Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Garland is better than anyone Clinton would nominate. If Trump were to actually win, who knows who he'd nominate. Seems to me the GOP is taking a big risk playing this little game, they will most likely lose the White House as well as the senate, then where will they be? Where will this country be? Fucked.
Garland is relatively moderate, all things considered. And don't talk to me about their "conservative values and strict constitutionalism." Both of those are positions of convenience at best for most of them. Look to the confirmation of Ginsburg if you don't believe me. Who floated her name to Janet Reno to pass along to Clinton? Orrin Hatch. What was the final tally at her confirmation? 96 to 3. Five Republicans found Kagan acceptable, Sotomayor had nine. While we're at it, how's John Roberts working out for you?
This little gamble they're taking could blow up in their faces. If or when it does, their best and only hope will be to confirm Garland in a lame duck session and then we're right back to now...
Garland is anti Second Amendment. He is no moderate. He even supported the DC gun ban.
"In one 2000 case, Judge Garland, who sits on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, upheld a Clinton administration effort to store gun-buyers’ records.
Later in the decade, he joined other judges in a failed bid to reconsider the landmark case that would eventually establish the Second Amendment’s protection of a personal right to bear arms."
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Merrick Garland has ‘very liberal view of gun rights’
Yeah, I've read all that...
I'll keep my guns...
The question you need to ask yourself, as does the GOP, is this: who will be nominated by Hillary Clinton and what chance will we have when we no longer control the Senate?
Because it's going to happen. More than likely it's going to happen this cycle.
The Constitution says the Senate can hold confirmation hearings when they want.While I really don't want a vote on Obama's pick until after November...I'm not mad at Kirk for this.
A Senator is supposed to be the representative for all the citizens of his or her state, not just the ones whose party he belongs to. It the majority of his constituency is calling on him to demand a vote...it's his responsibility as their voice in the Senate to do just that.
But his motivation is strictly based on his wanting to retain his seat. I wish it were for loftier reasons.
Or maybe he wants to actually follow the constitution.
So you support them not doing their job? Ah the do nothing Republicans making their failures so obvious. That should get them a lot of votes. Well pick your poison. They can follow the constitution and do their job now, or let Hillary and a Dem congress pick the Justice later. The repubs are imploding, that isn't going to equal big wins come election time.Ah yes with all the problems this country has you are worried about guns. Great choice. Everyone who wants a gun can get one, that won't change based on the next justice.Here's more on that case in 2000. It would be insane for the Republicans to allow Garland on the Supreme Court.
"Conservatives are also pointing to a 2000 case in which Mr. Garland was part of a 2-1 panel that voted to uphold a Clinton administration policy of retaining certain gun transaction records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for six months. Conservatives argued that the records retention ran counter to rules against gun registries in the Gun Control Act of 1968 and a 1993 law that created the system.
That decision, Mr. Pratt said, shows that Mr. Garland is “anti-gun” and that “he supports the ability of a president to illegally use executive power to advance liberal causes.”
Merrick Garland has ‘very liberal view of gun rights’
If you don't like him vote him down. That would seem more like the thing to do rather than play this baby game of not doing their job. They have not done enough already since controlling congress.
Bullshit. The main reason that the two outsiders in the primaries are beating the ever living crap out of the RINO's that ran was because Congress has given Obama everything he wanted. There has been no obstructionism.
The electorate is royally fucking pissed off and it shows in the primaries. And I think that finally some of the elite on Capitol Hill are recognizing that there is a blood lust out there and they better not cave on this.
Garland is better than anyone Clinton would nominate. If Trump were to actually win, who knows who he'd nominate. Seems to me the GOP is taking a big risk playing this little game, they will most likely lose the White House as well as the senate, then where will they be? Where will this country be? Fucked.
Garland is relatively moderate, all things considered. And don't talk to me about their "conservative values and strict constitutionalism." Both of those are positions of convenience at best for most of them. Look to the confirmation of Ginsburg if you don't believe me. Who floated her name to Janet Reno to pass along to Clinton? Orrin Hatch. What was the final tally at her confirmation? 96 to 3. Five Republicans found Kagan acceptable, Sotomayor had nine. While we're at it, how's John Roberts working out for you?
This little gamble they're taking could blow up in their faces. If or when it does, their best and only hope will be to confirm Garland in a lame duck session and then we're right back to now...
Garland is anti Second Amendment. He is no moderate. He even supported the DC gun ban.
"In one 2000 case, Judge Garland, who sits on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, upheld a Clinton administration effort to store gun-buyers’ records.
Later in the decade, he joined other judges in a failed bid to reconsider the landmark case that would eventually establish the Second Amendment’s protection of a personal right to bear arms."
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Merrick Garland has ‘very liberal view of gun rights’
Yeah, I've read all that...
I'll keep my guns...
The question you need to ask yourself, as does the GOP, is this: who will be nominated by Hillary Clinton and what chance will we have when we no longer control the Senate?
Because it's going to happen. More than likely it's going to happen this cycle.
For starters I don't believe Hillary will win the general unless the establishment manages to block Cruz or Trump and put in Kasich at the convention. Then he'll get the crap kicked out of him and Hillary will be President.
Then if this Senate allows this nominee to become a Supreme the back lash from the electorate will be so fierce no one will keep their seat anyway.
If they don't stand firm on this they are toast.
Garland, a Chicago native,
It sure can.Ah yes with all the problems this country has you are worried about guns. Great choice. Everyone who wants a gun can get one, that won't change based on the next justice.Here's more on that case in 2000. It would be insane for the Republicans to allow Garland on the Supreme Court.
"Conservatives are also pointing to a 2000 case in which Mr. Garland was part of a 2-1 panel that voted to uphold a Clinton administration policy of retaining certain gun transaction records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for six months. Conservatives argued that the records retention ran counter to rules against gun registries in the Gun Control Act of 1968 and a 1993 law that created the system.
That decision, Mr. Pratt said, shows that Mr. Garland is “anti-gun” and that “he supports the ability of a president to illegally use executive power to advance liberal causes.”
Merrick Garland has ‘very liberal view of gun rights’
If you don't like him vote him down. That would seem more like the thing to do rather than play this baby game of not doing their job. They have not done enough already since controlling congress.
Nice try, asshole, but they're just following the Biden Rule.The Constitution says the Senate can hold confirmation hearings when they want.While I really don't want a vote on Obama's pick until after November...I'm not mad at Kirk for this.
A Senator is supposed to be the representative for all the citizens of his or her state, not just the ones whose party he belongs to. It the majority of his constituency is calling on him to demand a vote...it's his responsibility as their voice in the Senate to do just that.
But his motivation is strictly based on his wanting to retain his seat. I wish it were for loftier reasons.
Or maybe he wants to actually follow the constitution.
So you support them not doing their job? Ah the do nothing Republicans making their failures so obvious. That should get them a lot of votes. Well pick your poison. They can follow the constitution and do their job now, or let Hillary and a Dem congress pick the Justice later. The repubs are imploding, that isn't going to equal big wins come election time.
Yo, here is a traitor in the Conservative Movement, who needs another job, like ditch digging!!! Let`s see who the others are?
First GOP senator calls for vote on Garland court nomination
By ALAN FRAM
Mar. 18, 2016 9:21 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Mark Kirk became the first Republican senator to break with party leaders and call for a vote on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court selection, saying Friday, "It's just man up and cast a vote."
The statement by Kirk, who faces a difficult re-election battle this fall in Democratic-leaning Illinois, came two days after Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy created by the February death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Garland, a Chicago native, is chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Kirk's stance directly contradicts the path charted by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that most GOP senators have followed. McConnell has said for weeks that there will be no Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for any Obama nominee for the vacancy and no confirmation vote by the Senate.
First GOP senator calls for vote on Garland court nomination
"GTP"
Sen. Mark Kirk Below:
View attachment 68051
Sure vote out the one that is following the constitution...
Why is he a traitor? He is fucking right.
The GOP is being idiotic in trying to block the actual vote on the senator - it gives the left a mountain of ammunition to fire back at them over the election cycle without doing anything positive for the GOP. The correct way to handle the appointments is to get them in front of the senate - ask some tough questions and then vote no. Simple - they can charge Obama with giving them nominees that are not what they believe should be in the court and Obama will have to resort to complaining that the senate is not rubber stamping his picks.
I cannot fathom why the GOP is pulling this unless they really do like shooting themselves in the foot.
The Constitution says the Senate can hold confirmation hearings when they want.While I really don't want a vote on Obama's pick until after November...I'm not mad at Kirk for this.
A Senator is supposed to be the representative for all the citizens of his or her state, not just the ones whose party he belongs to. It the majority of his constituency is calling on him to demand a vote...it's his responsibility as their voice in the Senate to do just that.
But his motivation is strictly based on his wanting to retain his seat. I wish it were for loftier reasons.
Or maybe he wants to actually follow the constitution.
So you support them not doing their job? Ah the do nothing Republicans making their failures so obvious. That should get them a lot of votes. Well pick your poison. They can follow the constitution and do their job now, or let Hillary and a Dem congress pick the Justice later. The repubs are imploding, that isn't going to equal big wins come election time.
my senator, Sen. Collins also called for a vote...saw her on the news today...
Such is the GOP's circular firing squad.Yo, here is a traitor in the Conservative Movement, who needs another job, like ditch digging!!! Let`s see who the others are?
First GOP senator calls for vote on Garland court nomination
By ALAN FRAM
Mar. 18, 2016 9:21 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Mark Kirk became the first Republican senator to break with party leaders and call for a vote on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court selection, saying Friday, "It's just man up and cast a vote."
The statement by Kirk, who faces a difficult re-election battle this fall in Democratic-leaning Illinois, came two days after Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy created by the February death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Garland, a Chicago native, is chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Kirk's stance directly contradicts the path charted by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that most GOP senators have followed. McConnell has said for weeks that there will be no Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for any Obama nominee for the vacancy and no confirmation vote by the Senate.
First GOP senator calls for vote on Garland court nomination
"GTP"
Sen. Mark Kirk Below:
View attachment 68051
Where is it written in the Constitution that the Senate must refuse to allow hearings and a vote on a Supreme Court nominee for purely partisan reasons.Yo, here is a traitor in the Conservative Movement, who needs another job, like ditch digging!!! Let`s see who the others are?
First GOP senator calls for vote on Garland court nomination
By ALAN FRAM
Mar. 18, 2016 9:21 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Mark Kirk became the first Republican senator to break with party leaders and call for a vote on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court selection, saying Friday, "It's just man up and cast a vote."
The statement by Kirk, who faces a difficult re-election battle this fall in Democratic-leaning Illinois, came two days after Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy created by the February death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Garland, a Chicago native, is chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Kirk's stance directly contradicts the path charted by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that most GOP senators have followed. McConnell has said for weeks that there will be no Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for any Obama nominee for the vacancy and no confirmation vote by the Senate.
First GOP senator calls for vote on Garland court nomination
"GTP"
Sen. Mark Kirk Below:
View attachment 68051
Sure vote out the one that is following the constitution...
Where does it say in the Constitution that the Senate must rubber stamp all lame duck President's appointees? I must have missed that in all of my years of study.
Who said they should do that?Why is he a traitor? He is fucking right.
The GOP is being idiotic in trying to block the actual vote on the senator - it gives the left a mountain of ammunition to fire back at them over the election cycle without doing anything positive for the GOP. The correct way to handle the appointments is to get them in front of the senate - ask some tough questions and then vote no. Simple - they can charge Obama with giving them nominees that are not what they believe should be in the court and Obama will have to resort to complaining that the senate is not rubber stamping his picks.
I cannot fathom why the GOP is pulling this unless they really do like shooting themselves in the foot.
Put in a sycophant Obama liberal justice and see how your rights miraculously disappear under a liberal Supreme Court.
A majority of the voters re-elected republicans, refused to re-elect democrats and elected republicans to take their seats in the senate reflecting the will of the people to allow the senate to refuse to hear Obama's appointees.Where is it written in the Constitution that the Senate must refuse to allow hearings and a vote on a Supreme Court nominee for purely partisan reasons.Yo, here is a traitor in the Conservative Movement, who needs another job, like ditch digging!!! Let`s see who the others are?
First GOP senator calls for vote on Garland court nomination
By ALAN FRAM
Mar. 18, 2016 9:21 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Mark Kirk became the first Republican senator to break with party leaders and call for a vote on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court selection, saying Friday, "It's just man up and cast a vote."
The statement by Kirk, who faces a difficult re-election battle this fall in Democratic-leaning Illinois, came two days after Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy created by the February death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Garland, a Chicago native, is chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Kirk's stance directly contradicts the path charted by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that most GOP senators have followed. McConnell has said for weeks that there will be no Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for any Obama nominee for the vacancy and no confirmation vote by the Senate.
First GOP senator calls for vote on Garland court nomination
"GTP"
Sen. Mark Kirk Below:
View attachment 68051
Sure vote out the one that is following the constitution...
Where does it say in the Constitution that the Senate must rubber stamp all lame duck President's appointees? I must have missed that in all of my years of study.
Where is it written in the Constitution that a president's authority to make Supreme Court appointments is in any way mitigated or diminished because he's at a given point in his term.
Where is it written in the Constitution that Supreme Court appointments can't be made during an election year.
A majority of the voters re-elected the president in 2012 to a full four-year term, reflecting the will of the people, including the will of the people to make Supreme Court appointments – the will of the majority of the American people in effect until January 20, 2017, which is in the Constitution.
While I really don't want a vote on Obama's pick until after November...I'm not mad at Kirk for this.
A Senator is supposed to be the representative for all the citizens of his or her state, not just the ones whose party he belongs to. It the majority of his constituency is calling on him to demand a vote...it's his responsibility as their voice in the Senate to do just that.
It sure can.Ah yes with all the problems this country has you are worried about guns. Great choice. Everyone who wants a gun can get one, that won't change based on the next justice.Here's more on that case in 2000. It would be insane for the Republicans to allow Garland on the Supreme Court.
"Conservatives are also pointing to a 2000 case in which Mr. Garland was part of a 2-1 panel that voted to uphold a Clinton administration policy of retaining certain gun transaction records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for six months. Conservatives argued that the records retention ran counter to rules against gun registries in the Gun Control Act of 1968 and a 1993 law that created the system.
That decision, Mr. Pratt said, shows that Mr. Garland is “anti-gun” and that “he supports the ability of a president to illegally use executive power to advance liberal causes.”
Merrick Garland has ‘very liberal view of gun rights’
If you don't like him vote him down. That would seem more like the thing to do rather than play this baby game of not doing their job. They have not done enough already since controlling congress.
That is why judges are so damn important - interpreting the constitution allows them MASSIVE power over what the constitution means. Enough power to re-evaluate previous rulings and throw them out.
