Justice Obama??? Why not?

[nat4900]

Scalia was followed by screaming Republicans treating him like a rock star like Obama? Do you suffer frequently from delusions?

NO, the "rock star" hyperbole is all yours about Obama's reception.....What I meant is that Scalia spent a lot of time among the wealthy conservatives' circle....From his hunting trips to the ranch where he met his demise.

 

[nat4900]

He'd probably like that since he's tired of being Putin's whipping boy, but he's done enough for the country already.

Oh boy, yet ANOTHER right winger who longs for Putin's shirtless pictures to paste above the bed......

Did you ever wonder WHY Putin would rather have Trump over Clinton as CIC?
Is it Putin's secret admiration for the color orange?

 

[Meathead]

NO, the "rock star" hyperbole is all yours about Obama's reception.....What I meant is that Scalia spent a lot of time among the wealthy conservatives' circle....From his hunting trips to the ranch where he met his demise.

You gotta admit, it less unseemly than slumming with the Clintons.

 

[nat4900]

Scalia's demise actually left TWO openings at the court......Thomas is clearly LOST without Scalia's lap and may soon opt to retire.

 

[Faun]

If Obama's gonna be Hillary's nominee for the Supreme Court, he simply won't appoint Garland. The seat will remain open for him to fill -- if he wants it.

With the holiday season and winter recess approaching, I don't think there's enough time left for hearing on Garland.....besides, McConnell would have to drastically reverse himself from his previous stance and that could prove embarrassing.

Doesn't matter since Obama has the final say. If Hillary signals to him she wants to nominate him and If he wants that seat, even if the Republicans confirm Garland before losing control on January 3rd, Obama has the option to not appoint him at his disposal. Thus, leaving the seat open for his own nomination.

 

[Borillar]

Scalia's demise actually left TWO openings at the court......Thomas is clearly LOST without Scalia's lap and may soon opt to retire.

He's the biggest NO-OP in USSC history, but He could always crib notes from Alito.

 

[kaz]

Scalia's demise actually left TWO openings at the court......Thomas is clearly LOST without Scalia's lap and may soon opt to retire.

He's the biggest NO-OP in USSC history, but He could always crib notes from Alito.

The lock step leftists on the court, now those are thinking people ...

What a tool

 

[forkup]

Really? You think it is all the same? In the history of the United States I've never heard, refusing to confirm or even give a hearing or just plain meet with a supreme court justice because they don't like the person who is doing the selecting. Garland was never judged on his merits, they just refused to meet with him. And now the Republicans are saying that they will keep on doing it when they lose the election. Can you honestly claim that that was what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to "advise and consent"? Are you that dishonest?

LOL so you can sit there and claim you know what is in my head and consider that honest? Give me a break.
Garland wants guns gone. That's all that needs to be said. He is an activist and he wouldn't be there for the Constitution. Period.
You cant trample over constitutional rights then think you have a shot of actually being in the SC.
Would you hire a bank teller that previously robbed businesses or other banks?

I see you didn't answer the question. Do you claim that this is what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to 'advise and consent'? I see that as usual only the second amendment is important. Btw you don't know what his position guns is and what's more his position on guns isn't the reason congress isn't confirming him. By their own admission it is because they " want the people to decide" read ( we don't like Obama) a position they are changing now they realise the probably won't like "the people's", decision. So again, do you feel congress is acting with the Founding fathers in mind?

He doesn't like guns. He has been shot down by the Supreme Court because of some bullshit he was trying to get through. It is his political history. Read it
IDK, I cant find where they EVER mentioned it. I cant be honest and say I know what other people are thinking hint hint

Lol, I'll help.What did the founders think about the idea of political parties, and how did America come to have a two-party system? - Quora. You are welcome.

Lol what do political parties have to do with this certain section of the Constitution?

Really? You think it is all the same? In the history of the United States I've never heard, refusing to confirm or even give a hearing or just plain meet with a supreme court justice because they don't like the person who is doing the selecting. Garland was never judged on his merits, they just refused to meet with him. And now the Republicans are saying that they will keep on doing it when they lose the election. Can you honestly claim that that was what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to "advise and consent"? Are you that dishonest?

LOL so you can sit there and claim you know what is in my head and consider that honest? Give me a break.
Garland wants guns gone. That's all that needs to be said. He is an activist and he wouldn't be there for the Constitution. Period.
You cant trample over constitutional rights then think you have a shot of actually being in the SC.
Would you hire a bank teller that previously robbed businesses or other banks?

I see you didn't answer the question. Do you claim that this is what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to 'advise and consent'? I see that as usual only the second amendment is important. Btw you don't know what his position guns is and what's more his position on guns isn't the reason congress isn't confirming him. By their own admission it is because they " want the people to decide" read ( we don't like Obama) a position they are changing now they realise the probably won't like "the people's", decision. So again, do you feel congress is acting with the Founding fathers in mind?

He doesn't like guns. He has been shot down by the Supreme Court because of some bullshit he was trying to get through. It is his political history. Read it
IDK, I cant find where they EVER mentioned it. I cant be honest and say I know what other people are thinking hint hint

Lol, I'll help.What did the founders think about the idea of political parties, and how did America come to have a two-party system? - Quora. You are welcome.

Lol what do political parties have to do with this certain section of the Constitution?

In political terms they call that a pivot. The appointing of a supreme court justice is as you said political. My assertion was that since the senate has given as a reason to not even meet with Garland not for ideological but political reasons and are now putting out statements to continue this policy when Clinton gets elected. This is ironic since you Republicans keep on getting on the left because they want to put restrictions( not bans as you guys claim), on the ownership of handguns. The reason being because you claim it is unconstitutional. While as I pointed out, not wanting to appoint supreme court justices, although not unconstitutional but certainly against the spirit of those who drafted that constitution, not to mention the democratic process as we know it today.

 

[TNHarley]

LOL so you can sit there and claim you know what is in my head and consider that honest? Give me a break.
Garland wants guns gone. That's all that needs to be said. He is an activist and he wouldn't be there for the Constitution. Period.
You cant trample over constitutional rights then think you have a shot of actually being in the SC.
Would you hire a bank teller that previously robbed businesses or other banks?

I see you didn't answer the question. Do you claim that this is what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to 'advise and consent'? I see that as usual only the second amendment is important. Btw you don't know what his position guns is and what's more his position on guns isn't the reason congress isn't confirming him. By their own admission it is because they " want the people to decide" read ( we don't like Obama) a position they are changing now they realise the probably won't like "the people's", decision. So again, do you feel congress is acting with the Founding fathers in mind?

He doesn't like guns. He has been shot down by the Supreme Court because of some bullshit he was trying to get through. It is his political history. Read it
IDK, I cant find where they EVER mentioned it. I cant be honest and say I know what other people are thinking hint hint

Lol, I'll help.What did the founders think about the idea of political parties, and how did America come to have a two-party system? - Quora. You are welcome.

Lol what do political parties have to do with this certain section of the Constitution?

I see you didn't answer the question. Do you claim that this is what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to 'advise and consent'? I see that as usual only the second amendment is important. Btw you don't know what his position guns is and what's more his position on guns isn't the reason congress isn't confirming him. By their own admission it is because they " want the people to decide" read ( we don't like Obama) a position they are changing now they realise the probably won't like "the people's", decision. So again, do you feel congress is acting with the Founding fathers in mind?

He doesn't like guns. He has been shot down by the Supreme Court because of some bullshit he was trying to get through. It is his political history. Read it
IDK, I cant find where they EVER mentioned it. I cant be honest and say I know what other people are thinking hint hint

Lol, I'll help.What did the founders think about the idea of political parties, and how did America come to have a two-party system? - Quora. You are welcome.

Lol what do political parties have to do with this certain section of the Constitution?

In political terms they call that a pivot. The appointing of a supreme court justice is as you said political. My assertion was that since the senate has given as a reason to not even meet with Garland not for ideological but political reasons and are now putting out statements to continue this policy when Clinton gets elected. This is ironic since you Republicans keep on getting on the left because they want to put restrictions( not bans as you guys claim), on the ownership of handguns. The reason being because you claim it is unconstitutional. While as I pointed out, not wanting to appoint supreme court justices, although not unconstitutional but certainly against the spirit of those who drafted that constitution, not to mention the democratic process as we know it today.

Having the ability to NOT appoint is their constitutional duty..
And don't call me a republican. Would you like it if I called you that?

 

[forkup]

I see you didn't answer the question. Do you claim that this is what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to 'advise and consent'? I see that as usual only the second amendment is important. Btw you don't know what his position guns is and what's more his position on guns isn't the reason congress isn't confirming him. By their own admission it is because they " want the people to decide" read ( we don't like Obama) a position they are changing now they realise the probably won't like "the people's", decision. So again, do you feel congress is acting with the Founding fathers in mind?

He doesn't like guns. He has been shot down by the Supreme Court because of some bullshit he was trying to get through. It is his political history. Read it
IDK, I cant find where they EVER mentioned it. I cant be honest and say I know what other people are thinking hint hint

Lol, I'll help.What did the founders think about the idea of political parties, and how did America come to have a two-party system? - Quora. You are welcome.

Lol what do political parties have to do with this certain section of the Constitution?

He doesn't like guns. He has been shot down by the Supreme Court because of some bullshit he was trying to get through. It is his political history. Read it
IDK, I cant find where they EVER mentioned it. I cant be honest and say I know what other people are thinking hint hint

Lol, I'll help.What did the founders think about the idea of political parties, and how did America come to have a two-party system? - Quora. You are welcome.

Lol what do political parties have to do with this certain section of the Constitution?

In political terms they call that a pivot. The appointing of a supreme court justice is as you said political. My assertion was that since the senate has given as a reason to not even meet with Garland not for ideological but political reasons and are now putting out statements to continue this policy when Clinton gets elected. This is ironic since you Republicans keep on getting on the left because they want to put restrictions( not bans as you guys claim), on the ownership of handguns. The reason being because you claim it is unconstitutional. While as I pointed out, not wanting to appoint supreme court justices, although not unconstitutional but certainly against the spirit of those who drafted that constitution, not to mention the democratic process as we know it today.

Having the ability to NOT appoint is their constitutional duty..
And don't call me a republican. Would you like it if I called you that?

If you defend a Republican senate, I will assume you are Republican,if that is a wrong assumption I apologize. You think not confirming a supreme court justice is a constitutional duty, even as is established the reason for doing so is purely not liking who gets elected president? You can't claim any other reason since Hilary hasn't put up a name for consideration. Even not confirming for Obama is a stretch since they don't even want to meet the Garland, how can you reject someone you haven't even met with? The senate has made it very clear that they will refuse to meet ANYONE put up by either Obama and now Clinton, how is that a constitutional duty?

 

[TNHarley]

He doesn't like guns. He has been shot down by the Supreme Court because of some bullshit he was trying to get through. It is his political history. Read it
IDK, I cant find where they EVER mentioned it. I cant be honest and say I know what other people are thinking hint hint

Lol, I'll help.What did the founders think about the idea of political parties, and how did America come to have a two-party system? - Quora. You are welcome.

Lol what do political parties have to do with this certain section of the Constitution?

Lol, I'll help.What did the founders think about the idea of political parties, and how did America come to have a two-party system? - Quora. You are welcome.

Lol what do political parties have to do with this certain section of the Constitution?

In political terms they call that a pivot. The appointing of a supreme court justice is as you said political. My assertion was that since the senate has given as a reason to not even meet with Garland not for ideological but political reasons and are now putting out statements to continue this policy when Clinton gets elected. This is ironic since you Republicans keep on getting on the left because they want to put restrictions( not bans as you guys claim), on the ownership of handguns. The reason being because you claim it is unconstitutional. While as I pointed out, not wanting to appoint supreme court justices, although not unconstitutional but certainly against the spirit of those who drafted that constitution, not to mention the democratic process as we know it today.

Having the ability to NOT appoint is their constitutional duty..
And don't call me a republican. Would you like it if I called you that?

If you defend a Republican senate, I will assume you are Republican,if that is a wrong assumption I apologize. You think not confirming a supreme court justice is a constitutional duty, even as is established the reason for doing so is purely not liking who gets elected president? You can't claim any other reason since Hilary hasn't put up a name for consideration. Even not confirming for Obama is a stretch since they don't even want to meet the Garland, how can you reject someone you haven't even met with? The senate has made it very clear that they will refuse to meet ANYONE put up by either Obama and now Clinton, how is that a constitutional duty?

I'm defending the act, not the politicians.
Idkbut I'm done talking about this. We are both talking to an empty classroom

 

[BULLDOG]

Won't happen when Trump becomes president, and convicts Hillary. Obama's crimes will also be proven and he will end up in jail also.

I'll bet that's your favorite fantasy when you masturbate.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Even Breitbart entertains the strong possibility......Obama to replace Sclaia's seat?


‘Justice Obama’ – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court

..........it is conceivable that if Hillary Clinton is elected 45th president of the United States she could nominate the 44th president to the Supreme Court. For starters, it is perfectly legal, and President Obama would not be the first former president to hold the title of Justice.

'Justice Obama' – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court - Breitbart

Why not? You want an activist judge? You think judges can be activists? Suit yourself. That one will come back to bite you in the ass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even Breitbart entertains the strong possibility......Obama to replace Sclaia's seat?


‘Justice Obama’ – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court

..........it is conceivable that if Hillary Clinton is elected 45th president of the United States she could nominate the 44th president to the Supreme Court. For starters, it is perfectly legal, and President Obama would not be the first former president to hold the title of Justice.

'Justice Obama' – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court - Breitbart

Obama is perfectly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

A partisan Republican Senate wouldn’t have it, of course.

 

[OKTexas]

Even Breitbart entertains the strong possibility......Obama to replace Sclaia's seat?


‘Justice Obama’ – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court

..........it is conceivable that if Hillary Clinton is elected 45th president of the United States she could nominate the 44th president to the Supreme Court. For starters, it is perfectly legal, and President Obama would not be the first former president to hold the title of Justice.

'Justice Obama' – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court - Breitbart

Because he lost his law license for lying on the application. He not a member of the bar.

 

[jknowgood]

Won't happen when Trump becomes president, and convicts Hillary. Obama's crimes will also be proven and he will end up in jail also.

I'll bet that's your favorite fantasy when you masturbate.

Well after this afternoon I might be happy! Lol

 

[nat4900]

Why not? You want an activist judge? You think judges can be activists? Suit yourself. That one will come back to bite you in the ass.

Activist judge???
Judges DO have opinions....the difference for an ideal judge is to have the Constitution "trump" (I'm starting to hate the use of that term) one's personal opinion.
Scalia, for example, WAS beloved by conservatives precisely because he was a very activist judge; hell, Scalia even partied with people whose actions he was supposedly going to "judge".....

 

[nat4900]

Because he lost his law license for lying on the application. He not a member of the bar.

Gee, OKTX you ALSO fell for that rumor/chain email.....pity !!!

Q: Did Barack and Michelle Obama “surrender” their law licenses to avoid ethics charges?

A: No. A court official confirms that no public disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against either of them, contrary to a false Internet rumor. By voluntarily inactivating their licenses, they avoid a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees. Both could practice law again if they chose to do so.

The Obamas’ Law Licenses

 

[LeftofLeft]

Why not? You want an activist judge? You think judges can be activists? Suit yourself. That one will come back to bite you in the ass.

Activist judge???
Judges DO have opinions....the difference for an ideal judge is to have the Constitution "trump" (I'm starting to hate the use of that term) one's personal opinion.
Scalia, for example, WAS beloved by conservatives precisely because he was a very activist judge; hell, Scalia even partied with people whose actions he was supposedly going to "judge".....

Opinions by way of Interpretation, Yes. Opinions by way of Activism, No. Your opinion is that Scalia was activist.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The Senate would sit on their hands.

Perhaps.....but know this: The Senate will have a simple Democrat majority next year (with the VP's vote) AND rules can be changed to revisit the "nuclear option" to allow for a presidential nominee for justice to be a simple 51 vote approval.

I'd love to see them throw out the nuclear option.

That will set the clock ticking on things like Obamacare.