Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[WorldWatcher]

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....

Kind of like sacrificing a bishop to take the opponents queen off the playing field?


(See what I did there.)


>>>>

 

[IsaacNewton]

The demographics of this election already had the Republicans losing before it started. They've provided enough ammo now with trump and the 'we don't recognize the president's authority under the Constitution, we're keeping him from doing anything' nutjob group to bury them.

But you cons keep on, don't stop now.

 

[Contumacious]

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....

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) the executive and legislative were equal branches of government.

The executive could nominate and the senate could ignore (advise and consent NOT advise and capitulate)

I don't know what the rules are now under FDR's socialist "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....

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) the executive and legislative were equal branches of government.

The executive could nominate and the senate could ignore (advise and consent NOT advise and capitulate)

I don't know what the rules are now under FDR's socialist "constitution" .

Hey, its the GOP's choice. They accept a moderate-liberal nominee now or they lose the WH and the Senate and accept a Very Liberal nominee in 2017. Their choice....Glad I don't have to make that move.

 

[Flopper]

Not if they are willing to use the Dems play book..........they can stall 10 months using the Dems on changing rules against them.

Absolutely nothing actually REQUIRES them to move any more expeditiously than they choose to, nor does anything require them to approve anyone before they're ready. It's not like approvals for Justices move all that particularly quickly, anyway. And it would not be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy for that length of time.

Actually, it probably would be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy this long. The record is 339 days, from May 14, 1969 to June 9,1970. If this Senate does not act, it will over a year before this seat is filled, possibly a lot longer.

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

It sounds like the rule you're talking about is two wrongs equal a right.

 

[Iceweasel]

Absolutely nothing actually REQUIRES them to move any more expeditiously than they choose to, nor does anything require them to approve anyone before they're ready. It's not like approvals for Justices move all that particularly quickly, anyway. And it would not be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy for that length of time.

Actually, it probably would be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy this long. The record is 339 days, from May 14, 1969 to June 9,1970. If this Senate does not act, it will over a year before this seat is filled, possibly a lot longer.

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

It sounds like rule you're talking about is two wrongs equal a right.

No, it's the 'you get fucked you fuck em right back' rule. That's how people learn.

 

[JimH52]

Actually, it probably would be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy this long. The record is 339 days, from May 14, 1969 to June 9,1970. If this Senate does not act, it will over a year before this seat is filled, possibly a lot longer.

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

It sounds like rule you're talking about is two wrongs equal a right.

No, it's the 'you get fucked you fuck em right back' rule. That's how people learn.

WOW! A Republican Diploma! FINALLY!

 

[Iceweasel]

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

It sounds like rule you're talking about is two wrongs equal a right.

No, it's the 'you get fucked you fuck em right back' rule. That's how people learn.

WOW! A Republican Diploma! FINALLY!

I'm not in the party, are you even awake?

 

[Flopper]

Actually, it probably would be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy this long. The record is 339 days, from May 14, 1969 to June 9,1970. If this Senate does not act, it will over a year before this seat is filled, possibly a lot longer.

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

It sounds like rule you're talking about is two wrongs equal a right.

No, it's the 'you get fucked you fuck em right back' rule. That's how people learn.

And that is how governments fall, when the people realize that "fucking the opposition" is the driving force behind their leaders. There will come a point when the American people will throw the bastards out, all of them and declare this Great American Experiment to be a failure. Trump and Sanders are just the beginning. If the two parties don't clean up their act, they will both cease to exist.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

It sounds like rule you're talking about is two wrongs equal a right.

No, it's the 'you get fucked you fuck em right back' rule. That's how people learn.

And that is how governments fall, when the people realize that "fucking the opposition" is the driving force behind their leaders. There will come a point when the American people will throw the bastards out, all of them and declare this Great American Experiment to be a failure. Trump and Sanders are just the beginning. If the two parties don't clean up their act, they will both cease to exist.

Fine with me, let's start over.

 

[Flopper]

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

It sounds like rule you're talking about is two wrongs equal a right.

No, it's the 'you get fucked you fuck em right back' rule. That's how people learn.

And that is how governments fall, when the people realize that "fucking the opposition" is the driving force behind their leaders. There will come a point when the American people will throw the bastards out, all of them and declare this Great American Experiment to be a failure. Trump and Sanders are just the beginning. If the two parties don't clean up their act, they will both cease to exist.

Fine with me, let's start over.

I thought that might be your reply.

 

[candycorn]

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

It sounds like rule you're talking about is two wrongs equal a right.

No, it's the 'you get fucked you fuck em right back' rule. That's how people learn.

And that is how governments fall, when the people realize that "fucking the opposition" is the driving force behind their leaders. There will come a point when the American people will throw the bastards out, all of them and declare this Great American Experiment to be a failure. Trump and Sanders are just the beginning. If the two parties don't clean up their act, they will both cease to exist.

Fine with me, let's start over.

I thought that might be your reply.

When you're dealing with the consistently idiotic, it's easy to see their "thought" patterns.

 

[Contumacious]

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

It sounds like rule you're talking about is two wrongs equal a right.

No, it's the 'you get fucked you fuck em right back' rule. That's how people learn.

And that is how governments fall, when the people realize that "fucking the opposition" is the driving force behind their leaders. There will come a point when the American people will throw the bastards out, all of them and declare this Great American Experiment to be a failure. Trump and Sanders are just the beginning. If the two parties don't clean up their act, they will both cease to exist.

Yo jock strap

When the opposition stands for death, crime, tyranny misery

do we have a right to oppose it?

.

 

[EriktheRed]

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

It sounds like rule you're talking about is two wrongs equal a right.

No, it's the 'you get fucked you fuck em right back' rule. That's how people learn.

And that is how governments fall, when the people realize that "fucking the opposition" is the driving force behind their leaders. There will come a point when the American people will throw the bastards out, all of them and declare this Great American Experiment to be a failure. Trump and Sanders are just the beginning. If the two parties don't clean up their act, they will both cease to exist.

Yo jock strap

When the opposition stands for death, crime, tyranny misery

do we have a right to oppose it?

.

Why? You planning on becoming a Dem?

 

[EriktheRed]

 

[Iceweasel]

It sounds like rule you're talking about is two wrongs equal a right.

No, it's the 'you get fucked you fuck em right back' rule. That's how people learn.

And that is how governments fall, when the people realize that "fucking the opposition" is the driving force behind their leaders. There will come a point when the American people will throw the bastards out, all of them and declare this Great American Experiment to be a failure. Trump and Sanders are just the beginning. If the two parties don't clean up their act, they will both cease to exist.

Fine with me, let's start over.

I thought that might be your reply.

When you're dealing with the consistently idiotic, it's easy to see their "thought" patterns.

Yours is like a moth on a light bulb.

 

[EriktheRed]

 

[Faun]

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.

WTF are you talking about? Schumer never did it.

 

[Faun]

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?

No, then it is not obstruction. But of course, that is not the same shutting down the confirmation process until there's a new president, which is what Republicans say they are going to do.

 

[Faun]

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

Nothing in the Constitution allows for one party to hold the other party hostage in order to get their ideology onto the Supreme Court. Nothing in it instructs a conservative just must be replaced with another conservative judge.

That said, there is nothing which forces either party to accept what the other party wants. Obama can't force the Republican Senate to confirm a Liberal and the Republican Senate can't force Obama to nominate a conservative. But nothing in the Constitution allows for either party to abdicate their responsibility entirely in selecting a replacement justice. The Senate can no more shutdown the confirmation process than the president could shut down the nomination process.

The only plausible solution is for both sides to compromise. Obama doesn't get a Liberal and the Republicans don't get a conservative. They each get a moderate.