Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[Tenshot13]

When your primary objection is that a Justice that is currently sitting on the Supreme Court is too far back in history to count, sorry, you get no sympathy from me.

As for the argument that politics have changed: of course they have! The Republicans are the ones changing them!  The United States of America coming two days away from defaulting on its debt obligations (and complete financial catastrophe) was also not something that happened 30 years ago, but here we are.  The record amount of filibusters by the 2009-2015 GOP Senate minority is called a "record" because it had never happened before.

1st, I don't need your sympathy friend.
2nd, you're all over the place. 
3rd, for such a simple comment I made, your reading comprehension is very poor
4th, I said I was out, why am I even commenting on this still?
5th, potato

[Rich]

Anyone who believes that only one party is affecting a change on politics clearly believes that the tooth fairy was living dollar bills under his pillow.

The problem with politics is that one party does it and the other party does it worse. Then the party that did it first is criticizing the other party for doing what they did. And back and forth it goes and it gets worse and worse.

It takes two to tango, unless you're deranged enough to tango by yourself while sniffing on that dollar you think the tooth fairy left you...

Anyone who argues that only one party is bad is really a lost cause. They have no concept of reality.

[Tenshot13]

Anyone who believes that only one party is affecting a change on politics clearly believes that the tooth fairy was living dollar bills under his pillow.

The problem with politics is that one party does it and the other party does it worse. Then the party that did it first is criticizing the other party for doing what they did. And back and forth it goes and it gets worse and worse.

It takes two to tango, unless you're deranged enough to tango by yourself while sniffing on that dollar you think the tooth fairy left you...

Anyone who argues that only one party is bad is really a lost cause. They have no concept of reality.

+1

[Spider-Dan]

One of the major problems with the media and their abdication of responsibility to journalism is this false narrative of both sides are at fault.  It simply is not the case (or, if you prefer, is not the case to the same degree).

At the national level, Republicans have purged liberals and moderates from their party.  There is no Republican equivalent of the Blue Dog Democrats (Democrats who identify as conservative), nor is there a Republican equivalent of the New Democrat Coalition (Democrats who identify as moderate).  At the national level, GOP politicians are in a perpetual race to prove that they are more conservative than their fellow Republicans.

You are falling into the same trap that the media participates in: you are attempting to appear objective by claiming that both sides are at fault.  The problem is that objectivity and neutrality are not the same thing; it is a disservice to both journalism and reality to simply say, "Well, the Democrats say that SCOTUS justices have previously been confirmed in election years, and the Republicans say that they have not, so I guess there's no way to know for sure and you'll just have to choose your side."

I understand the allure of trying to be above the fray but at some point you have to call it as you see it.  Simply saying "both sides do it!" enables brinksmanship and extremism.

[CF DolFan]

One of the major problems with the media and their abdication of responsibility to journalism is this false narrative of both sides are at fault.  It simply is not the case (or, if you prefer, is not the case to the same degree).

At the national level, Republicans have purged liberals and moderates from their party.  There is no Republican equivalent of the Blue Dog Democrats (Democrats who identify as conservative), nor is there a Republican equivalent of the New Democrat Coalition (Democrats who identify as moderate).  At the national level, GOP politicians are in a perpetual race to prove that they are more conservative than their fellow Republicans.

You are falling into the same trap that the media participates in: you are attempting to appear objective by claiming that both sides are at fault.  The problem is that objectivity and neutrality are not the same thing; it is a disservice to both journalism and reality to simply say, "Well, the Democrats say that SCOTUS justices have previously been confirmed in election years, and the Republicans say that they have not, so I guess there's no way to know for sure and you'll just have to choose your side."

I understand the allure of trying to be above the fray but at some point you have to call it as you see it.  Simply saying "both sides do it!" enables brinksmanship and extremism.

There are no conservative Democrats or very few and non effective if any. I changed my affiliation this year from Democrat to Republican after voting primarily Republican the last 10 years or so.  Lieberman was the last major guy I looked at in the party who I could relate with. Prior to that I voted almost strictly Democratic since the 80's. 

It cracks me up because I know you're not stupid but when you try and pretend you believe something as silly as "it all the Republican's fault" and Democrats are just trying to do the right thing then I have to at least question it. I guess the biggest question is are you that ignorant or just love arguing that much?

We have a President that constantly purposely causing segregation and conflict. Even in death he uses it as a chance to slap the Republicans by not attending their greatest ally on the Supreme Courts death. If not in death then when do you try bi-partisanship? 

[Rich]

One of the major problems with the media and their abdication of responsibility to journalism is this false narrative of both sides are at fault.  It simply is not the case (or, if you prefer, is not the case to the same degree).

At the national level, Republicans have purged liberals and moderates from their party.  There is no Republican equivalent of the Blue Dog Democrats (Democrats who identify as conservative), nor is there a Republican equivalent of the New Democrat Coalition (Democrats who identify as moderate).  At the national level, GOP politicians are in a perpetual race to prove that they are more conservative than their fellow Republicans.

You are falling into the same trap that the media participates in: you are attempting to appear objective by claiming that both sides are at fault.  The problem is that objectivity and neutrality are not the same thing; it is a disservice to both journalism and reality to simply say, "Well, the Democrats say that SCOTUS justices have previously been confirmed in election years, and the Republicans say that they have not, so I guess there's no way to know for sure and you'll just have to choose your side."

I understand the allure of trying to be above the fray but at some point you have to call it as you see it.  Simply saying "both sides do it!" enables brinksmanship and extremism.

Interesting. The Republican Party's nominee always seems to wind up being a RHINO. Meanwhile, the Democrat Party nominated the most progressive candidate in 2008 and are on the verge of nominating a socialist in 2016, but the Republican Party is more extreme?

There are more RHINOs in the Senate than Blue Dog Democrats. In fact, how many Blue Dogs are actually left? The guy from West Virginia and who else?

Hint: there is no tooth fairy.

[Rich]

Lieberman was the last major guy I looked at in the party who I could relate with.

I'm sure the rebuttal will be that Lieberman is to the right of Ted Cruz or something...

We have a President that constantly purposely causing segregation and conflict. Even in death he uses it as a chance to slap the Republicans by not attending their greatest ally on the Supreme Courts death. If not in death then when do you try bi-partisanship? 

You're officially being a racist, extremist Tea Party Republican by expressing this opinion. Knock it off before we sick those open-minded liberal college students on you.

[Spider-Dan]

The Republican Party's nominee always seems to wind up being a RHINO.

Well, when your party has made the word "moderate" an epithet, anyone to the left of Ted Cruz is a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only).

Meanwhile, the Democrat Party nominated the most progressive candidate in 2008 and are on the verge of nominating a socialist in 2016, but the Republican Party is more extreme?

I'm not saying the Republicans are extreme because Ted Cruz exists; it makes sense that extreme conservatives would be members of the Republican Party.  I'm saying they are extreme because they have eliminated self-identifying (<--- this part is important) liberals and moderates at the national level, while the Democrats still have proud self-identifying moderates and conservatives in their party.

The self-identifying part is important because it tells you how these politicians campaign to their voters.  In other words, there are DC Democrats who win Democratic primaries by promising to be moderate or conservative; in contrast, all DC Republicans win their primaries by promising to be conservative, and that's it.  This is the sign of a monolithic party.

There are more RHINOs in the Senate than Blue Dog Democrats.

There is no such thing as a self-identifying RINO; RINO is an insult that conservatives launch at other Republicans that they don't consider conservative enough.  So for you to say that the Senate has a bunch of RINOs (when those Senators, if asked, would insist that they are VERY conservative) is just you perpetuating the exact kind of extremism I'm referring to.

[Spider-Dan]

There are no conservative Democrats or very few and non effective if any.

It's pretty difficult to be "effective" when you're in the Congressional minority.  What would you expect conservative Democrats to accomplish, exactly?

I changed my affiliation this year from Democrat to Republican after voting primarily Republican the last 10 years or so.  Lieberman was the last major guy I looked at in the party who I could relate with.

I'm not sure "conservative prefers Republicans over Democrats" is a surprising development, and Lieberman, the "last major Democrat you could relate with" gave a speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention supporting the GOP candidate for President.  I don't think it's unreasonable for the Democratic Party to expect their members not to campaign for Republican Presidential candidates.

It cracks me up because I know you're not stupid but when you try and pretend you believe something as silly as "it all the Republican's fault" and Democrats are just trying to do the right thing then I have to at least question it.

This isn't the first time I've mentioned that Washington has purged all Republicans who are unwilling to shout that they are Very Conservative, and I'm still waiting for someone to provide a response other than "Well, I still don't think Republicans are conservative enough!"

I'll say it again:  where is the Republican equivalent of the Blue Dogs?  Where is the Republican equivalent of the New Democrats?  Where are the Rockefeller Republicans?  They don't exist, because they have all been purged.

We have a President that constantly purposely causing segregation and conflict.

The current version of the GOP thinks John McCain and Mitt Romney were barely-disguised leftists, so of course you think Obama is destructive!  The entire point is that the GOP has been sucked in a mad dash to the right, in a quest to eliminate all insufficiently-pure RINOs.

[Sunstroke]

We have a President that constantly purposely causing segregation and conflict.

Interesting...I thought we had a president that was trying to bring people together. Perhaps you can cite a few examples of his all-encompassing "segregation and conflict" plan?

Even in death he uses it as a chance to slap the Republicans by not attending their greatest ally on the Supreme Courts death. If not in death then when do you try bi-partisanship? 

While you're at it, could you point to the section of the constitution, or the president's job description that says the president is supposed to attend the funeral of every Washington DC politician or judge?  I personally hate funerals, and have a hard time forcing myself to go to funerals for cousins, uncles and other extended family members.

[masterfins]

5th, potato

Or as a certain Republican Vice President would spell - p-o-t-a-t-o-e

[Spider-Dan]

While you're at it, could you point to the section of the constitution, or the president's job description that says the president is supposed to attend the funeral of every Washington DC politician or judge?

Just to give a complete picture of the historical facts: since 1980, sitting Presidents have attended roughly half of the funerals for Supreme Court justices.  Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice in U.S. history, rated exactly the same treatment as Scalia: a VP appearance.

Now, one might be inclined to object that Scalia was a sitting justice, which changes everything.  The last sitting justice to die was Rehnquist in 2005; George W. Bush attended.  The last sitting justice to die before that was Robert Jackson in 1954.  And back in that age of comity and national unity, before our current era of divisive partisanship... President Eisenhower sent some flowers.

I believe this is the point where protesters insist anything that happened before 2000 is too old to count, or something.

[CF DolFan]

Interesting...I thought we had a president that was trying to bring people together. Perhaps you can cite a few examples of his all-encompassing "segregation and conflict" plan?

Seriously? Have you had your head buried in the sand?

What was his public opinion on Trayvon Martin, Maichael Brown, Blacl Lives Matter, the Baltimore riots, his silence on the police killings and the latest is his rejection to honor justice Scalia. He never steps in to calm things but he will pubicly support those "who look like my son" and are on the wrong side of law. Add in to the fact that he is more concerned with not calling a Muslim extremist a Muslim extremist than he is in whether or not law abiding citizens can continue to ecertsise the 2nd ammendment. Poitics is wone thing but it's no secret why 65% of Americans think race relations have gotten worse under Obama's reign and is getting worse.

While you're at it, could you point to the section of the constitution, or the president's job description that says the president is supposed to attend the funeral of every Washington DC politician or judge?  I personally hate funerals, and have a hard time forcing myself to go to funerals for cousins, uncles and other extended family members.

The same place in the Constitutioin that requires a President to have show some sort of decorum while in office. It is just assumed a President should be above the fray of the millions of want to be politicians who spout ignorance on the web. 

[Sunstroke]

Seriously? Have you had your head buried in the sand?

Seriously...have you had your head buried up the Tea Party's backside?

[Spider-Dan]

What was his public opinion on Trayvon Martin, Maichael Brown, Blacl Lives Matter, the Baltimore riots, his silence on the police killings and the latest is his rejection to honor justice Scalia. He never steps in to calm things but he will pubicly support those "who look like my son" and are on the wrong side of law. Add in to the fact that he is more concerned with not calling a Muslim extremist a Muslim extremist than he is in whether or not law abiding citizens can continue to ecertsise the 2nd ammendment. Poitics is wone thing but it's no secret why 65% of Americans think race relations have gotten worse under Obama's reign and is getting worse.

It seems that what you desire from Democratic President Obama is a Republican President that will turn a blind eye to the problems black people (and poor people) complain about, or that will resolutely defend "Second Amendment Rights" on the day of yet another mass shooting.

If Obama is "causing segregation and conflict" by being a liberal President, then I'm happy to see him do it.  While I'm sure that it would reduce a lot of conflict (from your perspective) if Obama were to simply parrot conservative talking points, I'll have to disagree on the subject.

On a related note, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you don't believe the current calls in the Republican Presidential primary for a complete ban on Muslims and widespread deportation of immigrant families are causing any "segregation and conflict" at all.