Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[EriktheRed]

thankfully you did not pull out the crystal ball

might not favor the democrats either

obstruction sure did not hurt the democrats

when they did it during bushs last years

Obstructionism did not hurt Democrats??



You're fucking insane.

Tell me why Reid lost....?

That aside, I'm guessing most people who are in favor of Republicans spitting on the Constitution and obstructing Obama are gonna vote for the Republican anyway. Most people who think what Republicans are doing is wrong, are gonna vote for the Democrat anyway. Those in between will, as usual, decide the election. I can't imagine more of those people will be voting for those who are circumventing the Constitution for political gain.

--LOL

in 2008 the dems had the house senate and presidency

--LOL

so it didnt hurt them too bad

Again, insanely stupid. Democrats won big in 2008 because Bush drove the economy 6 feet under the ground.

And you didn't answer my question ... why did Reid lose the Senate in 2014?

Do you want me to find some posts on here by conservatives from back then to jog your memory?

Reid lost the Senate in 2014 because the GOP has done a much better job of getting their base motivated to vote in every election, not just Presidential ones. Plus, they managed to get some of their loopier candidates (like that nutbag in Iowa) to suppress some of their loopiness after winning their primaries. That's a lesson they learned after the 2010 elections, when they could have gotten the Senate then, but a few of their wingier wingnuts blew it for them.

check it out at the state and local level

Yes, I know it also applies to other areas besides the US Senate.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Explains A Lot: Scalia Says He Gets His News ONLY From Rightwing Papers, Talk Radio (2013)

 

[Faun]

Obstructionism did not hurt Democrats??



You're fucking insane.

Tell me why Reid lost....?

That aside, I'm guessing most people who are in favor of Republicans spitting on the Constitution and obstructing Obama are gonna vote for the Republican anyway. Most people who think what Republicans are doing is wrong, are gonna vote for the Democrat anyway. Those in between will, as usual, decide the election. I can't imagine more of those people will be voting for those who are circumventing the Constitution for political gain.

--LOL

in 2008 the dems had the house senate and presidency

--LOL

so it didnt hurt them too bad

Again, insanely stupid. Democrats won big in 2008 because Bush drove the economy 6 feet under the ground.

And you didn't answer my question ... why did Reid lose the Senate in 2014?

Do you want me to find some posts on here by conservatives from back then to jog your memory?

not is not great out there now

it will be fine

but if it isnt what do you care

Nothing like it was 7 years ago. Nowhere near like it.

And still no answer to my question ... why did Harry Reid lose the Senate in 2014?

yeah sure

ever watch that stock market

taking 1000 point swings

how many trillions in debt

how much simply printed dollars are out right now

price of insurance through the roof

the last thing the country might want is another leftist on the final bench

Under Bush, the Dow went from about 11K to a high of 14K but then ended at around 8K when he left office.

Under Obama, the Dow went from about 8K to a high of 18K and is still roughly double on his watch at 16K.

I can't believe you are actually stupid enough as to point to the stock market as evidence that the economy is as bad now as it was 7 years ago. <smh>

Still, the economy is way better now than it was 7 years ago. You have to be delusional to think otherwise.

As far as American people not wanting "another leftist" on the bench -- excuse me if I don't accept the opinion of a putz who doesn't know the difference between a helicopter and a plane.

 

[Faun]

Why cry when there's an election coming up. This could very well influence the election in favor of Democrats.

thankfully you did not pull out the crystal ball

might not favor the democrats either

obstruction sure did not hurt the democrats

when they did it during bushs last years

Obstructionism did not hurt Democrats??



You're fucking insane.

Tell me why Reid lost....?

That aside, I'm guessing most people who are in favor of Republicans spitting on the Constitution and obstructing Obama are gonna vote for the Republican anyway. Most people who think what Republicans are doing is wrong, are gonna vote for the Democrat anyway. Those in between will, as usual, decide the election. I can't imagine more of those people will be voting for those who are circumventing the Constitution for political gain.

--LOL

in 2008 the dems had the house senate and presidency

--LOL

so it didnt hurt them too bad

Again, insanely stupid. Democrats won big in 2008 because Bush drove the economy 6 feet under the ground.

And you didn't answer my question ... why did Reid lose the Senate in 2014?

Do you want me to find some posts on here by conservatives from back then to jog your memory?

Reid lost the Senate in 2014 because the GOP has done a much better job of getting their base motivated to vote in every election, not just Presidential ones. Plus, they managed to get some of their loopier candidates (like that nutbag in Iowa) to suppress some of their loopiness after winning their primaries. That's a lesson they learned after the 2010 elections, when they could have gotten the Senate then, but a few of their wingier wingnuts blew it for them.

The reason Jon refuses to answer that question is because he knows the answer and he doesn't like it. You're right that the GOP did a better job motivating their base to get out and vote -- and a key motivating factor was Reid's obstructionism in the Senate by not letting bills from the Republican-led House through to the Senate for a vote.

Reid's obstructionism motivated the right to get out and vote in 2014. I'm counting on Republicans' obstructionism now to motivate the left to get out and vote in November.

 

[eddiew]

thankfully you did not pull out the crystal ball

might not favor the democrats either

obstruction sure did not hurt the democrats

when they did it during bushs last years

Obstructionism did not hurt Democrats??



You're fucking insane.

Tell me why Reid lost....?

That aside, I'm guessing most people who are in favor of Republicans spitting on the Constitution and obstructing Obama are gonna vote for the Republican anyway. Most people who think what Republicans are doing is wrong, are gonna vote for the Democrat anyway. Those in between will, as usual, decide the election. I can't imagine more of those people will be voting for those who are circumventing the Constitution for political gain.

--LOL

in 2008 the dems had the house senate and presidency

--LOL

so it didnt hurt them too bad

Again, insanely stupid. Democrats won big in 2008 because Bush drove the economy 6 feet under the ground.

And you didn't answer my question ... why did Reid lose the Senate in 2014?

Do you want me to find some posts on here by conservatives from back then to jog your memory?

Reid lost the Senate in 2014 because the GOP has done a much better job of getting their base motivated to vote in every election, not just Presidential ones. Plus, they managed to get some of their loopier candidates (like that nutbag in Iowa) to suppress some of their loopiness after winning their primaries. That's a lesson they learned after the 2010 elections, when they could have gotten the Senate then, but a few of their wingier wingnuts blew it for them.

The reason Jon refuses to answer that question is because he knows the answer and he doesn't like it. You're right that the GOP did a better job motivating their base to get out and vote -- and a key motivating factor was Reid's obstructionism in the Senate by not letting bills from the Republican-led House through to the Senate for a vote.

Reid's obstructionism motivated the right to get out and vote in 2014. I'm counting on Republicans' obstructionism now to motivate the left to get out and vote in November.

please take it easy on my friend jon known him for years and he's not on the highest branch of the tree a republican but a rarity, a nice republican

 

[Redfish]

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.

Good one I didn't consider

They have almost two weeks before the Republican would be inaugurated
Obamas nominee would still be on the table

no recess appointments unless the senate declares itself in recess------------and it won't.

 

[Redfish]

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

Schumer did in 2007. hypocrisy much?

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Republicans definitely need a recess, so they can play hopscotch, and dodge ball, and play on the monkey bars. Maybe that will un-clench their asses for an hour.

 

[Faun]

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.

Good one I didn't consider

They have almost two weeks before the Republican would be inaugurated
Obamas nominee would still be on the table

no recess appointments unless the senate declares itself in recess------------and it won't.

Pay attention. We're not talking about recess appointments.

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

Good one I didn't consider

They have almost two weeks before the Republican would be inaugurated
Obamas nominee would still be on the table

no recess appointments unless the senate declares itself in recess------------and it won't.

It wouldn't be a RECESS appointment, dumbass.

 

[Faun]

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

Schumer did in 2007. hypocrisy much?

How about the hypocrisy on the right by those blasting Schumer for suggesting that; though they're shaking their pom-poms for it now?

Schumer regrets not leading an Alito filibuster ("we should not confirm a 'SCOTUS' nominee EXCEPT")

 

[HenryBHough]

BREAKING NEWS!

Now certain that Scalia is dead.

He just registered to vote in Chicago!

 

[JimH52]

Why cry when there's an election coming up. This could very well influence the election in favor of Democrats.

thankfully you did not pull out the crystal ball

might not favor the democrats either

obstruction sure did not hurt the democrats

when they did it during bushs last years

Obstructionism did not hurt Democrats??



You're fucking insane.

Tell me why Reid lost....?

That aside, I'm guessing most people who are in favor of Republicans spitting on the Constitution and obstructing Obama are gonna vote for the Republican anyway. Most people who think what Republicans are doing is wrong, are gonna vote for the Democrat anyway. Those in between will, as usual, decide the election. I can't imagine more of those people will be voting for those who are circumventing the Constitution for political gain.

--LOL

in 2008 the dems had the house senate and presidency

--LOL

so it didnt hurt them too bad

Again, insanely stupid. Democrats won big in 2008 because Bush drove the economy 6 feet under the ground.

And you didn't answer my question ... why did Reid lose the Senate in 2014?

Do you want me to find some posts on here by conservatives from back then to jog your memory?

Reid lost the Senate in 2014 because the GOP has done a much better job of getting their base motivated to vote in every election, not just Presidential ones. Plus, they managed to get some of their loopier candidates (like that nutbag in Iowa) to suppress some of their loopiness after winning their primaries. That's a lesson they learned after the 2010 elections, when they could have gotten the Senate then, but a few of their wingier wingnuts blew it for them.

Tge GOP played the Fearmongering card like a fiddle in 2014.

 

[EriktheRed]

thankfully you did not pull out the crystal ball

might not favor the democrats either

obstruction sure did not hurt the democrats

when they did it during bushs last years

Obstructionism did not hurt Democrats??



You're fucking insane.

Tell me why Reid lost....?

That aside, I'm guessing most people who are in favor of Republicans spitting on the Constitution and obstructing Obama are gonna vote for the Republican anyway. Most people who think what Republicans are doing is wrong, are gonna vote for the Democrat anyway. Those in between will, as usual, decide the election. I can't imagine more of those people will be voting for those who are circumventing the Constitution for political gain.

--LOL

in 2008 the dems had the house senate and presidency

--LOL

so it didnt hurt them too bad

Again, insanely stupid. Democrats won big in 2008 because Bush drove the economy 6 feet under the ground.

And you didn't answer my question ... why did Reid lose the Senate in 2014?

Do you want me to find some posts on here by conservatives from back then to jog your memory?

Reid lost the Senate in 2014 because the GOP has done a much better job of getting their base motivated to vote in every election, not just Presidential ones. Plus, they managed to get some of their loopier candidates (like that nutbag in Iowa) to suppress some of their loopiness after winning their primaries. That's a lesson they learned after the 2010 elections, when they could have gotten the Senate then, but a few of their wingier wingnuts blew it for them.

Tge GOP played the Fearmongering card like a fiddle in 2014.

They did and it helped keep their fired-up base fired up. Voter apathy on the Dem side helped to make sure there was little to counter it.

It'll likely be that way in 2018, too.

 

[FA_Q2]

a big part of the country does not want a leftist on the court

the prezbo if he wants the seat filled

needs to pick one the senate will consent to

it is that simple

So, you want the Senate to vote, up or down then? Yes, or no?

how can i offer an opinion of such a question when the president has not nominated anyone

unlike you I am not a party loyalist

and will wait to see what I want my senators to do

But your obstructionist Leader has already said he will block anyone that the President nominates. PARTY OVER COUNTRY!

good cry me a river

you guys set the precedent for it

there has been many many times when the righties have said

wait until the tables turn

so put that in your pipe and smoke it

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”


Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

And the right lambasted him for even suggesting it. Now the right is actually doing it.

And the left is playing the opposite card now. I don't see why this is surprising or even noteworthy - the partisans always lambaste the opposing party even if they are backing the same things they advocate for. As for it hurting the right or not, I think it largely depends. I am not so sure that denying Obama's appointees would do a damn thing to the right.

Of course I would assume that they actually denied them rather than refused to hear them in the first place. There is a rather large difference. If they hold the votes and deny the appointees they will point to Obama trying to install a 'radical liberal judge' and the left will call them obstructionists like they have been. Both bases get their red meat. If they simply refuse to hear them in general they will look rather poor.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is funny .... in 2007, Chuck Schumer (NY-D) made a similar proposition as Republicans are making today ... check out how Republicans responded to this idea when made by a Democrat....

• "This is a strange tack for Schumer to take. Normally exalted members of the world's greatest deliberative body posture themselves as being fair and open-minded before questions of great weight are decided by them. But this time Schumer, who is diabolical but no fool, has shifted course and steered onto another tack. Why? Why would Schumer betray to the whole world that he simply will not give the nominee of the president of the United States to the Supreme Court a fair hearing?"

• "What he fails to understand is that he doesn’t have the right to filibuster judicial nominees. Or is it the case that his personal feelings or quest for power are more important than the Constitution."

• "I suppose that this piece of New York excrement would be declaring it one of the high lights of his career if it had been one or two LIBERAL pukes had been appointed to the SC. He is an (_*_)"

• "I would say this statement should be used by the Republicans to say Chuck Schumer should be taken off the committee. He has made up his mind on all nominees before they are even nominated."

• "But that’s the thing. These people have elevated the opposition to doing ANYTHING....and the only barrier is if they can get away with it. No constitution, no tradition, no fairness."

• "The Dems know that a HUGE portion of their base is either fanatical or ignorant and that they can get away with almost anything . The sheeple follow the Dems without question. They are so blind in their vengeance against Bush that they accept everything and anything the party does.The Dems leaders know this and take full advantage of their ignorant base. You surely don’t think the Dem leadership actually believes half of what they say do you ? I’m sure that behind closed doors the Dem leadership must laugh their asses off over how stupid their loyal followers actually are."

• "This is a terrible failing on Schumer's part. Away with this "confession" act as if that matters. He flat out screwed the pooch, and I for one don't accept this apology. The only penance I'll accept is his resignation."

• "Schmuckie’s latest hand-wringing over the Alito appointment leads me to think there’s another SCOTUS retirement in the works. He and his henchmen in the senate make me sick."

• "Why Schumer hasn’t been tried for Treason yet is beyond me..."

more on freerepublic.com

how can i offer an opinion of such a question when the president has not nominated anyone

unlike you I am not a party loyalist

and will wait to see what I want my senators to do

Republican Senators have already announced they have no intention of reviewing anyone Obama nominates. They have already declared they think the next president should handle this matter.

good as it should be cry

cry to chuck schumer if you dont like it

Why cry when there's an election coming up. This could very well influence the election in favor of Democrats.

thankfully you did not pull out the crystal ball

might not favor the democrats either

obstruction sure did not hurt the democrats

when they did it during bushs last years

Obstructionism did not hurt Democrats??



You're fucking insane.

Tell me why Reid lost....?

That aside, I'm guessing most people who are in favor of Republicans spitting on the Constitution and obstructing Obama are gonna vote for the Republican anyway. Most people who think what Republicans are doing is wrong, are gonna vote for the Democrat anyway. Those in between will, as usual, decide the election. I can't imagine more of those people will be voting for those who are circumventing the Constitution for political gain.

You would have to explain how the republicans exercising the constitutional power of approving or disapproving Obama's appointees is 'spitting on the constitution.'

There is a reason that the senate must confirm the appointee. In this case, the senate is going to be highly dubious of any appointee and will reject them. I don't see an issue with that at all.

Again, I assume they will actually take a vote here. The rhetoric is just that - rhetoric.

 

[Faun]

So, you want the Senate to vote, up or down then? Yes, or no?

how can i offer an opinion of such a question when the president has not nominated anyone

unlike you I am not a party loyalist

and will wait to see what I want my senators to do

But your obstructionist Leader has already said he will block anyone that the President nominates. PARTY OVER COUNTRY!

good cry me a river

you guys set the precedent for it

there has been many many times when the righties have said

wait until the tables turn

so put that in your pipe and smoke it

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”


Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

And the right lambasted him for even suggesting it. Now the right is actually doing it.

And the left is playing the opposite card now. I don't see why this is surprising or even noteworthy - the partisans always lambaste the opposing party even if they are backing the same things they advocate for. As for it hurting the right or not, I think it largely depends. I am not so sure that denying Obama's appointees would do a damn thing to the right.

Of course I would assume that they actually denied them rather than refused to hear them in the first place. There is a rather large difference. If they hold the votes and deny the appointees they will point to Obama trying to install a 'radical liberal judge' and the left will call them obstructionists like they have been. Both bases get their red meat. If they simply refuse to hear them in general they will look rather poor.

Unless you can show where the left was on Schumer's side then, you are wrong.

 

[Faun]

You would have to explain how the republicans exercising the constitutional power of approving or disapproving Obama's appointees is 'spitting on the constitution.'

Because the president has Constitutional authority to pick replacement justices. By declaring they will not confirm any nominee Obama names, Republicans are effectively denying the president that Constitutional authority because they want the next president, whom they hope will be a Republican, to pick.

It's one thing to deny a nominee based on the issues held by the nominee; it's another thing entirely to deny every nominee based on the issues held by the president.

 

[IsaacNewton]

You would have to explain how the republicans exercising the constitutional power of approving or disapproving Obama's appointees is 'spitting on the constitution.'

Because the president has Constitutional authority to pick replacement justices. By declaring they will not confirm any nominee Obama names, Republicans are effectively denying the president that Constitutional authority because they want the next president, whom they hope will be a Republican, to pick.

It's one thing to deny a nominee based on the issues held by the nominee; it's another thing entirely to deny every nominee based on the issues held by the president.

The GOP is in effect saying "we are suspending the Constitution at our whim".

 

[FA_Q2]

You would have to explain how the republicans exercising the constitutional power of approving or disapproving Obama's appointees is 'spitting on the constitution.'

Because the president has Constitutional authority to pick replacement justices. By declaring they will not confirm any nominee Obama names, Republicans are effectively denying the president that Constitutional authority because they want the next president, whom they hope will be a Republican, to pick.

It's one thing to deny a nominee based on the issues held by the nominee; it's another thing entirely to deny every nominee based on the issues held by the president.

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

The president has the authority to select a nominee. The senate can reject that nominee (and future ones) for as long as they choose - be it months or years. WE have the authority to put new senate members in place should we decide that what they are doing is unacceptable. All of it constitutional and all of it exactly how the government is supposed to operate. It is not 'broken' simply because you or others don't like the outcome.