Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[eagle1462010]

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

They didn't change the rule on Supreme Nominees............They only when Nuclear on lesser courts.

Will they have the votes to change the rule again in January..............that's up to the elections.

 

[eagle1462010]

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!

You asked for examples.......they were given...........how'd obama fare on recess appointments...........that was 9 to 0.............lol

 

[rightwinger]

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

They didn't change the rule on Supreme Nominees............They only when Nuclear on lesser courts.

Will they have the votes to change the rule again in January..............that's up to the elections.

The new Senate sets filibuster rules.......nuclear option

Do you honestly think an incoming Democratic Senate will allow Republicans to filibuster the nominee after they had already sat on it for 11 months?

 

[eagle1462010]

Supreme Court made the right call on Obama's climate-change overreach

The U.S. Supreme Court's injunction suspending President Obama's power plan was not “opaque” — it was necessary and in congruence with the law. ("The U.S. can't allow Supreme Court clean power roadblock to slow its fight against climate change," editorial, Feb. 11)

This is not just my opinion, however, but one supported by 29 states, state agencies and other stakeholders that petitioned the court to protect their constituencies. Had the plan not been stayed while litigation is pending, states across the country would have wasted precious resources on a plan that is at its base illegal.

As your editorial rightly points out, the court recently ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency failed to consider costs with regard to Michigan vs. EPA and remanded the regulation back to the lower court. This action, however, came much too late to undo economic damage wrought on states, businesses and consumers.

The founders separated power among the executive, legislative and judicial branches with the explicit intent of preventing one from dominating another. In this case, the Obama administration circumvented Congress by establishing the power plan without its consent, forcing the Supreme Court to take unprecedented action. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did exactly that to protect the best interests of the states.

 

[Faun]

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.

Nuclear option. LOL

 

[eagle1462010]

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

They didn't change the rule on Supreme Nominees............They only when Nuclear on lesser courts.

Will they have the votes to change the rule again in January..............that's up to the elections.

The new Senate sets filibuster rules.......nuclear option

Do you honestly think an incoming Democratic Senate will allow Republicans to filibuster the nominee after they had already sat on it for 11 months?

They have to win first, now don't they...........

 

[IsaacNewton]

Fuck! Now Obama gets to appoint another one! Fuck!

we can drag out the confirmation...then vote it down.

Interim Appointment coming up if Senate blocks vote.

There is no such thing as an "interim appointment".

Have a nice day!

========
I could be wrong ( it happens and I have two ex-wives to prove it ) but I believe there HAVE BEEN Interim Appointments made to the Supreme Court before.

One thing I do know for damn sure.

Republicans DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A PERMANENT SUPREME COURT MAJORITY and other Presidents have made nominations during their last term.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says you get to call a " time out " on nominations until you can get one of your guys in the Presidency again.

The Founding Fathers < wanted > the majority of the Supreme Court to change from time to time to reflect the changing political philosophies as time went on.

Otherwise they could have specified only 4 justices or any even number and specified they had to be from the same party --- THEY DIDN'T.

YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR WAY ALL THE TIME.

Exactly.

They are crying "we should let the people decide in an election".
We had an election 3 years ago. If they stall they will be attempting to nullify that election in favor of one that better suits them.

Unconstitutional. Conservatives generally use the Constitution as toilet paper so this is no surprise.

 

[ZackB]

The Republican Senate better deny every last Obama nominee.

Damn straight. Nothing like galvanizing Democrats to not only win the White House but to also take back the Senate. I'm getting my checkbook out for every close Senate race.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this stunt costs Republicans the Senate. Many people will be pissed if the Senate shirks its responsibility to advise and consent the president's nominees.

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?

Swing and a miss!

 

[eagle1462010]

Fuck! Now Obama gets to appoint another one! Fuck!

we can drag out the confirmation...then vote it down.

Interim Appointment coming up if Senate blocks vote.

There is no such thing as an "interim appointment".

Have a nice day!

========
I could be wrong ( it happens and I have two ex-wives to prove it ) but I believe there HAVE BEEN Interim Appointments made to the Supreme Court before.

One thing I do know for damn sure.

Republicans DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A PERMANENT SUPREME COURT MAJORITY and other Presidents have made nominations during their last term.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says you get to call a " time out " on nominations until you can get one of your guys in the Presidency again.

The Founding Fathers < wanted > the majority of the Supreme Court to change from time to time to reflect the changing political philosophies as time went on.

Otherwise they could have specified only 4 justices or any even number and specified they had to be from the same party --- THEY DIDN'T.

YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR WAY ALL THE TIME.

Exactly.

They are crying "we should let the people decide in an election".
We had an election 3 years ago. If they stall they will be attempting to nullify that election in favor of one that better suits them.

Unconstitutional. Conservatives generally use the Constitution as toilet paper so this is no surprise.

 

[OldLady]

I just want to send my sympathies to those of you who found Scalia to be a champion of what's right and Right, as well as an important tie-breaker on the liberal/conservative divide. It must seem like a great loss to a great many.

 

[ZackB]

Damn straight. Nothing like galvanizing Democrats to not only win the White House but to also take back the Senate. I'm getting my checkbook out for every close Senate race.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this stunt costs Republicans the Senate. Many people will be pissed if the Senate shirks its responsibility to advise and consent the president's nominees.

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??

Do you mean the hate and anger fostered by Obama's divisiveness, lies, and intentional fumbling of American interests?

That is EXACTLY what we need to get rid of, and it requires that we let no more Obama appointees get confirmed.

 

[rightwinger]

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

They didn't change the rule on Supreme Nominees............They only when Nuclear on lesser courts.

Will they have the votes to change the rule again in January..............that's up to the elections.

The new Senate sets filibuster rules.......nuclear option

Do you honestly think an incoming Democratic Senate will allow Republicans to filibuster the nominee after they had already sat on it for 11 months?

They have to win first, now don't they...........

That's the way it works

Possible outcomes:
Dems win Senate and Presidency.......Liberal Justice gets picked
Dems win Senate, Republicans take Presidency.......Obama nominee approved
Republicans win Senate, Dems take presidency.......Will Republicans block the court for five years? Doubt it
Republicans take both......Conservative Justice

Only one outcome supports Republicans






.

 

[ZackB]

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




.

This is just the kind of "obstruction" that the Framers provided for to keep up free of tyranny. Otherwise, the constitution would not mandate the consent of Congress in judicial appointments.

 

[eagle1462010]

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

They didn't change the rule on Supreme Nominees............They only when Nuclear on lesser courts.

Will they have the votes to change the rule again in January..............that's up to the elections.

The new Senate sets filibuster rules.......nuclear option

Do you honestly think an incoming Democratic Senate will allow Republicans to filibuster the nominee after they had already sat on it for 11 months?

They have to win first, now don't they...........

That's the way it works

Possible outcomes:
Dems win Senate and Presidency.......Liberal Justice gets picked
Dems win Senate, Republicans take Presidency.......Obama nominee approved
Republicans win Senate, Dems take presidency.......Will Republicans block the court for five years? Doubt it
Republicans take both......Conservative Justice

Only one outcome supports Republicans

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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!

You asked for examples.......they were given...........how'd obama fare on recess appointments...........that was 9 to 0.............lol

Are you totally brain dead, lad? I asked for SPECIFICS not examples you lying sack of shit! I'll repost them a fourth time you dolt:

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?

Do you see the word SPECIFIC or SPECIFICALLY in each of the four questions? Can you see the word example OR examples ANYWHERE in those four questions, IDIOT?

It's time for you to stop obfuscating and recoup some of your lost respect and honor, old son! Do NOT continue to ...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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




.

This is just the kind of "obstruction" that the Framers provided for to keep up free of tyranny. Otherwise, the constitution would not mandate the consent of Congress in judicial appointments.

Consent doesn't mean Hey, let's wait until we have the White House again...

 

[eagle1462010]

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!

You asked for examples.......they were given...........how'd obama fare on recess appointments...........that was 9 to 0.............lol

Are you totally brain dead, lad? I asked for SPECIFICS not examples you lying sack of shit! I'll repost them a fourth time you dolt:

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?

Do you see the word SPECIFIC or SPECIFICALLY in each of the four questions? Can you see the word example OR examples ANYWHERE in those four questions, IDIOT?

It's time for you to stop obfuscating and recoup some of your lost respect and honor, old son! Do NOT continue to ...

Read the articles and click the links.............It's that right button on the mouse.

 

[Faun]

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




.

This is just the kind of "obstruction" that the Framers provided for to keep up free of tyranny. Otherwise, the constitution would not mandate the consent of Congress in judicial appointments.

The Constitution empowers the Senate to advise and consent a president's nominees. Republicans have taken the position they will not do that; but instead, not allow Obama to pick a Supreme Court justice by rejecting whomever he nominates so that the next president will get to pick the next SC justice.

Kindly show me where the Constitution allows a political party to decide which president gets their nominees considered for the bench...

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]