Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[jon_berzerk]

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.

that is exactly why most americans are fed up with the political class and its bullshit. It is exactly why Trump and Sanders are getting votes. The people have had it with liars and frauds like the Clintons and Bushes.

indeed

 

[JimH52]

February 14, 2016
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
By Thomas Lifson


Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

Update: Don't forget Chuck Schumer (do a search libertards.., if you do not know how, i'll help you if you ask nicely!!)

as the worms turn, squiggle and squirm..,

We are not talking recess appointment. The GOP controlled Senate needs to do its job or be elected out.

the job of the senate is to confirm or deny SCOTUS appointments sent to it by the president. Kissing Obama's ass is not its job. If they kiss his ass they will be elected out. If they do their job the GOP will retain control and President Trump will appoint the next SCOTUS judge.

As the Leader with the Three Chins has already announced that he will not even give O's pick a vote. OBSTRUCTIONIST ARE NO BETTER THAN COMMUNIST

 

[JimH52]

The control of the WH is depending on what the GOP controlled Senate does. PLEASE OBSTRUCT!

 

[Redfish]

February 14, 2016
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
By Thomas Lifson


Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

Update: Don't forget Chuck Schumer (do a search libertards.., if you do not know how, i'll help you if you ask nicely!!)

as the worms turn, squiggle and squirm..,

We are not talking recess appointment. The GOP controlled Senate needs to do its job or be elected out.

the job of the senate is to confirm or deny SCOTUS appointments sent to it by the president. Kissing Obama's ass is not its job. If they kiss his ass they will be elected out. If they do their job the GOP will retain control and President Trump will appoint the next SCOTUS judge.

As the Leader with the Three Chins has already announced that he will not even give O's pick a vote. OBSTRUCTIONIST ARE NO BETTER THAN COMMUNIST

the hypocrisy of you libs is amazing. Schumer does it and you praise him, McConnel does it and you call him the devil.

Shall we talk about the dems only vote for obamacare, in the dark of night on Christmas eve, before anyone had read the bill and while Reid and Pelosi blocked any floor debate and would not allow any amendments to be brought to the floor?

Ramming a law up the collective asses of the people on a single party vote is much worse than refusing to let the president ram a supreme court justice up our asses.

The Senate is doing the job it was sent to DC to do.

 

[Redfish]

The control of the WH is depending on what the GOP controlled Senate does. PLEASE OBSTRUCT!

so if they vote on a nominee and the nays prevail, is that obstruction? If they Bork a nominee, is that obstruction? Was what the dems did to Bork obstruction in your small mind?

 

[jon_berzerk]

again so early

the leftard crystal ball comes out

--LOL

 

[JimH52]

Schumer was not the Senate Leader. He was expressing an opinion. The GOP is lossing, as usual, a game of Chess. PLEASE OBSTRUCT AND GO DONALD!

 

[deaddogseye]

The Republicans clearly do not have to confirm an Obama nominee and it would be nuts for them to do so. The Supreme Court is never a big voting issue - especially with the Democrats - and there is really very little in it for the GOP. Your going to hear a lot of arguments from the left about how the republicans really risk a lot by not confirming someone -- just like they did with immigration reform where they tried to sell the nonsense that the republicans had to cave because they could never win again with out the Hispanic vote. the country isn't going to care that there are 8 on the supreme court and that 4-4 ties go with the lower court decision and lack precedental value. It just isn't.

on the other hand approving ANY Obama nominee means TRump is the presidential nominee. Game over.

No one is suggesting they approve "ANY" Obama nominee. Many are finding fault with the Republicans who are saying they won't approve any Obama nominee.

They are basically gambling with the Supreme Court to get a conservative to replace Scalia. They could work with Obama now on a replacement and get a moderate, just as Democrats did with Reagan in 1988 to confirm Kennedy. But that's not good enough for them. They are going for all or nothing. They are banking on winning the presidency and the Senate so they can install a conservative.

It could work out that way for them.

Or it could back fire on them and Democrats could win the presidency and the Senate and install a Liberal, making the court 5-3 Liberal with 1 swing vote.

That's all well and good but the issue isn't really a "moderate" either. Lets say that the Democrats served up another Kennedy in every respect who you feel is a moderate (and trust me to Barrack Obama he is no moderate -- Sonia Sotomaior is). That would change the current balance on the court. Maybe not as much as another Sotomaior would but it definitely would. It is the current balance that Obama wants to change and the Republicans are defending and have every political reason to do so. The reality that a "moderate" who would be appointed by Obama would just be a liberal judge who does not have much of a track record to shoot at.

And approving an Obama nominee hands the nomination to Trump (perhaps unfairly to Cruz and the others, but it does ) and they still are hoping they can stop him

And Obama would never take up your suggestion in the first place. Hes looking to turn the court left for generations and insure that his so called legacy doesn't get wrecked in the court which another Kennedy might do. He would clearly make the calculus that if the choice were a new Kennedy or taking his chances on the next election he would clearly take his chances on the next election s well. There is nothing in it for him to pick a moderate like Kennedy.

What this does illustrate is how absurd it is that in this democracy such important questions depend on who happens to die when whoever is in office. This shouldn't be such a crap shoot

 

[PaintMyHouse]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

As the Leader with the Three Chins has already announced that he will not even give O's pick a vote. OBSTRUCTIONIST ARE NO BETTER THAN COMMUNIST

Fox is reporting that "an increasingly uppity" President Obama shamelessly continues to insist that he is still President in spite of the death of Antonin Scalia ....this is part of his pattern of no concern for the feeling of older white Republican Americans.....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[JimH52]

This is probably the biggest headache the GOP has had since......DONALD TRUMP!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

This is probably the biggest headache the GOP has had since......DONALD TRUMP!

D T-Rump the "Hair apparent"

 

[IsaacNewton]

Can you imagine this as a general election ad. Holy hell it hits the mark like nothing else.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

GOP Faithful what would you say to God as to the Death of Scalia ??

 

[hunarcy]

And, it's unprecedented, right? No one has EVER suggested such a thing in the past?

Schumer: No More Free Rides For Bush SCOTUS Nominees - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

Why would I give a rat fart what Schumer said? I'm a Republican.

But I do agree with Senator McConnell when he said "Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate."

We should follow the Constitution, not play partisan politics.

>>>>

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of people who supported Schumer's call to stop "free rides" while condemning the same happening now because it's happening to them. Surely you understand that, so I wonder why you even bothered to type the first line.

 

[hunarcy]

And, all the people who voted for the Senators count as well.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Hello ...He was an evil fuckhead whose death improves both the Supreme Court and the human race.

When reporters asked about the possibilities of impropriety involving his going duck hunting with Cheney while the Supreme Court considered Cheney's Energy Commission Task Force concealing its agenda, Scalia grinned and said "Quack, quack."

A real prince of a guy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The method of providing consent cited in the Constitution is by a vote of the Senators

no that is not true

the constitution simply says by advice and consent of congress

False, it provides a 2/3rds requirement under the first part of advise and consent, that threshold can only be met with a vote of the Senators present. If a vote is required under one part of advise and consent, then logic dictates that a vote applies to the second part of advise and consent in the same freaking article of the Constitution.


>>>>

 

[JimH52]

The GOP lost the WH and the Senate in November when "three chin" Mitch announced that they would not ever consider a SC nominee from Obama. Obviously, he does not play Chess....