SCALIA 1936-2016

I will have to remember that one the next time you blame the Republicans for blocking all those bills.

 

I'm curious about a headline today..why no autopsy on Mr. Scalia? Pillow over his head?? Uh oh..

 

Liberal press rumors? No pillow over his head. No foul play = no autopsy.

 

I seem to remember our previous discussions. I would post the facts and your opinion would disagree. Not very productive on your part.

 

We once again see how much the Republicans wrap themselves in the Constitution and then abandon it in a New York minute in favor of partisan party politics. Is anyone surprised?

 

You mean like this?

 

What a perfectly stupid thing to say. Why would Obama or any Democrat want a conservative nominee? The only advice and consent the Senate is supposed to provide is on the qualifications not the political allegiances. Democrats appoint liberals and Republicans appoint conservatives. How damn dumb are you? Did George Bush appoint a liberal in Alito or Roberts? Hell no! He appointed conservatives. Are you actually this dumb. Don't forget to breathe, ....No wait, ignore that advice dumb ass.

 

You're a complete moron. Of course, Osama is going to nominate liberals, but Republicans are going to deny them. And keep denying them. Until, of course, Osama nominates someone who the people's representatives consider conservative enough. That's how it works.

 

OOPS! Try reading Senate Resolution 334. Since I know you won't bother, here it is;
S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”

BTW, final vote on the resolution, 48 Democrats voting “yea”, 33 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting “nay.”

 

Obviously NOT a Constitutional scholar. Here is some news, the SC is about to have a liberal majority aligned with the direction the country has moved. Sucks to be you these days. Same sex marriage, Obamacare, marijuana decriminalization, police body cameras, etc. All the things you hate coming to fruition. It's a liberal country baby! Deal with it.

 

What will happen if Republicans don't confirm any nominations for the remainder of Osama's term? I'll tell you what will happen: NOTHING. The next president will then decide who the nominee will be.

More Republicans Say They’ll Block Supreme Court Nominee

February 15, 2016

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Monday began to close ranks behind a vow by Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, to block consideration of any nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died over the weekend, for the remainder of President Obama’s term.

Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, who faces re-election this year, said in a statement that the Senate should follow what he called “common practice” to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term. Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, agreed, leaving nearly every vulnerable Republican incumbent backing Mr. McConnell’s pledge.

Justice Scalia’s death has given Mr. Obama a tantalizing opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court, but cementing a lasting legacy on American jurisprudence will present a familiar challenge: breaking the will of Republicans.

Top White House officials and senior Democrats on Capitol Hill have begun discussing themes to counter the Republican threat: insisting that the Senate follow its constitutional responsibilities, and portraying a yearlong obstruction as at odds with decades of precedent for Supreme Court nominations.

Denis R. McDonough, the White House chief of staff, began reaching out to Senate Democratic leaders on Monday, even as Mr. Obama hosts Southeast Asian leaders at a two-day summit meeting in California. A public campaign will focus in part on the fact that none of the last 12 successful Supreme Court nominees waited longer than 100 days for a confirmation vote. Mr. Obama will not leave office for 339 days.

Democrats said they would set up an online clock that would start the day Mr. Obama named his nominee.

“If you’re sitting in the White House, the question is: How do you put maximum pressure on the Congress?” said David Axelrod, a former top adviser to Mr. Obama. He added that Democrats hoped the public would recoil at the idea of “the Senate on strike, refusing to do its duty.”

The coming clash on Capitol Hill is a testament to the stakes: A president has a chance to establish a clear liberal majority on the Supreme Court. That could shift the direction of legal thought on a wide variety of issues like climate change, gay rights, affirmative action, abortion, immigration, gun control, campaign finance and labor unions.

Some Democrats expressed confidence that they could build public pressure on the Republicans to give Mr. Obama’s nominee a hearing.

“The idea of not even allowing a hearing strikes a chord that is pretty deep,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York. “It will mount; it will get much stronger when the president has a nominee.”

But Republicans appear far more interested in mobilizing their base of conservative supporters than worrying about voters in the general election. Even if Republicans might appeal to moderate voters by giving Mr. Obama’s nominee a hearing, they reason, angering their own base would be more damaging.

Some allies of the president said they expected Republicans to hold firm, given the court’s crucial role and the intensity of feelings among conservatives. Mr. Axelrod predicted that Mr. McConnell and the other Senate Republicans would be “implacable” on the issue.

“I don’t think they are going to move,” he said. “Any Republican who breaks rank on this will face the full fury of the base.”

White House aides said the president would pick a nominee “in due time,” but they gave few hints about whom he was considering. Former top aides to Mr. Obama said they expected the White House to select someone who could overcome the Republican opposition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...ay-theyll-block-supreme-court-nomination.html

 

You are as stupid as you are naive. That's a nice combination. The Constitution is clear on this matter. Try to get your Right-wing idiots to actually follow the Constitution for once instead of the morons in your base.

Mark my words, someone will be nominated and confirmed I can absolutely guarantee you. The GOP doesn't have a leg to stand on. They WILL fail as usual.

 

And I will repeat;

Just exactly where does the Constitution require 9 judges?
How and where does the Constitution require that a ninth be nominated?
Just where does the Constitution require the Senate to approve the presidents nomination?

And then it was you who stated the the Constitution is not to be followed;

 

I think the Republicans are strategically wrong here. Let BO offer a nominee, what's it going to hurt? McConnell comes across as being everything people hate about Washington politics when he steadfastly says he's not even going to consider BO's nominee.
Think of the alternative. What if Hillary wins & nominates BO?

 

An actual good point. This is pure politics. The Republicans don't want to lose their 40-year conservative majority. I think they have had it long enough. With each successive generation, the country is more liberal on social issues, social justice issues, and political values. The Supreme Court is out of step with that trend.

On a related issue, the GOP is far too fractured to go against a sitting president. Obama will wipe the floor with them in the end. We already have a dysfunctional congress, a presidential campaign that we have never seen the likes of, and now the GOP wants to decapitate the Supreme Court in the midst of the rest of the dysfunctionality? I don't think people will tolerate that. They should proceed with caution.

P.S. I applaud your honesty and putting partisan nonsense aside.

 

Hello? Do you even know what the Constitution says? Osama can nominate candidates all day long if he wants to. The Senate doesn't even have to consider his candidates if they don't want to. If you think differently, it's because you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

Yes, you really don't know what the hell you are talking about.

 

Would you care yo explain just where he is wrong? Oh, that is right. Facts are above your pay grade.

 

One day it might just sink in that I don't care to explain anything to you...or yo.

 

I pray to God that your logic will NEVER "sink in" for me. How you can ignore the written word escapes me. But the I expect such from a liberal. It is the only way they can justify their case.