Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[eddiew]

He's just another Supreme Court justice who died, and as I said, watch the Repubtibums play politics with his death.

The way Obama has been going after our guns.....I predicted a few years ago that Scalia would probably be killed in a car accident or die of natural causes during Obama's second term.

I never thought it would actually happen......

thomas is next in line,,,,,and btw no ones taking your guns away ,,,that's republican clap trap or in french bullshit

 

[eddiew]

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.

Not necessarily so

Dems have to win five seats

True, but if the Dems' fortunes turn out so badly this year that they lose the WH, I believe it's a pretty safe bet that the Republican President-elect's coattails will be long enough to help a lot of downticket Repubs.

The Dems will attempt to steal the election if they can't win it.

like in 2000 ? When republicans robbed the nation of a president who wouldn't have gone into a bullshit war

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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

I had him picked as my first choice too with that confirmation vote to the DC Circuit of 97-0. My second choice would be Jane Kelly in the Eighth Circuit. 49 years old and was confirmed by the Senate about five years ago with a 96-0 vote. Putting another woman on the Court would be more representative of the National demographics, also.

Even a GOP dominated Senate couldn't find a logical flaw given their recent past approvals of both.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Even a GOP dominated Senate couldn't find a logical flaw given their recent past approvals of both.

Key word "logical"......

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

He'll be replaced with some communist like Eric Holder.

That would be far preferential to the Mormons trying to get Orrin "Snatch" on the Court, which is something they have been working on for awhile.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Justice Scalia is dead and Clarence Thomas is feeling "none too well"

Be afraid be very afraid............

 

[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...

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.

I never said the Senate should, or does, rubberstamp the president's nominee. What Republicans are proposing isn't rejecting nominees based on the issues. They're proposing blocking the process because they want to choose which president gets to pick the nominee. While the Constitution doesn't prevent them from doing just that, it was never intended to let the Senate decide which president fills vacancies.

I would love to see the right keep their collective mouth shut if a Republican becomes president, Democrats win the Senate, and a Democrat-led Senate announces they will not allow the new president to fill any Supreme Court seats until another person becomes president.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

I had him picked as my first choice too with that confirmation vote to the DC Circuit of 97-0. My second choice would be Jane Kelly in the Eighth Circuit. 49 years old and was confirmed by the Senate about five years ago with a 96-0 vote. Putting another woman on the Court would be more representative of the National demographics, also.

Even a GOP dominated Senate couldn't find a logical flaw given their recent past approvals of both.

It would be difficult for Republicans to justify rejecting a nominee whom they have already given unanimous consent to, but that doesn't mean they won't do it.

 

[Faun]

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.

The GOP is preemptively denying ANY nominee.


They are screwing the pooch and showing they haven't a shred of decency left in their tiny fingers.

They even know what they're doing is wrong which is why some of them are asking Obama to not even nominate anyone. They want Obama to abdicate his responsibilities so they won't have to abondon their own.

 

[Faun]

"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.

People already hate the Congress for not doing its job. Go for it, the Dems can use all the help they can get, and we will remind everyone of this over and over again:

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Congressional approval is always low, thus the truism that "everyone hates Congress, but everyone loves their Congressman".

In addition, some people - me included - do not want Congress to "do their job" if that means approving policy recommendations of Obama. In this sense, Congressional obstructionism is a good thing, and it is something that is a valid check on Art. I power as contemplated by the Framers.

The problem with most of you leftists is that you are woefully uneducated.

So now you get to block Congress from doing anything and the court from doing anything

That leaves........Obama as the only game in town
He can do what he wants with executive orders and a 4-4 court can't tell him otherwise

AND with the man the pubs call a swing voter kennedy, it might be 5-3

Even a 4-4 tie could leave Obama's executive orders remaining.

 

[12icer]

first nominee>>>will probably be>>>eric holder. Yes they are coming for the second amendment, and the free speech part of the first by the "hate speech" idea that includes the type of rules already in place on some liberal college campuses. .

 

[eddiew]

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.

The GOP is preemptively denying ANY nominee.


They are screwing the pooch and showing they haven't a shred of decency left in their tiny fingers.

They even know what they're doing is wrong which is why some of them are asking Obama to not even nominate anyone. They want Obama to abdicate his responsibilities so they won't have to abondon their own.

those ah's have been abdicating their responsibilities for at least the last 7 years and probably many before that

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

People already hate the Congress for not doing its job. Go for it, the Dems can use all the help they can get, and we will remind everyone of this over and over again:

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Congressional approval is always low, thus the truism that "everyone hates Congress, but everyone loves their Congressman".

In addition, some people - me included - do not want Congress to "do their job" if that means approving policy recommendations of Obama. In this sense, Congressional obstructionism is a good thing, and it is something that is a valid check on Art. I power as contemplated by the Framers.

The problem with most of you leftists is that you are woefully uneducated.

So now you get to block Congress from doing anything and the court from doing anything

That leaves........Obama as the only game in town
He can do what he wants with executive orders and a 4-4 court can't tell him otherwise

AND with the man the pubs call a swing voter kennedy, it might be 5-3

Even a 4-4 tie could leave Obama's executive orders remaining.

No. That assumes that the lower courts would side with Obama!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Faun]

Congressional approval is always low, thus the truism that "everyone hates Congress, but everyone loves their Congressman".

In addition, some people - me included - do not want Congress to "do their job" if that means approving policy recommendations of Obama. In this sense, Congressional obstructionism is a good thing, and it is something that is a valid check on Art. I power as contemplated by the Framers.

The problem with most of you leftists is that you are woefully uneducated.

So now you get to block Congress from doing anything and the court from doing anything

That leaves........Obama as the only game in town
He can do what he wants with executive orders and a 4-4 court can't tell him otherwise

AND with the man the pubs call a swing voter kennedy, it might be 5-3

Even a 4-4 tie could leave Obama's executive orders remaining.

No. That assumes that the lower courts would side with Obama!

That's why I said, "could".

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

In addition, some people - me included - do not want Congress to "do their job" if that means approving policy recommendations of Obama. In this sense, Congressional obstructionism is a good thing, and it is something that is a valid check on Art. I power as contemplated by the Framers.

The problem with most of you leftists is that you are woefully uneducated.

So now you get to block Congress from doing anything and the court from doing anything

That leaves........Obama as the only game in town
He can do what he wants with executive orders and a 4-4 court can't tell him otherwise

AND with the man the pubs call a swing voter kennedy, it might be 5-3

Even a 4-4 tie could leave Obama's executive orders remaining.

No. That assumes that the lower courts would side with Obama!

That's why I said, "could".

Well, I could win the lottery this week, but I won't if I never buy a ticket!

 

[jon_berzerk]

So now you get to block Congress from doing anything and the court from doing anything

That leaves........Obama as the only game in town
He can do what he wants with executive orders and a 4-4 court can't tell him otherwise

AND with the man the pubs call a swing voter kennedy, it might be 5-3

Even a 4-4 tie could leave Obama's executive orders remaining.

No. That assumes that the lower courts would side with Obama!

That's why I said, "could".

Well, I could win the lottery this week, but I won't if I never buy a ticket!

 

[BreezeWood]

.
there is to much time, if the republicans "block" the nomination whoever they might chose if they win the election will never have the country's respect as an impartial or even legitimate jurist.

but then the con's stole the 2000 election, started an illegal war and drove the country into a depression so they already have no moral standings to lose anyway ... and now having an opportunity to follow an honest course still never occurs to them.

.

 

[EriktheRed]

.
there is to much time, if the republicans "block" the nomination whoever they might chose if they win the election will never have the country's respect as an impartial or even legitimate jurist.

but then the con's stole the 2000 election, started an illegal war and drove the country into a depression so they already have no moral standings to lose anyway ... and now having an opportunity to follow an honest course still never occurs to them.

.

Problem with your first paragraph is that it assumes a long enough memory on the part of the voting public to care. I would have thought these pieces of shit would pay a price in the last midterms for some of the crap they pulled, but no, they won big.

 

[Arizona Willie]

He's just another Supreme Court justice who died, and as I said, watch the Repubtibums play politics with his death.

The way Obama has been going after our guns.....I predicted a few years ago that Scalia would probably be killed in a car accident or die of natural causes during Obama's second term.

I never thought it would actually happen......

===========
OK quote me the law where Obama took away your guns.

How many has he taken?

None?

So you're just another fucking liar.