Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (58657)	11/8/2012 9:08:38 AM
From: Peter Dierks	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

It is unbelievable that people would vote for someone who has recorded record deficits and never produced a single budget. He has destroyed our standing in the world. He has caused massive devaluation of the dollar resulting in apparent inflation. Unemployment due to his destructive policies has been at historic highs. In a choice between someone who appeared to exactly what the country needed and the worst President in history people actually voted for the booby prize. Between legitimate votes and the massive vote fraud perpetrated by democrats we are stuck with another four years of this disaster. A train wreck in motion.

To: sandintoes who wrote (58657)	11/8/2012 11:03:33 PM
From: greatplains_guy	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Fighting Obama’s Next Supreme Court Nominee By Ed Whelan November 8, 2012 2:55 P.M. In the wake of President Obama’s re-election, there are a lot of articles about Obama’s possible opportunity to transform the Supreme Court during his second term. That possibility is a very real one, as I’ve discussed. I’m surprised to see, in this Wall Street Journal article, that one conservative legal commentator has opined (according to the article’s paraphrase and internal quote) that “{b}ecause Republicans lost the presidential election and a couple of Senate seats, … Mr. Obama was entitled to ‘a lot of deference’ should he wish to replace Justice Ginsburg or another liberal with a like-minded nominee.” I think that this view is badly misguided. The Sotomayor and Kagan confirmation battles—both of which involved replacing a liberal with a liberal and both of which, of course, came after Republicans lost the 2008 presidential election and lots of Senate seats—show that Republican senators have moved decisively away from the deference-to-the-president model that Democratic senators long ago abandoned. I don’t see why anyone would think that Republican senators would or should unilaterally return to that model. Further, conservatives shouldn’t set a lower bar for a nominee who is replacing a liberal justice than for one who is replacing a conservative. Instead, we should make the case that conservative judicial principles are the right judicial principles and that anyone who doesn’t embrace those principles is unfit for the Court. We need to work to build a Court with a supermajority of sound justices, not to preserve the unsatisfactory status quo. To be sure, absent a filibuster, the sizable Democratic majority in the next Senate virtually guarantees that an Obama nominee will be confirmed. But conservatives should fight the fight on grounds of judicial philosophy, and Obama and Senate Democrats should be forced to pay a high political cost for a bad nominee. nationalreview.com