Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[Arizona Willie]

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...

==========
And kindly show us the place in the Constitution where it says " Republican always get their way " or where it gives the Republicans a right to have a permanent Republican majority on the Supreme Court or where it says Republican have a right to delay appointing a new Justice until they have a sitting President who can pick a Republican.

And why are the Republicans so worried anyway?

Obama is a moderate Republican who ran as a Democrat to get black votes.
Everything he has done in office was like it was an extension of Bush's term.

 

[Faun]

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

Here's yet another possibility you missed....

Cruz wins the GOP nomination.

His eligibility as a natural born citizen becomes an issue before the Supreme Court's currently left-leaning 4-3 (+1 swing vote) bench.

LOL

Republicans are sooo screwed, no matter how you look at it.

 

[eddiew]

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

Here's yet another possibility you missed....

Cruz wins the GOP nomination.

His eligibility as a natural born citizen becomes an issue before the Supreme Court's currently left-leaning 4-3 (+1 swing vote) bench.

LOL

Republicans are sooo screwed, no matter how you look at it.

and that bodes good things happening in America

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[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.

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

But it does mean that the people, through their elected surrogates, DO get to voice their opinions on the nominee. The president does not get a blank check.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But it does mean that the people, through their elected surrogates, DO get to voice their opinions on the nominee. The president does not get a blank check.

That's correct, but the GOP is suggesting they lock the doors to the bank, very unconstitutional and goes against the Original Intent now doesn't it?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

BULLSHIT, fool!

If proof of them are within the article provide a proper credited citation of each of your SPECIFIC assertions as I've noted FOUR TIMES NOW from it! Put up or shut the fuck up, save an admission of error and an apology from you to the board for your obfuscation!!

I read the fucking article, IDIOT! No EO is cited, the case is PENDING (do you understanding the implications of that word?) and no statutes were mentioned. Your c&p does not address any of the SPECIFICS made in your assertions, bucko. Here's a new shovel for ya...do ya really want to dig some more?

 

[JoeB131]

I think you under estimate the people of this country..........your side has and you see the red across the land.................You need a mud fight to win.................we not so much.................

The people have shown their disdain of Obama in the last elections........you just haven't noticed...............Stone walling Obama on the selection will actually spur up support for our side.......................You just don't get it.............

We have more to lose in the Senate..........standard election cycle odds...................will you capitalize or not..........Perhaps you may lose Reid's stomping ground to even the score.

Guy, winning local elections in Redneck Land doesn't mean people agree with you now.. Midterms are like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded.

 

[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.

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...

Like I said, the words "advise and consent" would be superfluous if the Framers' intent was to allow the president to get whomever he selects. You never interpret statutes and constitutions in a manner which would render certain parts superfluous. This is basic stuff, sweetie.

I know that you really, really want reality to comport to your biases. However, I am sad to report to you that it does not.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Senator Warren said in a statement, "Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did - when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes."

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Senator Warren said in a statement, "Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did - when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes."

Excellent point. Put that one in the bank!

 

[Iceweasel]

Obama is a moderate Republican who ran as a Democrat to get black votes.
Everything he has done in office was like it was an extension of Bush's term.

That's solid gold there Willie. You are rubber room material, thanks for coming out.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

“Do presidential terms end after three years?” NBC host Chuck Todd

 

[EriktheRed]

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?

Why not? I mean, it would be nice if they did another "nuclear option", but I see no good reason to assume that they would.

 

[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.

"Adults"????

Yep, unlike the immature left the adults look down the road and weigh consequences.

 

[Flaylo]

Well he's dead, which is expected, and as expected the Repiblitbums want to play politics with his death

 

[ZackB]

But it does mean that the people, through their elected surrogates, DO get to voice their opinions on the nominee. The president does not get a blank check.

That's correct, but the GOP is suggesting they lock the doors to the bank, very unconstitutional and goes against the Original Intent now doesn't it?

"Advise and consent" means that the people have a say. Therefore, the president does not have an absolute right to select a Justice. There is no express limit on advise and consent. If there was a limit, then the appointments clause would be absolute. THIS is contrary to the Framers' intent.

The Senate can refuse to confirm and they can do so, legally, for as long as they like. The checks on this power are elections and, I guess, recess appointments, though I question if the latter was intended by the Framers as a check rather than merely a pragmatic means to prevent government freeze at a time when we were not as mobile and lacked today's technology.

I, personally, think that the political risk is worth not having another leftist political hack appointed to a lifetime seat on the USSC. Of course, another way to look at it is to give Obama his nominee and then try to get the court back later on when 1-2 other Justices die or retire. Republicans can do this if the win the presidency. If they lose, then they lose the court anyway if you assume that there will be a couple a vacancies under Hillary.

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

Pretty sure it's safe to assume that if a Republican wins the WH next year, we'll also still have a GOP-controlled Senate.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Indian-American among those Obama could nominate to replace Justice Scalia

 

[jillian]

McConnell: Senate should not confirm Scalia's replacement until after election

McConnell: After the election.

Possible outcomes if Republicans stall on confirmation

1. Republicans win presidency and hold Senate and name a Conservative Justice

2. Republicans win Presidency but Democrats win Senate and refuse to confirm a Conservative nominee

3. Democrats win Presidency but Republicans hold Senate, Republicans refuse to confirm

4. Democrats win both presidency and Senate and name a Liberal

You left out a possiblity....

Republicans win the presidency, Democrats win the Senate, pull the trigger on the nuclear option in the Senate to approve with a simple majority -- and confirm Obama's Liberal nominee before the Republican president is sworn in on January 20th.

=============
Or Bernie wins

or the Ice Queen wins

are Republicans going to DEMAND we wait another four years until they can try for another Republican President again?

Republicans do not have a Constitutional right to a permanent Supreme Court Majority.

the wingers don't understand why clinton ousted daddy bush. they don't understand why bill clinton was a two term president. they don't understand why baby bush needed to be appointed by the supreme court and they don't understand why this president, who they hate beyond all rational thought, was elected twice by a majority of the electorate.

they are angry and desperate and they know the court makes them do terrible things they hate... like not deny people public accommodation in public businesses.

yeah, he took an awful lot of votes away from daddy bush.