Justice Scalia, RIP

I can’t even.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the intellectual cornerstone of the court’s modern conservative wing, whose elegant and acidic opinions inspired a movement of legal thinkers and ignited liberal critics, died Feb. 13 on a ranch near Marfa, Tex. He was 79.

The cause of death was not immediately known.

Naturally, there’s a lot of talk about what happens next.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement:

cbiyamiw4aiu4zb

Let’s hope he means it.

Here’s my spiel.

Democrats are responsible for some of the most shameless obstruction of judicial nominees. Honestly, this is the Supreme Court we’re talking about here, so if the Senate GOP needs to obstruct a SCOTUS nominee of lame duck Obama, I am all for it… but they do have the votes to let the process move forward and simply vote down Obama nominees until he either nominates an acceptable nominee (unlikely) or is no longer in office.

Advertisements

63 thoughts on “Justice Scalia, RIP

  1. meursault1942 February 13, 2016 / 10:14 pm

    This is the first of what is now 6 identical posts, all reeking of Leftist hatred and insanity, all full of insults and accusations. This is why we don’t allow these people on the blog. // Moderator

  2. M. Noonan February 13, 2016 / 11:13 pm

    I believe McConnell will hold the line on this – though Team Obama is currently combing thru the list of possible judges to find someone who could fit into some sort of “first” category to try and mess with GOP Leadership heads…”how can you deny this fine, First (insert social group pander here) Person?”.

    Don’t fall for it – NO ONE wants Obama to fill this SC position – not Hillary, not Sanders, not anyone…everyone with any ambition at all to be President wants to fill this slot.

    • Mark Moser February 14, 2016 / 6:59 pm

      How the plot doth thicken! Losing the irreplaceable. I hope you were correct last we spoke Mark. May I suggest prayer.

  3. meursault1942 February 13, 2016 / 11:47 pm

    This is the second of what is now 6 identical posts, all reeking of Leftist hatred and insanity, all full of insults and accusations. This is why we don’t allow these people on the blog. // Moderator

  4. Retired Spook February 13, 2016 / 11:48 pm

    ”how can you deny this fine, First (insert social group pander here) Person?”

    The same way the Dems blocked Miguel Estrada from the nomination to the District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

    • M. Noonan February 14, 2016 / 1:13 am

      Well, yeah – but Dems are allowed to be like that…

  5. meursault1942 February 13, 2016 / 11:51 pm

    This is the third of what is now 6 identical posts, all reeking of Leftist hatred and insanity, all full of insults and accusations. Look at the time stamps on these posts, to see how committed this person is to trashing the blog. This is why we don’t allow these people on the blog. // Moderator

  6. meursault1942 February 13, 2016 / 11:53 pm

    This is the fourth of what is now 6 identical posts, all reeking of Leftist hatred and insanity, all full of insults and accusations. Look at the time stamps on these posts, to see how committed this person is to trashing the blog. This is why we don’t allow these people on the blog. // Moderator

  7. meursault1942 February 14, 2016 / 12:05 am

    This is the fifth of what is now 6 identical posts, all reeking of Leftist hatred and insanity, all full of insults and accusations. Look at the time stamps on these posts, to see how committed this person is to trashing the blog. This is why we don’t allow these people on the blog. // Moderator

  8. meursault1942 February 14, 2016 / 12:44 am

    This is the sixth of what is now 6 identical posts, all reeking of Leftist hatred and insanity, all full of insults and accusations. Look at the time stamps on these posts, to see how committed this person is to trashing the blog. There will probably be more as this is a favorite trick of the seminar blog trolls, copying and pasting the same trash over and over again. It is a technique taught to people whose job is to disrupt conservative dialogue. It is a tactic guaranteed to have the poster automatically removed from the blog. // Moderator

  9. Shawny Lee February 14, 2016 / 1:09 am

    I seriously can think of no more devastating a blow at this time. And while it terrifies to imagine what fresh hell Obama would like to replace him with, (I believe Loretta Lynch is on that short list) and how I certainly hope that might be delayed, there are very important cases currently pending that Scalia’s absence from the court will have a negative impact on. After having just delivered this decision http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/09/the-supreme-court-just-delivered-a-crippling-blow-to-obamas-global-warming-agenda/ is it possible that his death was in retaliation? They say it was a heart attack, no foul play, under investigation. But this administration has been hell bent on doing whatever it takes to squash decent or opposition of any kind. This answered a lot of my questions on what happens next.http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2016/02/13/now-what-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-supreme-court-after-scalias-death/

  10. Retired Spook February 14, 2016 / 11:15 am

    One of my favorite Scalia quotes was his response to a critic that what we need is a more moderate interpretation of the Constitution. Scalia replied:

    “What is a moderate interpretation of the Constitution – half way between what it says and what you want it to say?”

    • Amazona February 14, 2016 / 2:06 pm

      It’s much the same as what I ask Libs when they bleat about “extremist” or “radical” conservatives—does that mean they really REALLY REALLY support Constitutional governance?

      Of course, he said it better………..and in so doing also summed up the whole “moderate” position. It can be summed up as “kinda”.

      • rustybrown2014 February 14, 2016 / 2:55 pm

        So in other words, Ama, you’re in favor of a speedy confirmation for Obama’s nominee, that being their sworn constitutional duty and all. We all know you’re a principled constitutionalist, not one of those “moderate, kinda” ones. Right?

      • Amazona February 14, 2016 / 3:29 pm

        Thank you so much for weighing in. There was a slight possibility that one or more of us might have forgotten how totally and abysmally ignorant you Lefty trolls are of the Constitution, and it is thoughtful of you to remind us.

        The Senate does not have a Constitutional duty to rubber stamp any judicial nominee. If that were the case, many prior Senates would have been in violation of Constitutional law—Estrada and Bork come to mind. The Senate DOES have the legal obligation to evaluate any judicial nominee on his or her qualifications for the position, and has the legal authority to vote yes or no on any nominee based on a variety of criteria.

        It the Senate has a Constitutional requirement to confirm any nominee, there is no reason for a confirmation process at all. I know this is too complicated for you to understand, but the purpose of a confirmation process is to expose the nominee to scrutiny, evaluation, and approval. Maybe at some point in your career as a conservative blog troll you heard the phrase “checks and balances”. This is an example of this kind of protection built into the Constitution—-without it we would just have a dictatorship, with whoever is in the Oval Office simply making laws without the participation of Congress, overruling or ignoring previous legislation, making appointments without any oversight……..hmmm, now that I think of it this is what you propose across the board, through your support of Obama and now your assertion that it is the Constitutional duty of the Senate to just rubber stamp any appointee he names.

        Thanks for playing.

      • rustybrown2014 February 14, 2016 / 4:04 pm

        Ama, you should actually read the post you’re responding to rather than prop up silly straw men, it may make you appear smarter.

        “The Senate does not have a Constitutional duty to rubber stamp any judicial nominee.”

        Who said it did? Certainly not me.

        “The Senate DOES have the legal obligation to evaluate any judicial nominee on his or her qualifications for the position, and has the legal authority to vote yes or no on any nominee based on a variety of criteria.”

        Ahhh, thank you for clarifying my point. Yet this is NOT what McConnell and the Republican Presidential hopefuls are saying. They’re saying they’re inclined to block ALL of Obama’s nominees without even considering qualifications. They’re saying it’s proper to wait for the NEXT president to make the appointment. And that’s the behavior that I’m referring to as unconstitutional. Do you agree with your party’s leaders? Because if you do you’re a phony constitutionalist. THAT”S my point.

        “It the Senate has a Constitutional requirement to confirm any nominee, there is no reason for a confirmation process at all.”

        Same silly straw man, nobody said there’s a requirement to confirm. Come on Ama, work on new material!

      • Amazona February 14, 2016 / 4:19 pm

        What Rusty said:

        So in other words, Ama, you’re in favor of a speedy confirmation for Obama’s nominee, that being their sworn constitutional duty and all.

        What I responded to:

        So in other words, Ama, you’re in favor of a speedy confirmation for Obama’s nominee, that being their sworn constitutional duty and all.

        What Rusty said: nobody said there’s a requirement to confirm.
        Right after a post where Rusty said: ..a speedy confirmation for Obama’s nominee, that being their sworn constitutional duty and all..

        A duty but not a requirement?

        The rest of Rusty’s rant? Just more blah blah blah blah insult attack blah blah blah blah. In other words, what we always get from Rusty et al.

        I didn’t see anyone suggesting that any Obama appointee be rejected—just that no one be confirmed until after the next president is installed. Of course, that did require a level of reading comprehension either not present in said troll, or blurred by his spittle-flying hysteria.

        Rusty and mersault feeling compelled to add their two cents’ worth of ignorance and, I assume on the part of mersault, merde, is just another example of the low class of Leftists. There are people actually celebrating the death of a great man, because they didn’t agree with him. Yes, folks, on the tolerant and diversity-focused Left, if you disagree you deserve to DIE.

        I only scanned a few of the gloating posts and tweets of the Deranged Left, but was reminded of the particularly vile post made here a few years ago when an astoundingly inflated female troll wrote in to congratulate all the females who had killed their babies that day. They get all twitchy and defensive when we point out their love of death, and then they turn right around and celebrate it. They even call us names when we opine that ALL lives matter, not just the lives of black criminals who are assaulting police officers.

        They don’t like it when we refer to Leftism as the Culture of Death, they don’t like it when we point out how silly they are, and basically unless it is rabidly anti-conservative pro-socialist bullcrap they don’t like anything.

      • Amazona February 14, 2016 / 4:28 pm

        Yes, I do realize that asking a Lefty blog troll to explain the Constitution is a little like asking an atheist to explain God, but…..as Rusty has twice stated his perception of what the Constitution requires of the Senate, regarding Supreme Court nominees, I wonder if he can quote the clauses he finds so compelling.

        Specifically, I would like to know the time frame established by the Constitution for the advice and consent of the Senate.

      • rustybrown2014 February 14, 2016 / 4:42 pm

        Enough. You made a comment and you got a response before it was deleted. You got to have an exchange. Now you are doing what you always do, trying to get an argument going. You are not welcome here because you only want to insult people who do not agree with you and all you want to do is fight. Don’t come back. //Moderator

      • rustybrown2014 February 14, 2016 / 6:12 pm

        Deleted. //Moderator

      • Retired Spook February 14, 2016 / 8:14 pm

        BTW, this is a familiar tactic of yours–you glom on to one specific word or phrase which can be open to interpretation, you misinterpret it and, ta-da!you use that uncharitable misinterpretation to neatly sidestep the actual issue. Yawn.

        Pot, meet kettle.

        Note. This is a response to a post by Rusty which was deleted. //Moderator

      • rustybrown2014 February 14, 2016 / 8:33 pm

        Deleted. //Moderator

      • rustybrown2014 February 14, 2016 / 8:45 pm

        Deleted. See comment on mersault posts about copying and pasting repeated posts that have been deleted. //Moderator

  11. Shawny Lee February 14, 2016 / 2:22 pm

    Their oath is to support the Constitution and the laws too. So whenever they or any other elected official or lower court judge fails to honor that oath they should be impeached and penalized. This activist bending the Constitution into a pretzel to fit their agenda (no matter who is in power) has to end. It’s not only a breach of their oath but also sets new precedent for the next justices to further destroy its original intent.

    • Amazona February 14, 2016 / 3:17 pm

      Shawny, the concept/law of judicial immunity needs a careful evaluation. I understand the principle, but what has happened is that the law has been taken way too far, granting immunity for judicial misconduct that far exceeds the scope of judicial authority and allows, as you have pointed out, judges to blatantly violate their own oaths of office, with no consequence.

      I know of a breach of contract lawsuit in which the judge simply rewrote the contract, ignoring punctuation that divided clauses and then saying that what applied to one clause also applied to the following clauses, giving his own definitions of words that had nothing to do with dictionary definitions or common usage, added words to the contract to change its meaning, struck down 90% of the defense’s evidence that they had not committed a breach, instructed the jury to ignore this evidence and directed them to only consider two weak points that had never been part of the defense at all, and then informed the attorneys that if he did not agree with the jury’s verdict he would simply enter a directed verdict of his own.

      This kind of thing is not uncommon, and I think it is a significant part of the growing contempt for the rule of law in this country—because it is no longer a nation of laws, but a nation in which appointed officials MAKE laws as they see fit. Some judges in Wyoming have still not ruled on motions when cases have gone to court, or been adjudicated. That is dereliction of duty and should not be tolerated.

      In some places judges are on the ballot, so voters can vote for or against retention, but very few people speak up against corrupt or incompetent judges for fear of retaliation, and most voters don’t know anything about the judges on the ballot. Most states have judicial and attorney ethics rules that require—not request but DEMAND—that any judge or attorney or court official who has reason to think a judge is not competent report this. But I have been told of a popular judge in a district court system whose dementia was so severe he was completely incompetent, and no one stepped up to report him because they liked him and didn’t want to embarrass him and wanted him to be able to retire on his original retirement schedule. No one knows how much taxpayer money was wasted on trials and hearings in his courtroom, or how many people suffered damages due to an incompetent judge. In his last few months on the bench he slept through trials and hearings and his court clerk and legal clerk wrote his opinions and rulings. I think every lawyer and judge and other court official in that district should be held responsible for THEIR dereliction of duty.

      We need judicial reform at the grass roots level, all the way up. And the first place to start is to remove the judicial immunity that lets rogue judges do whatever they want to do, with no consequences.

  12. tiredoflibbs February 14, 2016 / 6:41 pm

    So let’s take a stroll down memory lane……

    The Democrats have already pulled their political stunts during an election year. When they had control of the Senate in 1960, the Democrats passes a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme
    Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”

    Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

    Of course, now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats will have a very short memory.

    The Senate is not Constitutionally obligated to approve of any of Obame’s appointments. This is where we get into the weeds with separation of powers. The original intent of “advice and consent” was not to bind one branch of government to another through “yes-men” (or in Kagen’s case yes-person).

    The Democrats certainly see this as an opportunity to push the Supreme Court in their favor. It is up to the Senate to maintain the Constitutionality of the Court. With that in mind, obame’s appointees should be able to pass the Constitutional test. A test a number of liberal appointees will definitely fail.

  13. tiredoflibbs February 14, 2016 / 6:50 pm

    Nothing more humorous than a lefty troll that has selective memory.

    “The American people do have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. It’s called the 2012 election. What a shocker that conservatives have no basic understanding of how the American political system works.

    Unfortunately, they do understand how to do utterly mindless obstructionism, especially when it comes to judicial nominees, so we’ve got a whole lot of that to look forward to.”

    Right! Elections give the American people a say in the selection of Supreme Court Justices. They put a majority of Republicans to the Senate to stop obame’s future appointments! But since the majority is not in YOUR favor you will not see it that way.

    I remember when lefty trolls argued the “right of the minority party to use filibusters” when Democrats were the minority. They did not mind “mindless obstructionism”. They agreed with it. They also did not mind the “nuclear option” to get around filibusters when the “minority party” were Republicans.

    These lefty trolls have selective memories. They forget that the Democrats wrote the book on dirty politics. I am sure they will do their whining when the Democrat tactics are used against obame. They set a precedent (a Senate resolution) to stop a Republican President from making appointments during an election year.

  14. Retired Spook February 14, 2016 / 8:01 pm

    Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but It’s my understanding that, if the Senate hasn’t voted on a judicial nominee by the time they adjourn, that nomination dies and must be resubmitted by the President in the next Congress.

    • tiredoflibbs February 14, 2016 / 8:06 pm

      I believe this is where the recess appointments come in to play. The next Congress will then vote to confirm/deny.

      Of course, as we have seen before, obame can simply DECLARE the Congress is in recess and make his appointment.

  15. tiredoflibbs February 14, 2016 / 8:23 pm

    Good ol’ crusty can be relied upon for good laugh:
    “Also, on what constitutional or legal basis should this confirmation process be postponed until after the election?”

    “This is going to be a huge win for Dems. There is no precedent for Republicans to block a nomination for a year and any attempts to do so will plainly be a dereliction of their sworn Constitutional duty, and they’ll be reviled for it.”

    As usual, crusty hasn’t a clue. The Dems set the precedent and legal basis for doing exactly what crusty said can’t be done. Their 1960 senate resolution did block a President’s Constitutional ability to appoint Supreme Court Justices in an election year.

    I wonder if the mindless drones like crusty will “revile the Democrats” for their dereliction of Constitutional duty?

    I won’t hold my breath. Mindless drones like crusty can be relied on their ability to look the other way when his Democrat masters wish to play dirty politics.

    • M. Noonan February 15, 2016 / 12:30 am

      They just don’t get it – the Senate doesn’t have to do anything. The entire body could spend the next ten years playing poker amongst themselves and they wouldn’t be in the least violating the Constitution. Government doesn’t have to happen.

      • rustybrown2014 February 15, 2016 / 12:42 am

        Deleted for all the same reasons. Name calling and insults are what Rusty does and why he is not allowed to post here. //Moderator

      • M. Noonan February 15, 2016 / 1:00 am

        Only pointing out that they don’t have to do anything…don’t have to vote on things, don’t have to work. Now, to be sure, a Senate that sat entirely immobile would probably be cause for some comment and some Senators failing at re-election…but you’re confusing your desire for an outcome with a constitutional requirement. There isn’t any. The President appoints – the Senate advises and consents if it wants to.

        And your grasp of history is weak, here – Johnson nominated Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice in 1968 and the Senate didn’t move on it…Nixon finally made a nomination in 1969 of Warren Burger which went through.

      • M. Noonan February 15, 2016 / 1:05 am

        And you’re also forgetting Robert Bork – because Democrats decided to stop him, a SC seat went empty for 8 months. June 26, 1987 to February 18, 1988…

      • tiredoflibbs February 15, 2016 / 7:16 am

        Mark,
        Crusty is not interested in history – only the here and now.
        Crusty is not interested in FACTS – he simply dismisses them as “anomalies”.
        Crusty is not interested in the Constitution – only how to use it to his political advantage – any other time it is just an old outdated useless piece of paper.
        Crusty is not interested in the dirty politics and tactics Democrats used to thwart Republican SC nominees. As far as he is concerned they never happened – remember to Crusty there is no precedent for Republicans not confirming an obame nominee.

        Crusty like many Democrat politicians are only interested in what they can spin to their political advantage. They are interested in how they can mold the arguments so they can fool the weak minded and get what they want. It is not the process, that interests Crusty, in how the Democrats operate but the end result. It doesn’t matter that Democrats have changed the rules in the Senate to get what they want – obamacare, Lynch confirmation, etc. etc. – only to change the rules back when the people gave Republicans control of the Senate once again.

        Stalin had it correct when he described people like crusty as USEFUL IDIOTS.

  16. Retired Spook February 15, 2016 / 3:10 pm

    Matt Walsh absolute nails the battle over Scalia’s replacement.

    I’m not often “shocked” by the deaths of famous people, particularly if they’re 79-years-old, but when I read that Justice Antonin Scalia died, I actually let out an audible gasp. He was one of our nation’s last true constitutionalists, a just man, a godly man, a great man, and his passing will leave a great hole in the conservative movement, the nation itself and especially the Supreme Court court. And that hole will be made even bigger if Obama is allowed to appoint the person who fills it.

    Aside from being a good title for a death metal album, that about summarizes the way many liberals reacted to Scalia’s passing. Yes, yes, it’s the Internet and these are leftists, what else would you expect? Not much else, to be sure, but we shouldn’t reach a point where the predictability of deplorable behavior suddenly becomes its own excuse.

    Within minutes of the man’s death — and this, by the way, is a man with a wife, nine kids and dozens of grandkids — progressives erupted with applause and jubilation all over social media. Plenty of outlets have compiled some of the celebratory remarks, but that probably isn’t necessary. If you didn’t see it, you can imagine. And keep in mind, these weren’t just a few scattered bad apples, but thousands and thousands of human beings gloating over the still warm corpse of a man so decent and admirable that some of his closest friends belonged to the ideological group now exalting in his demise. And these weren’t merely anonymous trolls on Twitter, but famous folks and folks in media and seemingly regular folks who used their real names and real pictures to post triumphant and sarcastic obituaries. Then, not satisfied with ghoulishly dancing on a freshly dug grave, thousands more began offering their fervent prayers that Clarence Thomas die next.

    It was an insane, subhuman display. Evil, and proudly so. Another moment — one of many, often provided by leftists — that made me utterly ashamed of what this country has become.

    I took about 50 screenshots of Tweets and messages sent directly to me and thought about posting them, but I’ve decided against it. Many of the comments cannot be published — like the fantasies about defecating on Scalia’s grave and defiling his corpse in various explicit ways — and the rest are from other callous hobgoblins too consumed by their own hatred and idiocy to feel shame anyway. Suffice it to say, American liberalism defied all odds Saturday night and somehow managed to reach an even lower low than the last low it reached. Liberalism is a religion of contempt and envy; each day it sinks deeper into moral oblivion, and upon Scalia’s death it plunged to new and terrifying depths.

  17. Retired Spook February 15, 2016 / 3:39 pm

    BTW, the Constitution does not list confirmation of judges as a duty or obligation of the Senate in Article I, Section 3. Advise and consent on judicial nominees by the Senate is listed in Article II, Section 2 (powers of the executive) as a limitation on the power of the President to nominate judges.

    He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, providing two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,

  18. Retired Spook February 15, 2016 / 6:50 pm

    I would caution our Leftist adversaries to be very careful what you wish for in this matter. The country is already teetering on a knife edge, and the ideological, political and racial divide is both deep and highly charged, just waiting for a trigger event to set off a conflagration that you can’t begin to imagine.

    • rustybrown2014 February 15, 2016 / 7:09 pm

      Deleted // Moderator

      • Retired Spook February 15, 2016 / 8:20 pm

        It wasn’t intended as a threat, just a be-careful-what-you-wish-for admonition, but if you insist, you know where I live. I’ll leave the light on.

      • tiredoflibbs February 15, 2016 / 8:42 pm

        Spook, crusty’s response just shows his poor reading comprehension.

      • rustybrown2014 February 15, 2016 / 8:45 pm

        Deleted // Moderator

  19. Retired Spook February 15, 2016 / 7:00 pm

    Talk about Karma.

    • tiredoflibbs February 15, 2016 / 8:41 pm

      Spook, the “anomalies” or the non-existent precedents or whatever word Crusty wants to call them just keep piling up. It just shows that crusty is full of it and will do anything, say anything to make obame appear the victim. Look at his posts, they just ooze with glee over Scalia’s death.

      obame voted to filibuster or OBSTRUCT SC nominee Samuel Alito. No surprises there… I will wait for crusty to admonish obame for his unconstitutional and derelict actions that is contrary to his oath of office as a Senator. But of course, he won’t.

      Any SC nominee who believes the Constitution empowers the people, limits the power of government and ensures liberty over excessive government regulation are regarded as “insane” in crusty’s eyes. That explains it all as far as crusty and his like minded drones are concerned.

      • Retired Spook February 15, 2016 / 10:59 pm

        Like I said — I’m pretty sure he knows where I live. I haven’t made a big secret about it over the years. I doubt he’s got the nerve to meet me face to face, though. They don’t make keyboards big enough to hide behind when you’re standing at someone’s front door. And, quite frankly, I doubt he wants to be humiliated by a “Gramps”. He’d never live it down back at the fever swamp.

      • M. Noonan February 15, 2016 / 11:23 pm

        Another line our Progs are taking is “elections have consequences”…indeed, they do. And while they rather dwell upon the results of the 2012 election, the fact of the matter is that the last relevant election in this case is the 2014 election…and if the Dems hadn’t blow their Senate majority, this would be moot…Obama would now be nominating a dyed-in-the-wool liberal and a Democrat Senate would easily confirm same. But, doesn’t work that way, now – because elections have consequences.

      • rustybrown2014 February 15, 2016 / 11:26 pm

        Deleted for the same reasons we never let Rusty post here. // Moderator

      • Retired Spook February 15, 2016 / 11:28 pm

        Mark,

        I’m pretty sure it’s only elections that Democrats win and Republicans lose that have consequences.

      • M. Noonan February 16, 2016 / 12:23 am

        Pretty much – we are, you see, entirely illegitimate…we have no place to say anything.

      • Retired Spook February 15, 2016 / 11:31 pm

        You’re the one who likes to talk tough through his computer

        I think you have me confused with someone else. I’m just a tired old “gramps” waiting for you to come put me in my place, but I can see where that might frighten you. And how’d you know about the hemorrhoid pillow — are you stalking me?

      • rustybrown2014 February 15, 2016 / 11:41 pm

        Deleted for vulgarity and stupidity, not necessarily in that order. Trust us, Rusty never says anything anyone wants to read. // Moderator

      • Retired Spook February 15, 2016 / 11:51 pm

        Well, the “reasons I surmise” are that (a) you really don’t know where I live; (b) you do know but you’re too far away; or (c) you don’t want the mental picture I have of you to be proved accurate. The one thing I’m certain it’s not is that you’re afraid. I can tell from the way you express yourself that you’re an extremely courageous person.

      • rustybrown2014 February 16, 2016 / 1:02 am

        Deleted. He has now backed off from his threatening posture and says it is because he is a peaceful person but his posts are hostile and aggressive and he has suggested violence against other people who post here. He is not welcome here. // Moderator

    • Amazona February 16, 2016 / 1:01 am

      It looks like Lil’ Rusty is up to, or should I say “down to” his old tricks again. Some people just never learn, and keep coming back for more.

      He reminds me a lot of Tyrell:

      • Retired Spook February 16, 2016 / 12:50 pm

        Too funny, and the analogy to Rusty is spot on. I’ve never figured out why he comes here. He rarely contributes anything positive to the conversation, and his comments are almost always deleted. Sounds like a personality disorder to me.

      • Amazona February 16, 2016 / 1:01 pm

        “rarely”? I would say “never”. I can’t remember anything he has posted that has not been covered in hostile insulting slime.

        All I can remember is negative remoting, complaining and accusing and whining and bitching and moaning. I made the mistake of answering one of his screeds and it just led to more, which were evidently on a slippery spiral into escalating nastiness. I won’t do that again.

        But he is a Tyrell, isn’t he? He gets slapped down over and over again, and never catches on, just comes back for more, and when he gets deleted he claims this is a victory for him.

  20. M. Noonan February 16, 2016 / 12:33 am

    Completely off topic – but I’m hearing rumors that Cruz is surging in SC…and solid reports that he has a ground game which would put Obama’s 2012 effort to shame. We’ll see how it comes out…Cruz wins SC, Trump is likely finished.

    • Amazona February 16, 2016 / 12:55 am

      Yeah, but will Trump admit he is finished, or will his pathology drive him to be a spoiler, making sure the Republican nominee loses by running as an independent candidate? His vindictiveness is a matter of record, and this would be a much more public repudiation of his total awesome wonderful greatness than his previous business failures, which so few ever heard about. He stormed onto the big stage screeching LOOK AT ME !! LOOK AT ME !!! and losing out to someone he has so often identified as a “loser” is not something, I fear, he will be able to take like a man.

      Trump likes to posture as a modern King Midas, but the fact is, a lot of what he touches just turns to crap. I hope he is not such a sociopath that he will feel the need to take the whole party down with him.

      • M. Noonan February 16, 2016 / 1:40 am

        That is the Yuuge (and classy) question, now isn’t it? Fortunately, “sore loser” laws are making it ever more hard for Trump to mount a credible, Third Party bid. He’d have to be out of the race by March 1st or so to do it…and even then, there are several States he would not be allowed to appear on the ballot, even by that point. It would also take about a billion dollars to do it – and no one is going to donate that much money to Trump, so he’d have to dip into his own fortune (and I doubt very much that he’s got that kind of scratch lying around…he’s not as rich as he’s made out to be…Bloomberg has that kind of money, not Trump).

        As for me, I was leaning Cruz but he’s been doing some things as I don’t like – so, now I’m sorta-leaning Rubio…and wondering if it is a brokered convention, could we not get a Jindal/Walker ticket, in the end?

        One thing is making me feel good – Hillary. She’s a complete disaster. On the other hand, Bernie would be a tougher nut to crack as he does have a lot of “street cred” (mostly undeserved) on being anti-Establishment.

      • Amazona February 16, 2016 / 2:57 am

        Everyone is going to do something I don’t like. I don’t ask for or expect to be totally in sync with my preferred candidate. I am also not sure how much Cruz is actually “doing” and how much is being invented or distorted, especially now that he is looking more and more like a good possibility as our candidate. He is the most feared and the most disliked, and he is the most consistent, and those all mean a lot to me. Rubio is a very nice man and if he is nominated I will not have to hold my nose to vote for him, but he lacks the consistency of Cruz, and so far at least he has either been too easily led astray, showing lack of backbone, or he has made some mistakes on his own, showing lack of judgment. Both can be acquired, and I would not give up on him, but he is far from my first choice.

      • Amazona February 16, 2016 / 10:35 am

        The actual size of the Trump fortune has been debated for a long time, with publications such as Forbes saying Trump had vastly overstated the real value of his empire. And even if he has not, most of it is in assets, such as buildings and companies. Sure it looks pretty good on paper, but the two questions that have to be answered before people start voting for Trump because they believe he will not need or ask for money from anyone else are how much of his stated worth is either cash or easily converted to cash, and how much of that he is willing to part with.

        I notice that Trumpettes are just as classy as he is. One of them commented on the “boobs” of an interviewer, after getting the vapors over having her name mispronounced.

        Obama surrounded himself with Marxists when he got into office. Does anyone really think that Trump will surround himself with anyone other than images of his own crass, crude, rude self? OK, I guess that Bible translator who keeps endorsing him based on Trump’s “honesty” and solid conservative values and dedication to Jesus (more impressive because he never talks about it) might think a President Trump would pick people unlike himself. Me, not so much.

  21. Amazona February 18, 2016 / 12:51 pm

    Barack Obama and his wife are skipping the Scalia funeral. Obama is sending Joe Biden instead. Of course, it is possible that Joe understands the respect due to Scalia and mentioned that he was planning to attend, and Barry jumped on that and phrased it as a directive from him. I wonder if Barry will have the gall to show up on a golf course while the funeral is going on.

    If it wasn’t for low class, Obama would have no class at all.

Comments are closed.