Latest Breaking News

YankmeCrankme

(587 posts)

31. I remember that show.

Sat Feb 20, 2016, 08:34 AM

Feb 2016

Retired Supreme Court judge Potter Stewart was one of the hosts. In the early 80's, The Consitution: That Delicate Balance was the name with Fred Friendly. Very good show that had great discussions on important issues that were balanced and civil.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama �amused� by �strict interpreters of the Constitution� inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme [View all] bemildred Feb 2016 OP

its the republican hypocritical way to all aspects of life MariaThinks Feb 2016 #1

Scalia was not a strict constructionist. He could twist his opinions like a pretzel to support Skwmom Feb 2016 #2

A grifter is what I see, and not a particularly smart one. bemildred Feb 2016 #4

I never saw the brilliance of the man either. He was a bully. n/t Skwmom Feb 2016 #6

I disagree a bit The Second Stone Feb 2016 #41

He always has droidamus2 Feb 2016 #19

In short, Scalia thought is judicial shit did not stink, however... Raster Feb 2016 #30

I remember that show. YankmeCrankme Feb 2016 #31

Thanks droidamus2 Feb 2016 #36

I enjoyed watching that as a kid. Codeine Feb 2016 #32

that is the very definition of a partisan hack Skittles Feb 2016 #35

They are only for a strict read of the constitution when it fits their interests. lark Feb 2016 #3

What, exactly houston16revival Feb 2016 #14

Have I mentioned lately, how much I like the "no-fucks-left" Obama? phantom power Feb 2016 #5

If he didn't nominate a justice they could impeach him, couldn't they? Gregorian Feb 2016 #7

He's not required to do. Leontius Feb 2016 #21

"The President SHALL nominate..." spooky3 Feb 2016 #25

There's no time limit though Yupster Feb 2016 #38

then he hasn't followed the "shall." spooky3 Feb 2016 #39

This is all silly lawyering, but then neither has Yupster Feb 2016 #40

Any "silly lawyering" is in the argument that he be the first pres spooky3 Feb 2016 #42

It would certainly be silly and he won't do it Yupster Feb 2016 #43

He is obligated to do so LanternWaste Feb 2016 #27

They could just try filibustering it... PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #8

There would be no need for a filibuster if they never schedule a vote Major Nikon Feb 2016 #9

Filibustering is a minority party tactic. The GOP is in the majority. longship Feb 2016 #12

Wouldn't be the first time for that jackass alcibiades_mystery Feb 2016 #15

Who will he be filibustering? His own party? AlbertCat Feb 2016 #17

He just wants a Green Eggs and Ham redo. kairos12 Feb 2016 #18

They should run Reagan's words in a commerical on Fox about him letting him nominate a judge in his kimbutgar Feb 2016 #10

Of course the president is correct. And after all if the Republicans could elect a president then totodeinhere Feb 2016 #11

LOL ROFLAMO houston16revival Feb 2016 #13

so voters can have a say on the selection AlbertCat Feb 2016 #16

Maybe they should delay a vote L.A.C. Feb 2016 #20

Its the exact same way they read the Bible. bunnies Feb 2016 #22

It's about the end of one's term OldRedneck Feb 2016 #23

Good one! maddiemom Feb 2016 #26

I love the way your title was truncated passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #24

Obama nails it! "Amused" is absolutely perfect Arazi Feb 2016 #28

Yes, understated, I considered "baffled" and "confused" but "amused" is better. bemildred Feb 2016 #37

he should nominate the replacement in a couple weeks regardless 0rganism Feb 2016 #29

Nothing strict about "strict constructionism." DirkGently Feb 2016 #33

Mr. President when will you realize you have a Mussolini loving Fascist House and Senate ? geretogo Feb 2016 #34