SCALIA 1936-2016

Being black.

 

Who do I blame for paying your Internet bill once again?

 

Screw that, he sucked and you know it. You can praise him for whatever you want, and have, but I am not going to. He's dead, and the country is better off for his loss.

 

But, no one really cares what a sorry sack of shit like you... ummm... thinks.

 

Anita Hill's testimony had little impact on Thomas becoming a SCJ.

 

Let's listen to what Joe Biden had to say:

 

You're the one who is obviously NOT a Constitutional scholar. The Senate has followed the Constitution to the letter in this matter.

Ummmmm... no. Would you care for me to quote the many other things you've been wrong about?

I don't know what part of "getting your ass kicked in 2014 and then obliterated in 2016 by conservatives" you don't understand. I alerted you to the fact before the 2014 midterms that a conservative tide was rising in this country, but you didn't see it. Ah, well.. just one more thing you're wrong about.

 

Liberals witnessed so many things slip through their hands on election night, not the least of which was the prospect of obtaining a liberal majority on the Supreme Court. Joyous upon hearing the news of Antonin Scalia's death, they are now in utter shock that Donald Trump will nominate the next SCOTUS judge.

Is this a great country, or what?

Judging Trump: Supreme Court choice on president-elect's immediate agenda



November 24, 2016

Voters chose Donald Trump, but now he hopes to return the favor with a looming far-reaching decision that could impact the lives of Americans on a range of hot-button issues for another generation.

No longer a question of if, but whom and when, the next member of the U.S. Supreme Court will almost certainly be a conservative, and perhaps the first of several nominees who could cement this bench's current shaky right-leaning majority. Let the political parlor games begin.

As the Trump transition team moves to first fill key cabinet and White House staff positions, parallel post-election focus on the high court vacancy has now started to coalesce, according to legal sources close to the vetting process.

Some conservative advocacy groups have quietly suggested Trump signal before his inauguration who his pick would be, to jump-start the Senate confirmation process, and allow the president-to-be to turn his attention to other "First 100 Days" agenda items like immigration and the budget.

But sources suggest a formal announcement only after Jan. 20, when full input from the White House Counsel's office and the attorney general would occur, including FBI background checks of the finalists and eventual nominee.

Trump has taken the unusual step of months ago publicly naming 21 individuals as potential nominees-- all but one sitting state or federal judges.

"I will pick only from that list, because they were a little concerned, because I was never a politician so maybe he'll go out and pick a liberal, OK?" Trump told Fox News. "That's not happening. Only from that list I'm going to pick, only. We're not going outside that list."

Two names getting early attention from conservative legal activists are federal appeals court judges Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and William Pryor of Alabama.

While the timing of the announcement is unclear, court watchers say whoever is chosen, will have a proven judicial record to please the right.

"This election is a massive game changer, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned," Thomas Dupree, a former Bush 43 Justice Department official, and a top appellate attorney told Fox News. "When you look at the list of 21 individuals-- that is a great list, you're not going to go too far wrong choosing someone from that list."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ice-on-president-elects-immediate-agenda.html

 

It's important that, " . . . You're not going too far wrong choosing someone from that list."

More important however, is that, in the minds of liberals, he'd not be going too far right either (. . . Really ??? )