Something that I don't understand...

[islander]

There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.

It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.

So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

[Werner]

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

The big deal is that words meant nothing and interpretation is everything.

Frederic Bastiat
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else."

[Emily]

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

If the Texas decision on abortion stands, there won't be any clinics
in Texas. I wouldn't like that at all.

On the good side, though, it would mean that our dear ex-governor, Bob
Ultrasound McDonnell, would have to get his Republican ass to prison.

I think it's way past time that the Republicans stopped concerning
themselves with how and with whom people have sex. If they had their
way, they really would be as bad as the Muslims. A pox on both their
houses.

[islander]

Post by Emily

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

If the Texas decision on abortion stands, there won't be any clinics
in Texas. I wouldn't like that at all.
On the good side, though, it would mean that our dear ex-governor, Bob
Ultrasound McDonnell, would have to get his Republican ass to prison.
I think it's way past time that the Republicans stopped concerning
themselves with how and with whom people have sex. If they had their
way, they really would be as bad as the Muslims. A pox on both their
houses.

I had forgotten about McDonnell. Good!!!

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

The liberals will win in the voting rights case on a 4-4 vote (affirming
the lower court ruling). In the abortion case, the liberals lose - but
no precedent is set. Also, in the Little Sisters (and other plaintiffs)
case, the results are split since the lower court decisions were split
(but most favored the liberals). Those cases are likely to be reheard
after SCOTUS has nine members again.

[islander]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

The liberals will win in the voting rights case on a 4-4 vote (affirming
the lower court ruling). In the abortion case, the liberals lose - but
no precedent is set. Also, in the Little Sisters (and other plaintiffs)
case, the results are split since the lower court decisions were split
(but most favored the liberals). Those cases are likely to be reheard
after SCOTUS has nine members again.

So, overall it seems like a mixed bag, but no worse than when Scalia was
on the bench?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by islander

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

The liberals will win in the voting rights case on a 4-4 vote (affirming
the lower court ruling). In the abortion case, the liberals lose - but
no precedent is set. Also, in the Little Sisters (and other plaintiffs)
case, the results are split since the lower court decisions were split
(but most favored the liberals). Those cases are likely to be reheard
after SCOTUS has nine members again.

So, overall it seems like a mixed bag, but no worse than when Scalia was
on the bench?

Yes, I think so.

[John Q. Public]

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

Gov McConnell of Virginia isn't too pleased as he now has to do his time.

[mg]

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
filibustered Alito:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

[islander]

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.

My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.

Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

[mg]

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

I heard on TV that there are a lot more Republican seats up for
grabs than Democrats in the Senate, in the upcoming election. So, I
suppose it's possible that the Democrats might get their majority
back if it stretches out that long.

[islander]

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

I heard on TV that there are a lot more Republican seats up for
grabs than Democrats in the Senate, in the upcoming election. So, I
suppose it's possible that the Democrats might get their majority
back if it stretches out that long.

Barring any shenanigans, we should know the results of the election by
early November. Any speculation on what the Republicans might do in the
event that the Democrats own the Senate (and supposedly the White House)
by then? If Obama has nominated a moderate to conservative candidate,
they may rush it through soas to avoid what would certainly be a more
liberal nominee later.

[mg]

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

I heard on TV that there are a lot more Republican seats up for
grabs than Democrats in the Senate, in the upcoming election. So, I
suppose it's possible that the Democrats might get their majority
back if it stretches out that long.

Barring any shenanigans, we should know the results of the election by
early November. Any speculation on what the Republicans might do in the
event that the Democrats own the Senate (and supposedly the White House)
by then? If Obama has nominated a moderate to conservative candidate,
they may rush it through soas to avoid what would certainly be a more
liberal nominee later.

Looking at the situation from the Republican point of view, I would
huff and puff and scream and shout, like they are doing right now in
an attempt to pressure Obama into nominating the most moderate
candidate possible. Then I would do a thorough investigation to make
sure that the candidate is indeed moderate and then approve the
nominee. All things considered, I don't see any political advantage
to be obtained by the Republicans in stonewalling the nomination.

The only exception to that would be if Obama nominates Attorney
General Loretta Lynch. If he were to do that, I would look at that
nomination as a possible attempt to stack the deck, in advance, with
a new attorney general that could be intimidated or bought off to
give Hillary Clinton a free pass in the event of a show down between
the FBI and the Obama administration over the issue of criminal
prosecution.

[islander]

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

I heard on TV that there are a lot more Republican seats up for
grabs than Democrats in the Senate, in the upcoming election. So, I
suppose it's possible that the Democrats might get their majority
back if it stretches out that long.

Barring any shenanigans, we should know the results of the election by
early November. Any speculation on what the Republicans might do in the
event that the Democrats own the Senate (and supposedly the White House)
by then? If Obama has nominated a moderate to conservative candidate,
they may rush it through soas to avoid what would certainly be a more
liberal nominee later.

Looking at the situation from the Republican point of view, I would
huff and puff and scream and shout, like they are doing right now in
an attempt to pressure Obama into nominating the most moderate
candidate possible. Then I would do a thorough investigation to make
sure that the candidate is indeed moderate and then approve the
nominee. All things considered, I don't see any political advantage
to be obtained by the Republicans in stonewalling the nomination.
The only exception to that would be if Obama nominates Attorney
General Loretta Lynch. If he were to do that, I would look at that
nomination as a possible attempt to stack the deck, in advance, with
a new attorney general that could be intimidated or bought off to
give Hillary Clinton a free pass in the event of a show down between
the FBI and the Obama administration over the issue of criminal
prosecution.

That is *far* too much of a conspiracy theory for me to swallow.

[mg]

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

I heard on TV that there are a lot more Republican seats up for
grabs than Democrats in the Senate, in the upcoming election. So, I
suppose it's possible that the Democrats might get their majority
back if it stretches out that long.

Barring any shenanigans, we should know the results of the election by
early November. Any speculation on what the Republicans might do in the
event that the Democrats own the Senate (and supposedly the White House)
by then? If Obama has nominated a moderate to conservative candidate,
they may rush it through soas to avoid what would certainly be a more
liberal nominee later.

Looking at the situation from the Republican point of view, I would
huff and puff and scream and shout, like they are doing right now in
an attempt to pressure Obama into nominating the most moderate
candidate possible. Then I would do a thorough investigation to make
sure that the candidate is indeed moderate and then approve the
nominee. All things considered, I don't see any political advantage
to be obtained by the Republicans in stonewalling the nomination.
The only exception to that would be if Obama nominates Attorney
General Loretta Lynch. If he were to do that, I would look at that
nomination as a possible attempt to stack the deck, in advance, with
a new attorney general that could be intimidated or bought off to
give Hillary Clinton a free pass in the event of a show down between
the FBI and the Obama administration over the issue of criminal
prosecution.

That is *far* too much of a conspiracy theory for me to swallow.

Yes, I could have predicted that before you replied. You don't know
and I don't know. The difference between us, however, is that you
think you know.

[islander]

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

I heard on TV that there are a lot more Republican seats up for
grabs than Democrats in the Senate, in the upcoming election. So, I
suppose it's possible that the Democrats might get their majority
back if it stretches out that long.

Barring any shenanigans, we should know the results of the election by
early November. Any speculation on what the Republicans might do in the
event that the Democrats own the Senate (and supposedly the White House)
by then? If Obama has nominated a moderate to conservative candidate,
they may rush it through soas to avoid what would certainly be a more
liberal nominee later.

Looking at the situation from the Republican point of view, I would
huff and puff and scream and shout, like they are doing right now in
an attempt to pressure Obama into nominating the most moderate
candidate possible. Then I would do a thorough investigation to make
sure that the candidate is indeed moderate and then approve the
nominee. All things considered, I don't see any political advantage
to be obtained by the Republicans in stonewalling the nomination.
The only exception to that would be if Obama nominates Attorney
General Loretta Lynch. If he were to do that, I would look at that
nomination as a possible attempt to stack the deck, in advance, with
a new attorney general that could be intimidated or bought off to
give Hillary Clinton a free pass in the event of a show down between
the FBI and the Obama administration over the issue of criminal
prosecution.

That is *far* too much of a conspiracy theory for me to swallow.

Yes, I could have predicted that before you replied. You don't know
and I don't know. The difference between us, however, is that you
think you know.

It is what you don't know that you don't know that bites you in the ass.

[mg]

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

I heard on TV that there are a lot more Republican seats up for
grabs than Democrats in the Senate, in the upcoming election. So, I
suppose it's possible that the Democrats might get their majority
back if it stretches out that long.

Barring any shenanigans, we should know the results of the election by
early November. Any speculation on what the Republicans might do in the
event that the Democrats own the Senate (and supposedly the White House)
by then? If Obama has nominated a moderate to conservative candidate,
they may rush it through soas to avoid what would certainly be a more
liberal nominee later.

Looking at the situation from the Republican point of view, I would
huff and puff and scream and shout, like they are doing right now in
an attempt to pressure Obama into nominating the most moderate
candidate possible. Then I would do a thorough investigation to make
sure that the candidate is indeed moderate and then approve the
nominee. All things considered, I don't see any political advantage
to be obtained by the Republicans in stonewalling the nomination.
The only exception to that would be if Obama nominates Attorney
General Loretta Lynch. If he were to do that, I would look at that
nomination as a possible attempt to stack the deck, in advance, with
a new attorney general that could be intimidated or bought off to
give Hillary Clinton a free pass in the event of a show down between
the FBI and the Obama administration over the issue of criminal
prosecution.

That is *far* too much of a conspiracy theory for me to swallow.

Yes, I could have predicted that before you replied. You don't know
and I don't know. The difference between us, however, is that you
think you know.

It is what you don't know that you don't know that bites you in the ass.

Since I've already said that I don't know, I don't see what you're
getting at. Can you elaborate?

[islander]

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

I heard on TV that there are a lot more Republican seats up for
grabs than Democrats in the Senate, in the upcoming election. So, I
suppose it's possible that the Democrats might get their majority
back if it stretches out that long.

Barring any shenanigans, we should know the results of the election by
early November. Any speculation on what the Republicans might do in the
event that the Democrats own the Senate (and supposedly the White House)
by then? If Obama has nominated a moderate to conservative candidate,
they may rush it through soas to avoid what would certainly be a more
liberal nominee later.

Looking at the situation from the Republican point of view, I would
huff and puff and scream and shout, like they are doing right now in
an attempt to pressure Obama into nominating the most moderate
candidate possible. Then I would do a thorough investigation to make
sure that the candidate is indeed moderate and then approve the
nominee. All things considered, I don't see any political advantage
to be obtained by the Republicans in stonewalling the nomination.
The only exception to that would be if Obama nominates Attorney
General Loretta Lynch. If he were to do that, I would look at that
nomination as a possible attempt to stack the deck, in advance, with
a new attorney general that could be intimidated or bought off to
give Hillary Clinton a free pass in the event of a show down between
the FBI and the Obama administration over the issue of criminal
prosecution.

That is *far* too much of a conspiracy theory for me to swallow.

Yes, I could have predicted that before you replied. You don't know
and I don't know. The difference between us, however, is that you
think you know.

It is what you don't know that you don't know that bites you in the ass.

Since I've already said that I don't know, I don't see what you're
getting at. Can you elaborate?

There is a difference between not knowing something and not knowing that
you don't know something. In the first case, you can take steps to find
out. In the second case, there is nothing that you can do.

This is a residue from when I was taking management courses and we were
taught to use four pane decision graphs. I think that Rumsfeld must
have taken the same course if you recall his comment in '02:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we
know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks
throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is
the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."

In the end, he got nailed by the unknown unknowns unless you believe
that he was being intentionally dishonest about WMDs.

[mg]

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

I heard on TV that there are a lot more Republican seats up for
grabs than Democrats in the Senate, in the upcoming election. So, I
suppose it's possible that the Democrats might get their majority
back if it stretches out that long.

Barring any shenanigans, we should know the results of the election by
early November. Any speculation on what the Republicans might do in the
event that the Democrats own the Senate (and supposedly the White House)
by then? If Obama has nominated a moderate to conservative candidate,
they may rush it through soas to avoid what would certainly be a more
liberal nominee later.

Looking at the situation from the Republican point of view, I would
huff and puff and scream and shout, like they are doing right now in
an attempt to pressure Obama into nominating the most moderate
candidate possible. Then I would do a thorough investigation to make
sure that the candidate is indeed moderate and then approve the
nominee. All things considered, I don't see any political advantage
to be obtained by the Republicans in stonewalling the nomination.
The only exception to that would be if Obama nominates Attorney
General Loretta Lynch. If he were to do that, I would look at that
nomination as a possible attempt to stack the deck, in advance, with
a new attorney general that could be intimidated or bought off to
give Hillary Clinton a free pass in the event of a show down between
the FBI and the Obama administration over the issue of criminal
prosecution.

That is *far* too much of a conspiracy theory for me to swallow.

Yes, I could have predicted that before you replied. You don't know
and I don't know. The difference between us, however, is that you
think you know.

It is what you don't know that you don't know that bites you in the ass.

Since I've already said that I don't know, I don't see what you're
getting at. Can you elaborate?

There is a difference between not knowing something and not knowing that
you don't know something. In the first case, you can take steps to find
out. In the second case, there is nothing that you can do.
This is a residue from when I was taking management courses and we were
taught to use four pane decision graphs. I think that Rumsfeld must
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we
know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks
throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is
the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."
In the end, he got nailed by the unknown unknowns unless you believe
that he was being intentionally dishonest about WMDs.

I have no idea how any of that proves that there isn't a reasonable
possibility that Obama might nominate Loretta Lynch in order to
replace her with a new Attorney General that could be intimidated or
bought off to give Hillary Clinton a free pass in the event of a
show down between the FBI and the Obama administration over the
issue of criminal prosecution.

[islander]

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

I heard on TV that there are a lot more Republican seats up for
grabs than Democrats in the Senate, in the upcoming election. So, I
suppose it's possible that the Democrats might get their majority
back if it stretches out that long.

Barring any shenanigans, we should know the results of the election by
early November. Any speculation on what the Republicans might do in the
event that the Democrats own the Senate (and supposedly the White House)
by then? If Obama has nominated a moderate to conservative candidate,
they may rush it through soas to avoid what would certainly be a more
liberal nominee later.

Looking at the situation from the Republican point of view, I would
huff and puff and scream and shout, like they are doing right now in
an attempt to pressure Obama into nominating the most moderate
candidate possible. Then I would do a thorough investigation to make
sure that the candidate is indeed moderate and then approve the
nominee. All things considered, I don't see any political advantage
to be obtained by the Republicans in stonewalling the nomination.
The only exception to that would be if Obama nominates Attorney
General Loretta Lynch. If he were to do that, I would look at that
nomination as a possible attempt to stack the deck, in advance, with
a new attorney general that could be intimidated or bought off to
give Hillary Clinton a free pass in the event of a show down between
the FBI and the Obama administration over the issue of criminal
prosecution.

That is *far* too much of a conspiracy theory for me to swallow.

Yes, I could have predicted that before you replied. You don't know
and I don't know. The difference between us, however, is that you
think you know.

It is what you don't know that you don't know that bites you in the ass.

Since I've already said that I don't know, I don't see what you're
getting at. Can you elaborate?

There is a difference between not knowing something and not knowing that
you don't know something. In the first case, you can take steps to find
out. In the second case, there is nothing that you can do.
This is a residue from when I was taking management courses and we were
taught to use four pane decision graphs. I think that Rumsfeld must
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we
know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks
throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is
the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."
In the end, he got nailed by the unknown unknowns unless you believe
that he was being intentionally dishonest about WMDs.

I have no idea how any of that proves that there isn't a reasonable
possibility that Obama might nominate Loretta Lynch in order to
replace her with a new Attorney General that could be intimidated or
bought off to give Hillary Clinton a free pass in the event of a
show down between the FBI and the Obama administration over the
issue of criminal prosecution.

Conspiracy theories are invented to fill the void of what you don't know
in order to support your belief in what you think you know, but don't.

Remember that book that you got me interested in on superforecasters?
One of the keys to success among the best of them was in not getting
locked into a belief system to support your preconceived notions.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

I heard on TV that there are a lot more Republican seats up for
grabs than Democrats in the Senate, in the upcoming election. So, I
suppose it's possible that the Democrats might get their majority
back if it stretches out that long.

Barring any shenanigans, we should know the results of the election by
early November. Any speculation on what the Republicans might do in the
event that the Democrats own the Senate (and supposedly the White House)
by then? If Obama has nominated a moderate to conservative candidate,
they may rush it through soas to avoid what would certainly be a more
liberal nominee later.

Looking at the situation from the Republican point of view, I would
huff and puff and scream and shout, like they are doing right now in
an attempt to pressure Obama into nominating the most moderate
candidate possible. Then I would do a thorough investigation to make
sure that the candidate is indeed moderate and then approve the
nominee. All things considered, I don't see any political advantage
to be obtained by the Republicans in stonewalling the nomination.
The only exception to that would be if Obama nominates Attorney
General Loretta Lynch. If he were to do that, I would look at that
nomination as a possible attempt to stack the deck, in advance, with
a new attorney general that could be intimidated or bought off to
give Hillary Clinton a free pass in the event of a show down between
the FBI and the Obama administration over the issue of criminal
prosecution.

That is *far* too much of a conspiracy theory for me to swallow.

Yes, I could have predicted that before you replied. You don't know
and I don't know. The difference between us, however, is that you
think you know.

It is what you don't know that you don't know that bites you in the ass.

I do know my cat, but he bites me on the hand. He is very careful
not to tread on my balls as he's climbing under the covers at night
though. He learnt very quickly that provokes an extreme and
sudden response from me.

[Emily]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
I do know my cat, but he bites me on the hand. He is very careful
not to tread on my balls as he's climbing under the covers at night
though. He learnt very quickly that provokes an extreme and
sudden response from me.

We have three cats, one of them a very fat female. She's the first
fat cat I've ever had in my entire life and I have no idea why she's
fat. Anyway, she will allow us to stroke her head gently but after a
few strokes, she generally utters a noise which clearly says "touch me
again and die". Sometimes, even without the warning noise, she'll
swat at the offending hand with claws extended. No manners at all.

[islander]

Post by Emily

Post by rumpelstiltskin
I do know my cat, but he bites me on the hand. He is very careful
not to tread on my balls as he's climbing under the covers at night
though. He learnt very quickly that provokes an extreme and
sudden response from me.

We have three cats, one of them a very fat female. She's the first
fat cat I've ever had in my entire life and I have no idea why she's
fat. Anyway, she will allow us to stroke her head gently but after a
few strokes, she generally utters a noise which clearly says "touch me
again and die". Sometimes, even without the warning noise, she'll
swat at the offending hand with claws extended. No manners at all.

Was she a rescue? Sometimes cats that have survived in the wild for a
while tend to get fat when domesticated. We have two cats. Marty was
caught in the wild as a kitten and tends to be overweight. Max was
domestic and never overeats. Both tend to love having their tummy
scritched.

[Emily]

Post by islander

Post by Emily

Post by rumpelstiltskin
I do know my cat, but he bites me on the hand. He is very careful
not to tread on my balls as he's climbing under the covers at night
though. He learnt very quickly that provokes an extreme and
sudden response from me.

We have three cats, one of them a very fat female. She's the first
fat cat I've ever had in my entire life and I have no idea why she's
fat. Anyway, she will allow us to stroke her head gently but after a
few strokes, she generally utters a noise which clearly says "touch me
again and die". Sometimes, even without the warning noise, she'll
swat at the offending hand with claws extended. No manners at all.

Was she a rescue? Sometimes cats that have survived in the wild for a
while tend to get fat when domesticated. We have two cats. Marty was
caught in the wild as a kitten and tends to be overweight. Max was
domestic and never overeats. Both tend to love having their tummy
scritched.

Not exactly. Her mama showed up here when there was still an
unneutered male that we hadn't been able to catch and she and her
sister were born not long afterwards. They lived in a shelter on the
back deck with their mama because there was no way to get the mama
inside and, if that was accomplished, to get her back out again.

They didn't start coming inside until they were about five and six
months old, when we had them neutered. They love living inside and
out when they want to but they're not affectionate in any way. The
one boy loves to be petted but if you try to pick him up, he acts like
he knows he has only minutes to live.

One of the girls will occasionally jump up on my lap when I'm watching
TV but instead of lying down, she kneads my abdomen and starts
drooling. Then she jumps down. But when she's on my husband's bed
and she sees you come into the room, she rolls over and wants her
belly rubbed.

I've never been brave enough to seriously try making one of them lie
like a baby in my arms. I can imagine the wounds that would ensue.

[islander]

Post by Emily

Post by islander

Post by Emily

Post by rumpelstiltskin
I do know my cat, but he bites me on the hand. He is very careful
not to tread on my balls as he's climbing under the covers at night
though. He learnt very quickly that provokes an extreme and
sudden response from me.

We have three cats, one of them a very fat female. She's the first
fat cat I've ever had in my entire life and I have no idea why she's
fat. Anyway, she will allow us to stroke her head gently but after a
few strokes, she generally utters a noise which clearly says "touch me
again and die". Sometimes, even without the warning noise, she'll
swat at the offending hand with claws extended. No manners at all.

Was she a rescue? Sometimes cats that have survived in the wild for a
while tend to get fat when domesticated. We have two cats. Marty was
caught in the wild as a kitten and tends to be overweight. Max was
domestic and never overeats. Both tend to love having their tummy
scritched.

Not exactly. Her mama showed up here when there was still an
unneutered male that we hadn't been able to catch and she and her
sister were born not long afterwards. They lived in a shelter on the
back deck with their mama because there was no way to get the mama
inside and, if that was accomplished, to get her back out again.
They didn't start coming inside until they were about five and six
months old, when we had them neutered. They love living inside and
out when they want to but they're not affectionate in any way. The
one boy loves to be petted but if you try to pick him up, he acts like
he knows he has only minutes to live.
One of the girls will occasionally jump up on my lap when I'm watching
TV but instead of lying down, she kneads my abdomen and starts
drooling. Then she jumps down. But when she's on my husband's bed
and she sees you come into the room, she rolls over and wants her
belly rubbed.
I've never been brave enough to seriously try making one of them lie
like a baby in my arms. I can imagine the wounds that would ensue.

It sounds like they imprinted with their mother and her wild ways.

We got both of our cats when they were young enough to imprint with us
rather than their mother. In fact, Marty imprinted with our Golden
Retriever first. Fortunately Buttercup was the soul of patience and
would put up with a very affectionate cat. Marty would come racing
across the room and head butt the dog out of a sound sleep. Worse, he
would start kneading the dog's belly as if he were trying to nurse.
They would even sleep together. When Buttercup died, Marty would go
caterwauling around the house, clearly looking for "mom." He seems to
have finally settled on me as a substitute. Nothing like an overweight
cat jumping on you, head butting, and kneading when trying to relax
while watching TV. He cannot seem to get enough attention.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

Thank God Democrats have never held up a Supreme Court ratification!
You Dems haven't ever held one up? Right?

[Emily]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:05:34 -0800, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

Thank God Democrats have never held up a Supreme Court ratification!
You Dems haven't ever held one up? Right?

Yes, Robert Bork, for good reasons and Clarence Thomas who, very
unfortunately, did ultimately prevail.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

Thank God Democrats have never held up a Supreme Court ratification!
You Dems haven't ever held one up? Right?

"Though it is true that Democrat lawmakers opposed the nomination of
Judge Robert Bork, they did so because Bork was viewed as an extreme
judge with controversial pro-life positions. After Bork failed to get
confirmed, Democrat lawmakers voted to confirm Reagan’s other nominee,
Justice Anthony Kennedy. Right after Reagan asked for a bipartisan
effort to confirm Kennedy, then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee Joe Biden (D-DE) said “we will get the process under way and
move as rapidly as is prudent,” while today’s chairman, Sen. Grassley,
indicates he will obstruct the process for President Obama’s nominee."
*The Progress Report*, February 17, 2016

In the current situation, the Republicans are refusing to consider *any*
nominee put forward by Obama.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
There is a lot of anxiety in the press about what happens if Scalia is
not replaced soon. It seems to center around the consequences of a 4-4
tie on critical cases that are before the court this year. Presumably,
in the event of a 4-4 tie, the ruling of the lower court stands, so in
the case pending of Obama's Immigration decisions, the increased
restrictions on abortion, and the issues relating to voting
restrictions, all were brought to the court by those wishing a change
that is favored by the Liberals. If Scalia were still alive, it is
likely that the ruling would still be against the Liberals in a 5-4
decision. If there were any chance of any normally conservative judge
ruling in favor of the Democrats, that ruling would still be in their favor.
It seems to me that the one ruling that breaks in favor of the Liberals
is the labor issue in California where the lower court ruled in their
favor. It was more likely to fail in the Supreme Court had Scalia still
been alive.
So, what's the big deal, at least as far as pending decisions are concerned?

On a different, but related subject, it appears that Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/kornacki_to_ogletree_obama_filibustered_alito_why_is_it_outrageous_for_republicans_to_deny_vote.html

In this case, McConnell is threatening to not even bring a nominee to
the floor where it might be filibustered. If his committee chairs
follow his lead, it will never get out of committee. It looks like
Grassley is showing some independence on this, tho.
My point in the above question had more to do with the urgency in
filling the seat. If there is no or little urgency, then this all comes
down to politics.
Personally, I think that Obama is right in pushing for a nomination.
That is his job. I feel sorry for whoever is nominated, tho. That
person is in for a grueling year ahead.

Thank God Democrats have never held up a Supreme Court ratification!
You Dems haven't ever held one up? Right?

"Though it is true that Democrat lawmakers opposed the nomination of
Judge Robert Bork, they did so because Bork was viewed as an extreme
judge with controversial pro-life positions. After Bork failed to get
confirmed, Democrat lawmakers voted to confirm Reagan’s other nominee,
Justice Anthony Kennedy. Right after Reagan asked for a bipartisan
effort to confirm Kennedy, then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee Joe Biden (D-DE) said “we will get the process under way and
move as rapidly as is prudent,” while today’s chairman, Sen. Grassley,
indicates he will obstruct the process for President Obama’s nominee."
*The Progress Report*, February 17, 2016
In the current situation, the Republicans are refusing to consider *any*
nominee put forward by Obama.

Yawn ...

"During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic
Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to
prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to
deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. But less than a decade
ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional
Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush."
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/

"Ted Kennedy Part of Long Senate Democrat Precedent Of Blocking
Judicial Nominees"
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/senate-democrats-have-long-precedent-of-blocking-judicial-nominees

"The Democrats’ craven, despicable, lying campaign against Bork
announced the arrival of Supreme Court confirmation hearings as
bare-knuckle political brawls. There was no question that Bork was
well-qualified for the position – he was one of the great legal minds
of his time. Democrats simply did not like his view of the law and the
Constitution."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431334/democrats-showed-us-how-and-why-block-supreme-court-nominees

"Democrats Stunning Hypocrisy On Blocking Supreme Court Nominees"
http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/02/17/democrats-stunning-hypocrisy-blocking-supreme-court-nominees/