Red Mosquito

Well, the plus is that every time this happens there is a discussion of not letting the president nominate someone, but we've yet to stop a president from nominating.

I mean, I assume Bush made his appointment in 1992.

B wrote:Well, the plus is that every time this happens there is a discussion of not letting the president nominate someone, but we've yet to stop a president from nominating.

I mean, I assume Bush made his appointment in 1992.

There was no nomination in 1992. White and Blackmun were getting old, though, and both retired in the first two years of Clinton's presidency.

I had no idea so many politicians have weighed in on both sides of this issue.

Biden 1992 / Now
McConnell 2000 something / Now
Tillis (R-NC) One Day / The Next Day

Does no one ever just say, "like or hate it, this is what we do"?

cutuphalfdead wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Diamond Joe is always right.

Joe Biden's portrayal in The Onion is an all time high water mark in American political satire. It is a treasure to behold.

Green Habit wrote:

B wrote:Well, the plus is that every time this happens there is a discussion of not letting the president nominate someone, but we've yet to stop a president from nominating.

I mean, I assume Bush made his appointment in 1992.

There was no nomination in 1992. White and Blackmun were getting old, though, and both retired in the first two years of Clinton's presidency.

I should probably look this up before being wrong, but wasn't Clarence Thomas '92? Marshall died in '91 and then it was early '92 when Thomas finally got confirmed after the Anita Hill drama, wasn't it?

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

B wrote:Well, the plus is that every time this happens there is a discussion of not letting the president nominate someone, but we've yet to stop a president from nominating.

I mean, I assume Bush made his appointment in 1992.

There was no nomination in 1992. White and Blackmun were getting old, though, and both retired in the first two years of Clinton's presidency.

I should probably look this up before being wrong, but wasn't Clarence Thomas '92? Marshall died in '91 and then it was early '92 when Thomas finally got confirmed after the Anita Hill drama, wasn't it?

October 1991. Marshall actually didn't die until four days after Clinton took office. If he had known the Democrats had a shot in 1992 it would be interesting if he could have tried to gut it out for two more years despite being quite ill.

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

B wrote:Well, the plus is that every time this happens there is a discussion of not letting the president nominate someone, but we've yet to stop a president from nominating.

I mean, I assume Bush made his appointment in 1992.

There was no nomination in 1992. White and Blackmun were getting old, though, and both retired in the first two years of Clinton's presidency.

I should probably look this up before being wrong, but wasn't Clarence Thomas '92? Marshall died in '91 and then it was early '92 when Thomas finally got confirmed after the Anita Hill drama, wasn't it?

October 1991. Marshall actually didn't die until four days after Clinton took office. If he had known the Democrats had a shot in 1992 it would be interesting if he could have tried to gut it out for two more years despite being quite ill.

I knew you'd set me right lol.

Who needs Google when you have green habit?

4/5 wrote:Who needs Google when you have green habit?

Depends on what you're Googling. Some things I don't know jack shit about.

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:Who needs Google when you have green habit?

Depends on what you're Googling. Some things I don't know jack shit about.

Yeah but the Supreme Court is your wheelhouse.

Now that I think about I do recall that Marshall retired before passing away, I knew that he was very ill. But I don't think I ever knew that he actually didn't pass away until the very start of Clinton's presidency.

If we can put Thomas on the court, I am sure we can get whomever Obama wants on there through this mess.

I've read lots of remembrances and articles about Scalia's career, and not one has made a "jiggery-pokery" joke. Come on!

Scalia isn't there to throw in Conservative platitudes and act like a general asshole. Thomas had to pick up the slack.

With about 10 minutes left in the hourlong session, Justice Department lawyer Ilana Eisenstein was about to sit down after answering a barrage of questions from other justices. Thomas then caught her by surprise, asking whether the violation of any other law “suspends a constitutional right.”

Wouldn't, like, any violation of law that puts you in jail suspend several constitutional rights?

B wrote:

With about 10 minutes left in the hourlong session, Justice Department lawyer Ilana Eisenstein was about to sit down after answering a barrage of questions from other justices. Thomas then caught her by surprise, asking whether the violation of any other law “suspends a constitutional right.”

Wouldn't, like, any violation of law that puts you in jail suspend several constitutional rights?

The paraphrasing here does a disservice. In the report I was listening to on NPR (?) Thomas was asking this question in regards to a specific class of misdemeanors. A Felony conviction results in a pemanent loss of rights. Misdemeanors generally do not.

I could be mistaken, but if not, the article you quote is devoid of all nuance.

what has been the constitutional justification (if any)for denying children or people with mental disabilities (or any other specified population) the right to own a gun?

stip wrote:what has been the constitutional justification (if any)for denying children or people with mental disabilities (or any other specified population) the right to own a gun?

That the Constitution doesn't grant the carte blanche, unconditional right to possess guns to every citizen?

Chris_H_2 wrote:

stip wrote:what has been the constitutional justification (if any)for denying children or people with mental disabilities (or any other specified population) the right to own a gun?

That the Constitution doesn't grant the carte blanche, unconditional right to possess guns to every citizen?

It's funny that most the conservative talking points claim that it does grant such a right, but also, the Democrats are failing to address the "real problem" of mental illness.