The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22485 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Well, the plus is that every time this happens there is a discussion of not letting the president nominate someone, but we've yet to stop a president from nominating.
I mean, I assume Bush made his appointment in 1992.
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
B wrote:
Well, the plus is that every time this happens there is a discussion of not letting the president nominate someone, but we've yet to stop a president from nominating.
I mean, I assume Bush made his appointment in 1992.
There was no nomination in 1992. White and Blackmun were getting old, though, and both retired in the first two years of Clinton's presidency.
Well, the plus is that every time this happens there is a discussion of not letting the president nominate someone, but we've yet to stop a president from nominating.
I mean, I assume Bush made his appointment in 1992.
There was no nomination in 1992. White and Blackmun were getting old, though, and both retired in the first two years of Clinton's presidency.
I should probably look this up before being wrong, but wasn't Clarence Thomas '92? Marshall died in '91 and then it was early '92 when Thomas finally got confirmed after the Anita Hill drama, wasn't it?
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
4/5 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
B wrote:
Well, the plus is that every time this happens there is a discussion of not letting the president nominate someone, but we've yet to stop a president from nominating.
I mean, I assume Bush made his appointment in 1992.
There was no nomination in 1992. White and Blackmun were getting old, though, and both retired in the first two years of Clinton's presidency.
I should probably look this up before being wrong, but wasn't Clarence Thomas '92? Marshall died in '91 and then it was early '92 when Thomas finally got confirmed after the Anita Hill drama, wasn't it?
October 1991. Marshall actually didn't die until four days after Clinton took office. If he had known the Democrats had a shot in 1992 it would be interesting if he could have tried to gut it out for two more years despite being quite ill.
Well, the plus is that every time this happens there is a discussion of not letting the president nominate someone, but we've yet to stop a president from nominating.
I mean, I assume Bush made his appointment in 1992.
There was no nomination in 1992. White and Blackmun were getting old, though, and both retired in the first two years of Clinton's presidency.
I should probably look this up before being wrong, but wasn't Clarence Thomas '92? Marshall died in '91 and then it was early '92 when Thomas finally got confirmed after the Anita Hill drama, wasn't it?
October 1991. Marshall actually didn't die until four days after Clinton took office. If he had known the Democrats had a shot in 1992 it would be interesting if he could have tried to gut it out for two more years despite being quite ill.
I knew you'd set me right lol.
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Depends on what you're Googling. Some things I don't know jack shit about.
Yeah but the Supreme Court is your wheelhouse.
Now that I think about I do recall that Marshall retired before passing away, I knew that he was very ill. But I don't think I ever knew that he actually didn't pass away until the very start of Clinton's presidency.
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22485 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Quote:
With about 10 minutes left in the hourlong session, Justice Department lawyer Ilana Eisenstein was about to sit down after answering a barrage of questions from other justices. Thomas then caught her by surprise, asking whether the violation of any other law “suspends a constitutional right.”
Wouldn't, like, any violation of law that puts you in jail suspend several constitutional rights?
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
With about 10 minutes left in the hourlong session, Justice Department lawyer Ilana Eisenstein was about to sit down after answering a barrage of questions from other justices. Thomas then caught her by surprise, asking whether the violation of any other law “suspends a constitutional right.”
Wouldn't, like, any violation of law that puts you in jail suspend several constitutional rights?
The paraphrasing here does a disservice. In the report I was listening to on NPR (?) Thomas was asking this question in regards to a specific class of misdemeanors. A Felony conviction results in a pemanent loss of rights. Misdemeanors generally do not.
I could be mistaken, but if not, the article you quote is devoid of all nuance.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39424
what has been the constitutional justification (if any)for denying children or people with mental disabilities (or any other specified population) the right to own a gun?
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm Posts: 13819 Location: An office full of assholes
stip wrote:
what has been the constitutional justification (if any)for denying children or people with mental disabilities (or any other specified population) the right to own a gun?
That the Constitution doesn't grant the carte blanche, unconditional right to possess guns to every citizen?
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22485 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Chris_H_2 wrote:
stip wrote:
what has been the constitutional justification (if any)for denying children or people with mental disabilities (or any other specified population) the right to own a gun?
That the Constitution doesn't grant the carte blanche, unconditional right to possess guns to every citizen?
It's funny that most the conservative talking points claim that it does grant such a right, but also, the Democrats are failing to address the "real problem" of mental illness.
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum