Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[SassyIrishLass]

They will be far more pissed if the Senate allows Obama to install another political hack like Kagan and that Beaner, both of which have absolutely no business being on the Court.

Wake up, honey. America is fed up with Obama's partisan leftist bullshit.

And since when do repubs have the right to have an edge in the SC forever?

As long as they can....you don't think the dems would do the exact same thing? LMAO

maybe but the question is what's good for america ?,,,,can there be no compromise ahead in our lifetimes ...must hate and anger permeate{sp} our elections? will we be divided forever??

Ask Obungles, he and his party of fools have done more than anyone to divide this nation.

Do you remember how your leader McConnell spoke about obama and trying to make him a 1 term president your hate for the president started early,,,,,,,was obama supposed to turn the other cheek?

McConnell is not my leader, I can't stand him. Try again...and stop droning on and on with MSNBC talking points

 

[rightwinger]

And if Republicans tried that the American people would repopulate the Senate with Democrats.

Every Republican Senator and Representative up for re-election would lose.

You're as clueless as these dorks who actually believe the Republicans will stall confirming Obama's nominee for a whole year.

The Republican base will not accept an Obama appointment that turns the court 5-4 liberal

This means at least 16 months with an empty court

Red States will celebrate the obstruction as they hate the courts anyway. Swing state and blue state Senators will have to answer for the obstruction




.

 

[EriktheRed]

And if Republicans tried that the American people would repopulate the Senate with Democrats.

Every Republican Senator and Representative up for re-election would lose.

You're as clueless as these dorks who actually believe the Republicans will stall confirming Obama's nominee for a whole year.

wanna bet they give it a try?

I know they'll "try." They'll put on a dog and pony show for their base for a month or two and then they'll give in. It's entirely predictable.

Would love to see you be proven right, but I have practically no faith that we'll see this Prez appoint another SC Justice with the kind of "loyal opposition" we have in control of the Senate.

 

[jon_berzerk]

And if Republicans tried that the American people would repopulate the Senate with Democrats.

Every Republican Senator and Representative up for re-election would lose.

You're as clueless as these dorks who actually believe the Republicans will stall confirming Obama's nominee for a whole year.

The Republican base will not accept an Obama appointment that turns the court 5-4 liberal

This means at least 16 months with an empty court

Red States will celebrate the obstruction as they hate the courts anyway. Swing state and blue state Senators will have to answer for the obstruction

the court is not empty

there are still 8 seated

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Republican base will not accept an Obama appointment that turns the court 5-4 liberal

This means at least 16 months with an empty court

Red States will celebrate the obstruction as they hate the courts anyway. Swing state and blue state Senators will have to answer for the obstruction

Should that happen there is going to be hell to pay, damn near literal hell.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

the court is not empty

there are still 8 seated

Nine are required, for a reason.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

EOs have always been constitutional. At least they are when a Republican is president

Not when they openly violate our laws..............Amnesty for illegals is certainly against the law..........as are other EPA laws just overturned by SCOTUS

You made SPECIFIC assertions, therefore, if you are honest and informed, you can easily provide SPECIFIC corroboration of your claims.

I challenge you to cite the SPECIFIC EO number from the Disposition Table, the SPECIFIC action taken, which SPECIFICALLY allowed amnesty and cite the SPECIFIC statute(s) that you claim was/were violated.

Oops
Supreme Court Will Rule On Obama’s Executive Order On Immigration

No Oops about it. Even your "bottom of the class" citation has it wrong, Eagle! The Oops is yours! YOU MADE SPECIFIC CLAIMS. I have relisted below, in simpler terms for you, items, which when responded to accurately, will bury your assertions. Give it another shot.

I'll bet you won't reply with anything but deflection and perhaps spiced with a little ad hominem. Here's a hint for you though and your GOP neoconservative brethren inside the echo chamber; learn the fucking difference between an Executive Order and an Executive action! The ball is in your court now so you can Man-Up to your claims or weasel out by the usual methods noted above!

1. What is the SPECIFIC EO number from the Disposition Table you claimed existed?
2. What SPECIFIC action was taken under the ALLEGED EO was taken as you claimed?
3. What portion of the ALLEGED EO SPECIFICALLY allowed amnesty as you claimed?
4. What SPECIFIC statutes were violated as you claimed?

waiting...

It's at the Supreme court over an EO.............clearly.........
Next.

And you weasel out of backing up your assertions because you don't fucking know what the Hell you're talking about, fool! In essence, here are your responses:

TC; 1. What is the SPECIFIC EO number from the Disposition Table you claimed existed?
EAGLE; I don't know, but I'll deflect so I don't have to talk about it and look ignorant.

TC; 2. What SPECIFIC action was taken under the ALLEGED EO was taken as you claimed?
EAGLE; I don't know, but I'll deflect so I don't have to talk about it and look ignorant.

TC; 3. What portion of the ALLEGED EO SPECIFICALLY allowed amnesty as you claimed?
EAGLE; I don't know, but I'll deflect so I don't have to talk about it and look ignorant.

TC; 4. What SPECIFIC statutes were violated as you claimed?
EAGLE; I don't know, but I'll deflect so I don't have to talk about it and look ignorant.

 

[Iceweasel]

Do you remember how your leader McConnell spoke about obama and trying to make him a 1 term president your hate for the president started early,,,,,,,was obama supposed to turn the other cheek?

Yeah, because the left supported Bush so well. And being a liberal, you don't understand. When the right disagrees with the left it isn't hate. The left sees opposition as evil but the fact is we don't want to go there, period. It isn't hate, it's knowing better as adults.

 

[eagle1462010]

Not when they openly violate our laws..............Amnesty for illegals is certainly against the law..........as are other EPA laws just overturned by SCOTUS

You made SPECIFIC assertions, therefore, if you are honest and informed, you can easily provide SPECIFIC corroboration of your claims.

I challenge you to cite the SPECIFIC EO number from the Disposition Table, the SPECIFIC action taken, which SPECIFICALLY allowed amnesty and cite the SPECIFIC statute(s) that you claim was/were violated.

Oops
Supreme Court Will Rule On Obama’s Executive Order On Immigration

No Oops about it. Even your "bottom of the class" citation has it wrong, Eagle! The Oops is yours! YOU MADE SPECIFIC CLAIMS. I have relisted below, in simpler terms for you, items, which when responded to accurately, will bury your assertions. Give it another shot.

I'll bet you won't reply with anything but deflection and perhaps spiced with a little ad hominem. Here's a hint for you though and your GOP neoconservative brethren inside the echo chamber; learn the fucking difference between an Executive Order and an Executive action! The ball is in your court now so you can Man-Up to your claims or weasel out by the usual methods noted above!

1. What is the SPECIFIC EO number from the Disposition Table you claimed existed?
2. What SPECIFIC action was taken under the ALLEGED EO was taken as you claimed?
3. What portion of the ALLEGED EO SPECIFICALLY allowed amnesty as you claimed?
4. What SPECIFIC statutes were violated as you claimed?

waiting...

It's at the Supreme court over an EO.............clearly.........
Next.

And you weasel out of backing up your assertions because you don't fucking know what the Hell you're talking about, fool! In essence, here are your responses:

TC; 1. What is the SPECIFIC EO number from the Disposition Table you claimed existed?
EAGLE; I don't know, but I'll deflect so I don't have to talk about it and look ignorant.

TC; 2. What SPECIFIC action was taken under the ALLEGED EO was taken as you claimed?
EAGLE; I don't know, but I'll deflect so I don't have to talk about it and look ignorant.

TC; 3. What portion of the ALLEGED EO SPECIFICALLY allowed amnesty as you claimed?
EAGLE; I don't know, but I'll deflect so I don't have to talk about it and look ignorant.

TC; 4. What SPECIFIC statutes were violated as you claimed?
EAGLE; I don't know, but I'll deflect so I don't have to talk about it and look ignorant.

I've shown 2 Supreme court articles over EO's
next

 

[jon_berzerk]

the court is not empty

there are still 8 seated

Nine are required, for a reason.

no that is not true

 

[Faun]

Bork???? the woman that Bush nominated????????. NO, the president does not always get his way and obozo will not be allowed to put another raving liberal on the court.

Why not Red? How long have republicans held the advantage for?? A new broom sweeps clean A dem on the SC will ""make America great again""

the court has been balanced with Kennedy as the swing vote. another lib will tilt it to the left and the country as a free democratic republic will be over. The GOP controls the senate, its an election year. Obozo will not be allowed to put another lib on the court.

he could recess appoint next January

The Senate will NEVER recess

it does january 3rd 2017

Umm ... that's when the 115th session of Congress begins. Should Democrats win the Senate this election, do you think they will or will not confirm Obama's nominee should Republicans stall until then?

 

[rightwinger]

And if Republicans tried that the American people would repopulate the Senate with Democrats.

Every Republican Senator and Representative up for re-election would lose.

You're as clueless as these dorks who actually believe the Republicans will stall confirming Obama's nominee for a whole year.

The Republican base will not accept an Obama appointment that turns the court 5-4 liberal

This means at least 16 months with an empty court

Red States will celebrate the obstruction as they hate the courts anyway. Swing state and blue state Senators will have to answer for the obstruction

the court is not empty

there are still 8 seated

A seat is empty making it a 4-4 court

How many tie votes will the public tolerate?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

the court is not empty

there are still 8 seated

Nine are required, for a reason.

no that is not true

Could be three, five, seven, eleven, or 127. As long as it's a odd number. We are dealing with reality here, catch up.

 

[rightwinger]

Why not Red? How long have republicans held the advantage for?? A new broom sweeps clean A dem on the SC will ""make America great again""

the court has been balanced with Kennedy as the swing vote. another lib will tilt it to the left and the country as a free democratic republic will be over. The GOP controls the senate, its an election year. Obozo will not be allowed to put another lib on the court.

he could recess appoint next January

The Senate will NEVER recess

it does january 3rd 2017

Umm ... that's when the 115th session of Congress begins. Should Democrats win the Senate this election, do you think they will or will not confirm Obama's nominee should Republicans stall until then?

I think it depends who the President is

If it is Hillary, I think they will give her the option of resubmitting the Obama nominee or name her own

If there is a Republican President elect, they will push through the nominee of President Obama before the inauguration of the new President

 

[jon_berzerk]

Why not Red? How long have republicans held the advantage for?? A new broom sweeps clean A dem on the SC will ""make America great again""

the court has been balanced with Kennedy as the swing vote. another lib will tilt it to the left and the country as a free democratic republic will be over. The GOP controls the senate, its an election year. Obozo will not be allowed to put another lib on the court.

he could recess appoint next January

The Senate will NEVER recess

it does january 3rd 2017

Umm ... that's when the 115th session of Congress begins. Should Democrats win the Senate this election, do you think they will or will not confirm Obama's nominee should Republicans stall until then?

if they win

and if one has not accepted by then

 

[eagle1462010]

Why not Red? How long have republicans held the advantage for?? A new broom sweeps clean A dem on the SC will ""make America great again""

the court has been balanced with Kennedy as the swing vote. another lib will tilt it to the left and the country as a free democratic republic will be over. The GOP controls the senate, its an election year. Obozo will not be allowed to put another lib on the court.

he could recess appoint next January

The Senate will NEVER recess

it does january 3rd 2017

Umm ... that's when the 115th session of Congress begins. Should Democrats win the Senate this election, do you think they will or will not confirm Obama's nominee should Republicans stall until then?

FILABUSTER still on the table.

 

[EriktheRed]

Do you remember how your leader McConnell spoke about obama and trying to make him a 1 term president your hate for the president started early,,,,,,,was obama supposed to turn the other cheek?

Yeah, because the left supported Bush so well. And being a liberal, you don't understand. When the right disagrees with the left it isn't hate. The left sees opposition as evil but the fact is we don't want to go there, period. It isn't hate, it's knowing better as adults.

"Adults"????

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Republican base will not accept an Obama appointment that turns the court 5-4 liberal

So they say now, but they'll cave as they always do

 

[rightwinger]

the court has been balanced with Kennedy as the swing vote. another lib will tilt it to the left and the country as a free democratic republic will be over. The GOP controls the senate, its an election year. Obozo will not be allowed to put another lib on the court.

he could recess appoint next January

The Senate will NEVER recess

it does january 3rd 2017

Umm ... that's when the 115th session of Congress begins. Should Democrats win the Senate this election, do you think they will or will not confirm Obama's nominee should Republicans stall until then?

FILABUSTER still on the table.

Who decides the filibuster rules?
The new Senate
The Democratic Senate has already shown they do not support filibuster of court nominees

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You made SPECIFIC assertions, therefore, if you are honest and informed, you can easily provide SPECIFIC corroboration of your claims.

I challenge you to cite the SPECIFIC EO number from the Disposition Table, the SPECIFIC action taken, which SPECIFICALLY allowed amnesty and cite the SPECIFIC statute(s) that you claim was/were violated.

Oops
Supreme Court Will Rule On Obama’s Executive Order On Immigration

No Oops about it. Even your "bottom of the class" citation has it wrong, Eagle! The Oops is yours! YOU MADE SPECIFIC CLAIMS. I have relisted below, in simpler terms for you, items, which when responded to accurately, will bury your assertions. Give it another shot.

I'll bet you won't reply with anything but deflection and perhaps spiced with a little ad hominem. Here's a hint for you though and your GOP neoconservative brethren inside the echo chamber; learn the fucking difference between an Executive Order and an Executive action! The ball is in your court now so you can Man-Up to your claims or weasel out by the usual methods noted above!

1. What is the SPECIFIC EO number from the Disposition Table you claimed existed?
2. What SPECIFIC action was taken under the ALLEGED EO was taken as you claimed?
3. What portion of the ALLEGED EO SPECIFICALLY allowed amnesty as you claimed?
4. What SPECIFIC statutes were violated as you claimed?

waiting...

It's at the Supreme court over an EO.............clearly.........
Next.

And you weasel out of backing up your assertions because you don't fucking know what the Hell you're talking about, fool! In essence, here are your responses:

TC; 1. What is the SPECIFIC EO number from the Disposition Table you claimed existed?
EAGLE; I don't know, but I'll deflect so I don't have to talk about it and look ignorant.

TC; 2. What SPECIFIC action was taken under the ALLEGED EO was taken as you claimed?
EAGLE; I don't know, but I'll deflect so I don't have to talk about it and look ignorant.

TC; 3. What portion of the ALLEGED EO SPECIFICALLY allowed amnesty as you claimed?
EAGLE; I don't know, but I'll deflect so I don't have to talk about it and look ignorant.

TC; 4. What SPECIFIC statutes were violated as you claimed?
EAGLE; I don't know, but I'll deflect so I don't have to talk about it and look ignorant.

I've shown 2 Supreme court articles over EO's
next

So what if you posted a link to a single PENDING SCOTUS case? Nothing has been proven in law yet one way or the other, but that didn't stop you from lying about violations of statutory law you fool or anything else, idiot!

You haven't responded to the questions regarding YOUR assertions. C&P's aren't fucking responses to SPECIFIC questions you dodging coward! You're nothing but and empty vessel with the character of a perfect vacuum!