and the Senate can confirm or deny. They are NOT obligated to confirm the nomination.
All of this constitutional.

inb4 muh precedence, it has nothing to due with the argument at hand
>>
>>64022842
RIP based supreme god court man scalia, hope your spot is filled with someone just like you
>>
File: 123424526.png (268KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]
123424526.png
268KB, 499x499px
As of right now Obama's executive amnesty is dead till the Donald takes over.
>>
>>64066146
Looks like he understood it better than you do. You're a millennial, aren't you?
>>
>>64103792
So are you
>>
>>64102019
bog off you greasy daigo
>>
>>64102788
That's a pretty good quote, and he was spot on.
>>
>>64103852
Gen X here, baby
>>
>>64104153
Go to bed grandpa
>>
>>64068731
>Fuck so will Obama be a scum and appoint the first transgender Justice now?
kek'd, but you can actually expect this
>>
File: 5.jpg (134KB, 680x459px) Image search: [Google]
5.jpg
134KB, 680x459px
>>64104257
I know there is no turning back from this. We are going to be more cucked than canada if hillary or sanders becomes president which one of them will. The end is here
>>
>>64022842
He was a hypocrite who actually tried to take your rights away.
>>
>>64104265
It's morning, son
>>
>>64104455
Get a life, bin that knife
>>
>>64104455
What rights? you stupid commie snaggletooth inbred limey faggot bongnigger
>>
>>64049138
Supreme Court is supposed o Eva check on congress and the president so it doesn't have a term limit. It is supposed to exsist outside of immediate politics

Unfortunately I believe the Supreme Court has become too powerful
>>
>>64104548
Freedom of religion
>>
There is absolutely nothing we can do if the Supreme Court rules that guns should be banned for private citizens or if free healthcare is constitutional. Absolutely nothing. This is political checkmate. Conservatism is dead. Liberals will push everything they want through and there's nothing to stop them. Every case Scalia ruled on will probably be brought back to the Supreme Court and ruled the other way.
>>
>>64096711
He isn't shitposting, Checkers, you retard.
>>
Can someone give me a quick rundown on what's going on? I can't be fucked reading through the thread and don't know why this cunt is important.
>>
>>64105033
He was an ultra conservative supreme court judge. Now Obama will nominate a liberal and the balance of the supreme court will change from conservative bias to liberal bias
>>
was he hunting with dick cheney?
>>
>>64102788
May that man find peace at the Almighty's side.
>>
>>64100861
>Actually this thread has been raided by thedemocraticunderground.com since yesterday

This is the first I've heard of them. Is reddit finally tired of trying to slide us liberal, only succeeding in capturing /co/, so another website took up the reigns?
>>
As a progressive Democrat, this death makes feel like I've gotten halfway through an RPG only to discover that someone else defeated the final boss. I was never expecting this to happen so early.
>>
>>64105315
wha? far as i can tell /co/ hates all this sjw shit as it has infected their comics and cartoons for far to long.
>>
>>64104633
>Unfortunately I believe the Supreme Court has become too powerful
SCOTUS was designed to be the most powerful branch.
>>
>>64022842
literally who?
>>
>>64105466
You are confused. /co/ hates SJW shit forcing unnecessary changes in comics (ie Iceman being gay).

/co/ loves shit like HarleyxIvy or Steven Universe.
>>
>>64104817
"Hi I'm 12 and this is how shit works"
>>
>>64105315
The DU discovered 4chan during chanology remember the influx of liberals and SJW faggots right after Chanology?
Thedemocraticunderground.com has been trying to turn 4chan into a liberal shit hole for years.
The DU was instrumental along with the dailyKOS faggots for hijacking "anonymous" for retarded things like OWS and 99% of Bernie fags on /pol/ come from there.

You can tell a DU faggot because they use words like "weenie" and "keep sucking _____'s cock".
>>
>>64105717
that is how things work

especially is hillary is there to enforce it
>>
>>64105466
/co/ had(has) openly SJW mods that have turned the place into an extension of tumblr.

Try saying how race swapping characters or turning characters gay is bad and see how fast you get banned
>>
>>64105750
just heard of these fags, looking at their website, I think it is just DemocraticUnderground.com though. It doesn't have the "The", this should not be tolerated.
>>
>>64105750
why would any of those people spend so much time and effort to make you see posts that annoy you.
have you heard of a persecution complex?
>>
File: 12324215345345.jpg (35KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]
12324215345345.jpg
35KB, 500x281px
Conservative here.

The constitution was written 200+ years ago it's time to move on.
>>
>>64105635
What is checks and balances?
>>
>>64105928
oh yeah they removed "the" a while back.
It is one of the oldest liberal faggot websites around mainly a bunch of old decrepit hippies who at onetime were on the cutting edge of the internets but now are annoying useless fags and the source of most of the idiotic liberal stuff you see on the internet, this thread was full of copypasta from the DU yesterday.

and yes the DU deserves a /b/ tier raid
>>
>>64106050
>The constitution was written 200+ years ago it's time to move on.

How do you "move on" pertaining to the constitution?
>>
>>64105989
It is what the DU does you ignorant faggot
>>
>>64106080
>What is checks and balances?
A system by which an individual branch is prevented from becoming too powerful and not at all something that prevents one branch from being more powerful than the other.

Protip: the order is SCOTUS>COTUS>POTUS
>>
>>64106141

we just don't follow it anymore
>>
>>64105989
>why would any of those people spend so much time and effort to make you see posts that annoy you.
This is what they do.
Hell its what we do too.
>>
>>64105315
>>64106139
>>64105750
>>64106180
>>64106472

Yeah, I'm browsing their threads on Scalia, they are overflowing with vitriol, /pol/ might have some Nazis but we are civilized compared to these savages.

Thread about him being cremated:

"Next best thing to staking. Just as long as he stays dead n/t"

"Honestly I'd have preferred a slow woodchipper accident, but I'll take this just as well."
>>
File: nigga-are-you-serious-thumb.jpg (13KB, 300x222px) Image search: [Google]
nigga-are-you-serious-thumb.jpg
13KB, 300x222px
>>64106208
>>64106080
>>64105635
>SCOTUS was designed to be the most powerful branch.
That's funny considering judicial review, which is the cornerstone of the Supreme Court's power, isn't even in the constitution. It took that power for itself in a Supreme Court decision early on in the country's life.
>>
>>64105717

President + Supreme Court = Checkmate

Even if they don't have the Senate. If Republicans block the appoint of a new justices, Republicans will lose the presidential election. They can't afford to have this rally the democrats and get people out to vote.

The best Republicans can hope for is for Obama to nominate a moderate. If Republicans lose the next election, America will be forever changed.
>>
>>64022842
f
>>
>>64106611
>That's funny considering judicial review, which is the cornerstone of the Supreme Court's power, isn't even in the constitution
It's an implicit function of the courts. If they couldn't interpret the law there would be no point in them existing. Or to put it another way it is impossible for them to do their job without interpreting the law one way or the other no matter how obviously worded the law is. Even a 9 0 decision can be disagreed with by a legal expert.
>>
>>64106824
>The best Republicans can hope for is for Obama to nominate a moderate
There's already a centrist and a center right on the court.

Swapping a far right with another centrist completely hands the court over to leftists.
>>
>>64050211
And when HRC/Sanders becomes president, will they continue to gridlock for 8 years?
>>
>>64050211
>Rato

aaaand a DU poster
>>
>>64055974
Lmao kill yourself faggot
>>
>>64107373
If either becomes president they'll probably sweep in enough Senators that they can't stall anymore since you only need 50 to block
>>
>>64107468
Good point. And that would be absolutely hilarious
>Obama nominates a center-left justice in hopes of compromise
>GOP blocks out of spite and stalls until the election
>HRC nominates a super-liberal judge
>Democrat-controlled Senate approves
>>
>>64075597
>>64076538

Wow you faggots are going to have to embrace the fact that the constitution is an ancient document. The US needs to move out of the dark ages ffs
>>
File: 1454198456721.jpg (40KB, 599x632px) Image search: [Google]
1454198456721.jpg
40KB, 599x632px
>>64107666

Based Satan, thank you for the trips of truth.
>>
Do you think Clarence Thomas has been told not to retire before a republican is in office?
The man is pretty low energy
>>
>>64107666
Yeah suck my fucking dick faggit. It's the most powerful law document of this land and your shitty opinion doesn't mean fuck all.
>>
File: proofs2.jpg (51KB, 576x463px) Image search: [Google]
proofs2.jpg
51KB, 576x463px
1000th for world changing historical event
>>
>>64106208
You seem to be focusing on the CHECKS but not the BALANCES.

The highest court in the land was never designed to be more powerful than the other 2 branches, but over time it evolved that way.

The purpose of SCOTUS is to rule on infractions of the law. It amassed much more power when that evolved into "interpretations" of the law, which basically now takes precedence over any Legislation or Execution of the law.

But they were never intended to be this way when the Constitution was written. The three branches were only intended to have the powers enumerated in the document, but just like the other branches, they've decided to ignore the 9th & 10th Amendment.
>>
File: image.jpg (168KB, 881x905px) Image search: [Google]
image.jpg
168KB, 881x905px
>>64107666
Fuck you nigger faggot.
>>
File: scalia.jpg (15KB, 350x249px) Image search: [Google]
scalia.jpg
15KB, 350x249px
Rest in peace, big guy. I didn't always agree with your opinions, but you were the court's strongest protector of 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendment rights, and by far the court's best writer. And you were an entirely decent, generous, gregarious, and God-fearing man to boot.

I haven't ever respected a national political figure as much as I respected you, and I doubt that I ever will again. Really, really heartbroken to see you gone.
>>
>>64107666
The constitution and bill of rights in particular are practically timeless and the rights they give us will always be relevant and important.
>>
>>64022842
Haha kek jesus christ you yanks are fucked, i was considering moving to the US but the democrats will fill the supreme court with radical leftist progressives.

Say goodbye to your first and second amendment and hello to a full on anti-white SJW progressive future.

You're fucked.
>>
File: 1441978142414.png (325KB, 382x417px) Image search: [Google]
1441978142414.png
325KB, 382x417px
So can this effect the election? And how

Anyway let us now talk why the Jews killed him
>>
>>64108111
>The purpose of SCOTUS is to rule on infractions of the law.
Even that can't be done without interpreting the law. Especially because laws can conflict.
>>
>>64108340
>The US is fucked
>lives in the UK
>>
>>64107666
Preserving your constitution is a way of respecting the people who founded your country.
>>
File: 1451918340001.jpg (74KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]
1451918340001.jpg
74KB, 900x900px
>mfw the closest thing we have to a supreme court is a committee on the constitution which consists of meps
Well, at least we have a constitution unlike Cucknada or Israel
>>
>>64107666
>bill of rights trashed
>free speech is no more
>unwanted speech is banned
>women lose the right to vote (kek)
>>
>>64108340
You think it's going to be any better if the republicans fills the supreme court?
>>
>>64108192
>the rights they give us will always be relevant and important.

4 justices ruled that private citizens do not have the right to bear arms in a previous case. Those "rights" are easily removed. I don't think people would do a single thing to stop the Supreme Court or respond to their rulings.
>>
>>64108403
>So can this effect the election
Yes
>And how
It matters more than VP choice.

It's also going to completely fuck every moderate Republican Senator up for reelection cause they will tow the party line and look like assholes for doing so.
>>
>>64108544
In this case, yes.
>>
File: 1428464456660.png (361KB, 858x725px) Image search: [Google]
1428464456660.png
361KB, 858x725px
>mfw this gives motivation to the Demoshits to show up to the polls

We are going to need to fight harder than ever before. The media shilling campaign is going to be huge.
>>
>>64108403
It's a different branch of government. The judicial is what Scalia was part of. The president is head of the executive branch. Then there's congress or the legislative branch.
>>
File: 1395862898547.jpg (11KB, 200x300px) Image search: [Google]
1395862898547.jpg
11KB, 200x300px
I'm just a Greek boy can someone explain to me why elected representatives (Congressmen and Senators) _HAVE_ to approve whoever the President nominates, according to Democrats?

Isn't the whole point that the representatives vote in according to their beliefs and that's the reason the people voted & elected them?

If they disagree with something they can simply vote against it, why is it controversial that they may say "no"?
>>
>>64108678
>It's a different branch of government.

President appoints justices. A justice might not be up for reelection, but the President is.
>>
>>64108426
That only happened when laws became so convoluted with pages of bullshit.

Laws of 200 years ago were not 2500 pages of earmarks and voter base pandering. Laws back then were just "John Smith has to cut down his tree before it falls on his neighbor's house." There was nothing to be interpreted.

Look at the Constitution itself. It only became popular in the last few decades to 'interpret' laws like 2A.

Before that time the People just accepted we had a right to keep and bear arms.

Then it became a political issue and suddenly it could be 'interpreted' to mean something else.
>>
File: Brazil.jpg (141KB, 550x427px) Image search: [Google]
Brazil.jpg
141KB, 550x427px
>>64108810
Technically Obama could appoint himself.
>>
>>64108649
But how?
>>
>>64108987

All you need to know is that conservatives wouldn't change anything and would apply the law according to the constitution. Liberals would change everything and interpret the law to something else.

4 justices literally and unironically believe that private citizens do not have the right to bear arms, they believe it was only for a militia.
>>
Most of the Founders would have been profoundly uncomfortable to see so devotedly Romish a man with any kind of legal power.
>>
>>64109146
>would apply the law according to the constitution
But they are going to fuck over everything else that is not part of the constitution, constitution is big but it doesn't cover everything.
>they believe it was only for a militia.
That's what the second amendment says does it?
>>
>>64109146
Hence morons like Nancy Pelosi referring to the Constitution as a "living, breathing document."

In their minds, words are no longer set in stone, but fluid based on how people fucking FEEL about them at the time.

Fucking liberals.
>>
>>64109260
They believe the "militia" is just the military. The conservative view point is that every civilian is part of the militia
>>
>>64108784
Because anything they do is seen as obstructionist by shills. It's the same reason why Libshits get butthurt that Congress won't do anything about gun control. Like, as fucking if the Republican Party owes Obama anything when it comes to gun control. People forget that they took back the senate and built up a higher majority in the house in the 2014 midterms.

They don't owe Obama shit. People elected them in office exactly for shit like this. Honestly I'd rather have politically neutral judges in all courts but of course that's impossible in today's world, and there is no way in hell I want libshit judges to be able to say the 2nd amendment only applies to militias and try to say the US army is that "militia"
>>
>>64102788
Just like Juggalos
>>
>>64108454

One of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Things need to change for the betterment of people you shitwit.
>>
>>64109260
> That's what the second amendment says does it?

No.
The first part of the Amendment is the justification for the second part.

Not a condition.
>>
>>64108784
>I'm just a Greek boy can someone explain to me why elected representatives (Congressmen and Senators) _HAVE_ to approve whoever the President nominates, according to Democrats?
Unless the nominee is considered completely bonkers or way off the rails left or right duty it's legal tradition to confirm them regardless. Congress isn't supposed to decide if they like them, just if they are fit for the job.

Filibusters of SCOTUS nominees are almost unheard of for that reason. (stalling on the other hand happens all the time)

>Isn't the whole point that the representatives vote in according to their beliefs and that's the reason the people voted & elected them?
Insofar as those beliefs relate to qualification and not political leaning, yes.

>If they disagree with something they can simply vote against it, why is it controversial that they may say "no"?
Imagine if a jury was presented with irrefutable proof that someone was guilty but acquitted them anyway because they liked them. The jury could legally do that of course, but that's not how shit's supposed to go down. It's kinda like that in a "sure you can do it but it makes you an asshole" sorta way.

And in this case the issue isn't that they're voting no, but that they're not voting (which they do to avoid voting no and looking like even bigger assholes). This will probably turn into the longest SCOTUS vacancy of all time because Republicans want to stall this out until the next president is elected, effectively politicizing the court directly (bear in mind that the reason justices are appointed and serve for life in the first place is because it's NOT supposed to be political, which is why they are assholes in the first place for pulling this shit).
>>
>>64109260
It says a militia is the reason the right to bear arms is necessary. It does not say the right to bear arms applies only to the militia.
Like how free speech is necessary so we can question government policy, but still covers my right to say Leicester will win the premier league. Trivial uses of a right do not become invalid simply because more important ones exist.
>>
>>64109472
>They believe the "militia" is just the military
Then say that from the beginning
>>
>>64108192

That doesn't mean those rights couldn't be transferred to a new document which better relates to where we stand as a society you stupid nigger.
>>
>>64108927
>John Smith has to cut down his tree before it falls on his neighbor's house.
Well as long as it hasn't fallen on his neighbor's house he's still in the window to cut it down and hasn't violated the law then, right?

What if it falls on his neighbor's house as a direct consequence of him cutting it down, did he violate the law? Which came first, the tree falling in the forest or the egg?
>>
>>64109609

>Imagine if a jury was presented with irrefutable proof that someone was guilty but acquitted them anyway because they liked them. The jury could legally do that of course, but that's not how shit's supposed to go down. It's kinda like that in a "sure you can do it but it makes you an asshole" sorta way.

That's called jury nullification, and it has a long and proud (if checkered, due to abuses during the Civil Rights movement and backlash) history in the US.
>>
>>64109655
Liberals are all about using words wrong lol
>>
>>64109592

The whole idea is that the Constitution is a near-perfect document and WE should change our culture and ideas to fit and adhere to IT, not the other way around.

If you think the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be changed, then it all is up for debate. They can limit free speech, limit gun rights, the whole fucking thing can be changed once a political party owns the government, which the Democrats are increasingly getting control of through changing demographics and entitlements.

The future of America is looking like Europe.
>>
>>64109609
But you know for a fucking fact Obama isn't going to nominate anyone moderate to the court, it's going to be liberal judge after liberal judge.

The senate has no reason to vote for a liberal Obama appointee.
>>
>>64109619
Yes but also doesn't say that regular citizens are allowed to bear arms.
>>
>>64109887
>proud
Yes, all sorts of assholery has a long tradition in the USA.
>>
>>64109609

>Unless the nominee is considered completely bonkers or way off the rails left or right duty it's legal tradition to confirm them regardless. Congress isn't supposed to decide if they like them, just if they are fit for the job.

Right or wrong, Congress *has* been deciding whether or not they 'like' appointees, and voting accordingly, since Bork (who was eminently qualified) was rejected.
>>
>>64109799
And if the tree falls on his neighbors house as a result of his cutting it, that is when a court would be involved. He didn't violate the law, so he wouldn't be charged.

There would be a second case regarding his damage to someone else's property.

There's still no 'interpretation' of the original law
>>
So Obama is gonna nominate someone, which the senate will reject, right?

Do the Dems then decide who they would nominate if they win the election, or do they stick with Obama's nomination?

And do the republicans come up with their own nominee prior to the election itself or can that only be declared after the election?
>>
>>64109994
>the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed
>>
britfag here, I was under the impression that the Supreme court rulings had to be unanimous, is this not the case then?
>>
>>64109994

>...doesn't say that regular citizens are allowed to bear arms...
>...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

Are regular citizens not people any more?
>>
>>64109980
>The senate has no reason to vote for a liberal Obama appointee.
The name being tossed about is a guy the Senate confirmed 97 to 0 for his last post with virtually identical qualifications. Unless he suffered severe brain injury or got caught taking bribes the Senate either shouldn't have confirmed him then, should confirm him now, or is playing politics against the spirit of the law.

>The senate has no reason to vote for a liberal Obama appointee.
Other than all propriety if he can do the job.
>>
>>64110163
If the Senate doesn't confirm Obama's appointment, the Democratic nominee will likely pick Obama himself as the new justice.
>>
>>64110180
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
>>
>>64110204
That's what they're shooting for bro
>>
>>64110296
it still is
>>
>>64110163
>which the senate will reject

Hopefully

>>64110163
>Do the Dems then decide who they would nominate if they win the election, or do they stick with Obama's nomination?

They can nominate anyone because it will be a new president.

If democrats win the next president, none of this even matters because it is political checkmate. The next president could probably nominate 2 new judges.

They can't stall that long.
>>
>>64110201

its majority wins
>>
>>64109925

News flash dipshit, our country is full of barely-educated people, a new generation of fucking retarded phone-addicted pubescents, and people taking sides of an aisle to fight for what they think is the right way to go.

All while the country's economy is tanking, people are less-skilled, the income gap grows, and class tension builds.

The government is fucked either way, it's full of people who think the majority of us are retards, and it'll be full of the same people ad infinitum.

We need to figure out a new way to govern.
>>
>>64110101
>He didn't violate the law, so he wouldn't be charged.
Well that's a matter of opinion.

He was clearly intended to take the tree down, before it was on the neighbor's house. If it's on the neighbor's house it's not yet all the way down. It's in the process of becoming down.

Does the severing of the trunk constitute the tree being down or does the tree being on the ground constitute the tree being down? What was the intent of the writers of the law with regards to the downing of the tree?
>>
File: socialism-poster-26020383.jpg (176KB, 1122x1300px) Image search: [Google]
socialism-poster-26020383.jpg
176KB, 1122x1300px
>>64110413
>We need to figure out a new way to govern.
>>
File: Andrew Jackson.jpg (15KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]
Andrew Jackson.jpg
15KB, 300x300px
>>64109980
>The senate has no reason to vote for a liberal Obama appointee.

They have the same reason that Democratic-led Senates have voted for conservative Supreme Court appointees, which is that their duties entail ensuring that wise people with respect for the Constitution sit on the court. NOT that people matching their ideological biases get chosen.

It's been a while since it has worked as well as it should. People forget that the US Government is supposed to serve the nation to safeguard and improve the lives of the citizens, and not "win" ideological points for a particular club.

Which is why, whichever club wins this year, Mitch McConnell needs to go. He flagrantly abuses the position of authority he's in, and has sought nothing more than to inflate the power and authority of his own position in service to his ideology.
>>
I just woke up and have a massive hangover. Was at a bar all night celebrating this fat assholes death. I never saw everyone so unified in cheering on something. Bartender gave out so many free shots was crazy.
>>
>>64057917
>So you think a government should be able to decide who you can and can't fuck?

Yes.

Especially if the government has to pay for the consequences.
>>
>>64110639
>NOT that people matching their ideological biases get chosen.

THIS
>>
>>64110706
>Yes.

Kill yourself fascist piece of shit.
>>
File: image.png (18KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]
image.png
18KB, 500x500px
>>64052488
Nice b8 m8. Scalia was, if anything, an amazing example of the work ethic a justice should strive for. He made the law accessible and funny. Maybe if you did anything other than jerk off to Clinton/Sanders Hentai then you'd understand the significance of the terrible loss.
>>
File: sad.jpg (115KB, 431x500px) Image search: [Google]
sad.jpg
115KB, 431x500px
>>64110689

I weep for the future of our country.
>>
>>64022842
lets lynch that nig

https://soundcloud.com/couchtruthing/demon-nigger-3
>>
>>64110201
No, majority wins. In the event of a tie for whatever reason, lower court's ruling stands.
>>
>>64110639
>republicans are not supposed to play the same game dems have done to push two far left judges in

Fuck off. And why did you post Andrew Jackson because I hope you know the history of his followers obstructing a nominee.
>>
>>64110802
>Scalia was, if anything, an amazing example of the work ethic a justice should strive for.

No he wasn't. He was a hypocritical piece of shit who didn't have any constant views other than where the money was at.
>>
>>64109994
If you are referring to the US Constitution then yes, it specifically does.

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

It doesn't say the right of a Militia.
>>
>>64110296

I'm aware Swede's are cucks and wouldn't fight for shit if their government is shitting on them, but our people won't go down without a fight even if it means death. So the US will have itself stained in blood before they take away our rights.

Also Russia already said that they would support a Texas succession if it happened in the US.
>>
This fucker seriously needs to go.
If Mitch wants to make the big calls, he should do like Hillary and Trump and throw his hat in for the Presidency.

His trying to back-seat run the country simply by lying in the street and preventing as many appointments as possible, blocking whatever legislation doesn't suit his "feelings", and generally wasting the Senate's time by proposing the same impossible legislative changes over and over and over again....

He just needs to go.
>>
>>64109456
>I have no idea how language works
>>
>>64110639
>They have the same reason that Democratic-led Senates have voted for conservative Supreme Court appointees

I'll take things that never happen for 500 Alex

Don't remember the Clarence Thomas debacle do you?

Your party controlling the Senate means you get to do things YOUR way it is why we elect people who agree with us.

You fucking moron
>>
>>64110810
That's funny I weep too but tears of joy. Shit is FINALLY getting better and Democrats win again tis country will finally enter a new better direction. I think conservatism is finally dead. We finally killed this pesky parasaite this is one of the happiest moments of my life.
>>
>>64110689
I hope you get stomach cancer
>>
>>64110908

There's money in flag burning, and prohibiting warrantless and suspicionless searches? Could have fooled me.
>>
>>64110963
Nice B8 2/10
>>
>>64042096
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/obama-has-rare-parliamentary-window-to-make-recess-appointment-to-succeed-scalia.html

:^)
>>
>>64110595

Socialism is obviously retarded and not the answer.
>>
>>64111010
And if I get it I will be 100% covered for it thanks to our upcoming single payer system.

>>64111036
Not bait. I have debated you faggots for weeks for Bernie. Now I'm enjoying this victory. Shit I may even open up a bottle of wine later.
>>
>>64110946
Agree. mitch the turtle mcconnell is one of the worst fucking senate majority leaders in US history.

He literally said "I will do everything I can to destroy Obama's presidency." Wonder how Republicans would respond if Harry Reid said the same thing. I hope he's the next cuckservative to die.
>>
>>64110914
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
>>64110944
>but our people won't go down without a fight even if it means death.
Oh like you have to worry about death, we all know they won't fire on white people.
>>
File: Mitch McConnell2.jpg (38KB, 605x328px) Image search: [Google]
Mitch McConnell2.jpg
38KB, 605x328px
>>64111080
Oh, no shit??
Well, Mitch's game is pretty well fucking up then.
Good on Obama.
>>
>>64110944
Also a Texas succession is illegal, they aren't allowed to do it
>>
>>64111024
>There's money in flag burning, and prohibiting warrantless and suspicionless searches? Could have fooled me.

Bush V Gore
Citizens United
>>
>>64110963

I am happy for you, Comrade. I have a harder time, however, believing that politicians living 3000 miles away from me know better than I do about how I should live my own life. But yours is the ascending view, and mine the descending one. I hope your hangover gets better soon; the hangover I feel from all this will likely last for the rest of my life.
>>
>>64111144
it is
>>
>>64110963
go back to the DU you fucking retarded faggot
>>
>>64111143
Republicans are hypocrites full stop. People here claimed liberals are bad for celebrating this monsters death meanwhile people here were praying for Ginsberg to die soon.
>>
>>64111245
Hahaha you guys are pissed off fantastic.
>>
>>64111202

Scalia was involved in hundreds of decisions. All you have to point to are two?
>>
>>64111139
> Bernie being retarded
> his fan is a massive retard
makes sense to me. However, as always, if you want an opinion that is actually respected you should read some books about economic truths.
>>
>>64111143
>He literally said "I will do everything I can to destroy Obama's presidency."

You say that like it is a bad thing
stupid faggot
>>
>>64110592

It would be adjudicated by the common law of nuisance or tresspass where there are clear standards to go by. If it is a tresspass the guy who cause the harm is always liable. If it is nuisance, he is liable only if he was negligent. Intent doesn't matter in either case.

One should note that there was probably no statutes dealing with injuries such as these until the 20th century. It belonged entirely to the unwritten common law created by judicial interpretation.
>>
>>64111353
>leftism is destroying Europe as we speak
>"lol fuck conservatism"
Okay, faggot. Here's your (You).
>>
>>64111178
Recess appointments to SCOTUS only last until the end of the next session of the Senate.

Course nothing is stopping him from continuing to do that shit every time the Senate ends a session.

He could even issue an executive order declaring an appointment be recycled every time Senate ends session until either he is out of office or the Senate fills the vacancy so the Senate can't hammer out and back in again to fuck him.
>>
>>64111360
>Scalia was involved in hundreds of decisions. All you have to point to are two?

Two of the worst decisions in US history that destroyed democratic representation in America? I'm pretty sure those are important you lying cunt.
>>
>>64111379
I know more about economics then you. Bernie will radically change this country for the better. Many economists agree with him.
>>
>>64111408
>You say that like it is a bad thing

It IS bad asshole.
>>
>>64111485
>It would be adjudicated by the common law
What law says justices have to follow common law?
>>
>>64111571
Obama is a leftist faggot destroying his plans to ruin the US is a good thing you nigger faggot
>>
>>64111250
Ginsberg is already dead.
We're just waiting for her to stop moving.
>>
>>64111657
>Obama is a leftist

Fuck off cuckservative. He's center-right wing as best.
>>
File: Kim Davis.jpg (13KB, 234x234px) Image search: [Google]
Kim Davis.jpg
13KB, 234x234px
>>64111536
McConnell is the Kim Davis of the Legislature.
Because the country is laying out decisions that upset his tummy-parts, he'll close down the entire office.
>>
>>64054432
>The Supreme Court doesn't legislate, they can only decide on cases that come before the court.
not what those fuckers did in regards to gay marriage. they legislated faggotry upon the states which had the right to decide what marriage is
>>
>>64022842
sounds like justice got served ^_^
>>
>>64111547
You dumb fucking faggit do you have any idea how our government works and how the three branches of government coexist?

The Supreme Court doesn't give a fuck what you think. It is there to uphold the Constitution, not the opinions of some basement dwelling faggot.

The democratic representation of America happens in Congress and to a lesser extent, the presidency, since the president's main powers lie in foreign affairs.
>>
>>64111782
>which had the right to decide what marriage is
Except in a manner which violated equal protection since that aspect of their right to decide marriage is explicitly denied to them by the supreme law of the land's 14th amendment.

But nice try.
>>
>>64111547

>Two of the worst decisions in US history

Worse than Scott v Sandford, Korematsu v USA, Buck v Bell, etc? Wow, OK. Either you're an idiot, or you have a very, very short memory. Or both, I suppose.
>>
File: Ronald-Reagan-9453198-1-402.jpg (47KB, 402x402px) Image search: [Google]
Ronald-Reagan-9453198-1-402.jpg
47KB, 402x402px
>>64111735
This. The GOP has moved the goalposts of the "Right" so far afield that being a Centrist makes you more conservative than Reagan.
Anyone who isn't a bomb-throwing far-Right nut is a Rino.

When refusing federal medicaid dollars to help the sick people of your own State becomes the litmus test for being a "true Conservative", you know the wing-nuts are driving the bus.
>>
>>64111850
>You dumb fucking faggit do you have any idea how our government works and how the three branches of government coexist?

US Supreme Court should not be picking presidents who destroying our campaign fiance system you retarded faggot.

>The Supreme Court doesn't give a fuck what you think. It is there to uphold the Constitution, not the opinions of some basement dwelling faggot.

I don't care because no where in the US Constitution does it give them the power to hand pick presidents or corporations are people.

Cuckservative genocide when?
>>
>>64111918
>Worse than Scott v Sandford, Korematsu v USA, Buck v Bell, etc? Wow, OK. Either you're an idiot, or you have a very, very short memory. Or both, I suppose.

Both decisions turned America into a quasi-fascist state.
>>
>>64111567
Tell me the definition of limited resources or scarcity.
Tell me what is proven to happen when you increase minimum wage.
Tell me the affect of creating little incentives for your work.
Tell me the affect of creating a climate that make small businesses hard to exist.
Not only that but Bernie's stance on civil liberties is shit aside from his view on surveilance.
>>
>>64111623

Tradition and the natural law deriving from natural necessity. The nation would fall apart if our judges had no regard for traditional legal concepts.
>>
>>64111735
> center-right wing

Jesus Tapdancing Christ do you really believe that?
>>
>>64111951

Medicaid is a socialist program. If Obama is center right, Clinton has to be a DINO.
>>
>>64112093
>Jesus Tapdancing Christ do you really believe that?

Yes, Obama is the third and fourth term of the Bush administration. This is why we need a center-left winger like Bernie Sanders in the white house to stop America's 40 year shift to the right wing.
>>
>>64112093
If you don't spend your time listening to breathless Glenn Beck oratory, you pretty well come to that conclusion.

Obama took Ted Kennedy's dream and turned it into a Big Insurance windfall. He's danced to the center on absolutely every issue, in the vain hopes that the GOP might meet him there.

And he gets left at the Bus Stop every time.
>>
>>64112076
And what law says judges have to follow either of those?
>>
>>64112019

So you don't think that I should be able to publish a book critical of a candidate for office too close to an election deadline? I'd assume you also think that a newspaper like the New York Times shouldn't be allowed to endorse a presidential candidate within a few weeks of an election?

Citizens United v FEC was a pretty clear cut First Amendment decision, anon. And it did not actually do away with all campaign finance laws, despite what all brouhaha surrounding it says.
>>
>>64111979

So what your saying is that a bunch of people can't pool their money to broadcast a film about Hillary Clinton on TV? Because thats what citizens united was about.
>>
>>64022842
rip my dear based conservative man
>>
>>64112341
>So you don't think that I should be able to publish a book critical of a candidate for office too close to an election deadline? I'd assume you also think that a newspaper like the New York Times shouldn't be allowed to endorse a presidential candidate within a few weeks of an election?

I think all US elections should be publicly funded and private corporations should be highly restricted in how they influence US politics. If you don't like that, move to Singapore or some other shit hole were corporations rule us.
>>
>>64111979
>US Supreme Court should not be picking presidents who destroying our campaign fiance system you retarded faggot.
This statement is retarded for like 3 different reasons.

>I don't care because no where in the US Constitution does it give them the power to hand pick presidents or corporations are people.
Dude you're a fucking retard. Do you understand what you're saying.
>>
>>64112341
>The slippery slope doesn't apply when it's in my favor.
>>
>>64112245

No law needs to say it. We are ruled first by tradition and comity and laws come in to address its failures. The english don't even have a constitution and yet they are a perfectly well ordered nation because they honor traditions.
>>
>>64112375
>So what your saying is that a bunch of people can't pool their money to broadcast a film about Hillary Clinton on TV? Because thats what citizens united was about.

No. Not when it allows for unlimited dark money into US elections, which is why the Republican primary has turned into a freak show of the highest order.
>>
>>64112210
You DU people are certifiably insane
>>
>>64112491
>This statement is retarded for like 3 different reasons.

You didn't disprove what I said. Prove that anything I said was wrong. DO IT
>>
>>64112538
>We are ruled first by tradition
I must have missed the part where tradition is the supreme law of the land.

You are arguing judges should rely on one extraconstitutional piece of bullshit so they don't have to rely on another, because it's extraconstitutional.

And the english have a fuckton of on the books laws without a constitution.
>>
>>64112486

So then you *do* think that the New York Times (a private corporation) should be forbidden from endorsing or criticizing any political candidate?

Citizens United was specifically about a group that wanted to release a small independent film critical of Hillary Clinton, and was told they couldn't because it would have constituted 'electioneering.' Maybe it's wise to restrict such speech (I don't think it is, but I don't know everything), but doing so very clearly runs afoul of the 1st Amendment as it is written today.
>>
>>64112546

I blame the changes to the electoral college system and modern mass media. The people were never supposed to directly elect the president.
>>
>>64112546
>which is why the Republican primary has turned into a freak show of the highest order.

top 3 GOP candidates raised the least money
How about all those Hillary Super PACs or all the Soros and Hollywood money going to Sanders? I suppose that is OK right?

Kill yourself you state worshiping nigger
>>
>>64055974
look at this faggot
>>
>>64022842
Boss Hogg was extremely overrated
>>
>>64112773
>top 3 GOP candidates raised the least money

They still have millions of millions of dollars.
>>
>>64112210
Oh you're a millennial.

Well that was a waste of time.
Did you just roll out if bed, kiddo?
>>
>>64112742
>So then you *do* think that the New York Times (a private corporation) should be forbidden from endorsing or criticizing any political candidate?

New York Times endorsed Hillary. FUCK THEM
>>
>>64112593
The Supreme Court doesn't pick presidents.

It is well within the Constitution for the Supreme Court to make decision regarding the election process.

Third reason, I dunno, because you're a retard.

There. 3 reasons why your statement was retarded.
>>
>>64112891
>Oh you're a millennial.

You do know everyone 35 and younger is a millennial right retard? How old are YOU and what are you doing here?
>>
>>64112979
>The Supreme Court doesn't pick presidents.

They clearly did in Bush v Gore when they ordered Florida not to recount the vote.
>>
>>64112666

Our legal background is the English law. Where statutes are silent we rely on the common law as it has developed in America since the revolution.
>>
File: Mohammed_Saeed_al-Sahaf.jpg (26KB, 384x289px) Image search: [Google]
Mohammed_Saeed_al-Sahaf.jpg
26KB, 384x289px
>>64112922

Well, then, fair enough I guess. Best of luck to you in establishing and influencing a new politburo.
>>
>>64113000
41

Working.
Raising a family.
Living the American dream before the Hillary/Bernie train runs it over.
>>
>>64113078
>american people vote a president into office
>"the Supreme Court appointed him!"
>>
assuming obama gets a democrat appointed and rbg stays alive 4 more years, what are the chances weed is legalized by the next election? what about if kennedy dies and is replaced by a liberal?
>>
>>64096204
The "loving" people.
>>
>>64113370
Libs aren't "loving"

They're emotional.
>>
File: Skinny pants.jpg (87KB, 625x475px) Image search: [Google]
Skinny pants.jpg
87KB, 625x475px
>>64113235
>Remembers the prosperous Clinton Era
>A working adult as W terror-alert flogged the nation into Endless War
>Saw the results of Bush's inept cronyism
>Front row for the deregulated banking industry burning vast trillions and spiraling the economy
>Shills for more GOP lovin'

Pathetic.
>>
>>64022842
he was always "that guy" who interjected his opinion and backed it up with bitterly bitterly stubborn word-twisting. pol would like him if they knew anything about history.
>>
File: Newtster.jpg (56KB, 402x402px) Image search: [Google]
Newtster.jpg
56KB, 402x402px
>>64113521
Conservatives aren't "Christian".

They are self-serving hypocrites.
>>
File: tumblr_nwj0mcG4Wx1ubxycro1_500.png (546KB, 471x699px) Image search: [Google]
tumblr_nwj0mcG4Wx1ubxycro1_500.png
546KB, 471x699px
>>64022842
>>
>>64113613
Does not refute the claim the liberals are emotional. In fact, it confirms it.
>>
>>64113613
His neck is leaking
>>
>>64113121
>Our legal background is the English law. Where statutes are silent we rely on the common law as it has developed in America since the revolution.
That doesn't make any of that constitutional, which is my point.

It's all extraconstitutional.
>>
File: glenn-beck-crying.jpg (24KB, 388x330px) Image search: [Google]
glenn-beck-crying.jpg
24KB, 388x330px
>>64113711
People are emotional.
Conservatives have widely opposed change simply because it morally "upsets" them.

They have made the "gut decision" famous.
>>
>>64113803
gut decisions are made by the brain
>>
File: Rufio.jpg (4MB, 2400x3040px) Image search: [Google]
Rufio.jpg
4MB, 2400x3040px
>>64113715
Rufio has one-upped Newt, who only changed religions.
Carlos is a Catholic-Mormon-Evangelical. For maximum pandering.
>>
>>64113803
>because it morally "upsets" them.
No they have opposed things because they're not dirty fucking commies
>>
>>64113718

Yes there are extra constitutional sources of law.
>>
>>64113525
Yes I remember the dotcom bubble, and the excess government surplus that resulted from the end of the cold war that Clinton took credit for. I remember when he took credit for "balancing the budget" when it was only the smallest slice of the pie called Discretionary Spending.

And I never said I supported Bush.
Funny how people like you make these snap judgements though.
>>
>>64113895
The very definition of "gut decision" is to ignore what your brain is telling you and to go with what you "feel inside". Idort.
>>
>>64113803
Because it morally upsets them, or because no reason was given for the change other than "muh feels"?
>>
>>64113987
gut decisions are made by the brain
>>
File: Jeb!1.jpg (155KB, 570x406px) Image search: [Google]
Jeb!1.jpg
155KB, 570x406px
>>64113957
Unlike myself, you aren't old enough to be a Reagan voter, so I have to conclude you are a big fanboy of HW then?

Or are you just a huge fan of all the promises that the GOP makes and is never good for? (which is the energy driving Trump and Cruz).
>>
>>64114025
"feelings" are also made by the brain, not the heart.
Making gut decisions implies ignoring sophisticated logic. You can try to split hairs all you want, you lost.
>>
File: download.jpg (7KB, 188x251px) Image search: [Google]
download.jpg
7KB, 188x251px
>>64113613
Wow, you made my point better than I did.

Thanks man.
>>
>>64113078
You mean gore cried because he lost and demanded that a county full of shitskins be recounted without the rest of Florida and the governor of Florida said, not so fast, and recounted he whole state, which bush still won, and then got tried to recount again and the scotus said, stop being a fucking crybaby already, you lost.
>>
>>64114182
>also
so you're saying
gut decisions are made by the brain
>>
File: intredasting.jpg (51KB, 685x567px) Image search: [Google]
intredasting.jpg
51KB, 685x567px
>>64114217
You're welcome, potato.

Clearly someone should be in charge of making your points for you.
>>
>>64114217
And if you follow truth you end up libertarian.
>>
>>64114319
Libertarians are conservatives.
>>
>>64114319
If libertarians had a chance I would vote for one.

Live and let live.
>>
File: ron-paul-alone.jpg (39KB, 611x404px) Image search: [Google]
ron-paul-alone.jpg
39KB, 611x404px
>>64114460
Libertarians are social liberals and economic extremists.
They aren't Conservative in the least, which is why you see this scene repeated every 4 years.

Rand will be keeping this chair warm for many elections to come.
>>
>>64114310
:^)

Right over your head, kiddo.

Let me know when you're old enough to drink. We'll go out for a beer some time.
>>
>>64114099
FUCK OFF you retarded DU faggot
You fossil hippies need to just die already
The 13 year olds here are more intelligent and wise than you niggers
>>
after decades of partisan appointments by whatever govt of the day, you think americucks would realize to just shrug their shoulders and move along knowing that the pendulum will swing the other way some day

In this case it's going to be nearly a full year before the next prez is sworn in - Repulicunts are going to have a hard time justifying that it must be left alone while there are important cases on the docket coming up.
>>
File: 1486488-bender_doomed.jpg (20KB, 400x227px) Image search: [Google]
1486488-bender_doomed.jpg
20KB, 400x227px
>>64114319
>>64114319
eh, kind of

sure, libertarianism is the most fair in terms of results ideologically,but exactly like communism, it only works with people acting in a perfect way

Libertarianism would always end up as feudalism, libertarianism IS feudalism

>completely free market
>bigguy pushes littleguy off his land
>bigguy owns entire state full of land
>sharecroppers

libertarians confirmed for feudalism
>>
>>64114991
Pretty much this. Should have provided Antonin better health care.
>>
I'll bet nobody on /pol/ remembers that Obama and Reid already packed the federal courts with democrat activist judges using the "nuclear option" (51 vote confirmations)
>>
>>64115087

Bad bait. Not even fresh.
>>
>>64115087

Not all libertarians are extremists who want no government.
>>
>>64115378
The old libertarians are anarchists strawman

Libertarians are just conservative republicans with shitty foreign policy
>>
>>64054417
Toothpaste, pls, try harder.
>>
File: giphy (1).gif (254KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]
giphy (1).gif
254KB, 500x375px
>>64115293
prove me wrong

protip: you can't

"that wasn't MY kind of libertarianism"

>>64115378
so some libertarians are literally conservatives? don't confuse republicans with conservatives, and don't think that you're any cooler for saying you're a libertarian so that your libcuck friends don't think you dumb redneck
>>
>>64115483
>shitty foreign policy

That would be the neo cons. Fuck your dick swinging exceptionalism bullshit.
>>
Lolbertarians have no clue what to do with Muslims fucking up their utopian societal ideals.
>>
I'm watching Fox News and they're discussing about how Obama intends to nominate a replacement for Scalia and they're playing up that they should wait for the new President to take office, and quoting many Republicans saying such, with Ted Cruz saying he'll filibuster ANY nominee by Obama.

My question: I know the US userbase of /pol/ is pretty much universally anti-Obama, but isn't this just the Republicans being childish pricks? He's still the President.
>>
>>64115210
Obama is literally a cartoon villain
>gee barack, what do you wanna do tonight
>the same thing we do every night harry
>>
File: Great Pumpkin.jpg (13KB, 220x227px) Image search: [Google]
Great Pumpkin.jpg
13KB, 220x227px
>>64115087
Libertarianism is the conviction that an inherent love of Truth, Justice and the American Way will keep Big Corp's board of trustees from raping your Grandma's butthole, and that if for some reason they DO fuck up the old bird, that somehow Free Market Forces will make the situation alright again.

It's a political philosophy for "Ayy Weed LMAO", cuckholds for billionaires, and 13-yr olds.

But we are getting seriously off the topic of the welcome death of this activist fatass.
>>
>>64115592

I call myself a classical liberal to avoid associations with social conservatives and anarchists.
>>
>>64115657
It is the Senates job to do the will of the people who voted for them
and the people who voted for them want to stop Obama's agenda
>>
>>64115756
>classical liberal
Protestant Christians made that work.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
>>
>>64115630
Kill yourself Isolationist pussy Jefferson himself would have kicked you in your faggot surrender at all cost face.
>>
File: mitch-mcconnell.jpg (55KB, 545x429px) Image search: [Google]
mitch-mcconnell.jpg
55KB, 545x429px
>>64115657
>but isn't this just the Republicans being childish pricks?

Welcome to the last 7 years.

Course when the Dems turn around and try it it will be America-hating treachery at it's worst.
>>
>>64055336
>m-mu-mu-muh hurt feelings

Get over it. There are no band aids for bleeding hearts and only you can overcome your ignorance. No one here is going to hold your hand.
>>
>>64115943
Fuck off back to the DU you retarded nigger
>>
>>64115943
Do you remember fox news during the Bush years?
>He is YOUR president and he deserves YOUR loyalty!
It was 1984 tier.
>>
>>64115980
Protip: it's a rolling thread, replying to posts at the very top doesn't work for long.
>>
>>64115943
>Republicans are childish pricks
>I want to be one too but better

Just
>>
File: 1454626209900.png (22KB, 664x663px) Image search: [Google]
1454626209900.png
22KB, 664x663px
i see everybody is hyped about this, but there is supposed to be another supreme court judge to die soon as well.
according to the future anyways.
>>
>>64116054
How very coherent. Is that your "feelings" talking?
>>
>>64116104
>implying you don't get the picture

Retarded, much.
>>
>>64115867

And there have been developments in liberal philosophy after them.
>>
>>64116160
Last time I try to help a retard wandering down the "sidewalk".
Ingrate
>>
>>64115592
pretty simple thing to sum up libertarianism. Basically it is an umbrella term. Some people are actually an-cap but call themselves conservatives

5 pinciples:
>Pro Limited Government– Government should exist to protect Life, Liberty and Property. Nothing more. Liberty is a primary political value. (does an act of gov. increase or decrease an individual’s liberty)
>Pro Individualism – The rights of the individual are above the rights of the collective. The individual is sovereign.
>Pro Tolerance – you should not interfere with things you do not agree with or disapprove of.
>Pro Peace – The principle of non intervention. Free movement of capital, labor, people, goods/services and Ideas.
>Pro Free Markets – No transaction Or cooperation should occur unless it is voluntary.

from: http://www.jasonstapleton.com/the-power-of-principle/
>>
>>64116255
Good.

Take your whinging ass back to the fucking gay pride parade.
>>
sorry, i meant
>some people are actually an-cap but call themselves libertarian

Like Lew Rockwell. You hear them talk and they are actually an-cap. The an-cap/libertarian divide is basically over whether or not government should exist as all
>>
File: Buddy_christ.jpg (31KB, 370x284px) Image search: [Google]
Buddy_christ.jpg
31KB, 370x284px
>>64116284
>Government should exist to protect Life, Liberty and Property. Nothing more.

So Government should be directly involved in your life, the system of protective freedoms by which you live that life, and everything you own, but nothing else.

This is why Libertarians are fucking retards right out of the gate. They try to cover up their half-baked philosophy with a bunch of flowery good-sounding bullshit.
>>
>>64116331
It's whining, retard.
>>
>>64098695
Oh right to the pursuit of happiness is in the preamble is it not? Been out of school for a minute.
>>
>>64116466
>proves he's a tack-headed retard.

Kekkity kek kek!!

Get a dictionary, whinger.
>>
>>64116445

The only issue with negative liberty is the problem of punishment, which does not have concise logical constraints in the same way their theory of property can.

Enforcing virtue at large cannot be practically defined and lends itself to a treadmill effect in both law and punishment. In this regard, libertarian theory only has to contend with punishment.
>>
>>64116445
Government should only exist to protect your rights and your property. It protects you against foreign invaders, criminals, and provides a least-biased third party for adjudicating disputes. Anything else and the government is using coercion/force to make you go against your own judgment. You can ad hom if you like but the simple fact is that government exists to secure and defend our rights and for no other reason. If you want to argue with the Declaration of Independence, you can.
>>
>>64116445
>So Government should be directly involved in your life, the system of protective freedoms by which you live that life, and everything you own, but nothing else.


How ca you be so vehemently obtuse? Is it on purpose or are you simply lacking?
>>
>>64115774
This.
A thousand times this.

Obama is the reason the GOP took the House and almost the Senate in the following midterm election.
>>
>>64115943

Wow a real live giant faggot. Remember when the Democrats were anti-war when it was trendy?
>>
File: He Man.jpg (6KB, 247x204px) Image search: [Google]
He Man.jpg
6KB, 247x204px
>>64116688
The main problem is that Libertarianism assumes that everyone is a golden-hearted Smurf led by Papa Smurf, and Gargamel is some creep outside the borders of the village, and not representative of every 5th Smurf.

It's a philosophy for infantiles. And for people who've exploited the government sponsored capitalist system we have, and now want to crouch in their mansions free of taxes and obligations TO that system. Hopefully you will grow out of it.
>>
>>64116466
A good faggot cum guzzling liberal bet bitch like you shouldn't use the word "retard" it triggers people.
come here to use words like that since they will get you banned at the DU?
>>
>>64116875
>It's a philosophy for infantiles.


Said the emotional cripple
>>
File: alGore_1515233c.jpg (16KB, 460x288px) Image search: [Google]
alGore_1515233c.jpg
16KB, 460x288px
>>64116874
>Remember when the Democrats were anti-war when it was trendy?
I remember when the Democrats were anti-war before we were mired in decades long wars started by Republicans....

Now they are too busy trying to put out Neocon fires.
>>
>>64116875

Epic, thanks for the response.
>>
>>64116978
Well argued. You must be on the habilitation center debate team.
>>
>>64116875
The Libertarians are Anarchists strawman again

Libertarians are not ancaps you stooge
>>
>>64055974
10th amendment, faggot.

Don't homosexuals realize states have their own laws and rights?
>>
>>64116926
>He doesn't understand the word whinge.

>Calls people retard

This is liberalism. Let him glide over all like the potato he is.
>>
>>64117039
Remember when Al Gore was relevant?
>>
>>64117039
>Now they are too busy trying to put out Neocon fires.

You meaning fleeing the enemy everywhere and turning people over to Islamofascists and Putin?

kill yourself faggot
>>
>>64117124
I don't speak urban dictionary slang or ebonics,
I apologize for my proper education, and how it offends you.
>>
File: Ludwig-von-Mises-Socialism.jpg (82KB, 736x394px) Image search: [Google]
Ludwig-von-Mises-Socialism.jpg
82KB, 736x394px
>>64116875
>how to spot the collectivist

Obviously pure libertarianism requires a "moral and virtuous people". The American government system requires one as well. But obviously returning to a system of minimal government interference and theft (or taxation as you may call it) does not require a more virtuous people. If you want to argue about free market economics, however, please politely walk off a cliff
>>
>>64117039
>too busy trying to put out neocon fires

Is that why Obama has neocon ex-PNAC Kagans and Nuland in his administration. His administration is full of neocons because he's trying to stop them? Get fucked shill, maybe people will lap up your bullshit on reddit.
>>
>>64117089
>habilitation

US hablitation does not exist you punk bitch low info logic faggot.
>>
>>64117216
>Obviously pure libertarianism requires a "moral and virtuous people"
Well, until we are able to manufacture this perfect society in a factory or lab, stop trying to build a society that needs Unobtanium to work.
>>
>>64117207
Whinge is a proper English word you ignorant DU faggot.
>>
>>64117039
as though Bill Clinton and Obama haven't started wars. As though all the wars of the 20th century (World Wars, Korea, Vietnam) weren't started by democrats. Both parties are war parties and both parties are welfare parties
>>
>>64117265
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/habilitative-habilitation-services/
>>
File: rato.png (103KB, 624x498px) Image search: [Google]
rato.png
103KB, 624x498px
I was a Cruz supporter

But after he was outed as the biggest single liar and he spoke Spanish in the debate, I can no longer support him

I am now a Trump Stumper.
>>
File: gopsblackfriend.jpg (44KB, 619x515px) Image search: [Google]
gopsblackfriend.jpg
44KB, 619x515px
>>64117356
Yes, FDR clearly ignited WW2.
>>
>>64117207
>Being this retarded on the internet

You don't have an education, faggot.
You're only in the process of funneling your dad's money to the local Comuniversity.
>>
>>64116875

The libertarian system treats everyone as if they are strangers who should not trust each other for fear of fraud or force. That's why it works so well in contrast to a socialist system which doesn't limit government in order to address problems of faction. Under a libertarian system there can be no government sponsored corporations who use force to corner the market because the government only exists to prevent force and fraud and has no redistribution power. It doesn't pick winners or losers or transfer money from person A to person B at the request of person B.
>>
I'm glad he's dead. I guarantee you he was a closet homo in the way he cockblocked the fags of the world.

Also, this piece of human garbage actually - as someone who is supposed to uphold the constitution - wanted a real, tangible theocracy in America. Fuck. That.
>>
File: Benson.jpg (63KB, 469x665px) Image search: [Google]
Benson.jpg
63KB, 469x665px
>>64117356
>as though Bill Clinton
Which war did Bill Clinton start again?
I remember a brief intervention in the middle stages of an ethnic cleansing by some aircraft, but by God the War he involved US troops in evades me.
>>
>>64117500
>That's why it works so well in contrast to a socialist system
Really? Where is it working so well, I'm curious.
>>
>>64117370
>Facepalm

>Doesn't know what he's talking about
>fourth time

Get a clue, and maybe then someone will be offended by your insults.
>>
>>64117473
Nah he is a product of leftist academia, he has drank the kool aid and went back for more, he is a typical faggot DU poster and should really learn to scrub his images so he doesn't get doxed
>>
>>64117534

>wanted a real, tangible theocracy in America

PROOFS?
>>
>>64117300
I don't believe that we will ever have a country where we can go full Rothbard/Rockwell/An-cap. I don't think we'll ever have courts where you can sue over air pollution. That doesn't mean we can't have:
>Constitutional government
>No double taxes (corporate, estate, etc.)
>No income tax
>No welfare
>Low regulation
>No non-violent crimes
>No government interference in private choice

We can move to a society that is more libertarian. It worked for the first 100 years or so of our country. Libertarian doesn't mean stateless anarchy
>>
>>64117586

USA until the 1930s when the constitution was torn to bits.
>>
>>64022842
This man inspired me to go to Law School and become a lawyer.

Justice Scalia was the most brilliant mind on the Court, and he cannot be replaced.
>>
>>64117541

You forgot Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia, Sudan? Or are just playing the chicken shit semantics game because those weren't "wars" per your definition?
>>
>Political appointed judges
>Common law

What the fuck America
>>
>>64117693
Legalize dueling and gladiators?
>>
>>64117300
The righteous can just start purging all the overtly emotional and mentally stunted liberals.

Countdown to #RopeDay!
>>
>>64117799
>Justice Scalia was the most brilliant mind on the Court
"Hurr durr gay sex = bestiality and pedophilia, I iz smart judge man!"

Yeah, what a fuckin luminary. I like when he talked about "the Devil" and how he's real. Primitive superstitious old fucktard.
>>
>>64117435
FDR didn't ignite WW2. And I'm not of the camp that we should have stayed out of it but FDR clearly did some bad "muh republican war crimes" shit and obviously moved towards war.
>>64117541
Somalia. Sudan. Iraq. Iran. Haiti. And don't pretend the Balkans is a simple black vs white matter. I think that Bush and Obama are worse, of course
>>
>>64117586
>Failing at history now

JesuChristo es el Senor!

Can't into English
Can't into history
Can't into banter

You have failed, xir!
>>
File: Cultural Marxism.jpg (55KB, 545x397px) Image search: [Google]
Cultural Marxism.jpg
55KB, 545x397px
>>64117974
Pedophilia is becoming legal, and bestiality and necrophilia are well on the way.
>>
>>64116238
"developments in liberal philosophy"

You must be referring to FDR's "Liberalism". Liberalism isn't liberal at all. Liberalism is the belief that government decides for the citizen who is deem to be incapable of self-government.
>>
A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.

Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism
>>
>>64117853
I don't see why these couldn't be legalized. If somebody signed a contract to fight in an arena it would be fair game. Probably would want a loop hole allowing a defeated fighter to opt out of an execution though. Can you imagine an NFL-style organization for gladiator fights?
>>
>>64117974
And you've proven to be quite the sagacious scholar. Surely you are better qualified to be Associate Justice.
>>
Why is this a rolling sticky and not a traditional sticky?

Also, this triggers GOP edition, watch the Obama dictator language come out immediately
>>
>>64022842
>>64022842
RIP, you died a timely death
>>
Daily reminder that the Indian-American dude will be Scalia's replacement.
>>
>>64117586
We currently have a fairly socialized crony-capitalist system. This is basically covered by Public Choice Theory and cultural marxism/the general idiocy of society and the failings of a democratic system.
>>
>>64118188
>And you've proven to be quite the sagacious scholar. Surely you are better qualified to be Associate Justice.

I don't believe a magic man with horns is trying to control the world like some 15th century peasant, so yeah, I AM better qualified than Scalia.
Glad he's dead.
>>
>>64118137
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.

Murray Rothbard
>>
File: 1455059690735.png (11KB, 505x489px) Image search: [Google]
1455059690735.png
11KB, 505x489px
>>
>>64118071

The only things keeping pedophilia down is age of consent laws.

But those are a social construct, if libtards want they can make age of consent that age at which a child is biologically an adult, IE capable of reproducing.

Which is what? 10 for girls and 11 for boys?
>>
Praise KEK?
>>
>>64118471
THE MASK I KNOW WHY HE WEARS IT!
>>
>>64118393
>Think she can be a Justice
>Doesn't think he's delusional

What Petri dish do you creep out of in the morning?
>>
A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

Any Rand
“The Nature of Government,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 112
>>
>>64118677
saying I'm better qualified doesn't mean I think I can be confirmed, stupid.
Scalia literally believed an evil magical man is trying to influence the world and it was his duty to fight him.
He was a delusional, primitive little fat man with caveman superstitions.
>>
>>64118077

I refer more to liberals like JS Mill and the welfare economists. One of the key insights is that you cannot allow mere offense to enter into the system by which we determine the common good because muddles the calculus and where we are uncertain about what is right and wrong the government has no role in endorsing either side.

The government can enforce my preference not to be murdered by the common consent of all mankind, but it cannot enforce my preference to not have pork served to me. Most purely religious legislation looks more like that latter type of preference instead of the former and so it has no place in government. There are private solutions to religious preferences and that means religious people have to be tolerant of those who don't abide by their rules.

So I disagree with the founders about (religious) morals legislation at the state and local level.
>>
>>64118937
Most people from his era still believe in God. How can anyone honestly hate someone who upheld the constitution so well? Liberals literally say they want a communist dictatorship when they celebrate his death.
>>
>>64119184
>How can anyone honestly hate someone who upheld the constitution so well?
"Corporations are people!"
"Sex between consenting adults is equal to pedophilia!"
"Blowjobs and anal should be illegal!"
None of Scalia's worst shit is in the Constitution.
He was a hero for backwards right-wing moralizing, not a Constitutionalist.
>>
>>64119112
So, you think the Federal government must force Atheism onto local communities.

Liberalism at its finest
>>
>>64119407

Corporations have always in law had certain legal rights as persons.

Sexual morals legislation has always existed in america and therefore the founders couldn't have opposed it.
>>
>>64119407
>"Corporations are people!"
groups of people are people
>>
https://youtu.be/BEfg12hae7s?t=86
>>
>>64119407
True, he had some shitty beliefs, but he also is the reason why the Heller decision went the way it did, which was a small victory for us regarding firearm rights.
>>
>>64119540
How is not arresting people for consensual sexual activities the same thing as state enforced atheism?
>>
>>64119540

No, it should just be silent. Local communities can do as they like so long as they don't threaten the rights of others. This means that a muslim community cannot come here and wage jihad on the population that doesn't share islamic values and it also means that if they were a majority they could not change the law of the land to be shariah law.
>>
>>64106050
You do not know what conservative means, do you?
Thread posts: 1015
Thread images: 132


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]

I'm aware that Imgur.com will stop allowing adult images since 15th of May. I'm taking actions to backup as much data as possible.
Read more on this topic here - https://archived.moe/talk/thread/1694/


If you need a post removed click on it's [Report] button and follow the instruction.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com.
If you like this website please support us by donating with Bitcoins at 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties.
Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site.
This means that RandomArchive shows their content, archived.
If you need information for a Poster - contact them.