Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > New Hope Blooms Again      Home login  
Joined: 1/21/2016
Msg: 76
New Hope Blooms AgainPage 4 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Does being " culturally enriched" with a pillow end in advise and consent? Only with obongo.
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 77
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 4:06:49 AM
What Scalia ACTUALLY said was:

“There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”
“My concern is that in making life easier for ourselves we not appear to make it harder for the lower federal courts, imposing upon them the burden of regularly analyzing newly-discovered-evidence-of-innocence claims in capital cases (in which event such federal claims, it can confidently be predicted, will become routine and even repetitive).”

In that case, ?Nine years after his conviction for shooting and killing two police officers, Herrera produced writs stating that he was innocent, and that his deceased brother had actually committed the murders. Herrera's last-ditch effort failed, but his case was then used by the Supreme Court in order to decide whether any inmate could use claims of new evidence to argue that their imprisonment violated their Constitutional rights. In other words, a claim of innocence based on newly discovered evidence — according to this decision — didn't provide grounds for habeas corpus relief." Snopes

PLEASE NOT CORY BOOKER- never married, suspect, no children. TOO YOUNG.
Joined: 1/20/2016
Msg: 78
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 6:38:08 AM
Spy didn't confirm at all what you said. Nice try though. Very weak but nice try. You earlier posted how you could care less what Chucky said and then in this new post you defend Chucky. Huh? But again, you are wrong. But hey, let's go back in memory lanevill and look at this: (George W Bush Supreme Court Candidates....Wiki)

"Soon after the inauguration of Bush as president in January 2001, many liberal academics became worried that he would begin packing the federal judiciary with conservative jurists. Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman wrote an article in the February 2001 edition of the liberal magazine The American Prospect that encouraged the use of the filibuster to stop Bush from placing any nominee on the Supreme Court during his first term.[4] In addition, law professors Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago) and Laurence Tribe (Harvard), along with Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center, counseled Senate Democrats in April 2001 "to scrutinize judicial nominees more closely than ever." Specifically, they said, "there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly or erudite."[5]

On May 9, 2001, President Bush announced his first eleven court of appeals nominees in a special White House ceremony.[6] There was immediate concern expressed by Senate Democrats and liberal groups like the Alliance for Justice.[7][8] Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said that the White House was "trying to create the most ideological bench in the history of the nation."[9]

From June 2001 to January 2003, when the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, the most conservative appellate nominees were stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and never given hearings or committee votes.[10] However, after the 2002 mid-term elections in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, these same nominees began to be moved through the now Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee.[11]

With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.[12] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[13] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress."


^^^^^^^^^ All the more reason to delay until 2017 a new Judge because of this years Presidential elections. Looks like Chucky was at it even earlier then 2007 and it also shows Democrats stalled conservative appellate nominees for over 18 months from june 2001 to January 2003. You are welcome schoochie for the free education.
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 79
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 9:58:28 AM

All he did was confirm what I was saying. Thanks Zero. The Dems never held up any Bush appointees. It's one thing to talk, but it's another to act on those words. There was never any action on those words from Schumer. You two chihuahuas are nipping at the ankles like you have some red meat in your mouth. So what if Schumer said that? Nothing ever came of it. You chihuahuas are chewing on a conjecture with no substance. The Dems never held up a confirmation just because it was the last year of a presidency. They have honored their oath to the Constitution. The Republicans can't say the same.

What a genius... what oath to the constitution? Where does it say they have to consent by a certain date?
What happened to the appellate judges not approved(not given hearing) by the Dem Congress in 08?

Thank you aj for your vote for Obama and having the confidence in him to make this selection.

Again sckoochi since you seem to have trouble comprehending.... Nomination, Advise and Consent, Appointment. No where does it say selection!

^^^Youre trying to make the case that says "If Chuck Schumer said its ok to do it, the Republicans should do it." When did you guys become followers of Chuck Schumer? Is he your new leader? Republicans are taking their orders from Schumer? Glad to know you think he is such a great leader, that you will do whatever he does.

Don't flip flop on your vote now, aj. You help elect this president, so he can make these decisions. You elected him as your leader. I guess now, Chuck Schumer is your leader too. You seem to strongly admire his leadership. I don't agree with him.

No skoocheroo, the Republicans should freeze President Obama's nominee because it is best for them and the country. As it is there right as guaranteed but the Constitution just as Executive Orders by Obama have been justified. The fact that Senator and future Minority Leader Schumer called for the Dems to apply this tactic 9 years earlier just proves the liberal hypocrisy being expressed now.
You seem to be loving Schemer.

Even against our attempts to help you skoochie, you are determined to convince us all - you are an idiot!
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 80
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 10:40:56 AM
skoochie no one cares whether you agree with Schumer or not.
As for an agenda here let me help you with that one... Schumer in 07/08 made it the Democrat Party agenda for any potential Bush nominations to the Supreme Court to be delayed until Bush left office. Now the Republicans as expressed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are advising that they will use the same Democrat Party tactic to freeze out any Obama nomination. The fact that you can't wrap you little brain around that and fit it into your agenda is your issue.
No, not my agenda skoochie your beloved Democrat Party thought this one up.
You are just fundamentally wrong on all fronts.
Synonyms... thats funny skoocheroo.
You say selection the constitution says nomination, selection-nomination.... let's just put the whole thing off!
The Republicans have the upper hand here.
History Bites!
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 81
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 11:36:00 AM
“There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”

That is different in intent and consequence, HOW? The innocent person, who now has actual evidence of his/her innocence has no right to demand a different outcome. Who thinks that way?
Joined: 12/5/2015
Msg: 82
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 11:46:00 AM

“There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”

That is different in intent and consequence, HOW? The innocent person, who now has actual evidence of his/her innocence has no right to demand a different outcome. Who thinks that way?

a lawyer? a "constitutional scholar" ??

sounds like how out of touch with the real world so many are..

the RULES , PROCEDURE & PRECEDENT trump weird outdated concepts like "justice"
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 83
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 12:17:23 PM

“There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”
That is different in intent and consequence, HOW? The innocent person, who now has actual evidence of his/her innocence has no right to demand a different outcome. Who thinks that way?

According to Snopes you are wrong.

"Scalia concurred with the court's 6-3 Herrera v. Collins decision that a claim of innocence should not serve as the sole grounds for habeas corpus relief, stating in his written opinion that sufficient legal relief already existed for people presenting new evidence of innocence (not that factual innocence was irrelevant) and that ruling otherwise would impose an unmanageable burden on lower courts to review newly discovered evidence:"

Meaning that a claim of innocence at the last minute when sufficient time had already been granted for new evidence to be presented is not grounds for delaying the legal sentence.
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 84
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 12:46:54 PM

DNA Exonerations Nationwide
Share This:

Posted: February 8, 2016 12:34 PM

There have been 337 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 37 states; since 2000, there have been 263 exonerations.

• 20 of the 336 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 14 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,606.

• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 26.5.

Races of the 336 exonerees:

206 African Americans
104 Caucasians
25 Latinos
2 Asian American

• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 166 of the DNA exoneration cases. Those actual perpetrators went on to be convicted of 146 additional crimes, including 77 sexual assaults, 34 murders, and 35 other violent crimes while the innocent sat behind bars for their earlier offenses.
- See more at:

Meaning that a claim of innocence at the last minute when sufficient time had already been granted for new evidence to be presented is not grounds for delaying the legal sentence.

And if the legal sentence is execution, and the evidence does *in fact* prove innocence, then the courts are already too busy to worry about a few unjust state murders? Do ya'll apologize to the unjustly dead person? They're called "justices" for a *reason*. . . . You people need to take a bath--you really smell bad.
Joined: 1/20/2016
Msg: 85
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 1:08:55 PM
skoochie, skoochie, it wasn't just Schumer, it was the Democratic Party. And what they did was worse then what the republicans are suggesting now. And like I say, if it was a republican president, it still should be delayed because we have a new president coming in. I get why the libs are crying right now, they want another liberal Justice to replace a conservative Justice. But not going to happen. When the republicans gain the presidency, then there will be a nominee who will help balance the court.

^^^^^^^ but skoochie, is your "god" the democratic party, who did what they did back in 2001? Or is the party "different" now and so very "non political" when it comes to refusing to confirm judges like they did in 2001. Ya right. The but but but but rhetoric is the dems looking bad and that will be played a lot in the coming months as far as who is an obstructionist. People will rally against that and understand why this confirmation of anyone should be delayed. That has nothing to do with being an obstructionist but I give you a "nice try" atta boy for the terrible spin. You are right about one thing, something that everyone knows, the president will put forward a nominee. I bet no one wants to be that nominee right now.
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 86
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 1:21:08 PM
Again you fail to understand the consequences of your claim.
First DNA evidence was still very new and its use to overturn conviction was still evolving when this case was heard in 1992.
Secondly there was no new DNA evidence brought forth in the Herrera case. The new evidence presented was anecdotal claims that Herrera's brother in fact was the killer.
Third, again a last minute claim of innocence could indefinable postpone every execution. All a lawyer would have to do to delay would be to file petition of writ regardless of basis of fact and thereby delay the execution time and time again.
From crime to execution it took 12 years for justice and the Supreme Court decided that was ample time for new evidence to be presented as all legal avenues were exhausted and that spurious claims of new evidence at the last minute are not relevant.

skoochie please tell us what the constitution says because we have shown you what the it says. You just refuse to believe it.
It appears the election will decide ultimately who makes the next appointment.
Time will tell if it is President Obama or President Trump or President Sanders.
As for shutting down the government the Dems are threatening that today (the Senate) in response if the Repubs do not give hearing to a nomination.
Patience young man and go back and read the constitution. You still haven't proven where it says the Senate must approve the Presidents nomination. And you won't be able to because it doesn't.

Joined: 6/16/2013
Msg: 87
view profile
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 1:26:22 PM

Thanks for that post. That's not alot of innocent set free compared to overall convictions, but its great to know how a new DNA technology can right a wrong and also bring to justice the true criminal.

As an after thought, I wonder how this effects the minds and emotions of the jury members that brought back a conviction.
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 88
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 1:51:29 PM
skoochie, in 2014 the US population voted in the Republicans to control the Senate.
The Republicans now are under no Constitutional requirement to do as you say.
Remember there have been longer periods of vacancies on the supreme court. So the court can and in fact has operated with 8.
No one is saying that President Obama can not make his decision and announce a nominee. They are however advising him not to nominate or to nominate a conservative as laid out by the Constitution. (remember it said advise)
Whether he listens is his choice.
Facts skooch facts man.
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 89
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 3:04:45 PM

In 2014, the American population did not elect any republican to the Senate. Citizens of the various states did in separate elections. There's a difference because there is no national election for a senator. Granted, there are more red states than blue states. But, America collectively, by more than 5,000,000 votes elected Barack Obama. No senator has received as many votes as Obama has.

skoochie, I give up you have convinced me... you are an imbecile.
In the meantime today President Obama (not an imbecile) said he will put forth in due time a qualified nominee for the Supreme Court opening. All within his scope as defined by the US Constitution.
Time will tell if the Republicans (Majority party in Senate as per US election) will consider the nominee prior to the end of their term.
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 90
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 3:31:38 PM
With potentially 3 supreme court opening coming up in the near future, in addition to Scalia's seat, it is my hope that the GOP obstructs any President Obama nominee this year. The GOP nomination obstruction has the greatest potential to bring out the democrat vote and change many independents from moderate republican leaning to definite democrat votes, as well as bringing out left leaning democrats who might not have voted.

President Obama will probably nominate someone who has already passed a senate vote on the way to becoming a federal judge. That the senate judicial committee rejects any discussion or review of said nominee will anger many moderates, independents, as well as solid democrats. There will be serious issues with the current crop of GOP senators, and many of those up for reelection will put their seats in jeopardy...this may bring a solid tide of unaligned voters for the democrat presidential nominee and those democrats running for republican senate seats...this year may end up being a banner year for democrats!
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 91
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 3:42:13 PM
Oopsy--the point is that Supreme Court Rulings make law, not just in the case at hand. . . . Why do you think the right is so hell bent on reversing Roe V Wade? And what Fat Tony said was, that all else being equal, the courts were too busy to deal with evidence of guilt or innocence. *ANY* evidence.
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 92
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 5:05:32 PM
wooby, no the Supreme Court does not make law they interpret law. Only the Congress can make law. With your mis- understanding of that simple fact it's no wonder you call him Fat Tony and misunderstand the Supreme Court majority decision. by the way it was 6-3 decision.

name calling?
Is that right skoocheroo I will tell you what when you start getting my name right then we can discuss your complaint otherwise like the Dems stop whining about that which you start. btw its 00Spy. I will accept 00 or spy or Double or DoubleKnot or what ever your little heart desires as I can't make you change just like President Obama can't make the Republicans consider his nomination. Or cant he? But of course he can.
Now back to your straw grasping argument that is the argument that you now pivot to in defeat of your other points that is that "Senators are elected in a U.S. Election". (your words not mine)
I never claimed there was a national election for senate what I did say is; "the Republicans won the last election and therefore the Senate in 2014." and then I said "in 2014 the US population voted in the Republicans to control the Senate."
So are you saying that the US population did not vote the Republicans in majority to control the Senate? If not the US population then what countries population. My god you people better hurry up with that wall seems the Mexican population elected the Republicans to control the US Senate! Skoochie (no name calling) says so!
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 93
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 5:46:15 PM
Is this the election we're talking about, that represents America's idea on Republicans?


"Just 36.4 percent of eligible voters turned out in 2014
•Turnout increased in some places, but decreased in most, including populous states like California, New York and New Jersey
•The top 10 best and worst voter participation states of 2014

Lowest turnout since WW2: Final numbers are still being tallied, but at this point it looks pretty clear that turnout in these midterms was the lowest overall in 70 years. Turnout of the voting-eligible population was just 36.4 percent, according to the projection from the United States Elections Project, run by Dr. Michael McDonald at the University of Florida. That’s down from the 41 percent that turned out in 2010. You have to go all the way back to 1942 for lower numbers when turnout in that midterm was just 33.9 percent. They had a pretty good excuse back then — many adult-age Americans were preoccupied with fighting in a world war."

on a side note, its amusing the GOP worries about voter fraud if so few are even showing up to do their civic duty. But then, voter fraud wasn't really about voter fraud, was it? we never assume the fraud is being done by lilly-white people....
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 94
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 7:03:51 PM
It comes as no surprise that the party of NO, the GOP, has said, sight unseen they will not hold any confirmation hearings on any Nominee by President Obama. No judicial committee hearings. No confirmation vote. Nothing...NADA... the party of NO has spoken and they say NO! At least that's what Mitch McConnell has Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley and Sen. Thom Tillis are rethinking that strategy. They warn that if lawmakers don’t act, the entire GOP will be painted as obstructionists come Election Day.

Ted Cruz has promised to filibuster any nominee from receiving an up-or-down vote. Regardless of what the GOP now wishes-they will be thwarted by the likes of Cruz.
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 95
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 7:34:22 PM
If you honestly believe the court does not make law, there's no point in discussing this. All I know is that on the morning of January 22, 1973, I could not get an abortion in the state of Maryland. At eventide, I could. What the Supreme Court does leads to life and death for other humans, being.

I won't claim to have read all the opinions in the case I quoted, nor did I claim that his was the deciding vote. And what he *said* was inhuman and atrocious and despicable. Period.

Voldemort is no longer among us, and the air is cleaner on that account.

I DO hope the teepotty gets its wish to force the rePublicans so far right on this issue that they singlehandedly boost the get out the vote efforts of the dems. Their hold on the Senate is fragile enough that this could provide a Democrat as President for the next twenty years, along with a Democratic Senate. Carry on, Yertle!
Joined: 10/1/2014
Msg: 96
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 8:01:48 PM

I will tell you what when you start getting my name right

What do I keep trying to tell you guys... it's "Double Zero"... You know... just like the Double=Mint commercial... "It's two... two... two zeros in one"...

^^This speaks to the fact that when voter turn out is high, democrats win. That's why this is obstructionism would play right into the democrats' hands.

And that is exactly what the Repubs are doing...

I DO hope the teepotty gets its wish to force the rePublicans so far right on this issue that they singlehandedly boost the get out the vote efforts of the dems.

Well... they've got the likes of "Double Zero" helping them out... and he doesn't even vote in their elections...
Joined: 12/16/2015
Msg: 97
view profile
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 8:29:20 PM
Conventional wisdom is that time favors the Republicans...unless the lack of a new judge motivates Democrats.
In this situation, I don't think "soundbite generation" kids, for example, will flock to polls over the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court appointments is likely more of an issue to people like me in our mid-50s and late-50s.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 98
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/16/2016 8:42:23 PM
I'm not sure I agree with you.

Truman won reelection by running against a "do nothing" Congress. The Republicans have been ridiculously obstructionist for 7 years. It's been widely known, but hasn't been a major issue. This is a terrific example of it, on a very serious issue. It has even moved Chuck Grassley to change his publicly stated position - he has recognized the political danger of being obstructionist. The refusal to confirm a Supreme Court Justice focuses a whole bunch of issues into one - unprecedented obstructionism; overturning the Voting Rights Act; Citizen's United; access to abortion.
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 99
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/17/2016 3:15:34 AM
Supreme Court decisions will dominate the next few months. Voting Rights (about redistricting proportional to voters not people)...Affirmative Action...Labor Unions...Abortion Restrictions...Contraception...Immigration. All are scheduled to be heard throughout the upcoming months with decisions to come during the summer. Many of these decisions will end in a 4-4 tie and a non-precedent setting lower court ruling will be held. Or perhaps Kennedy will once again surprise us.

Regardless, there will be "soundbites" from now until November on GOP obstructionism that will dominate the political media, with accusations going back and forth.

“Mitch McConnell’s partisan obstructionism isn’t just unprecedented, but it’s indefensible. His refusal to do his job undermines our country’s judicial system, and today he just made his entire caucus that much more vulnerable this November, especially considering voters are already fed up with dysfunction in Washington,”.... “So much for all that rhetoric about how the ‘majority is working’ under Republican control.”

Nearly all of the vulnerable Republican senators up in 2016 have lined up behind McConnell’s strategy: Rob Portman of Ohio, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. The one notable exception is Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, who assumed Obama’s Senate seat in 2010 and is widely considered the most endangered Republican senator of the cycle.

The GOP senators who are backing McConnell’s stance are counting on a couple of as yet unproven premises: first, that the number of conservative voters in their states who will be energized by the confrontation will outweigh the moderates or independents who may be alienated by it, and second, that they will all win their races and a Republican Senate will get to confirm a nominee in 2017. The most significant downside to blocking Obama now is the possibility that Democrats would win both the White House and the Senate and ultimately confirm a more liberal nominee than Obama is likely to choose in the present circumstances.

President Obama is almost assuredly going to nominate a moderate judge to the Supreme Court...the republican bet is that the Presidency goes to a republican....but, if that is not the case, then the next President, a democrat, will only nominate liberal judges to the bench.

The only outcome that benefits republicans is to win 60 senate seats and the Presidency. Anyone wish to play the odds?
Joined: 1/21/2016
Msg: 100
New Hope Blooms Again
Posted: 2/17/2016 3:27:10 AM
Delay............Delay..............Delay ; it's called Advise and Consent. Just doin their job.

So , Irish you're telling me . Hallarius can win with blacks only? LOL.. Glassberg can win , with the adolescent vote? Really?

Tell me more , oh wise one. Personally , Whites in SC are irate about anti flag legislation. Why should we vote for non whites not allowing us the freedom of expressing our Heritage? GeNOciders will not win in SC !!!
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > New Hope Blooms Again