US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3369

On March 17 2016 09:17 Nebuchad wrote:
It's also hard not to silence discussions when you ban people from your country. But that's what you're pulling for. So by your own account, you're part of the problem.

On March 17 2016 09:22 SK.Testie wrote:


There are plenty of Muslim advocates and proselytizers within the borders as well. It's most definitely not silenced when we have a global platform to discuss issues on like we're doing now.

On March 17 2016 09:35 xDaunt wrote:
LET'S GET IT ON!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=17EOM3RTD1Y

On March 17 2016 09:35 xDaunt wrote:
LET'S GET IT ON!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=17EOM3RTD1Y

On March 17 2016 09:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:


Yeah, but a ban on Muslim immigrants means none of those Muslim advocates could bring female relatives they want to show a better life and proselytize across the border. Or children.

On March 17 2016 09:34 oneofthem wrote:
over 70% of intel leads about radicalization and terror plots are from community tips. american muslims are pretty resilient

On March 17 2016 09:44 SK.Testie wrote:
I'm not arguing this. There's not a lot of radical Muslim violence in the USA. Their religion is still over-represented in prisons however.

On March 17 2016 09:46 Gorsameth wrote:

Really? I didn't know most blacks were muslim.

On March 17 2016 09:46 Gorsameth wrote:

Really? I didn't know most blacks were muslim.

On March 17 2016 09:46 Gorsameth wrote:

Really? I didn't know most blacks were muslim.

Senate Republicans are refusing to hold hearings on Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, supposedly because of the timing. As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) explained on Wednesday, Republicans want to wait until after this year's presidential election -- in order to “give the people a voice in filling this vacancy.”

A more likely explanation is that Republicans simply can’t abide the idea of a Democratic appointee filling Justice Antonin Scalia’s old seat, thereby creating a working liberal majority on the court. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) more or less admitted as much last week, during a little-noticed radio interview, when he said, "Generally, and this is the way it works out politically, if you're replacing -- if a conservative president's replacing a conservative justice, there's a little more accommodation to it."

Republicans aren’t wrong about the stakes of the nomination fight. Putting Garland on the court would arguably be the most consequential judicial appointment since 1991, when President George H.W. Bush tapped Clarence Thomas to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall -- or maybe since 1969, when President Richard Nixon picked Warren Burger to replace Chief Justice Earl Warren.

But what on earth gave Republicans the right to stop such a change from happening?

To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with the Senate contemplating a potential judge’s philosophy when exercising its power to provide “advice and consent” on nominations. There’s actually a long, if sporadic, history of the Senate rejecting nominees on these grounds. The first time it happened, as the Rutgers University historian David Greenberg has pointed out, was during the first presidency -- when Federalists refused to confirm a George Washington nominee who had spoken out against the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain.

The Senate ultimately became more docile and, in more recent history, it has generally given presidents a lot of leeway on Supreme Court nominees. That’s why Scalia, whom everybody knew to be an archconservative when President Ronald Reagan first named him, sailed through a Democratic Senate by a vote of 98 to 0. But there have been exceptions and the most famous one was the very next appointment that Reagan tried: The nomination of Robert Bork.

On March 17 2016 09:48 oneofthem wrote:
that trump ad is revolting. exposes the hillary haters at the core motivational lvl

On March 17 2016 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:



That's probably going to be the most playful and lighthearted one you're going to get. You might want to save "revolting" for later or you might run out of words to describe how much worse they get.