PDA

View Full Version : Risks of Blocking Supreme Court Nominee



Pages : [1] 2

PolWatch
02-14-2016, 09:40 AM
'Republicans currently hold the Senate majority with 54 members, but 24 of those seats are being contested this year — including seven in states where Obama won twice.

If Republicans wait and Democrats win the White House and regain the Senate majority, a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton, for example, would have greater leeway to select a more liberal justice than Obama might have submitted.

But the politics could also work in Republicans’ favor, as mobilization for a Supreme Court nomination by a Republican president could cause conservative voter turnout to spike in 2016, helping candidates across the board. Democrats, of course, would similarly seek to boost turnout and support based on the nomination fight (or lack thereof).'

This situation comes down to that famous Eastwood line: 'do ya feel lucky, punk?'

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/republicans-vow-to-block-obama-supreme-court-011758577.html

Private Pickle
02-14-2016, 11:45 AM
Not enough time anyway.

Mac-7
02-14-2016, 11:47 AM
'Republicans currently hold the Senate majority with 54 members, but 24 of those seats are being contested this year — including seven in states where Obama won twice.

If Republicans wait and Democrats win the White House and regain the Senate majority, a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton, for example, would have greater leeway to select a more liberal justice than Obama might have submitted.

But the politics could also work in Republicans’ favor, as mobilization for a Supreme Court nomination by a Republican president could cause conservative voter turnout to spike in 2016, helping candidates across the board. Democrats, of course, would similarly seek to boost turnout and support based on the nomination fight (or lack thereof).'

This situation comes down to that famous Eastwood line: 'do ya feel lucky, punk?'

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/republicans-vow-to-block-obama-supreme-court-011758577.html

Another lib cut and paste?

Most conservatives think for themselves and don't need to be told by some faceless know it all on yahoo

hanger4
02-14-2016, 12:03 PM
'Republicans currently hold the Senate majority with 54 members, but 24 of those seats are being contested this year — including seven in states where Obama won twice.

If Republicans wait and Democrats win the White House and regain the Senate majority, a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton, for example, would have greater leeway to select a more liberal justice than Obama might have submitted.

But the politics could also work in Republicans’ favor, as mobilization for a Supreme Court nomination by a Republican president could cause conservative voter turnout to spike in 2016, helping candidates across the board. Democrats, of course, would similarly seek to boost turnout and support based on the nomination fight (or lack thereof).'

This situation comes down to that famous Eastwood line: 'do ya feel lucky, punk?'

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/republicans-vow-to-block-obama-supreme-court-011758577.html
I don't see the risk because I agree with this part of your OP;

"But the politics could also work in Republicans’ favor, as mobilization for a Supreme Court nomination by a Republican president could cause conservative voter turnout to spike in 2016, helping candidates across the board."

Also if HC is the Dem nominee an even larger Repub turnout and more Dems stay home on election day.

Cigar
02-14-2016, 12:18 PM
Not enough time anyway.

Yet another False Conservative talking point ...

Republicans already opposing any Obama Supreme Court nomination (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/13/senate-unlikely-confirm-obama-supreme-court-nominee/80351274/)

Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year|Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-antonin-scalia_us_56bfcde2e4b08ffac1259285?lps3jtt9)

Chris
02-14-2016, 12:31 PM
Another lib cut and paste?

Most conservatives think for themselves and don't need to be told by some faceless know it all on yahoo

You do?

Chris
02-14-2016, 12:32 PM
I don't see the risk because I agree with this part of your OP;

"But the politics could also work in Republicans’ favor, as mobilization for a Supreme Court nomination by a Republican president could cause conservative voter turnout to spike in 2016, helping candidates across the board."

Also if HC is the Dem nominee an even larger Repub turnout and more Dems stay home on election day.


It's a question of letting Obama name the next or possibly a Rep. If I were a Rep I'd gamble.

hanger4
02-14-2016, 12:40 PM
It's a question of letting Obama name the next or possibly a Rep. If I were a Rep I'd gamble.
I'd gamble also. The only problem I foresee is the nominee his or herself. Hell who knows, Obama may appoint quality over an ideologue.

Doubt it, but ya never can tell.

Private Pickle
02-14-2016, 01:05 PM
Yet another False Conservative talking point ...

Republicans already opposing any Obama Supreme Court nomination (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/13/senate-unlikely-confirm-obama-supreme-court-nominee/80351274/)

Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year|Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-antonin-scalia_us_56bfcde2e4b08ffac1259285?lps3jtt9)

If you say so...

Chris
02-14-2016, 01:11 PM
I'd gamble also. The only problem I foresee is the nominee his or herself. Hell who knows, Obama may appoint quality over an ideologue.

Doubt it, but ya never can tell.

That's true, how justices turn out is unpredictable. Many change, a good read on that is The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America. But generally, while there's disagreement, Supreme Court Justices Get More Liberal As They Get Older (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/51896-Supreme-Court-Justices-Get-More-Liberal-As-They-Get-Older).

maineman
02-14-2016, 01:28 PM
I don't get it. Reagan does it and it's perfectly OK. Obama should not?

Tahuyaman
02-14-2016, 01:45 PM
I don't get it. Reagan does it and it's perfectly OK. Obama should not?



If Democrats tried to deny him his appointments, fine.

hanger4
02-14-2016, 01:59 PM
I don't get it. Reagan does it and it's perfectly OK. Obama should not?
Bork was nominated nearly a year and half before the election of 1988. The Dems pushed the process into the election year by blocking Bork.

Common
02-14-2016, 02:07 PM
The republicans wont move on an obama appointee, they will take their chances on the election

maineman
02-14-2016, 02:29 PM
Bork was nominated nearly a year and half before the election of 1988. The Dems pushed the process into the election year by blocking Bork.

What does Bork have to do with this? After Bork was rejected, Reagan nominated Ginsburg. Only after the Ginsburg nomination was pulled did Reagan chose Kennedy. The fact remains.... the democrats could have said everything that republicans are saying today... that Reagan should wait and let his successor pick.... but they did not.

Ransom
02-14-2016, 02:29 PM
Whatever the risk , we'll take it. This President cannot be permitted to nominate the next lifetime SCOTUS Judge.

maineman
02-14-2016, 02:30 PM
I'd love it if President Clinton's first task was to nominate Obama for the Scalia vacancy.

zelmo1234
02-14-2016, 02:39 PM
I don't get it. Reagan does it and it's perfectly OK. Obama should not?

I think that was after one of the Democratic blocks was it not Bork comes to mind. And there was nobody in the country that thought the Democrats were going to win the WH.

We are in a situation where nearly 70% of the country thinks that we are heading in the wrong direction. Obama has the opportunity to get another justice, as long as he nominates a constitutionalist. He will not he will nominate another ideologue


This is a powerful tool for the GOP and the Establishment. As most of the nation does not like the direction of the nation. Should help to keep the GOP in power and is just another nail in the Democrats presidential candidate.

PolWatch
02-14-2016, 02:42 PM
I think the Justice issue is going to become one of the major campaign issues of 2016. I don't think any nominee of Obama has a chance...he could nominate Jesus resurrected and the repubs would not confirm the appointment. The repubs will gamble that they win the presidency and/or keep a majority. Eastwood said it best: do ya feel lucky, punk?

Matty
02-14-2016, 02:42 PM
The republicans wont move on an obama appointee, they will take their chances on the election


Safe de gamble in my opinion. Americans are sick of democrats and their stupid shenanigans. Your eight years is almost up.

Matty
02-14-2016, 02:45 PM
I think the Justice issue is going to become one of the major campaign issues of 2016. I don't think any nominee of Obama has a chance...he could nominate Jesus resurrected and the repubs would not confirm the appointment. The repubs will gamble that they win the presidency and/or keep a majority. Eastwood said it best: do ya feel lucky, punk?



Nope! Americans already think the court is too liberal. Illegal immigration is going to be the bigger issue this election. Obama has screwed the American taxpayer with his active importation of illegals.

zelmo1234
02-14-2016, 02:46 PM
I'd love it if President Clinton's first task was to nominate Obama for the Scalia vacancy.

It would be interesting? Of course she may get a chance to nominate several because it is not likely anyone even remotely liberal will be approved by the republican senate.

PolWatch
02-14-2016, 02:49 PM
What will happen if the repubs lose their majority? What happened with a dem president & a dem senate the last time? There is no guarantee that the repubs will keep the majority....there are enough seats at risk to make this election a real crap-shoot.

AeonPax
02-14-2016, 02:50 PM
`
`
The citizens of this nation, deserve a fully staffed and functional Supreme Court, at all times. It appears at the moment, the Republicans have stated publicly they will stall any nomination as long as they can. This is unacceptable.

PolWatch
02-14-2016, 02:53 PM
`
`
The citizens of this nation, deserve a fully staffed and functional Supreme Court, at all times. It appears at the moment, the Republicans have stated publicly they will stall any nomination as long as they can. This is unacceptable.

That will never happen since we have the extreme left wanting their way and the extreme right wanting the same thing. Who cares about the nation or the citizens?

Dangermouse
02-14-2016, 02:54 PM
Obama need only offer up a recently appointed moderate who was chosen unopposed by the GOP at the time to point out their hypocrisy if they block them now. That could come back to bite them in lost seats.
Alternatively, he could threaten to have Bernie just appoint him when he is elected!

Mac-7
02-14-2016, 02:58 PM
I think the Justice issue is going to become one of the major campaign issues of 2016.

If so that gives Repubs an advantage because their base voters are smarter

PolWatch
02-14-2016, 03:08 PM
If so that gives Repubs an advantage because their base voters are smarter

yeappers....we see their wisdom every time you post your love of Trump.

AeonPax
02-14-2016, 03:15 PM
That will never happen since we have the extreme left wanting their way and the extreme right wanting the same thing. Who cares about the nation or the citizens?
`
The two party system is destroying this nation. Time for a change.

zelmo1234
02-14-2016, 03:17 PM
What will happen if the repubs lose their majority? What happened with a dem president & a dem senate the last time? There is no guarantee that the repubs will keep the majority....there are enough seats at risk to make this election a real crap-shoot.

It certainly could but in a Country where the nations believes we are heading in the wrong direction it is likely that the Party in the WH has the most risk of losing seats. Also look to the states that are up for grabs in the fall.

Of all of the seats there are only 3 that really are in play.

llinois - Mark Kirk defeated Barack Obama ally Alexi Giannoulias by less than 2-points in 2010. Though he will have the advantage of incumbency on his side, 2016 could be a much tougher playing field if the Republican nominee for President can't make the state competitive.Pennsylvania - Pat Toomey won with 51% of the vote in 2010, but this was under the most favorable of conditions. The conditions will be much less favorable and the Democrats will try for a top-tier candidate in one of their few big pick-up opportunities.
Wisconsin - This is probably the most endangered seat, but that is primarily because Wisconsin is just a hard state to figure out. They've twice voted for both Barack Obama and twice voted for Governor Scott Walker, who may be the most conservative Governor in the country.

Even if they loose all of them they still retain. majority.

I don't think that the Democrats have the anger of the country mapped out yet. Then again maybe I am wrong. If so then the country that I knew is already dead.

zelmo1234
02-14-2016, 03:20 PM
`
`
The citizens of this nation, deserve a fully staffed and functional Supreme Court, at all times. It appears at the moment, the Republicans have stated publicly they will stall any nomination as long as they can. This is unacceptable.

The High court has not functioned as intended by the founders for decades, the last constitutionalist on the court just passed away.

What you are really saying is I want another liberal ideologue so the court can pass laws that would never make it through the constitutional process.

PolWatch
02-14-2016, 03:23 PM
2016 should be the year of the gop winning the presidency...if Trump doesn't sink them completely. However, don't count on the Senate. The last majority change was at a time of extreme low satisfaction polls. I don't believe it was a confirmation of repub ideals but a throw-the-bums-out vote. The Senate satisfaction polls are even lower now. How many conservatives are happy with the repub Senate accomplishments? I suspect few to none because the repub Senate has no accomplishments except changing which side of the aisle is pointing the most fingers.

'Five GOP incumbents are on the ballot in a presidential election year in states Barack Obama won twice. Overall, Republicans have 24 seats to defend to Democrats’ 10'
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/11/gop_rips_clinton_as_socialist_in_push_to_hold_sena te_129637.html

AeonPax
02-14-2016, 03:26 PM
The High court has not functioned as intended by the founders for decades, the last constitutionalist on the court just passed away.What you are really saying is I want another liberal ideologue so the court can pass laws that would never make it through the constitutional process.
`
I don't accept your opinions as fact. I'm not going to argue them either.

Mark III
02-14-2016, 03:30 PM
excerpt
Do we have a living Constitution? Do we want to have a living Constitution? A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended. On the one hand, the answer has to be yes: there's no realistic alternative to a living Constitution. Our written Constitution, the document under glass in the National Archives, was adopted 220 years ago. It can be amended, but the amendment process is very difficult. The most important amendments were added to the Constitution almost a century and a half ago, in the wake of the Civil War, and since that time many of the amendments have dealt with relatively minor matters.
Meanwhile, the world has changed in incalculable ways. The nation has grown in territory and its population has multiplied several times over. Technology has changed, the international situation has changed, the economy has changed, social mores have changed, all in ways that no one could have foreseen when the Constitution was drafted. And it is just not realistic to expect the cumbersome amendment process to keep up with these changes.
So it seems inevitable that the Constitution will change, too. It is also a good thing, because an unchanging Constitution would fit our society very badly. Either it would be ignored or, worse, it would be a hindrance, a relic that keeps us from making progress and prevents our society from working in the way it should.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/alumni/magazine/fall10/strauss

Mark III
02-14-2016, 03:36 PM
University of Chicago School of Law (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/node/3667),

“Originalists, by contrast, do not have an answer to Thomas Jefferson’s famous question: why should we allow people who lived long ago, in a different world, to decide fundamental questions about our government and society today? Originalists do not draw on the accumulated wisdom of previous generations in the way that the common law does. For an originalist, the command was issued when a provision became part of the Constitution, and our unequivocal obligation is to follow that command. But why? It is one thing to be commanded by a legislature we elected last year. It is quite another to be commanded by people who assembled in the late eighteenth century

HoneyBadger
02-14-2016, 04:11 PM
excerpt
Do we have a living Constitution? Do we want to have a living Constitution? A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended.

A "living constitution" is actually unconstitutional. The rule of law dictates there is only one way to change the constitution and that's through the amendment process. Changing the definition of words and discarding the actual law in favor of activist political positions is the type of behavior we see in places like Venezuela. It is antithetical to a Constitutional Republic.

Peter1469
02-14-2016, 04:20 PM
Obama must not be allowed to fill this seat.

At all cost.

hanger4
02-14-2016, 05:21 PM
What does Bork have to do with this? After Bork was rejected, Reagan nominated Ginsburg. Only after the Ginsburg nomination was pulled did Reagan chose Kennedy. The fact remains.... the democrats could have said everything that republicans are saying today... that Reagan should wait and let his successor pick.... but they did not.
What I'm saying is the Dems by blocking Bork pushed the process into an election year. So yes Reagan did it because the Dems forced it. The Repubs aren't forcing this nomination or the process into an election year. Tis already here.

del
02-14-2016, 05:41 PM
If so that gives Repubs an advantage because their base voters are smarter

:rofl:

Bo-4
02-14-2016, 06:22 PM
I think the GOP needs to call on CLINT again to talk to another chair at their convention.

His last one was so damn AWESOME and proved that GOP is totally NOT out of touch!

:D

zelmo1234
02-14-2016, 07:36 PM
University of Chicago School of Law (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/node/3667),
“Originalists, by contrast, do not have an answer to Thomas Jefferson’s famous question: why should we allow people who lived long ago, in a different world, to decide fundamental questions about our government and society today? Originalists do not draw on the accumulated wisdom of previous generations in the way that the common law does. For an originalist, the command was issued when a provision became part of the Constitution, and our unequivocal obligation is to follow that command. But why? It is one thing to be commanded by a legislature we elected last year. It is quite another to be commanded by people who assembled in the late eighteenth century



I can't imagine why anyone would do that. As a matter of fact Jefferson along with the other founding fathers, actually created a process to change the constitution. It is the process of amendments.

So Yes if the form of an amendment the constitution can be changed to reflect modern times and the changing will of the people. However' Pretending that the founding fathers would go along with judicial activism, is just as foolish, Taxation without representation was one of the major reasons for the creation of this country and the separation from Brittan. To suggest that they would go along with by passing the political appointee to the bench to actually write and change laws with out the consent of the elected is foolishness, bordering on stupidity

zelmo1234
02-14-2016, 07:38 PM
What I'm saying is the Dems by blocking Bork pushed the process into an election year. So yes Reagan did it because the Dems forced it. The Repubs aren't forcing this nomination or the process into an election year. Tis already here.

they all know this; The problem is they are so morally bankrupt and ideology blinded that they will scream for a year.

You are dealing with people that have no idea what honesty is.

Tahuyaman
02-14-2016, 08:05 PM
they all know this; The problem is they are so morally bankrupt and ideology blinded that they will scream for a year.

You are dealing with people that have no idea what honesty is.

they continually and consistently demonstrate their hypocrisy.

maineman
02-14-2016, 08:49 PM
What I'm saying is the Dems by blocking Bork pushed the process into an election year. So yes Reagan did it because the Dems forced it. The Repubs aren't forcing this nomination or the process into an election year. Tis already here.

if he hadn't nominated two unqualified judges, he wouldn't have had that problem, would he?

I have heard rumblings that one of Obama's top choices might be a judge of Indian descent that the Senate unanimously approved three years ago to the district court in DC. Pretty tough to explain to the American people why a judge you voted for unanimously three years ago is somehow now unqualified to be a SCOTUS justice, eh?

Mac-7
02-15-2016, 04:26 AM
yeappers....we see their wisdom every time you post your love of Trump.

Respect for his fighting abilities is a better term.

No one loves a pit bull unless it is their pit bull chewing up pantywaste liberals in the political arena.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 07:13 AM
if he hadn't nominated two unqualified judges, he wouldn't have had that problem, would he?

I have heard rumblings that one of Obama's top choices might be a judge of Indian descent that the Senate unanimously approved three years ago to the district court in DC. Pretty tough to explain to the American people why a judge you voted for unanimously three years ago is somehow now unqualified to be a SCOTUS justice, eh?

Not tough to explain at all. The SC isn't the DC District court.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 07:22 AM
I think the GOP needs to call on CLINT again to talk to another chair at their convention.

His last one was so damn AWESOME and proved that GOP is totally NOT out of touch!

:D

not like them two finger on the pulse of America Candidates your clown car is offering, huh?

:biglaugh:

maineman
02-15-2016, 07:38 AM
Not tough to explain at all. The SC isn't the DC District court.

of course it isn't. NO SCOTUS nominee ever sits on a bench with as much importance as the one to which they are nominated.... with the sole exception of William Howard Taft, I suppose.

Are you suggesting that a judge who every republican in the Senate felt was eminently qualified to sit on the District Court bench is now, amazingly, so UNqualified that his nomination does not even deserve consideration by those same senators?

hanger4
02-15-2016, 07:56 AM
if he hadn't nominated two unqualified judges, he wouldn't have had that problem, would he?

I have heard rumblings that one of Obama's top choices might be a judge of Indian descent that the Senate unanimously approved three years ago to the district court in DC. Pretty tough to explain to the American people why a judge you voted for unanimously three years ago is somehow now unqualified to be a SCOTUS justice, eh?
The ABA gave Bork their highest rating so your "unqualified judges" remark is ...... well ...... unqualified.

Peter1469
02-15-2016, 08:07 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY

maineman
02-15-2016, 08:11 AM
The ABA gave Bork their highest rating so your "unqualified judges" remark is ...... well ...... unqualified.

I am sure that if Obama had nominated a lawyer like William Kunstler, for example, he might have gotten a high rating from the ABA, but no one would have expected a republican senate to confirm him.

maineman
02-15-2016, 08:14 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY

you do understand, do you not, that Shumer was talking about qualifications, not timing? If Mitch said that he would recommend that the Senate not act on any Obama nominee that was adjudged to be "outside the mainstream", that would be one thing. The GOP has said they will not consider ANY justice nominated regardless of their qualifications. Surely, you can't be such a partisan hack that you cannot see that distinction.

hanger4
02-15-2016, 08:28 AM
I am sure that if Obama had nominated a lawyer like William Kunstler, for example, he might have gotten a high rating from the ABA, but no one would have expected a republican senate to confirm him.
So you're saying the ABA is NOT a good or proper arbiter of the qualifications for a SCJ ?? or are you deflecting from your "unqualified judges" remark ??

maineman
02-15-2016, 08:30 AM
So you're saying the ABA is NOT a good or proper arbiter of the qualifications for a SCJ ?? or are you deflecting from your "unqualified judges" remark ??

they certainly have their right to provide input. No senator should rely on it blindly without coming to his or her own conclusion as to the qualifications, and appropriateness of any SCOTUS nominee.

hanger4
02-15-2016, 09:13 AM
they certainly have their right to provide input. No senator should rely on it blindly without coming to his or her own conclusion as to the qualifications, and appropriateness of any SCOTUS nominee.
"appropriateness" is the key word.

Appropriate to me would be right of center as Scalia. I'm sure appropriate to you would be left of center such as Ginsburg, Sotomayor or Kagan and that's fine. But to castigate Repubs for holding to their ideologies while lauding Dems for doing the same is disingenuous at the very lest.

maineman
02-15-2016, 09:28 AM
"appropriateness" is the key word.

Appropriate to me would be right of center as Scalia. I'm sure appropriate to you would be left of center such as Ginsburg, Sotomayor or Kagan and that's fine. But to castigate Repubs for holding to their ideologies while lauding Dems for doing the same is disingenuous at the very lest.

I am castigating the republicans for refusing to consider an Obama appointment without even seeing who it is that he appoints.

Mac-7
02-15-2016, 09:31 AM
I am sure that if Obama had nominated a lawyer like William Kunstler, for example, he might have gotten a high rating from the ABA, but no one would have expected a republican senate to confirm him.

No matter how you try to spin it your democrats played politics with republican nominations to the supreme court.

maineman
02-15-2016, 09:36 AM
No matter how you try to spin it your democrats played politics with republican nominations to the supreme court.

they fulfilled their constitutional duty. Can you name a GOP SCOTUS appointee that democrats in the senate categorically refused to consider even before that appointee was named? Republicans refusing to even consider ANY Obama appointment without even knowing who he will nominate is nothing but avoiding their constitutional duty.

nathanbforrest45
02-15-2016, 09:48 AM
Yet another False Conservative talking point ...

Republicans already opposing any Obama Supreme Court nomination (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/13/senate-unlikely-confirm-obama-supreme-court-nominee/80351274/)

Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year|Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-antonin-scalia_us_56bfcde2e4b08ffac1259285?lps3jtt9)


So????????

That was then, this is now.

Peter1469
02-15-2016, 09:49 AM
If the GOP doesn't stand firm against the One, they are useless.

nathanbforrest45
02-15-2016, 09:49 AM
they fulfilled their constitutional duty. Can you name a GOP SCOTUS appointee that democrats in the senate categorically refused to consider even before that appointee was named? Republicans refusing to even consider ANY Obama appointment without even knowing who he will nominate is nothing but avoiding their constitutional duty.


Robert Bork. The former Grand Kleagle of the KKK of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) made it very plain Bork had absolutely no chance of winning the nomination.

nathanbforrest45
02-15-2016, 09:51 AM
Maybe Obama will appoint Sarah Palin.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 09:53 AM
'Republicans currently hold the Senate majority with 54 members, but 24 of those seats are being contested this year — including seven in states where Obama won twice.

If Republicans wait and Democrats win the White House and regain the Senate majority, a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton, for example, would have greater leeway to select a more liberal justice than Obama might have submitted.

But the politics could also work in Republicans’ favor, as mobilization for a Supreme Court nomination by a Republican president could cause conservative voter turnout to spike in 2016, helping candidates across the board. Democrats, of course, would similarly seek to boost turnout and support based on the nomination fight (or lack thereof).'

This situation comes down to that famous Eastwood line: 'do ya feel lucky, punk?'

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/republicans-vow-to-block-obama-supreme-court-011758577.html

There is only ONE risk here; allowing another leftist who craps on the Constitution's true intent onto the Supreme Court. The Senate can do what it was designed to do; refuse to allow another leftist loony on the court who thinks the document is living and can be interpreted to do anything liberals say it can do.

Private Pickle
02-15-2016, 09:53 AM
Maybe Obama will appoint Sarah Palin.

I'm gonna be laughing at that for a few days at least...

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 09:56 AM
I don't get it. Reagan does it and it's perfectly OK. Obama should not?

What's there to get? Already forgetting the shenanigans Democrats engaged in during the Bork and Thomas hearings. Two can play that game.

If the Republicans don't do what the Consetvative voters expect from them, they might as well join the DNC.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 09:59 AM
I'd love it if President Clinton's first task was to nominate Obama for the Scalia vacancy.

Of course you would; shredding/sh!tting on the Constitution and politically winning are what liberals are all about. Why give a sh!t about dragging the nation into the sewer like they've accomplished in the nations largest cities?

maineman
02-15-2016, 10:00 AM
Robert Bork. The former Grand Kleagle of the KKK of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) made it very plain Bork had absolutely no chance of winning the nomination.

and he did this before Bork's name was even mentioned? really?

We aren't talking about any particular Obama nominee that the GOP might have difficulties with. We are talking about the fact that they will not consider ANY nominee regardless of his or her judicial record, and announcing that fact before anyone has even been nominated.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 10:01 AM
It would be interesting? Of course she may get a chance to nominate several because it is not likely anyone even remotely liberal will be approved by the republican senate.

Wouldn't she have to become President first? Isn't it hard to become President when you're being prosecuted for breaking federal laws regarding the transmission of secrets and holding them on a private server?

nathanbforrest45
02-15-2016, 10:02 AM
What's there to get? Already forgetting the shenanigans Democrats engaged in during the Bork and Thomas hearings. Two can play that game.

If the Republicans don't do what the Conservative voters expect from them, they might as well join the DNC.


Hear Hear. If they just rubber stamp this socialist Anti Westerner then what good are they? We will have what the left truly wants, a one party government.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 10:03 AM
What will happen if the repubs lose their majority? What happened with a dem president & a dem senate the last time? There is no guarantee that the repubs will keep the majority....there are enough seats at risk to make this election a real crap-shoot.

Where's the evidence they are going to lose their majorities? Where's the evidence the country isn't sick and tired of the Bullsh!t pulled by Democrats last time they had the majority?

Private Pickle
02-15-2016, 10:04 AM
Wouldn't she have to become President first? Isn't it hard to become President when you're being prosecuted for breaking federal laws regarding the transmission of secrets and holding them on a private server?

She won't be indicted let alone prosecuted...

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 10:04 AM
`
`
The citizens of this nation, deserve a fully staffed and functional Supreme Court, at all times. It appears at the moment, the Republicans have stated publicly they will stall any nomination as long as they can. This is unacceptable.

The citizens of this nation deserve a Supreme Court that doesn't invent law from the bench. Liberals can go pound sand and cry for all I care.

nathanbforrest45
02-15-2016, 10:05 AM
and he did this before Bork's name was even mentioned? really?

We aren't talking about any particular Obama nominee that the GOP might have difficulties with. We are talking about the fact that they will not consider ANY nominee regardless of his or her judicial record, and announcing that fact before anyone has even been nominated.

My quip regard Mrs Palin was only partially in jest. Does anyone really think that Obama will appoint anyone other than a far leftist to the SC? Does anyone seriously believe that Obama will appoint anyone that is acceptable to both parties, given the mood of the country today?

Don't be ignorant. You know he will appoint someone who is totally unacceptable to the Conservatives in the Senate.

maineman
02-15-2016, 10:05 AM
Hear Hear. If they just rubber stamp this socialist Anti Westerner then what good are they? We will have what the left truly wants, a one party government.

I have no problem if the GOP senate holds hearings and determines that the Obama nominee does not meet their standard and then voting to not confirm. They would be fulfilling their constitutional duty by doing so. Refusing to even consider ANY nominee, even before hearing who it might be, and questioning that nominee, is abdicating their constitutional duty.

maineman
02-15-2016, 10:06 AM
My quip regard Mrs Palin was only partially in jest. Does anyone really think that Obama will appoint anyone other than a far leftist to the SC? Does anyone seriously believe that Obama will appoint anyone that is acceptable to both parties, given the mood of the country today?

Don't be ignorant. You know he will appoint someone who is totally unacceptable to the Conservatives in the Senate.

I know no such thing. What if he appointed a lower court judge that the GOP senate had previously confirmed unanimously?

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 10:06 AM
Obama need only offer up a recently appointed moderate who was chosen unopposed by the GOP at the time to point out their hypocrisy if they block them now. That could come back to bite them in lost seats.
Alternatively, he could threaten to have Bernie just appoint him when he is elected!

Obama is incapable of acting responsibly. He prefers to poke his fingers in his opponents eyes and then surrounding himself with sycophants while he taunts them and they cheer.

Bo-4
02-15-2016, 10:07 AM
not like them two finger on the pulse of America Candidates your clown car is offering, huh?
:biglaugh:

You've chosen your poison! :)

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2015/150602-gop-candidates-disney-world.jpg

hanger4
02-15-2016, 10:08 AM
I am castigating the republicans for refusing to consider an Obama appointment without even seeing who it is that he appoints.

You're assuming Obama will nominate someone right of center. You and I both know that ain't a gonna happen. I'm sure the DNC powers that be are thinking more along way of a nomination that is ideologically opposite to conservatives to use as a wedge during this election year.

nathanbforrest45
02-15-2016, 10:08 AM
[QUOTE=maineman;1444557]I have no problem if the GOP senate holds hearings and determines that the Obama nominee does not meet their standard and then voting to not confirm. They would be fulfilling their constitutional duty by doing so. Refusing to even consider ANY nominee, even before hearing who it might be, and questioning that nominee, is abdicating their constitutional duty.[/QUOTe

Well, in that case Obama can do what Obama does best, tell the Congress to go fork themselves and simply appoint someone via "Executive Order"

nathanbforrest45
02-15-2016, 10:10 AM
I know no such thing. What if he appointed a lower court judge that the GOP senate had previously confirmed unanimously?


LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

What if he appoints Bill Clinton or Doctor Bob or Sherlock Holmes.

Private Pickle
02-15-2016, 10:10 AM
You're assuming Obama will nominate someone right of center. You and I both know that ain't a gonna happen. I'm sure the DNC powers that be are thinking more along way of a nomination that is ideologically opposite to conservatives to use as a wedge during this election year.

I don't think Obama is as left as everyone says. Regardless, he won't do that because the DNC won't let him. It would all but cost Hillary the election regardless of who she goes up against.

He he will nominate a moderate.

Private Pickle
02-15-2016, 10:11 AM
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

What if he appoints Bill Clinton or Doctor Bob or Sherlock Holmes.

Al Sharpton!

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 10:13 AM
if he hadn't nominated two unqualified judges, he wouldn't have had that problem, would he?

Unqualified because you say do? You're so blinded by your obscene partisanship you're incapable of comprehending the absurdity of your claims.


I have heard rumblings that one of Obama's top choices might be a judge of Indian descent that the Senate unanimously approved three years ago to the district court in DC. Pretty tough to explain to the American people why a judge you voted for unanimously three years ago is somehow now unqualified to be a SCOTUS justice, eh?

It's easy; Democrats led the way when they attacked Bork and Thomas.

In always amused by hyper partisan leftist hypocrites who claim that the very tactics they used would be unfair if used against them.

Liberal hypocrisy literally has no bounds to the depths they are willing to stoop to preserve their efforts to corrupt the Constitution through judicial activism within the courts.

Cigar
02-15-2016, 10:15 AM
I just want the current Lower Courts Rulings to stand, so let the GOP play their games while Progressive Liberals Win.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 10:16 AM
I am castigating the republicans for refusing to consider an Obama appointment without even seeing who it is that he appoints.

Wrong; you're engaging in your typical and predictable leftist hypocrisy and getting your azz handed to you once again. Yet you're oblivious to the OBVIOUS which is why you'll continue spinning and twirling like a little ballerina.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 10:16 AM
they fulfilled their constitutional duty. Can you name a GOP SCOTUS appointee that democrats in the senate categorically refused to consider even before that appointee was named? Republicans refusing to even consider ANY Obama appointment without even knowing who he will nominate is nothing but avoiding their constitutional duty.

Bork and Thomas...NEXT!

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 10:19 AM
and he did this before Bork's name was even mentioned? really?

We aren't talking about any particular Obama nominee that the GOP might have difficulties with. We are talking about the fact that they will not consider ANY nominee regardless of his or her judicial record, and announcing that fact before anyone has even been nominated.

OMG; the Republicans are in opposition to another Obama leftist appointed to the bench towards the end of his failed and pathetic Presidency.....cry us a river!! :biglaugh:

hanger4
02-15-2016, 10:20 AM
I don't think Obama is as left as everyone says. Regardless, he won't do that because the DNC won't let him. It would all but cost Hillary the election regardless of who she goes up against.

He he will nominate a moderate.

Maybe, maybe not. I believe not, because Obama is a hyper-partisan himself about himself. I really don't think he cares about Hillary.

Private Pickle
02-15-2016, 10:22 AM
Maybe, maybe not. I believe not, because Obama is a hyper-partisan himself about himself. I really don't think he cares about Hillary.

He doesn't. Most likely he hates her...but the DNC won't have it...

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 10:24 AM
She won't be indicted let alone prosecuted...

If a case is brought and this administration refuses to prosecute it in front of the American sheeple, the Democrats will have much bigger issues to contend with and Hillary won't have a chance at winning the Presidency.

This level of partisan cronyism is unpalatable to the American sheeple. At least, and until, the ATA has completed indoctrinating a new generation of dumb gullible sheeple who no longer care about the rule of law.

nathanbforrest45
02-15-2016, 10:26 AM
Wrong; you're engaging in your typical and predictable leftist hypocrisy and getting your azz handed to you once again. Yet you're oblivious to the OBVIOUS which is why you'll continue spinning and twirling like a little ballerina.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QG_-eiN_SA

Private Pickle
02-15-2016, 10:27 AM
If a case is brought and this administration refuses to prosecute it in front of the American sheeple, the Democrats will have much bigger issues to contend with and Hillary won't have a chance at winning the Presidency.

This level of partisan cronyism is unpalatable to the American sheeple. At least, and until, the ATA has completed indoctrinating a new generation of dumb gullible sheeple who no longer care about the rule of law.

Happens all the time and the American people do absolutely nothing. Why? Because we are fat, lazy and have our TVs... Until we are starving and actually experience some type of discomfort outside of rich people problems the status quo will remain.

Its simply how it is...

Standing Wolf
02-15-2016, 10:28 AM
Hypocrisy, the last time I checked, is holding others to a different standard than one holds oneself to. (Like executing Japanese soldiers after WWII for waterboarding American prisoners and then letting CIA operatives do the same thing to their prisoners.) When have Senate Democrats ever come out in support of opposing any and all Supreme Court nominees before the name of a single nominee has been submitted or even officially mentioned? That is just taking petty partisan politics to a new low.

We've all read the passage in the Constitution which directs that the President shall nominate a successor to fill the vacancy, and that it is the assigned duty of the Senate to vote on that nomination; can someone please point to the part of that document where the results of a poll about the President's popularity supersedes all of that?

Common
02-15-2016, 10:30 AM
I think blocking the Supreme court nomination is a plus for republicans. Its a hook to keep the base pumped up to vote.

It will do the same for some democrats also. I dont see it hurting or helping either party

Standing Wolf
02-15-2016, 10:33 AM
I think blocking the Supreme court nomination is a plus for republicans. Its a hook to keep the base pumped up to vote.

It will do the same for some democrats also. I dont see it hurting or helping either party

Anything that keeps any branch of the federal government from fulfilling its Constitutional duties hurts the country, the rule of law and, ultimately, you and me.

nathanbforrest45
02-15-2016, 11:09 AM
Anything that keeps any branch of the federal government from fulfilling its Constitutional duties hurts the country, the rule of law and, ultimately, you and me.


What if Obama wants to appoint someone who has said the Constitution is outmoded and should be scrapped?

hanger4
02-15-2016, 11:14 AM
Anything that keeps any branch of the federal government from fulfilling its Constitutional duties hurts the country, the rule of law and, ultimately, you and me.
Consent or lack there of is the Senates constitutional duty

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 11:16 AM
Hypocrisy, the last time I checked, is holding others to a different standard than one holds oneself to. (Like executing Japanese soldiers after WWII for waterboarding American prisoners and then letting CIA operatives do the same thing to their prisoners.) When have Senate Democrats ever come out in support of opposing any and all Supreme Court nominees before the name of a single nominee has been submitted or even officially mentioned? That is just taking petty partisan politics to a new low.

We've all read the passage in the Constitution which directs that the President shall nominate a successor to fill the vacancy, and that it is the assigned duty of the Senate to vote on that nomination; can someone please point to the part of that document where the results of a poll about the President's popularity supersedes all of that?

After the despicable way Senate Democrats treated Bork and Thomas, liberal whining about what Republicans are saying is on the highest order of hypocrisy and incredulity.

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/LWilde/media/DemocraticPartySeal.gif

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 11:17 AM
Anything that keeps any branch of the federal government from fulfilling its Constitutional duties hurts the country, the rule of law and, ultimately, you and me.

So when Democrats did this with Bork and Thomas, it was just fine? Hypocrite.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 11:18 AM
Consent or lack there of is the Senates constitutional duty

In liberal loony land, this only the case when Democrats are in charge. Republicans are supposed to bend to the will of Democrats and kowtow to their agenda. ;)

Mac-7
02-15-2016, 11:18 AM
they fulfilled their constitutional duty. Can you name a GOP SCOTUS appointee that democrats in the senate categorically refused to consider even before that appointee was named? Republicans refusing to even consider ANY Obama appointment without even knowing who he will nominate is nothing but avoiding their constitutional duty.

If the senate democrats reject a lawyer nominated to the SC by a repub president they are doing the same thing republicans are doing to obumer.

maineman
02-15-2016, 11:19 AM
Consent or lack there of is the Senates constitutional duty

why not wait and see who Obama nominates... give the nominee the benefit of rigorous examination, and then, let the senate actually perform their constitutional duty by voting to confirm or not? What is SO horrid about that option?

Matty
02-15-2016, 11:20 AM
Hypocrisy, the last time I checked, is holding others to a different standard than one holds oneself to. (Like executing Japanese soldiers after WWII for waterboarding American prisoners and then letting CIA operatives do the same thing to their prisoners.) When have Senate Democrats ever come out in support of opposing any and all Supreme Court nominees before the name of a single nominee has been submitted or even officially mentioned? That is just taking petty partisan politics to a new low.

We've all read the passage in the Constitution which directs that the President shall nominate a successor to fill the vacancy, and that it is the assigned duty of the Senate to vote on that nomination; can someone please point to the part of that document where the results of a poll about the President's popularity supersedes all of that?


Democrats should have considered the consequence of triggering the nuclear option. Sadly they did not.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 11:21 AM
why not wait and see who Obama nominates... give the nominee the benefit of rigorous examination, and then, let the senate actually perform their constitutional duty by voting to confirm or not? What is SO horrid about that option?

Who is stopping Obama from naming someone?

maineman
02-15-2016, 11:21 AM
If the senate democrats reject a lawyer nominated to the SC by a repub president they are doing the same thing republicans are doing to obumer.

hold the hearings. hold the vote. perform your constitutional duty.... don't shirk it.

Republicans bring up Bork.... Bork had hearings.... Bork was rejected by a majority of senators in a floor vote on his confirmation.

maineman
02-15-2016, 11:21 AM
Democrats should have considered the consequence of triggering the nuclear option. Sadly they did not.

the nuclear option specifically does NOT apply to SCOTUS nominations. Sadly, you apparently didn't know that.

MisterVeritis
02-15-2016, 11:24 AM
I am castigating the republicans for refusing to consider an Obama appointment without even seeing who it is that he appoints.
Barack Hussein O should call the Senate's bluff by nominating a Constitutional Conservative. Someone with Scalia's mindset would be a very good start.

Mac-7
02-15-2016, 11:24 AM
hold the hearings. hold the vote. perform your constitutional duty.... don't shirk it.

Republicans bring up Bork.... Bork had hearings.... Bork was rejected by a majority of senators in a floor vote on his confirmation.

I think there is more urgent business that the senate could do instead of wasting time on a dog and pony show that will go nowhere.

let them work on improving the VA or building a wall with mexico instead

Mac-7
02-15-2016, 11:26 AM
the nuclear option specifically does NOT apply to SCOTUS nominations.

It can.

If the republican majority chooses to go that way

Matty
02-15-2016, 11:27 AM
the nuclear option specifically does NOT apply to SCOTUS nominations. Sadly, you apparently didn't know that.


Show us then. Link it.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 11:29 AM
hold the hearings. hold the vote. perform your constitutional duty.... don't shirk it.

Once again your selective memory exposes you for the hyper partisan liberal that you are:

Before Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell's expected retirement on June 27, 1987, some Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. [22] Democrats also warned Reagan there would be a fight if Bork were nominated.[23] Nevertheless, Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1, 1987.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork


Republicans bring up Bork.... Bork had hearings.... Bork was rejected by a majority of senators in a floor vote on his confirmation.

It was a partisan vote with 52 Dems against, only two Dems for.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/24/us/senate-s-roll-call-on-the-bork-vote.html

nathanbforrest45
02-15-2016, 11:29 AM
Barack Hussein O should call the Senate's bluff by nominating a Constitutional Conservative. Someone with Scalia's mindset would be a very good start.

Yes and a genie could restore my hair.

nathanbforrest45
02-15-2016, 11:32 AM
OK, I'll say it.

The Republicans are only going to block Obama because he is black ​and because he is a far left socialist who would do anything to insure the Republican Party did not win the White House in November but we won't mention that.

Private Pickle
02-15-2016, 11:32 AM
Show us then. Link it.

Wiki is your friend:


Before November 2013, Senate rules required a three-fifths vote of the "duly chosen and sworn" members of the Senate[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#cite_note-WP_Standing_Rules-3) – (usually 60 votes) to end debate on a bill, nomination or other proposal; they also require a two-thirds vote ("present and voting"[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#cite_note-WP_Standing_Rules-3) – 67 or fewer votes) for a change to the Senate rules. Those rules effectively allowed a minority of the Senate to block a bill or nomination through the technique of the filibuster. This had resulted in a de facto requirement that a nomination have the support of 60 Senators to pass, rather than a majority of 51. A three-fifths vote is still required to end debates on legislation and Supreme Court nominations.

MisterVeritis
02-15-2016, 11:33 AM
Yes and a genie could restore my hair.
You could petition Barack Hussein O for an Executive Action to restore your hair. Of course using technologies available today your hair restoration is as likely as a Scalia-like nominee. Regrets on the hair.

Standing Wolf
02-15-2016, 11:40 AM
Respect for his fighting abilities is a better term.

No one loves a pit bull unless it is their pit bull chewing up pantywaste liberals in the political arena.

No one who trains or permits a pit bull, or any other dog, to fight for profit or amusement "loves" that animal.

Standing Wolf
02-15-2016, 11:43 AM
The citizens of this nation deserve a Supreme Court that doesn't invent law from the bench. Liberals can go pound sand and cry for all I care.

Come back after you've done, at a minimum, some rudimentary study about case law and have at least some vague clue what you're talking about in discussing legal matters. Right now, you're a bad joke and a living stereotype.

Standing Wolf
02-15-2016, 11:44 AM
Obama is incapable of acting responsibly. He prefers to poke his fingers in his opponents eyes and then surrounding himself with sycophants while he taunts them and they cheer.

Your own posting style, to a T.

del
02-15-2016, 11:47 AM
What if Obama wants to appoint someone who has said the Constitution is outmoded and should be scrapped?

what if superman was a nazi?

what if rats were the size of english schoolboys?

what if eleanor roosevelt could fly?

Mac-7
02-15-2016, 11:47 AM
No one who trains or permits a pit bull, or any other dog, to fight for profit or amusement "loves" that animal.

OK.

Literal minded animal lovers should cover their eyes so they wont wet their pants if they think I was referring to real dogs.

del
02-15-2016, 11:48 AM
Consent or lack there of is the Senates constitutional duty

and rejection out of hand is an abrogation of that duty

Standing Wolf
02-15-2016, 11:49 AM
What if Obama wants to appoint someone who has said the Constitution is outmoded and should be scrapped?

Highly doubtful that he would - but even if he doesn't, I'm absolutely sure that some partisan idiot will do their level best to twist any appointee's words in order to make it appear that he or she did.

maineman
02-15-2016, 11:56 AM
Show us then. Link it.

done. any questions?

Standing Wolf
02-15-2016, 11:58 AM
So when Democrats did this with Bork and Thomas, it was just fine? Hypocrite.

Bork and Thomas had names, dimwit. They were actual, flesh-and-blood appointees - they were not the mere hypothetical idea of an appointment. Do you even vaguely grasp the difference?

maineman
02-15-2016, 12:01 PM
Bork and Thomas had names, dimwit. They were actual, flesh-and-blood appointees - they were not the mere hypothetical idea of an appointment. Do you even vaguely grasp the difference?

and, both of them had full blown senate hearings, and confirmation votes on the senate floor... and one of them was confirmed, actually.

Standing Wolf
02-15-2016, 12:01 PM
Barack Hussein O should call the Senate's bluff by nominating a Constitutional Conservative. Someone with Scalia's mindset would be a very good start.

Yes, that will happen the day after Mitch McConnell appears on the Senate floor wearing a dress.


Now that I think about it, I think I probably crossed some line in putting that image, however briefly, in anyone's head. :f_sorry:

Standing Wolf
02-15-2016, 12:03 PM
what if superman was a nazi?

what if rats were the size of english schoolboys?

what if eleanor roosevelt could fly?

"Aye...and if me grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon."

Standing Wolf
02-15-2016, 12:05 PM
and, both of them had full blown senate hearings, and confirmation votes on the senate floor... and one of them was confirmed, actually.

Fancy that.

hanger4
02-15-2016, 12:22 PM
and rejection out of hand is an abrogation of that duty

Can't seem to find that in the constitution. Help me out here.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 12:24 PM
and rejection out of hand is an abrogation of that duty

.....which hasn't occurred. But that doesn't stop the shrill hypocritical, false narrative from the left from bloviating stupidly about it.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 12:25 PM
Highly doubtful that he would - but even if he doesn't, I'm absolutely sure that some partisan idiot will do their level best to twist any appointee's words in order to make it appear that he or she did.

Yep; because in liberal loony land, Obama and Democrats can't possibly be partisan idiots.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 12:27 PM
Come back after you've done, at a minimum, some rudimentary study about case law and have at least some vague clue what you're talking about in discussing legal matters. Right now, you're a bad joke and a living stereotype.

These statements are rather ironic coming from a leftist partisan hack like you.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 12:27 PM
Your own posting style, to a T.

Cry harder.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 12:28 PM
what if superman was a nazi?

what if rats were the size of english schoolboys?

what if eleanor roosevelt could fly?

What if liberals had a brain?

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 12:31 PM
Bork and Thomas had names, dimwit. They were actual, flesh-and-blood appointees - they were not the mere hypothetical idea of an appointment. Do you even vaguely grasp the difference?

Democrats circled their wagons before Bork was named; dimwit. When his name came up, Democrats declared they would not confirm him before Reagan nominated him to the bench.

I do wish you had even the remotest clue of what you emotionally erupt about.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 12:33 PM
and, both of them had full blown senate hearings, and confirmation votes on the senate floor... and one of them was confirmed, actually.


Fancy that.

It doesn't occur to you leftist geniuses that there hasn't even been anyone named for confirmation yet. But here you both are engaging in your typical emotional outrage and hypocrisy lacking factual content of reality.

Truth Detector
02-15-2016, 12:34 PM
Can't seem to find that in the constitution. Help me out here.

In liberal loony land the Constitution is "living" and they can invent their own versions of it as they go.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 12:43 PM
and rejection out of hand is an abrogation of that duty

Silly.

Like claiming any not guilty verdict is some abrogation of duty. Please Walnut...don't make stuff up, you're not going to get your way regardless of the number of tantrums you throw.

We've seen that, we ignore your rants.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 12:43 PM
What if liberals had a brain?

They'd be Conservatives.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 12:45 PM
Highly doubtful that he would - but even if he doesn't, I'm absolutely sure that some partisan idiot will do their level best to twist any appointee's words in order to make it appear that he or she did.

Standing Wolf.....you ain't seating another liberal Judge to the SCOTUS. Not a f'n snowball's chance in hell.

Any questions?

Standing Wolf
02-15-2016, 12:54 PM
Standing Wolf.....you ain't seating another liberal Judge to the SCOTUS. Not a f'n snowball's chance in hell.

Any questions?

Yeah...when you're proven to be less than Edgar Cayce on that prediction, will you leave the country, put a bullet in your head or just continue to whine like a little b***h?

hanger4
02-15-2016, 01:14 PM
and rejection out of hand is an abrogation of that duty


Can't seem to find that in the constitution. Help me out here.

Still waiting for that "abrogation of that duty" in the constitution del

maineman
02-15-2016, 01:24 PM
Still waiting for that "abrogation of that duty" in the constitution del

of course the abrogation of duty is not specifically written in the constitution. The president duty to nominate is...as is the senate's duty to advise and consent on the nomination.

but you knew that....

del
02-15-2016, 01:27 PM
Still waiting for that "abrogation of that duty" in the constitution @del (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=770)

don't be stupid, the president has a duty to nominate and the senate has a duty to advise and consent, or not consent, after seriously considering and debating the person put forth.

really, i expect this from the ransoms and truth defectives of the world.

MisterVeritis
02-15-2016, 01:27 PM
What if liberals had a brain?
...then they would be Conservatives.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 03:22 PM
Yeah...when you're proven to be less than Edgar Cayce on that prediction, will you leave the country, put a bullet in your head or just continue to whine like a little b***h?

I'm sorry you consider it whining, it's not anything close. I am explaining to you and the rest of your Leftist community that Obama isn't going to select the next justice to the SCOTUS. I can see that makes you angry, I'm terribly sorry to inform you....it ain't gonna f'n happen. We've had it. Ain't no way given the current political atmosphere in our GOP tent we'll allow it. To the victor goes the consent duties....we're gonna say no until we're satisfied morale has improved. Was there anything else?

Ransom
02-15-2016, 03:23 PM
don't be stupid, the president has a duty to nominate and the senate has a duty to advise and consent, or not consent, after seriously considering and debating the person put forth.

really, i expect this from the ransoms and truth defectives of the world.

Regardless of your expectations and no matter what way you word it........ewe Leftists are done. Kagan and Sotomayor were it..unless you can get a Clinton or Sanders elected. If you cannot........you're f'n done.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 03:25 PM
The Dems have had the keys taken away. They don't drive the bus anymore.

Thank God........the 2014 election obviously made history.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 03:26 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wsz7rWbrm5Q/VFrxJTeQZGI/AAAAAAAAIVk/-8AoKZ7nvVE/s1600/2014%2BElection%2BMap%2Bby%2BCongressional%2BDistr ict.PNG

Wait for the all important Senate............

PolWatch
02-15-2016, 03:27 PM
She won't be indicted let alone prosecuted...

There have been so many investigations of Hillary Clinton that no one is paying any attention to this one. Cry wolf for 10 years & this is what happens....when the wolf really shows up, no one believes you.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 03:28 PM
First State Legislatures

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/gopro/pages/61/attachments/original/1404239514/State_Legislatures_2014.png?1404239514

Ransom
02-15-2016, 03:29 PM
2014 midterm election results:

http://davidfeldmanshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/midterm-elections-1024x576.jpg

An a$$ whoopin

Ransom
02-15-2016, 03:30 PM
That's a lot of Red. And more than enough to stop a Blue Nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/files/2014/05/Election-Lab-2014-midterm-elections-forecast-The-Washington-Post.png

hanger4
02-15-2016, 03:35 PM
don't be stupid, the president has a duty to nominate and the senate has a duty to advise and consent, or not consent, after seriously considering and debating the person put forth.

really, i expect this from the ransoms and truth defectives of the world.
I see you haven't read Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Your statement "after seriously considering and debating the person put forth" ain't in there.

PolWatch
02-15-2016, 03:36 PM
don't be stupid, the president has a duty to nominate and the senate has a duty to advise and consent, or not consent, after seriously considering and debating the person put forth.

really, i expect this from the ransoms and truth defectives of the world.

don't ya know...holding your breath until you turn blue or get your way is the American way....just ask Cruz.

Does anyone wonder why the American public is so disgusted with politics that someone like Trump is actually getting support?

Ransom
02-15-2016, 03:38 PM
don't ya know...holding your breath until you turn blue or get your way is the American way....just ask Cruz.

Does anyone wonder why the American public is so disgusted with politics that someone like Trump is actually getting support?

I reckon the answer is shared by the question; does anyone wonder why the American public is so disgusted with politics that someone like Sanders is actually getting support?

del
02-15-2016, 03:39 PM
I see you haven't read Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Your statement "after seriously considering and debating the person put forth" ain't in there.

did you get beaten with a retard stick this morning or what?

it doesn't specify that the nominees have to be alive either, but anyone with more brains than a turnip or a rwnj, but i repeat myself, pretty much understands that.

if you think sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling na, na, na i can't hear you, is advise and consent as the constitution requires, you're an idiot.

hanger4
02-15-2016, 03:42 PM
There have been so many investigations of Hillary Clinton that no one is paying any attention to this one. Cry wolf for 10 years & this is what happens....when the wolf really shows up, no one believes you.

Yup all those emails are forgeries and that personal server to conduct SOS business on on is a figment of our imagination.

Cept the FBI don't think so.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 03:42 PM
We are Constitutionally not consenting..........the answer is no, del. Thrash about, curse, swagger or sway. We couldn't care less. You aren't putting another liberal on the Court.

Was there anything else?

Matty
02-15-2016, 03:43 PM
don't be stupid, the president has a duty to nominate and the senate has a duty to advise and consent, or not consent, after seriously considering and debating the person put forth.

really, i expect this from the ransoms and truth defectives of the world.


Then reckon why oblamer joined a filibuster?

PolWatch
02-15-2016, 03:46 PM
Yup all those emails are forgeries and that personal server to conduct SOS business on on is a figment of our imagination.

Cept the FBI don't think so.

please read my posts before you respond.....perhaps you didn't understand the phrase 'when the wolf shows up'....that means I think she is probably guilty. If the gop had not spend so much $$$ and so much time nit-picking political mud, they might have done something to her before now.

FYI: I have often stated but no one seems to comprehend, I have had no respect for the woman since she voted for the Iraq invasion...that puts her in your column.

domer76
02-15-2016, 03:47 PM
Then reckon why oblamer joined a filibuster?

Link it

hanger4
02-15-2016, 03:47 PM
did you get beaten with a retard stick this morning or what?

it doesn't specify that the nominees have to be alive either, but anyone with more brains than a turnip or a rwnj, but i repeat myself, pretty much understands that.

if you think sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling na, na, na i can't hear you, is advise and consent as the constitution requires, you're an idiot.

Naaaah, the only idiots are the ones pulling 'constitutional duties' out of thin air to support their agenda.

Matty
02-15-2016, 03:48 PM
please read my posts before you respond.....perhaps you didn't understand the phrase 'when the wolf shows up'....that means I think she is probably guilty. If the gop had not spend so much $$$ and so much time nit-picking political mud, they might have done something to her before now.

FYI: I have often stated but no one seems to comprehend, I have had no respect for the woman since she voted for the Iraq invasion...that puts her in your column.






Did you just throw Hillary under da bus?

PolWatch
02-15-2016, 03:50 PM
Did you just throw Hillary under da bus?

I have never supported her, liked her or considered voting for her for dog-catcher. I don't know why some people have such a problem understanding that some people are not partisan for one party or the other. Why do you think I told you over a year ago that you would get my vote for president before any of the possible candidates....at time when everyone already assumed Clinton would be running.

del
02-15-2016, 03:57 PM
We are Constitutionally not consenting..........the answer is no, del. Thrash about, curse, swagger or sway. We couldn't care less. You aren't putting another liberal on the Court.

Was there anything else?

we?

what state do you represent in the senate?

disarray?

del
02-15-2016, 03:57 PM
Naaaah, the only idiots are the ones pulling 'constitutional duties' out of thin air to support their agenda.

keep telling yourself that

i'm sure it helps

hanger4
02-15-2016, 04:01 PM
did you get beaten with a retard stick this morning or what?

it doesn't specify that the nominees have to be alive either, but anyone with more brains than a turnip or a rwnj, but i repeat myself, pretty much understands that.

if you think sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling na, na, na i can't hear you, is advise and consent as the constitution requires, you're an idiot.

As an aside del I'd have no problem with whoever Obama nominates getting shot down during or after a hearing or vote. It's all this constitutional duty talk that is retarded. The only constitutional duty the Senate has is Advise and Consent. The advise has been given 'no need to nominate, there will be no consent'.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 04:11 PM
we?

what state do you represent in the senate?

disarray?

You're sol on this one, del. We'll never allow it. Every Republican in the Senate knows the flavor of his or her Constituencies, they know not to permit Obama another appointment. You and I both know it's not going to happen, it's going to be the next President's first order of business. We're not even going to ask your opinions, you wrecked the bus and you'll never be given the keys back unless you win this election.

Best get busy trying to get a lib elected rather than selected to the Court. We're driving the bus these days, your choice whether to stand in the way.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 04:13 PM
As an aside del I'd have no problem with whoever Obama nominates getting shot down during or after a hearing or vote. It's all this constitutional duty talk that is retarded. The only constitutional duty the Senate has is Advise and Consent. The advise has been given 'no need to nominate, there will be no consent'.

Nominate away.....throw anyone they'd like out there. Outside of Pope Francis being nominated......or Ted Nugent.......we're gonna say no.

Now...that's funny. Justice Theodore Nugent.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 04:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c2OM7HEfrs

hanger4
02-15-2016, 04:21 PM
keep telling yourself that

i'm sure it helps
Well .... del's done, he's retreated to his one line snarks.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 04:23 PM
del is sol. Like the remainder of the herd.

What........oh.....sol?

Means sh!t outta luck.

Matty
02-15-2016, 04:27 PM
Well .... del's done, he's retreated to his one line snarks.


He has eggs to turn. He's sweet though even if he is Wrong I just don't know why it's so hard for them to say the democrats have done the same sad shit they're now screaming at Republicans for. It's a mystery.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 04:30 PM
The Senate understands...with clarity....the risks are much graver to those who would consent to any Obama appointment. Their dissent is expected and demanded. Just say no.

maineman
02-15-2016, 04:39 PM
Then reckon why oblamer joined a filibuster?

did Obama filibuster a SCOTUS nomination? I must have missed that.

maineman
02-15-2016, 04:40 PM
He has eggs to turn. He's sweet though even if he is Wrong I just don't know why it's so hard for them to say the democrats have done the same sad shit they're now screaming at Republicans for. It's a mystery.

democrats have never said that they would not allow any SCOTUS nomination to proceed regardless of the candidate.

Matty
02-15-2016, 04:41 PM
did Obama filibuster a SCOTUS nomination? I must have missed that.


Obama joined a filibuster.

domer76
02-15-2016, 04:43 PM
Obama joined a filibuster.

There was no filibuster, liar.

del
02-15-2016, 04:49 PM
Well .... del's done, he's retreated to his one line snarks.

there's no point in arguing with someone who doesn't have the ability or the desire to reason.

*shrug

take your victory lap

i can't force you to have a clue

del
02-15-2016, 04:51 PM
He has eggs to turn. He's sweet though even if he is Wrong I just don't know why it's so hard for them to say the democrats have done the same sad shit they're now screaming at Republicans for. It's a mystery.

if you show me where the democrats came out within minutes of the death of a scotus justice and said no fucking way will we even entertain an appointment until the next president is in office, i'll be happy to look at it.

otherwise, you and hunger can keep giving each other high fives- makes zero difference to me

HoneyBadger
02-15-2016, 04:55 PM
if you show me where the democrats came out within minutes of the death of a scotus justice and said no fucking way will we even entertain an appointment until the next president is in office, i'll be happy to look at it.

otherwise, you and hunger can keep giving each other high fives- makes zero difference to me


Maybe you can show us a time when the circumstances were exactly the same?

I can show you where democrats celebrated the death of a Supreme court candidate and then suggested that other Supreme court candidates should die as well.

Matty
02-15-2016, 04:56 PM
if you show me where the democrats came out within minutes of the death of a scotus justice and said no fucking way will we even entertain an appointment until the next president is in office, i'll be happy to look at it.

otherwise, you and hunger can keep giving each other high fives- makes zero difference to me


Now i I never figured you for a guy who would move the goalposts. Fact is Schumer called for a fillibuster in2007 and Obama joined him.


and, I heard no liberal outrage then. Did you?



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283

Matty
02-15-2016, 04:58 PM
Maybe you can show us a time when the circumstances were exactly the same?

I can show you where democrats celebrated the death of a Supreme court candidate and then suggested that other Supreme court candidates should die as well.
On Twitter? Yeah, I already showed them.

del
02-15-2016, 05:01 PM
Maybe you can show us a time when the circumstances were exactly the same?

I can show you where democrats celebrated the death of a Supreme court candidate and then suggested that other Supreme court candidates should die as well.

then get to it- show me a senate majority leader who did what mcconnell just did.

del
02-15-2016, 05:02 PM
Now i I never figured you for a guy who would move the goalposts. Fact is Schumer called for a fillibuster in2007 and Obama joined him.


and, I heard no liberal outrage then. Did you?



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283

a fillibuster on a specific appt is not the same.

sorry

Ransom
02-15-2016, 05:02 PM
if you show me where the democrats came out within minutes of the death of a scotus justice and said no $#@!ing way will we even entertain an appointment until the next president is in office, i'll be happy to look at it.

otherwise, you and hunger can keep giving each other high fives- makes zero difference to me

We're setting a new precedence given the severity of the crisis. Whine, cry, pout, spin your drivel........no f'n way you're going to even sniff your desired nominee. Not the replacement for Scalia, your answer is no del.

More like....fck no.

Ransom
02-15-2016, 05:03 PM
then get to it- show me a senate majority leader who did what mcconnell just did.

Show me a Liberal who was Borked.

The answer is fck no, del.

Matty
02-15-2016, 05:04 PM
a fillibuster on a specific appt is not the same.

sorry


Schumer said on any nomination Bush makes!

hanger4
02-15-2016, 05:05 PM
there's no point in arguing with someone who doesn't have the ability or the desire to reason.

*shrug

take your victory lap

i can't force you to have a clue
And I can't force you to take reading comprehension classes.

Article II, Section 2

domer76
02-15-2016, 05:06 PM
Schumer said on any nomination Bush makes!

"Schumer said...."

lol

hanger4
02-15-2016, 05:12 PM
if you show me where the democrats came out within minutes of the death of a scotus justice and said no fucking way will we even entertain an appointment until the next president is in office, i'll be happy to look at it.

otherwise, you and hunger can keep giving each other high fives- makes zero difference to me
If you could show me where it's the constitutional duty of the Senate to hold hearings and or a vote for Presidential nominations you'd have a point, but it doesn't exist so you don't.

maineman
02-15-2016, 05:13 PM
If you could show me where it's the constitutional duty of the Senate to hold hearings and or a vote for Presidential nominations you'd have a point, but it doesn't exist so you don't.

are you suggesting that it is NOT the constitutional duty of the senate to advise and consent on presidential appointments?

Matty
02-15-2016, 05:14 PM
are you suggesting that it is NOT the constitutional duty of the senate to advise and consent on presidential appointments?


Not according to Schumer!

Peter1469
02-15-2016, 05:16 PM
This is a perfect issue for the presidential election.

Let the people decide our future. A nanny state or something more like what America is suppose to be.

Vote on that basis.

hanger4
02-15-2016, 05:18 PM
are you suggesting that it is NOT the constitutional duty of the senate to advise and consent on presidential appointments?
I'm saying that's the ONLY constitutional duty of the Senate reguarding Presidential nominations.

Matty
02-15-2016, 05:21 PM
I'm saying that's the ONLY constitutional duty of the Senate reguarding Presidential nominations.


They don't have a time limit in the constitution do they?

Chris
02-15-2016, 06:19 PM
There was no filibuster, liar.

Stop calling people insulting names, doesn't matter you opine it true. Discuss the topic not other members.

del
02-15-2016, 08:46 PM
If you could show me where it's the constitutional duty of the Senate to hold hearings and or a vote for Presidential nominations you'd have a point, but it doesn't exist so you don't.

it's the constitutional duty of the senate to advise and consent

now, you can persist in claiming that that duty is fulfilled by just refusing to properly investigate and question whoever might be nominated before they're even named.

no one with the brains to unzip before they piss will buy it, but you're welcome to keep on selling it.

i'm sure you'll do a brisk business among your fellows.

bring a towel

maineman
02-15-2016, 09:37 PM
I'm saying that's the ONLY constitutional duty of the Senate reguarding Presidential nominations.

So... if the president nominates a SCUTUS justice, and the senate sits there for eleven months and fails to even bring the nomination to a vote, you feel they are appropriately discharging that duty?

maineman
02-15-2016, 09:39 PM
Not according to Schumer!

Schumer said that the senate should not take up Bush nominees that were outside the mainstream. McDonnell said that the current senate should not take up ANY nominees even before knowing whether they were in the mainstream or not. Certainly, even a little kitty cat with glasses can see the difference there.

Matty
02-15-2016, 09:42 PM
Schumer said that the senate should not take up Bush nominees that were outside the mainstream. McDonnell said that the current senate should not take up ANY nominees even before knowing whether they were in the mainstream or not. Certainly, even a little kitty cat with glasses can see the difference there.




Look. I posted Schumer saying what he said. He said nothing about " out of the mainstream." Nice try. No banana!

maineman
02-15-2016, 09:51 PM
Look. I posted Schumer saying what he said. He said nothing about " out of the mainstream." Nice try. No banana!

that is not a factual statement. I'd call you a liar, which you clearly are, but the mods would not like it.
Senator Schumer at 43 seconds into the tape says it quite clearly. Clear the shit from your ears.

Mac-7
02-16-2016, 06:59 AM
Schumer said that the senate should not take up Bush nominees that were outside the mainstream. McDonnell said that the current senate should not take up ANY nominees even before knowing whether they were in the mainstream or not. Certainly, even a little kitty cat with glasses can see the difference there.

Anyone obumer nominates is unacceptable.

maineman
02-16-2016, 07:33 AM
Anyone obumer nominates is unacceptable.

how could you possibly know that before you know who it is?

Standing Wolf
02-16-2016, 07:43 AM
how could you possibly know that before you know who it is?

The same way the fan of a Baseball team will talk about winning the World Series before Spring Training has even started. The same way a 'Dancing With the Stars' fan will talk about how X B-list celeb is going to win the competition before the season begins. He's a political fan - fan" being short for "fanatic" - not a serious thinker or an objective judge. There's way too much of that going on these days, and not just on one side of the fence, unfortunately.

Tahuyaman
02-16-2016, 08:22 AM
Risks of Blocking Supreme Court Nominee
Often times, there's a bigger long term risk by not blocking a Supreme Court nominee.

Tahuyaman
02-16-2016, 08:23 AM
how could you possibly know that before you know who it is?


I guess by the same reasoning people like you are complaining about the Republicans refusing to hold hearings and vote on a nomination which hasn't yet been made.

maineman
02-16-2016, 08:24 AM
I guess by the same reasoning people like you are complaining about the Republicans refusing to hold hearings and vote on a nomination which hasn't yet been made.

did you read the comments of Senator Mitch McConnell yet?

Tahuyaman
02-16-2016, 08:38 AM
did you read the comments of Senator Mitch McConnell yet?


No I haven't. I've noticed that when I do listen to him, I find that his actions quite often don't match those words. Actions are more important in my book.

Has Obama nominated someone yet? Tell me when he does, so we can address your outrage over something which actually happens. OK?

maineman
02-16-2016, 08:41 AM
No I haven't. I've noticed that when I do listen to him, I find that his actions quite often don't match those words. Actions are more important in my book.

Has Obama nominated someone yet? Tell me when he does, so we can address your outrage over something which actually happens. OK?

again... I am not outraged in the least. Perhaps you should refrain from having a discussion about republican comments concerning the blocking of supreme court nominees until you actually read those comments. that would make your input to this thread relevant.

hanger4
02-16-2016, 08:42 AM
did you read the comments of Senator Mitch McConnell yet?

I have and so what ?? Where is it written that the Senate majority is required to grant hearings or votes to the current administration ?? Where is it written that the Senate majority is forbidden to reject a nominee out of hand ??

Tahuyaman
02-16-2016, 08:45 AM
Perhaps you should wait until a nomination is made and actually blocked before you complain about blocking nominations?

After all, it does make more sense to complain about something which actually happens vs being upset by nothing.

Maybe they trained you in the Navy to be upset about things which do not matter or haven't happened?

maineman
02-16-2016, 10:09 AM
Where is it written that the Senate majority is forbidden to reject a nominee out of hand ??

"written"? what a silly standard. It isn't "written" anywhere, of course. And the interesting distinction here is that McConnell has rejected the mere IDEA of Obama nominating anyone. He hasn't rejected A nominee, he has categorically rejected ALL nominees. Can't you see the difference?

maineman
02-16-2016, 10:12 AM
Perhaps you should wait until a nomination is made and actually blocked before you complain about blocking nominations?

After all, it does make more sense to complain about something which actually happens vs being upset by nothing.

Maybe they trained you in the Navy to be upset about things which do not matter or haven't happened?

again... sarge.... I am not "upset" about anything. This thread is about the risks that the GOP takes in rejecting any and all Obama SCOTUS nominations. Clearly, you are willfully unaware that the Senate Majority Leader has pledged to do precisely that. Get yourself up to speed on the topic of discussion rather than just tossing uninformed potshots from the peanut gallery, OK?

del
02-16-2016, 10:12 AM
"written"? what a silly standard. It isn't "written" anywhere, of course. And the interesting distinction here is that McConnell has rejected the mere IDEA of Obama nominating anyone. He hasn't rejected A nominee, he has categorically rejected ALL nominees. Can't you see the difference?

no, he can't

it's pretty funny, too

Cigar
02-16-2016, 10:12 AM
"written"? what a silly standard. It isn't "written" anywhere, of course. And the interesting distinction here is that McConnell has rejected the mere IDEA of Obama nominating anyone. He hasn't rejected A nominee, he has categorically rejected ALL nominees. Can't you see the difference?

Rejecting a nomination before you even know who it is, is kinda stupid.

Tahuyaman
02-16-2016, 11:47 AM
again... sarge.... I am not "upset" about anything. This thread is about the risks that the GOP takes in rejecting any and all Obama SCOTUS nominations. Clearly, you are willfully unaware that the Senate Majority Leader has pledged to do precisely that. Get yourself up to speed on the topic of discussion rather than just tossing uninformed potshots from the peanut gallery, OK?

ok, you're not upset. You've been complaining about something which makes you happy. Got it.

Tahuyaman
02-16-2016, 11:50 AM
If the president is a politically tough as he thinks he is, he will nominate someone and force a confrontation. Of course if he does, they will just fail to confirm his nominee and then you will have something else to complain about.

Ransom
02-16-2016, 11:58 AM
"written"? what a silly standard. It isn't "written" anywhere, of course. And the interesting distinction here is that McConnell has rejected the mere IDEA of Obama nominating anyone. He hasn't rejected A nominee, he has categorically rejected ALL nominees. Can't you see the difference?

Why we gave him the Majority Leader task in the first place, Mitch doing no more than his constituents bidding...representing us!

maineman
02-16-2016, 12:41 PM
ok, you're not upset. You've been complaining about something which makes you happy. Got it.

I am not complaining about anything. I am commenting on a topic. You clearly have not read enough about the topic to add anything of substance to the discussion. Why are you even IN this thread?

maineman
02-16-2016, 12:43 PM
If the president is a politically tough as he thinks he is, he will nominate someone and force a confrontation. Of course if he does, they will just fail to confirm his nominee and then you will have something else to complain about.of course he will nominate someone. at issue here is what are the risks to the GOP of categorically refusing to take up ANY nomination and drawing that line in the sand even before they know who the president might nominate.

hanger4
02-16-2016, 01:27 PM
of course he will nominate someone. at issue here is what are the risks to the GOP of categorically refusing to take up ANY nomination and drawing that line in the sand even before they know who the president might nominate.

I'd say no risk. If you believe the GOP is at risk over this then you should be supportive.

maineman
02-16-2016, 01:29 PM
I'd say no risk. If you believe the GOP is at risk over this then you should be supportive.

I am supportive of government that works the way it is supposed to work.

MisterVeritis
02-16-2016, 01:30 PM
Rejecting a nomination before you even know who it is, is kinda stupid.
Barack Hussein O can highlight that by nominating someone like Scalia. Let's see if he will do so.

Mac-7
02-16-2016, 01:52 PM
how could you possibly know that before you know who it is?

We know obama

hanger4
02-16-2016, 01:55 PM
I am supportive of government that works the way it is supposed to work.

"supposed to work" ??

By your reckoning or the Constitution ??

maineman
02-16-2016, 01:57 PM
"supposed to work" ??

By your reckoning or the Constitution ??

both.... do you assume they are mutually exclusive?

nathanbforrest45
02-16-2016, 02:02 PM
I know this is obvious and has probably been pointed out before but I don't have time to go through 225 post to see if it has.

The Senate is powerless to stop Obama from nominating anyone he wants whenever he wants to nominate them. However, this is absolutely no Constitutional mandate that the Senate must simply rubber stamp his nomination or to act on that nomination in any specific time period.

The Senate can ask Obama to hold off on nominating a replacement but if he does not (and its likely he won't) then the Senate can take its time is approving that nomination.

nathanbforrest45
02-16-2016, 02:02 PM
both.... do you assume they are mutually exclusive?


I do.

hanger4
02-16-2016, 02:04 PM
both.... do you assume they are mutually exclusive?
As to this topic, considering you believe it's the Senate's constitutional duty to hold hearing and votes on SC nominees, I'd say yes they are mutually exclusive.

Professor Peabody
02-16-2016, 03:40 PM
'Republicans currently hold the Senate majority with 54 members, but 24 of those seats are being contested this year — including seven in states where Obama won twice.

If Republicans wait and Democrats win the White House and regain the Senate majority, a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton, for example, would have greater leeway to select a more liberal justice than Obama might have submitted.

But the politics could also work in Republicans’ favor, as mobilization for a Supreme Court nomination by a Republican president could cause conservative voter turnout to spike in 2016, helping candidates across the board. Democrats, of course, would similarly seek to boost turnout and support based on the nomination fight (or lack thereof).'

This situation comes down to that famous Eastwood line: 'do ya feel lucky, punk?'

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/republicans-vow-to-block-obama-supreme-court-011758577.html

The Senate is a busy place. It might take a while to get to any SCOTUS nominees. Next year sounds about right.

maineman
02-16-2016, 06:01 PM
As to this topic, considering you believe it's the Senate's constitutional duty to hold hearing and votes on SC nominees, I'd say yes they are mutually exclusive.

well then, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

hanger4
02-16-2016, 08:01 PM
well then, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
But you don't have a point in the game. There is no constitutional duty to hold hearings or votes for Presidential nominees.

Artical Ii Section II

maineman
02-16-2016, 09:37 PM
But you don't have a point in the game. There is no constitutional duty to hold hearings or votes for Presidential nominees.

Artical Ii Section II

if you can look yourself in the mirror and say that the senate is "doing its job" by failing to even consider any Obama appointment, good for you.

Matty
02-16-2016, 09:40 PM
Think Leahy. Think Schumer. Think Obama. Think Reid. Think Hypocrisy!

maineman
02-16-2016, 09:45 PM
Think Leahy. Think Schumer. Think Obama. Think Reid. Think Hypocrisy!

did any of them reject an appointment before it was even made?

maineman
02-16-2016, 09:46 PM
did any of them reject an appointment before it was even made?


kitty chow

hanger4
02-16-2016, 10:22 PM
if you can look yourself in the mirror and say that the senate is "doing its job" by failing to even consider any Obama appointment, good for you.

I don't have to look in the mirror, I can read the Constitution. The Senate's constitutional duty is clearly stated, it says Advise and Consent not hearings and votes.

Matty
02-16-2016, 10:32 PM
did any of them reject an appointment before it was even made?



Schumer did! Pay attention.

Dr. Who
02-16-2016, 11:03 PM
Another lib cut and paste?

Most conservatives think for themselves and don't need to be told by some faceless know it all on yahoo
Really? No conservatives on this forum post pieces from the news for discussion?

decedent
02-16-2016, 11:22 PM
I don't get it. Reagan does it and it's perfectly OK. Obama should not?

Correct. Times have changed.

del
02-16-2016, 11:25 PM
Really? No conservatives on this forum post pieces from the news for discussion?

the preferred medium is video, i believe.

Dr. Who
02-16-2016, 11:28 PM
I'd love it if President Clinton's first task was to nominate Obama for the Scalia vacancy.
While there is no Constitutional requirement, most nominations to SCOTUS are made from the Federal Appellate Court division, although at least one senior professor of law has been appointed to the bench. I'm not sure that Obama's legal background is sufficiently steeped in Constitutional Law to meet the requirements. The various Federal Appellate Courts routinely deal with questions of Constitutional law, so it is the prime source of potential SCOTUS nominees.

maineman
02-17-2016, 08:24 AM
Schumer did! Pay attention.

wrong kitty.

maineman
02-17-2016, 08:26 AM
Schumer did! Pay attention.

name the nominee that Schumer rejected before he hear the name.

Mac-7
02-17-2016, 12:14 PM
Really? No conservatives on this forum post pieces from the news for discussion?

Who has time when follow-the-leader libs keep clogging the board with cut and paste opinions of non board members on Yahoo or Democrat Underground?

And the opinions they post are so goofy we have to respond.

Tahuyaman
02-17-2016, 07:06 PM
There's one thing I have discovered here. People who use terms like Teatard, Rethluglican, Obummer, and other such juvenile terms can't be reasoned with. It makes no sense to try.

PolWatch
02-19-2016, 03:52 PM
But libtard is acceptable...gotcha

zelmo1234
02-19-2016, 04:31 PM
name the nominee that Schumer rejected before he hear the name.

Schumer would not have rejected the Reagan nomination, Because he was a Republican back then, or maybe that was when he was a democrat before he became a republican? but when he did it to Bush It was Alito and before that is was that Hispanic fellow.