Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[eddiew]

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?

.

You have the right but whether you are right is another story.

exactly ,,,repubs block because someone might be even handed ,dems block because they don't want another scalia ,,,huge difference

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Here comes the Judge...

 

[Iceweasel]

exactly ,,,repubs block because someone might be even handed ,dems block because they don't want another scalia ,,,huge difference

...yeah because the Constitution is so uneven handed.

LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The sickening tributes to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, are a barometer of the putrefaction of American democracy

 

[BlueGin]

Libs are funny. "When we block justice appointments it's warranted and our duty". " When republicans get the chance to do same.... They should reconsider for the good of the country".


Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Where have Liberals ever blocked SCOTUS appointments where they wouldn't allow a President to make ANY appointment?

When have the libs ever done anything for the good of the country?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[BlueGin]

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?

.

You have the right but whether you are right is another story.

exactly ,,,repubs block because someone might be even handed ,dems block because they don't want another scalia ,,,huge difference

Repubs block to avoid left wing judges. Not a huge difference.

 

[Faun]

Libs are funny. "When we block justice appointments it's warranted and our duty". " When republicans get the chance to do same.... They should reconsider for the good of the country".


Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Where have Liberals ever blocked SCOTUS appointments where they wouldn't allow a President to make ANY appointment?

When have the libs ever done anything for the good of the country?

I knew you couldn't answer his question. I asked the same thing of you and you couldn't answer me either.

As far as your question, let's start with the GI bill....

 

[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?

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.

Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Redfish]

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.

do you really think that Obama will nominate a moderate? If so, I want some of what you are smoking.

 

[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.

Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing. WTF is wrong with you?

Name the Democrats who went along with Schumer.....

 

[Redfish]

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.

Unless the GOP wants to lose badly in November, they better compromise.

a compromise requires two parties. Will Obama compromise on a moderate justice?

 

[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.

do you really think that Obama will nominate a moderate? If so, I want some of what you are smoking.

Irrelevant since the dumbass Republicans already declared they will not perform their Constitutional duties of advising and consenting even if Obama does.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Scalia came to the River Styx and wanted to go across to the active side of Infinity....he saw the attendant at the river near a small boat and asked how do I get across ...attendant said its row vs wade depending if you were naughty or nice.....and cackled madly..............

 

[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?

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.

Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing. WTF is wrong with you?

Name the Democrats who went along with Schumer.....

doesn't matter, we are pointing our HIS personal hypocrisy.

But since you asked for names, tell us the dems who were willing to compromise on Bork.

 

[Redfish]

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.

do you really think that Obama will nominate a moderate? If so, I want some of what you are smoking.

Irrelevant since the dumbass Republicans already declared they will not perform their Constitutional duties of advising and consenting even if Obama does.

their constitutional duty is to review any nominee and either call for a vote or do nothing on that nominee. Kinda like Reid sitting on 300 house passed bills when the dems controlled the senate.

 

[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.

Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing. WTF is wrong with you?

Name the Democrats who went along with Schumer.....

doesn't matter, we are pointing our HIS personal hypocrisy.

But since you asked for names, tell us the dems who were willing to compromise on Bork.

Of course it matters since you made the claim. You said, and I quote (with emphasis added) ...

"Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing."​

I call bullshit and you prove I'm right by not being able to name the "Dems" you claim went along with Schumer.

 

[Redfish]

.
the republicans are so corrupt they believe it is their decision whether to have hearings after a nomination is made to the Supreme Court ...

.

They have a responsibility to have hearings. If they don't they will feel the wrath of the American voter in November. Actually, I hope they don't. Then Trump, the nominee, will lose with a historical embarrassment, along with the Senate and a substantial number of GOP House members. McConnell is a HUGE JOKE!

NO, they don't have a responsibility to have hearings. There is no requirement that they call a vote on any nominee. Doing nothing on a nominee complies with the constitution.

McConnel is doing the same things that Reid did when the dems controlled the senate. Wake up, that's how it works.

 

[Faun]

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.

do you really think that Obama will nominate a moderate? If so, I want some of what you are smoking.

Irrelevant since the dumbass Republicans already declared they will not perform their Constitutional duties of advising and consenting even if Obama does.

their constitutional duty is to review any nominee and either call for a vote or do nothing on that nominee. Kinda like Reid sitting on 300 house passed bills when the dems controlled the senate.

Great, so even you agree they are shirking their Constitutional duties by not reviewing Obama's nominees as even you understand that is their job.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing. WTF is wrong with you?

Name the Democrats who went along with Schumer.....

doesn't matter, we are pointing our HIS personal hypocrisy.

But since you asked for names, tell us the dems who were willing to compromise on Bork.

Of course it matters since you made the claim. You said, and I quote (with emphasis added) ...

"Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing."​

I call bullshit and you prove I'm right by not being able to name the "Dems" you claim went along with Schumer.

OK, since you seem to know, give us a list of the dems who did not go along with Schumer. I really don't know or care. The point is that Schumer said that no Bush nominee would receive a hearing and now he is demanding that any Obama nominee be given one. Its called hypocrisy, dingleberry.