PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Joe-KansasCity on February 13, 2016, 03:22:28 PM
-
There will be an epic battle in the senate with any Obama nomination.
-
The country will never replace this great man.
-
There will be an epic battle in the senate with any Obama nomination.
Yep, thank you all loyal Republicans who stayed home in 2012 to "protest" Romney as the nominee.
Your so called protest is about to pay off.
Oh, no battle in the Senate. McConnell will succumb to whatever Obama nominates.
-
We'll see if Obama nominates his buddy Eric Holder.
-
I hope the Senate doesn't cave. I'm not holding my breath. >:(
-
We'll see if Obama nominates his buddy Eric Holder.
Nah, when the pondscum hillary fails to get the DNC nod, obama will nominate the worthless piece of trash.
-
I hope the Senate doesn't cave. I'm not holding my breath. >:(
McConnell? Cave? C'mon, you already know the answer.
-
We'll see if Obama nominates his buddy Eric Holder.
If that happens, we truly trade an intellectual giant for a petty intellectual midget who sees the Constitution as an out of date document. God help our country.
-
If that happens, we truly trade an intellectual giant for a petty intellectual midget who sees the Constitution as an out of date document. God help our country.
Maybe Obama will bypass the Senate and do an "Executive Appointment"..............
-
Sad. A good man. Whether one agreed with his position or not, he always took the job seriously and made his decisions on fact and logic. Sorry to hear of his passing.
Gary
-
Yep, thank you all loyal Republicans who stayed home in 2012 to "protest" Romney as the nominee.
Your so called protest is about to pay off.
(http://blug.talkinganimal.co.uk/img/entries/damn_you_all_to_hell_640.jpg)
-
Oh my God. He was one of only two Constitutionalists on the US Supreme Court.
Vaya con Dios.
-
With Scalia dead, that leaves Clarence Thomas as the only real constitutional scholar on the court. The rest are trash democrats appointed, and trash republicans appointed, imo.
-
Exactly. On Monday I'm calling my two Senators instructing them to only approve a Constitutionalist nominee. Given that one is a fallen-away former Tea Party Republican (Ron Johnson), and the other is a dyed in the wool lesbian Democrat (Tammy Baldwin), they should be interesting discussions.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/13/fight-over-antonin-scalia-replacement-heats-democr/
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that the Senate should wait until a new president is elected to confirm a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, whose sudden death Saturday shook Washington and threatened to reshape the 2016 presidential race.
Democrats said that with 11 months left in Mr. Obama’s tenure, the Senate has enough time — and indeed an obligation — to confirm a replacement.
Mr. McConnell, though, said voters must be given a say in the matter, and that means picking a president who will nominate the replacement.
-
At least he wasn't found in Fort Marcy Park.
-
At least he wasn't found in Fort Marcy Park.
well, duh. the worthless turd hasn't won the election yet
-
Very sorry to hear of Justice Scalia's passing, truly a great Justice and we will not get an equal replacement, they don't apprently make them anymore.
Fully expect McConnel to cave meaning this great experiment is over, we cannot survive another liberal/activist on SCOTUS.
Prayers to his family and friends.
'Gimp
-
“If Donald Trump wants to end this race tonight, he’ll vow that his first act as president will be appointing Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court,” Sean Davis of the Federalist tweets.
-
The President simply can't shut his freaking pie hole after acknowledging Justice Scalia's passing by wagging his proverbial finger at "Team R" indicating that they must do their job of confirming his next appointment. Politics had absolutely no place in his brief comments tonight. The man shows his lack of class at every opportunity. Jan 2017 can't get here quick enough.
-
The President simply can't shut his freaking pie hole after acknowledging Justice Scalia's passing by wagging his proverbial finger at "Team R" indicating that they must do their job of confirming his next appointment. Politics had absolutely no place in his brief comments tonight. The man shows his lack of class at every opportunity. Jan 2017 can't get here quick enough.
I remember when Teddy passed there was nothing but (undeserved) nice things said about him by his staunchest opponents on the other side of the aisle.
R's have their failings, but a lack of class in times of loss is not one of them.
The D's have no such scruples.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/13/hour-1-liberals-react-to-antonin-scalias-death-with-hatred-mockery-joy/
-
Lots of good stuff on DU
-
Truly a loss for not just the Court, but the country as a whole. He was one of the greatest legal scholars of our time and we may never see someone as great as him on the bench again.
While the President was correct that it is his Constitutional duty to nominate a successor, the Senate is not required to confirm the nominee. Time will tell if McConnell will hold his ground but the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has also indicated that the nominee should wait for the next president before being confirmed. If they force this, President Obama may make a recess appointment, which has happened in the past (Eisenhower was the last president to do it).
I wonder how this will play out for Republicans in an election year?
-
I wonder how this will play out for Republicans in an election year?
The media will say the Republicans are obstructionist, and the party of NO. Which is their job as the PEOPLE elected a majority in both the houses to stop the Democrats far left bills, and Obama's agenda.
-
A recess appointment is good only until the next session of Congress.
-
While the President was correct that it is his Constitutional duty to nominate a successor, the Senate is not required to confirm the nominee. Time will tell if McConnell will hold his ground but the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has also indicated that the nominee should wait for the next president before being confirmed. If they force this, President Obama may make a recess appointment, which has happened in the past (Eisenhower was the last president to do it).
All true! I do believe the that the Supreme Court should be operating with all members, considering the importance of a few upcoming cases. Agree that the President should promptly name a replacement. The Senate will then do whatever to confirm/deny.
I wonder how this will play out for Republicans in an election year?
Will prove interesting! Should the President nominate a moderate that has excellent credentials and the Senate decides to play politics with that and delay, the Republican candidates will have a sticky time explaining their positions.
Gary
-
The media will say the Republicans are obstructionist, and the party of NO.
Nothing new there. That's what they always do.
Will prove interesting! Should the President nominate a moderate that has excellent credentials and the Senate decides to play politics with that and delay, the Republican candidates will have a sticky time explaining their positions.
We all know he won't do that. He doesn't have a great track record of being a moderate on anything. When he doesn't get his way, he goes around Congress and does it anyway.
-
I remember when Teddy passed there was nothing but (undeserved) nice things said about him by his staunchest opponents on the other side of the aisle.
R's have their failings, but a lack of class in times of loss is not one of them.
The D's have no such scruples.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/13/hour-1-liberals-react-to-antonin-scalias-death-with-hatred-mockery-joy/
Filthy pigs. All of them.
-
Filthy pigs. All of them.
The vile scum of the earth are lighting up social media tonight denigrating the best legal mind of our time. It is truly sad to see these ignorant and hateful oxygen wasters vilify the man at the time of his death.
-
The vile scum of the earth are lighting up social media tonight denigrating the best legal mind of our time. It is truly sad to see these ignorant and hateful oxygen wasters vilify the man at the time of his death.
Vile, but you ain't seen nuthin yet.
Wait till Thomas passes.
-
I wonder how Thomas will function without Scalia to give him his opinion.
If Obama was clever, which is unlikely, he will nominate a highly respected moderate. That will put the GOP in a real bind. Do they approve the moderate or do they risk losing the WH and the Senate, in which case Scalia will be replaced by a flaming liberal which will really shift the SCOTUS.
-
I wonder how Thomas will function without Scalia to give him his opinion.
If Obama was clever, which is unlikely, he will nominate a highly respected moderate. That will put the GOP in a real bind. Do they approve the moderate or do they risk losing the WH and the Senate, in which case Scalia will be replaced by a flaming liberal which will really shift the SCOTUS.
Ah, yet another hater of a black conservative. It's too bad he left the plantation, right? I mean, how could a black Catholic man make it through the
College of the Holy Cross and law school without having a handler, right?
-
I wonder how Thomas will function without Scalia to give him his opinion.
If Obama was clever, which is unlikely, he will nominate a highly respected moderate. That will put the GOP in a real bind. Do they approve the moderate or do they risk losing the WH and the Senate, in which case Scalia will be replaced by a flaming liberal which will really shift the SCOTUS.
What an incredibly insulting thing to say, especially since it is not supported by the record of either Justice. Justice Thomas has himself written some great opinions.
The hate that Justice Thomas has endured from folks claiming to be Liberal and Moderate continues to amaze me in terms of its mean-spirited pettiness as well as in its' total avoidance of fact. Michael Steele suffered this, as have Col. Allen West, Tim Scott, Mia Love, etc.
It really is OK for an intelligent black man or woman to be a Republican or Conservative if they so choose. Like Martin Luther King Jr., for example.
'Gimp
-
I wonder how Thomas will function without Scalia to give him his opinion.
If Obama was clever, which is unlikely, he will nominate a highly respected moderate. That will put the GOP in a real bind. Do they approve the moderate or do they risk losing the WH and the Senate, in which case Scalia will be replaced by a flaming liberal which will really shift the SCOTUS.
How very bigoted of you.
-
I wonder how Thomas will function without Scalia to give him his opinion.
If Obama was clever, which is unlikely, he will nominate a highly respected moderate. That will put the GOP in a real bind. Do they approve the moderate or do they risk losing the WH and the Senate, in which case Scalia will be replaced by a flaming liberal which will really shift the SCOTUS.
How would Obama function without Soros telling him what to do?
Sounds just as dumb, doesn't it?
-
How would Obama function without Soros telling him what to do?
Sounds just as dumb, doesn't it?
Soros doesn't give orders, only money.
Valerie Jarrett gives the orders, and Moochelle.
-
Soros doesn't give orders, only money.
Valerie Jarrett gives the orders, and Moochelle.
Neither one is White.
-
Neither one is White.
I do not believe that makes a difference.
-
You have to love it when the same conservatives that whine when liberals use the accusation of racism to shout down opponents, then turn around and do it themselves. Hypocrisy at its finest. I thought about putting a grin on that comment, but then thought I would see what reaction I got. Too funny! So much BS hyperbole you all sound like you are channeling Al Sharpton.
-
You have to love it when the same conservatives that whine when liberals use the accusation of racism to shout down opponents, then turn around and do it themselves. Hypocrisy at its finest. I thought about putting a grin on that comment, but then thought I would see what reaction I got. Too funny! So much BS hyperbole you all sound like you are channeling Al Sharpton.
You start out by saying Thomas can't form his own opinion without Scalia, and then you accuse others of racism? Look in the mirror.
-
Soros doesn't give orders, only money.
Valerie Jarrett gives the orders, and Moochelle.
Anyone that gives money wants their agenda fulfilled. Jarrett, and Michelle are happy to do it.
-
You have to love it when the same conservatives that whine when liberals use the accusation of racism to shout down opponents, then turn around and do it themselves. Hypocrisy at its finest. I thought about putting a grin on that comment, but then thought I would see what reaction I got. Too funny! So much BS hyperbole you all sound like you are channeling Al Sharpton.
Nice try at a save..... The only hypocrisy here is in your mirror.
-
If Obama was clever, which is unlikely, he will nominate a highly respected moderate.
Hmmmm... Believe that at least one Republican candidate has said, more than once, that the President knows exactly what he he doing! ;D
That will put the GOP in a real bind. Do they approve the moderate or do they risk losing the WH and the Senate, in which case Scalia will be replaced by a flaming liberal which will really shift the SCOTUS.
Fair analysis. Suspect that there are a fair number of highly qualified moderate judges out there that could perform the job wonderfully. Does indeed put the Republicans in a bit of a tight spot should one be nominated. The candidates will certainly be questioned as to their support of the nominee, gives the voters another measure. Do believe that a real nasty, partisan fight could jeopardize the Republican Senate elections.
Gary
-
I wouldn't mind a moderate judge be appointed should the Republicans win the White House. If they don't it would be a disaster for our country, as the Constitution would be trashed. I dislike biased interpretation of the Constitution. If you want to change it there is a legal way to do that. Until then, don't legislate from the bench like Ginsburg, and the other liberal judges do.
-
I wouldn't mind a moderate judge be appointed should the Republicans win the White House. If they don't it would be a disaster for our country, as the Constitution would be trashed. I dislike biased interpretation of the Constitution. If you want to change it there is a legal way to do that. Until then, don't legislate from the bench like Ginsburg, and the other liberal judges do.
It sounds like you are arguing for a conservative not a moderate.
-
It sounds like you are arguing for a conservative not a moderate.
I am saying that maybe if we accept a moderate now, and avoid a partisan battle, we'd have a better chance of winning the White House, and then be able to appoint conservatives when other justices retire.
-
I am saying that maybe if we accept a moderate now, and avoid a partisan battle, we'd have a better chance of winning the White House, and then be able to appoint conservatives when other justices retire.
Like John Roberts? remember Souter?
-
I am saying that maybe if we accept a moderate now, and avoid a partisan battle, we'd have a better chance of winning the White House, and then be able to appoint conservatives when other justices retire.
Ok fair enough. I don't agree, we have become afraid of our own shadow. We can't have a budget process or use the power of the purse because the press will 'blame' us for shutting down the govt. We need a conservative now and its time to dump the traitors and grow a pair.
-
Unfortunately McConnell lacks the political will to stand up and say no. He'll let Harry Reid take charge (again) and a liberal nominee will be appointed.
Anyone want to place bets?
-
I wouldn't mind a moderate judge be appointed should the Republicans win the White House. If they don't it would be a disaster for our country, as the Constitution would be trashed. I dislike biased interpretation of the Constitution. If you want to change it there is a legal way to do that. Until then, don't legislate from the bench like Ginsburg, and the other liberal judges do.
Should the Republicans win the White House then they will have a "mandate" to nominate whomever they choose and I would expect the Senate to confirm, just as they did with President Obama.
I don't want a moderate appointed to the bench, I want a Constitutionalist.
-
Like John Roberts? remember Souter?
You're right. It seems Moderates always go LIBERAL/Progressive. I think Roberts was blackmailed by something in his past.
-
Hmmmm... Believe that at least one Republican candidate has said, more than once, that the President knows exactly what he he doing! ;D
Fair analysis. Suspect that there are a fair number of highly qualified moderate judges out there that could perform the job wonderfully. Does indeed put the Republicans in a bit of a tight spot should one be nominated. The candidates will certainly be questioned as to their support of the nominee, gives the voters another measure. Do believe that a real nasty, partisan fight could jeopardize the Republican Senate elections.
Gary
You are both delusional if you think that Obama will nominate a moderate for the Supreme Court. What gives you the indication that he would do such a thing? Unless you consider Sotamayor and Kagan as moderates, in which case I suggest you look at the definition of moderate.
-
I will be able to accept Trump more easily if he promises to appoint Cruz to the SC, hopefully to replace Scalia
-
I will be able to accept Trump more easily if he promises to appoint Cruz to the SC, hopefully to replace Scalia
Cruz would never be affirmed by the (sitting) Senate. McConnell would make sure of that and have Harry Reid to back him up.
-
Cruz would never be affirmed by the (sitting) Senate. McConnell would make sure of that and have Harry Reid to back him up.
McConnell and the rest of the RINOs would love to get Cruz out of the senate. IMHO his nomination would fly through.
-
Cruz would never be affirmed by the (sitting) Senate. McConnell would make sure of that and have Harry Reid to back him up.
That flies in the face of Senate tradition. No sitting Senator has ever been refused confirmation for anything.
-
That flies in the face of Senate tradition. No sitting Senator has ever been refused confirmation for anything.
Cruz hasn't just burned bridges in the Senate, he's done an all out nuclear attack on them.
Cruz has 16 Senators that side with him. That's it. Democrats would rather stick a fork in their eye than see him on the Supreme Court. McConnell hates the guy
Last I checked it takes the Majority Leader to bring it to the floor and a majority to confirm. The numbers simply aren't there.
-
Cruz hasn't just burned bridges in the Senate, he's done an all out nuclear attack on them.
Cruz has 16 Senators that side with him. That's it. Democrats would rather stick a fork in their eye than see him on the Supreme Court. McConnell hates the guy
Last I checked it takes the Majority Leader to bring it to the floor and a majority to confirm. The numbers simply aren't there.
And you say I don't have more than a For Dummies understanding of politics.
Senate comity is a tradition that goes back to the foundations of the Senate. Senators are always given a free ride in confirmation.
-
And you say I don't have more than a For Dummies understanding of politics.
Senate comity is a tradition that goes back to the foundations of the Senate. Senators are always given a free ride in confirmation.
Whatever Jeff. Keep telling yourself that Harry Reid and the liberal democrats will affirm a far right conservative constitutionist as a justice. And don't forget the moderate republicans he has shit all over.
But keep the fantasy going if it helps you.
-
Cruz hasn't just burned bridges in the Senate, he's done an all out nuclear attack on them.
Cruz has 16 Senators that side with him. That's it. Democrats would rather stick a fork in their eye than see him on the Supreme Court. McConnell hates the guy
Last I checked it takes the Majority Leader to bring it to the floor and a majority to confirm. The numbers simply aren't there.
Man, you really have a hard on for Cruz. You two should get a room.
-
Whatever Jeff. Keep telling yourself that Harry Reid and the liberal democrats will affirm a far right conservative constitutionist as a justice. And don't forget the moderate republicans he has shit all over.
But keep the fantasy going if it helps you.
With the changes Harry Reid and the Democrats made in 2013, Team R doesn't need a single vote from Team D to "affirm" a justice of any flavor. It's my understanding there is only a majority required now, not the super majority required previously.
-
Cruz hasn't just burned bridges in the Senate, he's done an all out nuclear attack on them.
Cruz has 16 Senators that side with him. That's it. Democrats would rather stick a fork in their eye than see him on the Supreme Court. McConnell hates the guy
Last I checked it takes the Majority Leader to bring it to the floor and a majority to confirm. The numbers simply aren't there.
Those numbers won't matter. Cruz would have tremendous support to the point where voters will demand their RINO Senators confirm.
-
You start out by saying Thomas can't form his own opinion without Scalia, and then you accuse others of racism? Look in the mirror.
Who did I accuse of being racist? I think your reading comprehension needs work. I accused others of hypocrisy. Racism and hypocrisy are two different words with different meanings.
-
Hmmmm... Believe that at least one Republican candidate has said, more than once, that the President knows exactly what he he doing! ;D
Fair analysis. Suspect that there are a fair number of highly qualified moderate judges out there that could perform the job wonderfully. Does indeed put the Republicans in a bit of a tight spot should one be nominated. The candidates will certainly be questioned as to their support of the nominee, gives the voters another measure. Do believe that a real nasty, partisan fight could jeopardize the Republican Senate elections.
Gary
Anyway you cut it, Justice Scalia's demise works more in the favor of the Dems. It is hard to imagine even a GOP senate and a GOP POTUS coming up with a more influential conservative. voice. While I did not always agree with Scalia, his bringing back original intent as one of the considerations was a very important step in the history of the SCOTUS.
-
Man, you really have a hard on for Cruz. You two should get a room.
So Cruz hasn't made any enemies in Congress or the Senate? Really?
BTW, It's not hard to read and keep up with politics. Remove the emotion and look at things objectively......
Oh wait, you're a lawyer.......nevermind. ::)
-
Those numbers won't matter. Cruz would have tremendous support to the point where voters will demand their RINO Senators confirm.
Wow, where do you live that Senators give a crap about citizens? The RINO's and others cater to donors and contributors. They would rather piss you off and keep the cash cow alive.
You guys keep forgetting one small point here: It takes 60 votes to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. Right now Republicans hold 54 seats.
Again, please explain in a time when the Liberals finally have the chance to change the course of the court they would get behind a far right conservative as their nominee?
Hell, at this point since fantasies are abounding, maybe the dems can get Obama to nominate Bill Clinton to the court. At least he could get some of the RINOS in the senate to back him. All he would need is 14 RINOS.
-
Wow, where do you live that Senators give a crap about citizens? The RINO's and others cater to donors and contributors. They would rather piss you off and keep the cash cow alive.
You guys keep forgetting one small point here: It takes 60 votes to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. Right now Republicans hold 54 seats.
Again, please explain in a time when the Liberals finally have the chance to change the course of the court they would get behind a far right conservative as their nominee?
Hell, at this point since fantasies are abounding, maybe the dems can get Obama to nominate Bill Clinton to the court. At least he could get some of the RINOS in the senate to back him. All he would need is 14 RINOS.
I dunno, I sense a change in the air.
-
So Cruz hasn't made any enemies in Congress or the Senate? Really?
BTW, It's not hard to read and keep up with politics. Remove the emotion and look at things objectively......
Oh wait, you're a lawyer.......nevermind. ::)
Actually, no. I'm not a lawyer. And you must not be Lucifer either.
Sure he made enemies. He didn't go to Washington to go along to get along. When he sees unconstitutional actions being taken, he fights it. When McConnell lied to Cruz about not hiding GHW reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, Cruz called him on it.
Maybe you'd prefer someone who is malleable.
-
Actually, no. I'm not a lawyer. And you must not be Lucifer either.
Wasn't addressing you. Stop flattering yourself
Sure he made enemies. He didn't go to Washington to go along to get along.
And with that 54 republicans and 6 democrats would see it through to give him the nod for a supreme court seat?
Put the bong down before you OD.
-
Wasn't addressing you. Stop flattering yourself
When you quote someone and follow it with a response, it is assumed you are addressing them unless you make it otherwise clear. Internet 101.
-
When you quote someone and follow it with a response, it is assumed you are addressing them unless you make it otherwise clear. Internet 101.
Just noticed I quoted the wrong person. Thanks for pointing that out.
-
I smell a rat:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/scalia-death-how-will-the-supreme-court-change-219256
-
I smell a rat:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/scalia-death-how-will-the-supreme-court-change-219256
Really? :o
-
Wasn't addressing you. Stop flattering yourself
And with that 54 republicans and 6 democrats would see it through to give him the nod for a supreme court seat?
Put the bong down before you OD.
Actually, you were - in post 64.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step in recovery.
-
Actually, you were - in post 64.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step in recovery.
Guess you missed post 70.
Admitting you have comprehension problems is the first step to recovery.
-
Guess you missed post 70.
Admitting you have comprehension problems is the first step to recovery.
Yea, I generally follow posts in what is commonly called "numerical order." Ironically, post 68 comes before post 70.
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html
but those were different times....
-
but those were different times....
In what regards to appointments?
-
In what regards to appointments?
I'm thinking there was some sarcasm there.
-
I'm thinking there was some sarcasm there.
Ah, OK.
-
I do not understand do not do anything it is an election year. We do elect Presidents for 4 years right? Not 4 years and you can not do anything in your last year because it is an election year.
That said I ma not looking forward to anyone the OBama will nominate. Just what we need another rule from the bench person.
-
I do not understand do not do anything it is an election year. We do elect Presidents for 4 years right? Not 4 years and you can not do anything in your last year because it is an election year.
That said I ma not looking forward to anyone the OBama will nominate. Just what we need another rule from the bench person.
The democrats set the precedence during Eisenhower to fit their agenda. As usual, they want to keep moving the goal post.
-
The democrats set the precedence during Eisenhower to fit their agenda. As usual, they want to keep moving the goal post.
No reason why the Republicans have to play tit-for-tat with the SCOTUS
-
No reason why the Republicans have to play tit-for-tat with the SCOTUS
So, if the democrats set a rule or a precedence while holding the majority, and when in the minority the rule doesn't fit their agenda, they should be able to change it again?
Like I said, constantly moving the goal post.
-
So, if the democrats set a rule or a precedence while holding the majority, and when in the minority the rule doesn't fit their agenda, they should be able to change it again?
Like I said, constantly moving the goal post.
That's not what I said or meant.
Just because the liberal pukes play politics when it suits them doesn't mean that Republicans need to play the same stupid game. The "yeah, but they did it too" is such a lame excuse and shouldn't have a place in reasoned discussion.
-
I do not understand do not do anything it is an election year. We do elect Presidents for 4 years right? Not 4 years and you can not do anything in your last year because it is an election year.
That said I ma not looking forward to anyone the OBama will nominate. Just what we need another rule from the bench person.
The Senate is completely free to ignore any nomination that the President makes, anytime it so chooses.
-
That's not what I said or meant.
Just because the liberal pukes play politics when it suits them doesn't mean that Republicans need to play the same stupid game. The "yeah, but they did it too" is such a lame excuse and shouldn't have a place in reasoned discussion.
OK, but if you have a fight where only one side follows the rules, it's not a very fair game. Unilateral disarmament is rarely a strategically viable option.
-
That's not what I said or meant.
Just because the liberal pukes play politics when it suits them doesn't mean that Republicans need to play the same stupid game. The "yeah, but they did it too" is such a lame excuse and shouldn't have a place in reasoned discussion.
The current rule is in place, placed there by the Democrats in 1960. It served their purpose.
Now it's 2016, an election year with a D in office. Now they are demanding a rule change yet again to serve their agenda,i.e."moving goal
post".
What is the problem with the R's simply stating, "no, this rule is in place, has been for 55 years and we like it" ?
Kinda along the lines of "Be careful what you wish for...."
-
That's not what I said or meant.
Just because the liberal pukes play politics when it suits them doesn't mean that Republicans need to play the same stupid game. The "yeah, but they did it too" is such a lame excuse and shouldn't have a place in reasoned discussion.
No offense, Bob, but that kind of thinking is how McConnell allowed Harry Reid to be in charge both when Reid was the Majority Leader and now when he's the Minority Leader.
-
That's not what I said or meant.
Just because the liberal pukes play politics when it suits them doesn't mean that Republicans need to play the same stupid game. The "yeah, but they did it too" is such a lame excuse and shouldn't have a place in reasoned discussion.
Totally agree can't we say we are better than them and do thing the right way?
So when your kids get in trouble do you let them off becuase they tell you that everyone is doing it. Sure it is ok to cheat on the test everyone else did any ways.
-
Totally agree can't we say we are better than them and do thing the right way?
So when your kids get in trouble do you let them off becuase they tell you that everyone is doing it. Sure it is ok to cheat on the test everyone else did any ways.
This is a difficult one. It's like when a football team cries foul when the refs enforce the rules, and then when it happens to the other team the same thing happens. All I know is the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive have done a lot of wrong, and broken a lot of laws and rules because to them the ends justify the means. They've made it an art form, and get away with it due to the complicity of the media, their partners in the Progressive agenda.
-
No offense, Bob, but that kind of thinking is how McConnell allowed Harry Reid to be in charge both when Reid was the Majority Leader and now when he's the Minority Leader.
Apparently I wasn't clear. Because you and several others completely misunderstand what I'm trying to say.
When an enemy is raping women and children, that doesn't make it ok for the good guys to rape women and children.
The minority is the minority. They are not in charge. Let me make that crystal clear. If you think I'm advocating for the minority party to run the show, then you are completely wrong.
I'm advocating for people to do the right thing. Using the excuse that the liberals did X, Y, or Z so the Republicans should be do the same dumbass crap is lame.
-
Good point Bob. The majority should be able to do what they want WITHIN THE RULES no matter party.
-
I'm a registered Republican, and fairly conservative in many areas*. I try to stay up to date on lots of things, but as has been observed, most people are ignorant of most things, myself included.
So when I heard Scalia had died, I could not have told you his political leanings.
When I was quickly informed of his conservative creds, I just thought to myself, "Well, it looks like President Obama gets at least one pick - that's the way it works, right?"
I'm just kinda surprised there's any debate on this at all - the sitting President gets to select Supreme Court Justices. Democracy in action.
If and when there's a Republican president, then he'll get to choose if and when another vacancy opens up.
It just seems so simple.
-
Apparently I wasn't clear. Because you and several others completely misunderstand what I'm trying to say.
When an enemy is raping women and children, that doesn't make it ok for the good guys to rape women and children.
The minority is the minority. They are not in charge. Let me make that crystal clear. If you think I'm advocating for the minority party to run the show, then you are completely wrong.
I'm advocating for people to do the right thing. Using the excuse that the liberals did X, Y, or Z so the Republicans should be do the same dumbass crap is lame.
Aside from the ridiculousness of the rape analogy when discussing the Senate's parliamentary rules, I understand your desire for Republicans to be "above the fray." However, the Court and the Constitution are now at stake. It is not unreasonable to withhold support, or even a vote, on an Obama nominee in this circumstance.
Harry Reid changed the rules for the filibuster. When McConnell became the majority leader, he brought the rule back, essentially giving power to the minority that was denied the GOP when they were in the Senate minority.
It's almost like McConnell is more comfortable being in the minority than the majority.
-
I'm just kinda surprised there's any debate on this at all - the sitting President gets to select Supreme Court Justices. Democracy in action.
If and when there's a Republican president, then he'll get to choose if and when another vacancy opens up.
It just seems so simple.
First, the President doesn't get to select Supreme Court justices, he gets to nominate them and it's up to the Senate to confirm them. There is no obligation that the Senate confirm the nominee. Second, a president doesn't get to choose if there is a vacancy on the court since they are lifetime appointments. Generally speaking, with death being the exception, Supreme Court justices try to retire during a presidency that is closely aligned to their ideology so that their replacement is also of the same ideology.
-
Aside from the ridiculousness of the rape analogy when discussing the Senate's parliamentary rules, I understand your desire for Republicans to be "above the fray." However, the Court and the Constitution are now at stake. It is not unreasonable to withhold support, or even a vote, on an Obama nominee in this circumstance.
Harry Reid changed the rules for the filibuster. When McConnell became the majority leader, he brought the rule back, essentially giving power to the minority that was denied the GOP when they were in the Senate minority.
It's almost like McConnell is more comfortable being in the minority than the majority.
^^ THIS ^^
The Republicans no longer know how to behave as the majority party/party in control. They have been so routinely browbeaten that they are like the proverbial elephant caged by a piece of twine on its leg - it could very easily break the twine, and the neck of its' handler, but it never tries.
F'ing pathetic. I predict McConnell and the GOP will cave as soon as someone mentions 'government shutdown blamed on the Republicans'.
'Gimp
-
Please explain why Robert Bork is not a Supreme Court Justice.
I'm a registered Republican, and fairly conservative in many areas*. I try to stay up to date on lots of things, but as has been observed, most people are ignorant of most things, myself included.
So when I heard Scalia had died, I could not have told you his political leanings.
When I was quickly informed of his conservative creds, I just thought to myself, "Well, it looks like President Obama gets at least one pick - that's the way it works, right?"
I'm just kinda surprised there's any debate on this at all - the sitting President gets to select Supreme Court Justices. Democracy in action.
If and when there's a Republican president, then he'll get to choose if and when another vacancy opens up.
It just seems so simple.
-
Please explain why Robert Bork is not a Supreme Court Justice.
As pointed out, to be correct the President does simply nominate.
-
What we don't want is a Supreme Court justice that feels that this is okay..........
http://americanmilitarynews.com/2016/02/caught-on-tape-cop-in-texas-declares-it-illegal-to-offend-someone-writes-offender-a-ticket/?utm_source=amn&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt
-
What we don't want is a Supreme Court justice that feels that this is okay..........
http://americanmilitarynews.com/2016/02/caught-on-tape-cop-in-texas-declares-it-illegal-to-offend-someone-writes-offender-a-ticket/?utm_source=amn&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt (http://americanmilitarynews.com/2016/02/caught-on-tape-cop-in-texas-declares-it-illegal-to-offend-someone-writes-offender-a-ticket/?utm_source=amn&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt)
What? You haven't heard you have the right to not be offended? It's in the same section as the right to privacy.
-
I thought the highest aspiration for a judge was to achieve neutrality. The phrase "liberal judge" or "conservative judge" should never have to be used. >:(
-
I thought the highest aspiration for a judge was to achieve neutrality. The phrase "liberal judge" or "conservative judge" should never have to be used. >:(
Conservative has come to mean those that follow the Constitution, and Liberal/Progressive has come to mean those that use their own personal views to interpret the Constitution in light of the modern Progressive agenda.
-
I thought the highest aspiration for a judge was to achieve neutrality. The phrase "liberal judge" or "conservative judge" should never have to be used. >:(
Maybe not, but Originalist and Activist ARE appropriate terms to describe judges, and they generally follow suit for conservative and liberal.
-
The last real offender of manipulating the courts was FDR.
-
The last real offender of manipulating the courts was FDR.
Yes he was.
-
The last real offender of manipulating the courts was FDR.
The difference was that even Democratic members of Congress saw FDR's court-packing plan as an unreasonable overreach by the Executive branch.
I see no similar scruples with today's Democrats in Congress.
-
The difference was that even Democratic members of Congress saw FDR's court-packing plan as an unreasonable overreach by the Executive branch.
I see no similar scruples with today's Democrats in Congress.
The DNC, and their member Democrat politicians have embraced the far left, radical agenda they espouse. They have learned to be successful they must be in LOCK STEP. More like a goose step, but I digress. There are very few if any moderate Democrats. Look at their candidates for President. Even O'Malley was a socialist to the nth degree. Now Bernie, and Hillary are trying to out commie each other and promise "free" stuff that makes no sense whatsoever. The 1 1/2 percent can't pay for it, and they know it, but the low information types lap it up.
-
I thought the highest aspiration for a judge was to achieve neutrality. The phrase "liberal judge" or "conservative judge" should never have to be used. >:(
That is the aspiration, but they are human beings and so it is not really obtainable. However, I think they do a pretty good job usually and that is why sometimes "conservative" judges rule left and "progressive" judges sometimes rule right and when they do, people get upset because their monkeys didn't perform the way they are supposed to.
Face it, I doubt anybody posting in this thread really wants a neutral judge on the bench, they want one that thinks lock step with them. The SCOTUS is very much a political arena and that is why they are appointed for life, so that they can potentially rise above partisan politics, but at the core, they still likely are who they are when they accepted the job. Some take the job very seriously and strive to be non partisan, and others see it as an opportunity.
-
That is the aspiration, but they are human beings and so it is not really obtainable. However, I think they do a pretty good job usually and that is why sometimes "conservative" judges rule left and "progressive" judges sometimes rule right and when they do, people get upset because their monkeys didn't perform the way they are supposed to.
Face it, I doubt anybody posting in this thread really wants a neutral judge on the bench, they want one that thinks lock step with them. The SCOTUS is very much a political arena and that is why they are appointed for life, so that they can potentially rise above partisan politics, but at the core, they still likely are who they are when they accepted the job. Some take the job very seriously and strive to be non partisan, and others see it as an opportunity.
I, for one, want the judges at all levels to follow the law, not their political views.
-
I, for one, want the judges at all levels to follow the law, not their political views.
You can want what you want, but we get what we get. This is why there are more than one of them. In theory if one or more gets too political, the others can ground them. They are the ones that ultimately interpret the laws and their constitutionality, so in a way they are the law.
-
Face it, I doubt anybody posting in this thread really wants a neutral judge on the bench, they want one that thinks lock step with them. The SCOTUS is very much a political arena and that is why they are appointed for life, so that they can potentially rise above partisan politics, but at the core, they still likely are who they are when they accepted the job. Some take the job very seriously and strive to be non partisan, and others see it as an opportunity.
I want a judge who will look at the issue presented and put some thought and analysis into the arguments and contrast that with what the Constitution says. I realize they're human and politics and personal interpretation comes into play. Don't we always hear about how issue X or Y shouldn't be a litmus test?
You can want what you want, but we get what we get.
Well now that's deep. :P
-
I, for one, want the judges at all levels to follow the law, not their political views.
You mean you want judges to follow the law as you interpret it, or do you now accept Roe v. Wade as the law of the land?
-
You mean you want judges to follow the law as you interpret it, or do you now accept Roe v. Wade as the law of the land?
Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court was correct. The same applies to other rulings. Dred Scott is a perfect example.
-
You mean you want judges to follow the law as you interpret it, or do you now accept Roe v. Wade as the law of the land?
Roe Versus Wade w as judicial cop-out on the same scale as John Roberts cop-out, Obamacare rulings. Using it as a hammer to drive home your point is silly.
-
The last real offender of manipulating the courts was FDR.
The Switch in Time that Saved the Nine.
-
The difference was that even Democratic members of Congress saw FDR's court-packing plan as an unreasonable overreach by the Executive branch.
I see no similar scruples with today's Democrats in Congress.
Actually, they would have held their noses and voted for it.
The Court caved and reversed themselves and in the process obliterated the 10th Amendment.
-
You can want what you want, but we get what we get. This is why there are more than one of them. In theory if one or more gets too political, the others can ground them. They are the ones that ultimately interpret the laws and their constitutionality, so in a way they are the law.
what the hell kind of attitude is that?
I was responding to YOUR post of "Face it, I doubt anybody posting in this thread really wants a neutral judge on the bench"
-
I want a Justice that respects the Constitution, and doesn't try to interpret based on his or her "feelings".
-
Do find it rather ironic that many on the right have stated that they want the President to follow his responsibilities stated in the Constitution - except - in this situation of nominating a candidate for the SCOTUS. Did hear Mr. McConnell mention something along the lines that the President should not propose a nominee and that the American people need to be involved in this decision. Pretty weak argument since I believe the President and all the members of the Senate were indeed duly elected by the American people to make just these kinds of decisions.
It is absolutely clear that the President has the responsibility and ability to nominate a person for the SCOTUS. I believe he could even do a recess appointment, although I not so sure if the timing is there. The Senate can do what it pleases with the nomination, delay/defer, deny or approve. That is completely within the Senate’s control.
So why would the leadership of the Senate urge the President to shirk his Constitutional responsibilities? Is there a lack of qualified candidates? Perhaps there isn’t enough time for the Senate to thoughtfully execute it’s own responsibilities in the process? Is the Senate content with having an undermanned SCOTUS operate for more than a year, considering many of the important cases pending? Believe that any logical and informed person would have to say no to all of these questions. The only plausible reason remaining is ideology. Do find it very intriguing that the majority leadership of Senate wishes to make it’s decisions based on ideology and not fact or reason.
This is a no lose scenario for the President. By proposing a qualified nominee, the President can either have the nominee confirmed -or- we will have a situation unfold, for the whole county to see, just how the current Senate does it’s business. Should the Senate decide to just ignore the Presidents nomination, the Democrats will have a golden opportunity to use that in the upcoming elections, I fear that will not play well for the Republicans. Should the Senate decide to actually hold hearings on the nominee and drag it out for many months, a similar situation exists. The Democrats will hammer on the qualifications and experience of the nominee, the Republicans will have, IMHO, a difficult time refuting this. Again, it boils down to the fact that the Senate Republican leadership will be left with trying to justify a decision based on ideology, a difficult position to explain to the American public.
;) Of course the President could go totally off the reservation and do a recess appointment and nominate Ted Cruz - THAT would be interesting to watch. ;)
Gary
-
It is controversial and complex because these appointments are for life; you can't undo them. Given that, I understand there is precedent for delaying a permanent appointment in the last year of a presidency. Even some appellate cases are traditionally delayed when an election is forthcoming.
-
It is controversial and complex because this President has shown a proclivity to choose nominees based on a far left ideology, and the balance of the court is at stake.
-
He will nominate a far left Latina or black woman really quickly; then for months, Dems will reap max political benefit when Repubs don't approve of the nominee, even when color has nothing to do with it.
-
He will nominate a far left Latina or black woman really quickly; then for months, Dems will reap max political benefit when Repubs don't approve of the nominee, even when color has nothing to do with it.
Not necessarily. All the Dems need to do is nominate someone with excellent qualifications, doesn't really matter race, gender or political persuasion. Their hammer is the qualifications.
Gary
-
Do find it rather ironic that many on the right have stated that they want the President to follow his responsibilities stated in the Constitution - except - in this situation of nominating a candidate for the SCOTUS. Did hear Mr. McConnell mention something along the lines that the President should not propose a nominee and that the American people need to be involved in this decision. Pretty weak argument since I believe the President and all the members of the Senate were indeed duly elected by the American people to make just these kinds of decisions.
I find it ironic that the President now suddenly cares about the Constitution because it's convenient for him.
That being said, when the President nominates someone the Republicans should give the nominee a hearing and an up or down vote. Unless that nominee is someone who is suitable and won't legislate from the bench, the Republicans should vote down on the merits.
It is absolutely clear that the President has the responsibility and ability to nominate a person for the SCOTUS. I believe he could even do a recess appointment, although I not so sure if the timing is there. The Senate can do what it pleases with the nomination, delay/defer, deny or approve. That is completely within the Senate’s control.
He could make a recess appointment but I don't see that being likely right now. He's going to nominate someone first and see how it plays out.
So why would the leadership of the Senate urge the President to shirk his Constitutional responsibilities? Is there a lack of qualified candidates? Perhaps there isn’t enough time for the Senate to thoughtfully execute it’s own responsibilities in the process? Is the Senate content with having an undermanned SCOTUS operate for more than a year, considering many of the important cases pending? Believe that any logical and informed person would have to say no to all of these questions. The only plausible reason remaining is ideology. Do find it very intriguing that the majority leadership of Senate wishes to make it’s decisions based on ideology and not fact or reason.
Please cite for me where in the Constitution it specifies the number of Supreme Court justices required to operate the court.
This is a no lose scenario for the President. By proposing a qualified nominee, the President can either have the nominee confirmed -or- we will have a situation unfold, for the whole county to see, just how the current Senate does it’s business. Should the Senate decide to just ignore the Presidents nomination, the Democrats will have a golden opportunity to use that in the upcoming elections, I fear that will not play well for the Republicans. Should the Senate decide to actually hold hearings on the nominee and drag it out for many months, a similar situation exists. The Democrats will hammer on the qualifications and experience of the nominee, the Republicans will have, IMHO, a difficult time refuting this. Again, it boils down to the fact that the Senate Republican leadership will be left with trying to justify a decision based on ideology, a difficult position to explain to the American public.
So the President should nominate someone and if the Republicans vote down on the merits then they are the bad guys? Please cite for me in the Constitution where the Senate is required to confirm a presidential nominee. While we're at it, please tell me what the qualifications and experience of the nominee will have that make it very hard to vote down. By that logic, anyone nominated should have qualifications and experience, just perhaps not the qualifications and experience that the Senate majority believes they should have.
-
Not necessarily. All the Dems need to do is nominate someone with excellent qualifications, doesn't really matter race, gender or political persuasion. Their hammer is the qualifications.
Gary
The Dems don't get to do anything. The President gets to nominate someone. There is no way Obama will nominate anyone that doesn't follow a far-left activist ideology. When faced with this, the GOP senators will simply have to ask how they would have ruled in Heller and McDonald, and what their thoughts are with respect to the ability of people to pool resources and form a collective for political speech. (Citizens United.) Unless they flat out lie (a possibility) or the GOP once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory (a very good possibility) this should be evident that it is an Obama play to fundamentally change to Court, and eviscerate the Bill of Rights.
-
The Dems don't get to do anything. The President gets to nominate someone. There is no way Obama will nominate anyone that doesn't follow a far-left activist ideology.
I've been thinking about this. He already got Kagan and Sotomayor onto the bench, so if he really wants to shift the balance, all he needs to do is nominate a "moderate", someone who is at worst a left of center nominee and let the pieces fall where they may. He may be willing to assume some risk on certain cases but would feel confident in bigger cases that would really do some damage.
I'm not convinced this is what he will do, but if he wants his nominee to get confirmed before the next president takes office, that's one way to do it. Part of me still thinks he will nominate a radical leftist, as you mentioned, because it matches everything else he's done up until this point so why would he stop now?
As an aside, this blog post from SCOTUS Blog yesterday was a pretty good read. The author is pretty fair in his analysis.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/
-
The ideal response is for the Senate to wait and see what happens, then hold a hearing at the appropriate time, and vote down anyone that is not properly qualified, to avoid another train wreck dyke like kagan, or "wise latino," jerk like sotomayor. Jumping up and down just gives whiners, liars, and sleazebags more ammunition to attack republicans as that's they do anyway, so why make it easier?
-
The ideal response is for the Senate to wait and see what happens, then hold a hearing at the appropriate time, and vote down anyone that is not properly qualified, to avoid another train wreck dyke like kagan, or "wise latino," jerk like sotomayor. Jumping up and down just gives whiners, liars, and sleazebags more ammunition to attack republicans as that's they do anyway, so why make it easier?
The big difference between the Scalia replacement and the Sotomayor/Kagan nominations is that both Sotomayor (Souter) and Kagan (Stevens) basically replaced liberal justices with other liberal justices. Basically a wash.
The same was true with Renquist. While Roberts has made some bad calls (Obamacare Tax), most of the time, he's a solid conservative vote. O'Connor was drifting steadily leftward on the Court, and her replacement Alito has not put a foot wrong in terms of snapping that trend back.
Replacing Scalia with a liberal would be a seismic shift in the balance of the Court.
-
Once again the Repubs showed their hand by stating they will vote down any nominated judge.
Instead, IMHO, they should have stated something to the effect "with the untimely passing of Justice Scalia, the Senate looks forward to President Obama nominating a judge who fully understands and supports the Constitution. Once that judge is nominated and presented to the Senate for confirmation, we will gladly confirm the judge"
That statement puts the ball back in the POTUS court. But alas, team R stepped in the steaming pile yet again.
-
Once again the Repubs showed their hand by stating they will vote down any nominated judge.
Instead, IMHO, they should have stated something to the effect "with the untimely passing of Justice Scalia, the Senate looks forward to President Obama nominating a judge who fully understands and supports the Constitution. Once that judge is nominated and presented to the Senate for confirmation, we will gladly confirm the judge"
That statement puts the ball back in the POTUS court. But alas, team R stepped in the steaming pile yet again.
McConnell and his Republican Majority don't have the political will. They are afraid of Obama and Harry Reid, period.
Like it or not, Harry Reid still runs the senate.
Prediction: Obama will nominate someone (Loretta Lynch) and the Republicans will do a lot of talk. Obama and Reid will remind the Republicans that they swiftly appointed her as Attorney General, so what is the hang up now? and make them look like fools.
McConnell will cave, and she will be appointed.
Any takers?
-
McConnell and his Republican Majority don't have the political will. They are afraid of Obama and Harry Reid, period.
Like it or not, Harry Reid still runs the senate.
Prediction: Obama will nominate someone (Loretta Lynch) and the Republicans will do a lot of talk. Obama and Reid will remind the Republicans that they swiftly appointed her as Attorney General, so what is the hang up now? and make them look like fools.
McConnell will cave, and she will be appointed.
Any takers?
The process (Lynch being immaterial at this time) you propose has the highest probability of accuracy. I'll have to decline the wager ;)
-
I've been thinking about this. He already got Kagan and Sotomayor onto the bench, so if he really wants to shift the balance, all he needs to do is nominate a "moderate", someone who is at worst a left of center nominee and let the pieces fall where they may. He may be willing to assume some risk on certain cases but would feel confident in bigger cases that would really do some damage.
I'm not convinced this is what he will do, but if he wants his nominee to get confirmed before the next president takes office, that's one way to do it. Part of me still thinks he will nominate a radical leftist, as you mentioned, because it matches everything else he's done up until this point so why would he stop now?
As an aside, this blog post from SCOTUS Blog yesterday was a pretty good read. The author is pretty fair in his analysis.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/
Good read, LW. Thanks for posting the blog.
-
The big difference between the Scalia replacement and the Sotomayor/Kagan nominations is that both Sotomayor (Souter) and Kagan (Stevens) basically replaced liberal justices with other liberal justices. Basically a wash.
The same was true with Renquist. While Roberts has made some bad calls (Obamacare Tax), most of the time, he's a solid conservative vote. O'Connor was drifting steadily leftward on the Court, and her replacement Alito has not put a foot wrong in terms of snapping that trend back.
Replacing Scalia with a liberal would be a seismic shift in the balance of the Court.
Agreed.
-
Once again the Repubs showed their hand by stating they will vote down any nominated judge.
Instead, IMHO, they should have stated something to the effect "with the untimely passing of Justice Scalia, the Senate looks forward to President Obama nominating a judge who fully understands and supports the Constitution. Once that judge is nominated and presented to the Senate for confirmation, we will gladly confirm the judge"
That statement puts the ball back in the POTUS court. But alas, team R stepped in the steaming pile yet again.
I'm shocked! Not.
The GOP PR department needs to be shit canned.
-
I'd call Ozero a classless bum but that would just be redundant:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384
-
I'd call Ozero a classless bum but that would just be redundant:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384
What a petulant little child.
He has damaged the office of the President of the United States more than any president I can think of. Woodrow Wilson doesn't even come close.
-
What a petulant little child.
He has damaged the office of the President of the United States more than any president I can think of. Woodrow Wilson doesn't even come close.
Give Wilson some credit, he was effectively unconscious for most of the last year of his term.
-
Give Wilson some credit, he was effectively unconscious for most of the last year of his term.
If only that could be true in the instant case.
Instead all we get is aloofness, petulance, and agitation.
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384
-
Well, seeing how the President is wont to behave at funerals, perhaps its best that he just skips it.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02761/MANDELA-SELFIE_2761644b.jpg)
-
The big difference between the Scalia replacement and the Sotomayor/Kagan nominations is that both Sotomayor (Souter) and Kagan (Stevens) basically replaced liberal justices with other liberal justices. Basically a wash.
The same was true with Renquist. While Roberts has made some bad calls (Obamacare Tax), most of the time, he's a solid conservative vote. O'Connor was drifting steadily leftward on the Court, and her replacement Alito has not put a foot wrong in terms of snapping that trend back.
Replacing Scalia with a liberal would be a seismic shift in the balance of the Court.
I wasn't arguing, just pointing out the logic of quietly going forth without the drama, soundbites, and made-for-TV scripted nonsense. If the Senate majority would keep their mouths shut, their powder dry, and act decisively when it's time to act, by voting no, then this goes along without the drama, and sometime ends with an up/down vote. That cheats many democrats out of yet another club to beat republicans, but that never stopped any democrat to start with, so why worry about how they feel?
-
Joe Biden: Don't Fill Vacancy. Oh, wait...
-
And of course, BO hisownself: