Today assuming Obama successfully is able to nominate someone he wants the constitution died. This election will now be meaningless. The united States of America is over.

Today assuming Obama successfully is able to nominate someone he wants the constitution died. This election will now be meaningless. The united States of America is over.

(This is what Trump and Cruz want you to believe)

Trump would nominate someone to the left of Obama's nomination. To even mention trump in this context is disgusting.

 

(This is what Trump and Cruz want you to believe)

 

Wouldn't Trump nominate his sister?

 

Yes, Illinois needs to erect a wall between us and Indiana and Missouri; yes, indeed! Brilliant!

You mean that you don't have that problem with Kentucky and Wisconsin?

 

Today assuming Obama successfully is able to nominate someone he wants the constitution died. This election will now be meaningless. The united States of America is over.

 

Yeah, now we might amend the Constitution or other such craziness.  Imagine if we had the audacity to change it!

 

We might even do it like 30 times or something!

 

You mean that you don't have that problem with Kentucky and Wisconsin?

 

They'd build a wall for different reasons from Wisconsin.

 

The proximity to Chicago is the issue with Indiana, which is a valid complaint.

 

 

You mean that you don't have that problem with Kentucky and Wisconsin?

Most of the problems with guns coming into Illinois (specifically Chicago) are more issues with Indiana and Missouri than the other two.

Maybe Ruth bater Ginsberg will announce an early 2017 retirement date and Obamas nominee can get through.

 

Maybe Ruth bater Ginsberg will announce an early 2017 retirement date and Obamas nominee can get through.

Why would she do that?

She would do that if she wanted to retire knowing her point of view won't be lost. If she doesn't want to retire she won't.

Sad for Scalia's family.  I think Obama nominates someone like Sri Srinivasan (who was confirmed 97-0 to the DC circuit; he was bush's solicitor general, but is said to be non-ideological).  The Republicans could really overplay blocking a moderate choice and hurt themselves in the general election.

 

Although I didn't like Scalia's politics or his attitude, he's purpose the most influential justice of this generation.  

Edited February 14, 201610 yr by PseudoSABR

 

Sad for Scalia's family.  I think Obama nominates someone like Sri Srinivasan (who was confirmed 97-0 to the DC circuit; he was bush's solicitor general, but is said to be non-ideological).  The Republicans could really overplay blocking a moderate choice and hurt themselves in the general election.

That's what I was thinking, too. This is why this is such huge news. The timing of this and how it will play out ... it isn't something we've ever had, seen, whatever ... and may not again.

One man's passing will make a huge impact on the coming election. Both bases will want one of their own. For Republicans, that would mean stonewalling any Obama choice and then winning the presidential election.

 

Sad for Scalia's family.  I think Obama nominates someone like Sri Srinivasan (who was confirmed 97-0 to the DC circuit; he was bush's solicitor general, but is said to be non-ideological).  The Republicans could really overplay blocking a moderate choice and hurt themselves in the general election.

 

Although I didn't like Scalia's politics or his attitude, he's purpose the most influential justice of this generation.  

 

I expect Obama to make a good play on this one, he can go on the right side of moderate and still make up major ground.  Plus it might help the Democrats win the election ensuring they get to make a couple more nominations.

Trumps not looking good tonight, some of it might be nitpicky but as much as I don't care to defend George W Bush using Democrat talking points on 9-11 and the Iraq war is stupid.  Ron Paul was anti war without using Democrat talking points.

Edited February 14, 201610 yr by mikecgrimes

This debate is an entertaining *#$% show.

This debate is an entertaining *#$% show.

Recording it, just finished watching a pretty awesome NASCAR "exhibition race".

Today assuming Obama successfully is able to nominate someone he wants the constitution died. This election will now be meaningless. The united States of America is over.

If this is true and it all hung on the balance of a 79 year old, wasn't it pretty much dead?

 

If Republicans win the Presidential election this will barely be an historic ripple (as far as swinging the court is concerned).

 

And really, conservatives need to do away with the notion they have some sort of monopoly on the constitution. It's true when it lines up with what they want, same as any political individual.

I expect Obama to make a good play on this one, he can go on the right side of moderate and still make up major ground. Plus it might help the Democrats win the election ensuring they get to make a couple more nominations.

I generally agree, but I'm doubtful he goes on the right side. He'll nominate an extremely competent slight liberal and make the Republicans twist themselves into knots trying to stop it. Or perhaps even better, support the individual.

I generally agree, but I'm doubtful he goes on the right side. He'll nominate an extremely competent slight liberal and make the Republicans twist themselves into knots trying to stop it. Or perhaps even better, support the individual.

agreed

 

If he can get in a slight liberal (but moderate overall...but liberal in women, gay, minority issues) that helps his legacy big time overall.

Yeah, now we might amend the Constitution or other such craziness.  Imagine if we had the audacity to change it!

 

We might even do it like 30 times or something!

LOL

 

The Constitution cannot be amended. It just showed up one day. What we got is what we got. You can either defend it, or trample it like the liberals do. Get off my lawn.

There is no such thing as an automatic weapon on the open market. Another thought, AR-15s are a .223, the kind of gun that you use for the sport of target shooting, and kill less people per year than baseball bats, which are also used for sport.

While I believe reasonable gun regulation needs to happen, this is a valid response. Banning firearms such as the AR-15 is a useless gesture and another example of the left missing the damned point.

 

For all intents and purposes, an AR-15 is a pretty crappy hunting rifle painted black. Banning it is rather pointless.

 

We need to stop getting caught up in unnecessary minutia and deal with the really big problem: too many people who shouldn't be anywhere near a firearm have access to dozens of them.

 

I think Levi is taking a pretty reasonable approach in this thread. I could get behind some of those changes (along with smart guns).

While I believe reasonable gun regulation needs to happen, this is a valid response. Banning firearms such as the AR-15 is a useless gesture and another example of the left missing the damned point.

 

For all intents and purposes, an AR-15 is a pretty crappy hunting rifle painted black. Banning it is rather pointless.

 

We need to stop getting caught up in unnecessary minutia and deal with the really big problem: too many people who shouldn't be anywhere near a firearm have access to dozens of them.

 

I think Levi is taking a pretty reasonable approach in this thread. I could get behind some of those changes (along with smart guns).

So you think semi automatic rifles that can easily be converted to fully automatic rifles/killing machines are fine? Interesting take...

So you think semi automatic rifles that can easily be converted to fully automatic rifles/killing machines are fine? Interesting take...

Again, unnecessary minutia. Ban the AR-15, someone else designs kits for similar weapons. It turns into a never ending game of whack-a-mole. I've actually fired AR-15s, both semi and fully automatic. While I don't believe fully automatic weapons should be legal, a semi-automatic is a FAR more deadly mass-shooting weapon because each shot is aimed and expended with accuracy and ammunition is not wasted (after the second or third round, an automatic weapon is wildly inaccurate, which is why actual soldiers rarely use the automatic setting on their rifles). If you want to hit and kill, 1-3 rounds is the way to do it.

 

Again, for all intents and purposes, the AR-15 isnt different enough from a hunting rifle to warrant our attention. We should focus on the actual gun problem and the cultures surrounding it, not specific guns . Eliminate the AR-15 and six months later, someone designs a legal but extremely similar rifle. In the end, you've accomplished nothing... Actually, *less* than nothing because now you have to reopen the debate AGAIN and try to rally the public around actual legislation that might work AGAIN.

 

Do it right the first time. Focus on wide-sweeping changed that affect all guns and gun owners, not a ridiculously small subset of people who own a specific firearm.

Yeah, I think you have to announce you respect gun ownership. Encourage people to own any gun they want for protection. Add two to three guns to that as designated forms of hunting rifle as an additional license.

 

But let's end the arsenals. That alone would be a major step while we fight the culture of gun sexiness.

Edited February 14, 201610 yr by TheLeviathan

See you all later.  The lies about celebrating a death are about to get me banned.  Liberals true colors always shine through.

I've never heard of that concept, I would think most people would want more then one person to have access to one gun,for example if I had already been shot I sure hope my wife would be able to pull the trigger.  Assuming it's impossible for anyone to manipulate the system, and it never has any glitches I have no problem with that concept.  It seems like you might run into problems creating something that passes that criteria, but to that I say try harder or deal with the fact you won't find agreement.  I get that these things all sound paranoid, but the 2nd amendment rights are that critical.

 

.

You've never heard of smart guns? I find that hard to believe, but ok.

 

You should do some research. Such guns exist. They would prevent at least some of the deaths associated with guns, while preserving individual ownership rights.

 

Of course the NRA opposes their sale. Not opposes making them mandatory...opposes even selling them. A gun shop owner in VA was the last to try offering them for sale, and within hours was forced to barricade his shop over death threats.

See you all later.  The lies about celebrating a death are about to get me banned.  Liberals true colors always shine through.