How Trump even jacks-up the SCOTUS Justice-Pick Garland obstruction

[exotix]

Today

Mitch McConnell's Supreme Court Dilemma

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/first-read-mitch-mcconnell-s-supreme-court-dilemna-n626181

With yet another poll showing Hillary Clinton ahead of Donald Trump by double digits — this time from NBC|SurveyMonkey (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-clinton-opens-double-digit-lead-over-trump-n625676) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has an important choice to make.

Does he continue to block President Obama's pick to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Merrick Garland, and risk the possibility that a President Hillary Clinton could nominate someone much more liberal (and younger) instead ?

Or does he relent on the Garland blockade, realizing that it might be the best outcome for Senate Republicans — simply to turn the conversation away from Trump?


McConnell's office tells us that he remains firm in his opposition to the Garland pick.

"The Leader has been clear: The next president will make the nomination for this vacancy," says Deputy Chief of Staff Don Stewart.

But Democrats are making a separate argument: If Republicans are looking for any way to separate themselves from Trump, moving on Garland would do the trick.

"Congress is likely to be in session for a grand total of 20 days between now and the election, and it's clear that confirming Garland a vote is the only concrete, news-driving step that Republicans can take to separate themselves from Trump," a top Democratic Senate official says.



Video Inside

http://i66.tinypic.com/ivic5u.png

[Bo-4]

That would be the smart thing to do, but TurtleBoy isn't particularly bright.



RCP Average
7/29 - 8/8
--
--
47.6
40.1
Clinton +7.5



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TakayGFLO84/UfYiGJRRQ0I/AAAAAAAAQO4/XpKv4oF70Rc/s1600/mitch-mcconnell-cecil-turtle-totally-looks-like.jpg

[MisterVeritis]

Let's hope McConnell doesn't fold.

[Bo-4]

Let's hope McConnell doesn't fold.

I agree - Hillary can name Obama to SCOTUS :D

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/04/justice-obama-president-hillary-nominate-former-president-supreme-court/

[Oboe]

Anything to keep the destruction of rights and freedom going.

[maineman]

I agree. I think Hillary should nominate some REALLY liberal judges to replace Scalia and then Notorious RBG. Heck... I wouldn't bet surprised if Breyer, Kennedy and Thomas all call it a day as well before the end of her first term. That will leave only Alito and Roberts from the right. A decade of so of 7-2 decisions. It'll be like back in the Earl Warren days!

[TrueBlue]

I agree - Hillary can name Obama to SCOTUS :D

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/04/justice-obama-president-hillary-nominate-former-president-supreme-court/
Oh blessed is the very thought! That would sure be Divine intervention and it must happen! :)

[Bo-4]

Oh blessed is the very thought! That would sure be Divine intervention and it must happen! :)

Heads would explode .. :D

[AZ Jim]

We need the Senate.

[MisterVeritis]

I agree - Hillary can name Obama to SCOTUS :D


She will be on the sidelines, waiting to be indicted.

[Bo-4]

She will be on the sidelines, waiting to be indicted.

Whatever you say .. Peter :)

[Oboe]

Heads would explode .. :D

As long as the correct heads explode, what difference does it make?

[MisterVeritis]

I just realized, this is the thread where liberals come to masturbate. Backing out, slowly.

[hanger4]

We need the Senate.

You have to have the Senate.

[Bo-4]

We need the Senate.

And we're going to get it .. thanks to Trump :D

The current U.S. Senate has 54 Republicans and 45 Democrats (including one independent). The 2016 Senate election takes place on November 8, 2016. There are 34 seats up in 2016, of which 24 are held by Republicans. Democrats will need to gain 4 or 5 (http://www.270towin.com/content/who-controls-the-senate-in-a-tie/) seats to take control.

[Tahuyaman]

I agree. I think Hillary should nominate some REALLY liberal judges to replace Scalia and then Notorious RBG. Heck... I wouldn't bet surprised if Breyer, Kennedy and Thomas all call it a day as well before the end of her first term. That will leave only Alito and Roberts from the right. A decade of so of 7-2 decisions. It'll be like back in the Earl Warren days!

why do liberals support appointing justices who ignore the US constitution when determine whether or not our laws pass constitutional muster?

[maineman]

why do liberals support appointing justices who ignore the US constitution when determine whether or not our laws pass constitutional muster?

we don't. I have no desire to see any SCOTUS justice IGNORE the constitution.

[AZ Jim]

why do liberals support appointing justices who ignore the US constitution when determine whether or not our laws pass constitutional muster?We won't need to explain that, we'll just do it.

[maineman]

Do you think that Earl Warren's court ignored the constitution when it ruled on Brown v Board of Education? or Miranda?

[Tahuyaman]

we don't. I have no desire to see any SCOTUS justice IGNORE the constitution.


The only ones who ignore it are the liberals who base their decisions on European law and such.

I don't understand the average liberal's objections to ensuring our laws are compatible with our guiding principles as outlined in the US Constitition.

Them while they ignore it, they claim their allegience to it. Very odd.

[Oboe]

why do liberals support appointing justices who ignore the US constitution when determine whether or not our laws pass constitutional muster?

Because liberals don't believe in rule of law. Until it affects them, then they cry the loudest.

[Tahuyaman]

Do you think that Earl Warren's court ignored the constitution when it ruled on Brown v Board of Education? or Miranda?

I think the Miranda decision is much too broad and it has been mutilated over the decades. I have no idea why you think I was referring to the Brown vs Board of education decision?

[Tahuyaman]

We won't need to explain that, we'll just do it.

so you admit that ignoring the US Constitution is just your default position

[Bo-4]

Do you think that Earl Warren's court ignored the constitution when it ruled on Brown v Board of Education? or Miranda?

This whole nonsense of "following the constitution" and "legislating from the bench" is conservative code for "any decision we don't agree with".

It's pretty hilarious when you think about it!

[Tahuyaman]

Because liberals don't believe in rule of law. Until it affects them, then they cry the loudest.


Actually, liberals believe that the Constitution can be interpreted based upon the popular culture whims of any given era.

You know, the living breathing thing. If the popular culture believes a particular concept or amendment is outdated, it can be ignored until the societal pendulum swings back the other way.

[Tahuyaman]

This whole nonsense of "following the constitution" and "legislating from the bench" is conservative code for "any decision we don't agree with".

It's pretty hilarious when you think about it!

There's a classic example of irony.

[TrueBlue]

Heads would explode .. :D
To say nothing of right-wing rear ends! :laugh:

[maineman]

I think the Miranda decision is much too broad and it has been mutilated over the decades. I have no idea why you think I was referring to the Brown vs Board of education decision?

Can you name a decision from the Warren court where you feel that the justices IGNORED the constitution?

[Tahuyaman]

Can you name a decision from the Warren court where you feel that the justices IGNORED the constitution?

Not without researching the issue. What's your point?

[Bo-4]

There's a classic example of irony.

Nope, we don't use simplistic buzz phrases like that - we simply say that stupid rulings such as Citizen's United are stupid.

[Tahuyaman]

Nope, we don't use simplistic buzz phrases like that - we simply say that stupid rulings such as Citizen's United are stupid.


Liberals don't use "simplistic buzz phrases". That is incredibly funny. The hits keep rolling with ^^^^.

[maineman]

Not without researching the issue. What's your point?

can you name any supreme court decision by any court since then where the justices IGNORED the constitution?

[Tahuyaman]

can you name any supreme court decision by any court since then where the justices IGNORED the constitution?

uh.....upholding the ACA is a recent example. The same sex marriage decision. Neither can't be supported on constitutional grounds.

[valley ranch]

No, they don't ignore the constitution they misinturpret.

[Tahuyaman]

There are several occasions where the Supreme Court has overturned the decisions of a prior Supreme Court court because the previous decision on did not pass constitutional muster.

[Tahuyaman]

No, they don't ignore the constitution they misinturpret.

sometimes both.

[Bo-4]

Liberals don't use "simplistic buzz phrases". That is incredibly funny. The hits keep rolling with ^^^^.

Oh liberals do, but not with regard to SCOTUS decisions ..

Stupid is merely stupid when it comes to some of the crap emanating over the years from the likes of Scalia and Thomas.

[Tahuyaman]

Lol......

[Bo-4]

There are several occasions where the Supreme Court has overturned the decisions of a prior Supreme Court court because the previous decision on did not pass constitutional muster.

Wrong - those were because the makeup of the court changed politically.

SCOTUS has become nothing other than a political arm of whichever party is in charge.

[Tahuyaman]

Wrong - those were because the makeup of the court changed politically.

SCOTUS has become nothing other than a political arm of whichever party is in charge.


One court viewed the the decision as constitutional and another did not.

[maineman]

uh.....upholding the ACA is a recent example. The same sex marriage decision. Neither can't be supported on constitutional grounds.in your opinion. In both cases, the majority opinion cited the constitution...neither of those decisions were arrived at by IGNORING the constitution.

[Tahuyaman]

in your opinion. In both cases, the majority opinion cited the constitution...neither of those decisions were arrived at by IGNORING the constitution.

the five who voted in favor of those decisions could not do so if they had not ignored the constitution.

I'll say disregard if it makes you feel better.

[Bo-4]

One court viewed the the decision as constitutional and another did not.

You just reiterated my point for me.

The whole "legislating from the bench" argument is stupid as hell.

Thanks!

[Newpublius]

Nope, we don't use simplistic buzz phrases like that - we simply say that stupid rulings such as Citizen's United are stupid.

Except its not stupid. The right to write and disseminate a documentary film criticizing a candidate for public office, specifically the Democratic nomination a then-Senator, falls within the core of the freedom of the press. It is not constitutional for the government to punish the dissemination of such a documentary by a media corporation, and it therefore follows that it cannot be constitutional to punish its dissemination by a non-media corporation like Citizens United used to be unless the freedom of the press is confined to the institutional media. Precedent, history, and pragmatics all refute the idea that freedom of the press is so confined.

The result in Citizens United was therefore almost uncontrovertibly correct. No one disputes that corporations, such as the New York Times Company, can editorialize during an election, and other groups performing the press function have the same right, even if they are not part of the traditional news media industry.

[Tahuyaman]

You just reiterated my point for me.

The whole "legislating from the bench" argument is stupid as hell.

Thanks!


The discussion is beyond your comprehension level.

[Newpublius]

in your opinion. In both cases, the majority opinion cited the constitution...neither of those decisions were arrived at by IGNORING the constitution.

Sure they did. The rulings are deterministic. There's no question the original interpretation of the Constitution did not include General welfare as an independent substantive power. That changed during the New Deal when FDR threatened to pack the court. The court then ruled otherwise but historically there's no question that ruling is incorrect. I'll be honest with you, GIVEN General Welfare as a substantive power, there's nothing beyond the scope of federal review including ACA of course, but then that's beyond what most would call 'a limited government of enumerated powers' - the government is a general government of unspecified powers restricted solely by the Bill of Rights.

(Madison originally argued original Bill of Rights not needed because government was a government of enumerated powers and since the actions restricted weren't permitted, the Bill of Rights was redundant. Thank God we at least still have that....

[maineman]

you say "there is no question that ruling is incorrect" as if you honestly believe that there was no question. As if constitutional scholars were of one mind and they all supported your contention.

can't you see how that might be construed as being just a tad presumptuous... bordering on delusional?

[maineman]

the five who voted in favor of those decisions could not do so if they had not ignored the constitution.

I'll say disregard if it makes you feel better.

they interpret it differently than you do. Same document, different interpretations. Just like Brown interprets it differently than Plessy did.

[Tahuyaman]

they interpret it differently than you do. Same document, different interpretations. Just like Brown interprets it differently than Plessy did.

the interpretation is clear. One must ignore it.

[Newpublius]

you say "there is no question that ruling is incorrect" as if you honestly believe that there was no question. As if constitutional scholars were of one mind and they all supported your contention.

can't you see how that might be construed as being just a tad presumptuous... bordering on delusional?

No, there's no question. None. FDR lost, he threatened to pack the court, they then flipped. The ruling is clearly inconsistent with the federalist papers. When the antifederalists objected to the Constitution, one of the reasons was they felt General Welfare might be construed as an independent Grant of authority and the federalist a specifically disavowed that notion as ridiculous in the federalist papers. This view held sway until the New Deal when some unelected judges decided they were going to change the Constitution.

Ask yourself......why is it that Prohibition, before the New Deal, needed to be done by Amendment, but after the New Deal drug prohibitionscreen could be done by STATUTE......the answer is because prior to the New Deal it was widely understand the federal government would not have possessed constitutional authority to ban what would be the intrastate production of alcohol. After the New Deal, no such restriction exists, if it exists, it theoretically might move, eventually in interstate commerce and is thus subject to regulation, even wheat produced for personal consumption (Willard v Filburn).

No question they got it wrong.

[Newpublius]

they interpret it differently than you do. Same document, different interpretations. Just like Brown interprets it differently than Plessy did.

But the people who WROTE IT said to interpret it one way. So when they write the document and you ask, "Gee, I wondered what they meant by that" And the people who wrote the damn thing write the federalist papers saying, "this is what we meant by that" and then that's the way it's interpreted for over a century....yeah, I'm going to say the ruling to the contrary during the New Deal under threat of packing the court was deterministic drivel.