Majority Approves of Garland Confirmation

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They are. They are standing in the way of the US slipping further into the leftist's shit stew.

The people voted for Obama knowing he picks justices. They are standing in the way of the people. That won't be good come election time.

standing in the way of the people?

Hardly.

Obama, and Democrats?

yes

Obama won. So yes in the way of the people. People know what is right and fair. The repubs are deeply in the wrong on this one. Not good come election time.

Obama won.

The presidency, not emperor, king, etc.

People know what is right and fair

Looking at the candidates this year, I'm not so sure

And the constitution says the president picks the next Justice. Funny how quick repubs throw out the constitution.

He picked him. The Senate is saying "No!".

 

[OKTexas]

The presidency, not emperor, king, etc.

Looking at the candidates this year, I'm not so sure

And the constitution says the president picks the next Justice. Funny how quick repubs throw out the constitution.

No it doesn't, he has the power to nominate... not pick.

Yes he picks the justice. Which is what he has done. Now if congress does their job they approve or deny the pick.

And by law, they can do this at their leisure. Calm down Nancy.

And if they continue to show they are a do nothing congress they will answer to the voters.

You're right, mine are doing exactly what I want them to do. That's their job.

 

[jillian]

I don't understand why the RW'ers, in a country where left/right is 50-50, think that they deserve another 80 - 20 rightwing judge.

Your math is fuzzy. The court lost a conservative judge, meaning a real judge, not an activist. Replacing him with anything but tilts the scale right now.

Plus the country is about 1/3rd left, 1/3rd right and 1/3 middle don't knowers.

the court has always been the last bastion of liberalism. so what on earth are you talking about?

Yes like under FDR where they struck down so much of his stupid socialist bullshit FDR had to threaten to pack the Court.
Jillian got her law degree from Trump U.

you wish. but then again, given your double digit IQ it's not like what you think matters.

it's also not like you've ever been right about anything.

 

[jillian]

The people voted for Obama knowing he picks justices. They are standing in the way of the people. That won't be good come election time.

standing in the way of the people?

Hardly.

Obama, and Democrats?

yes

Obama won. So yes in the way of the people. People know what is right and fair. The repubs are deeply in the wrong on this one. Not good come election time.

Obama won.

The presidency, not emperor, king, etc.

People know what is right and fair

Looking at the candidates this year, I'm not so sure

And the constitution says the president picks the next Justice. Funny how quick repubs throw out the constitution.

He picked him. The Senate is saying "No!".

actually, ijit, they're not saying no... that would require vetting him and an up or down vote.

where's all your "we the people" BS when "we the people" want him seated on the court?

nutter.

 

[KGB]

standing in the way of the people?

Hardly.

Obama, and Democrats?

yes

Obama won. So yes in the way of the people. People know what is right and fair. The repubs are deeply in the wrong on this one. Not good come election time.

Obama won.

The presidency, not emperor, king, etc.

People know what is right and fair

Looking at the candidates this year, I'm not so sure

And the constitution says the president picks the next Justice. Funny how quick repubs throw out the constitution.

He picked him. The Senate is saying "No!".

actually, ijit, they're not saying no... that would require vetting him and an up or down vote.

where's all your "we the people" BS when "we the people" want him seated on the court?

nutter.

The people don't seat the Supreme Court, the Senate does. The Senate advised the President they will not hold a hearing, this fulfilling their Constitutional duty. Do try to keep up...

 

[jillian]

Obama won. So yes in the way of the people. People know what is right and fair. The repubs are deeply in the wrong on this one. Not good come election time.

Obama won.

The presidency, not emperor, king, etc.

People know what is right and fair

Looking at the candidates this year, I'm not so sure

And the constitution says the president picks the next Justice. Funny how quick repubs throw out the constitution.

He picked him. The Senate is saying "No!".

actually, ijit, they're not saying no... that would require vetting him and an up or down vote.

where's all your "we the people" BS when "we the people" want him seated on the court?

nutter.

The people don't seat the Supreme Court, the Senate does. The Senate advised the President they will not hold a hearing, this fulfilling their Constitutional duty. Do try to keep up...

but the radical right is always yelling about "we the people".

perhaps *you* should keep up. although it is always amusing when idiots like you try to insult others' intelligence.

 

[KGB]

The presidency, not emperor, king, etc.

Looking at the candidates this year, I'm not so sure

And the constitution says the president picks the next Justice. Funny how quick repubs throw out the constitution.

He picked him. The Senate is saying "No!".

actually, ijit, they're not saying no... that would require vetting him and an up or down vote.

where's all your "we the people" BS when "we the people" want him seated on the court?

nutter.

The people don't seat the Supreme Court, the Senate does. The Senate advised the President they will not hold a hearing, this fulfilling their Constitutional duty. Do try to keep up...

but the radical right is always yelling about "we the people".

perhaps *you* should keep up. although it is always amusing when idiots like you try to insult others' intelligence.

Again for the slow....."We the People" already spoke for this in 2014. Remember how elections have consequences? The people already had their say. Since we have a Constitutional Republic & the Constitution spells out the process, all the boxes have been checked. It's not that hard...

 

[AceRothstein]

Say hello to a Dem Senate in early 2017.

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't understand why the RW'ers, in a country where left/right is 50-50, think that they deserve another 80 - 20 rightwing judge.

Your math is fuzzy. The court lost a conservative judge, meaning a real judge, not an activist. Replacing him with anything but tilts the scale right now.

Plus the country is about 1/3rd left, 1/3rd right and 1/3 middle don't knowers.

the court has always been the last bastion of liberalism. so what on earth are you talking about?

Yes like under FDR where they struck down so much of his stupid socialist bullshit FDR had to threaten to pack the Court.
Jillian got her law degree from Trump U.

you wish. but then again, given your double digit IQ it's not like what you think matters.

it's also not like you've ever been right about anything.

I just pwned you because you didnt know about the USSC under FDR and I'm the one who's never right?
You go, girl.

 

[The Rabbi]

The presidency, not emperor, king, etc.

Looking at the candidates this year, I'm not so sure

And the constitution says the president picks the next Justice. Funny how quick repubs throw out the constitution.

He picked him. The Senate is saying "No!".

actually, ijit, they're not saying no... that would require vetting him and an up or down vote.

where's all your "we the people" BS when "we the people" want him seated on the court?

nutter.

The people don't seat the Supreme Court, the Senate does. The Senate advised the President they will not hold a hearing, this fulfilling their Constitutional duty. Do try to keep up...

but the radical right is always yelling about "we the people".

perhaps *you* should keep up. although it is always amusing when idiots like you try to insult others' intelligence.

No that would be the Left. R emember "count all votes (except military overseas ones)"?

 

[jillian]

And the constitution says the president picks the next Justice. Funny how quick repubs throw out the constitution.

He picked him. The Senate is saying "No!".

actually, ijit, they're not saying no... that would require vetting him and an up or down vote.

where's all your "we the people" BS when "we the people" want him seated on the court?

nutter.

The people don't seat the Supreme Court, the Senate does. The Senate advised the President they will not hold a hearing, this fulfilling their Constitutional duty. Do try to keep up...

but the radical right is always yelling about "we the people".

perhaps *you* should keep up. although it is always amusing when idiots like you try to insult others' intelligence.

Again for the slow....."We the People" already spoke for this in 2014. Remember how elections have consequences? The people already had their say. Since we have a Constitutional Republic & the Constitution spells out the process, all the boxes have been checked. It's not that hard...

we the people re-elected this president twice with 52% of the vote. your gerrymandered house still had more democratic votes than republican votes.... and the senate...well, no question dems didn't do their job in the midterms.

but like I said, we the people RIGHT THIS SECOND want this justice confirmed by 52%

so what we the people are you loons talking about ... your 40% of 47% of the electorate who have obstructed the government for 7 years?

 

[TNHarley]

He picked him. The Senate is saying "No!".

actually, ijit, they're not saying no... that would require vetting him and an up or down vote.

where's all your "we the people" BS when "we the people" want him seated on the court?

nutter.

The people don't seat the Supreme Court, the Senate does. The Senate advised the President they will not hold a hearing, this fulfilling their Constitutional duty. Do try to keep up...

but the radical right is always yelling about "we the people".

perhaps *you* should keep up. although it is always amusing when idiots like you try to insult others' intelligence.

Again for the slow....."We the People" already spoke for this in 2014. Remember how elections have consequences? The people already had their say. Since we have a Constitutional Republic & the Constitution spells out the process, all the boxes have been checked. It's not that hard...

we the people re-elected this president twice with 52% of the vote. your gerrymandered house still had more democratic votes than republican votes.... and the senate...well, no question dems didn't do their job in the midterms.

but like I said, we the people RIGHT THIS SECOND want this justice confirmed by 52%

so what we the people are you loons talking about ... your 40% of 47% of the electorate who have obstructed the government for 7 years?

But a majority doesn't even know who he is. Partisanship and hackery doesn't run a country.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Hates the second amendment. Just another radical leftist. Doesn't really observe the constitution. He's gone.

 

[jillian]

actually, ijit, they're not saying no... that would require vetting him and an up or down vote.

where's all your "we the people" BS when "we the people" want him seated on the court?

nutter.

The people don't seat the Supreme Court, the Senate does. The Senate advised the President they will not hold a hearing, this fulfilling their Constitutional duty. Do try to keep up...

but the radical right is always yelling about "we the people".

perhaps *you* should keep up. although it is always amusing when idiots like you try to insult others' intelligence.

Again for the slow....."We the People" already spoke for this in 2014. Remember how elections have consequences? The people already had their say. Since we have a Constitutional Republic & the Constitution spells out the process, all the boxes have been checked. It's not that hard...

we the people re-elected this president twice with 52% of the vote. your gerrymandered house still had more democratic votes than republican votes.... and the senate...well, no question dems didn't do their job in the midterms.

but like I said, we the people RIGHT THIS SECOND want this justice confirmed by 52%

so what we the people are you loons talking about ... your 40% of 47% of the electorate who have obstructed the government for 7 years?

But a majority doesn't even know who he is. Partisanship and hackery doesn't run a country.

partisanship and hackery apparently does run the country since the 40 wackio members of the house have obstructed business for 7 years.

and since when does the percentage of the electorate that votes matter? the percentage of the electorate that voted for the winger senate certainly is smaller than the percentage that voted for the president by more than 5 million votes the second time around and more than that the first time.

you seem to call it partisan and hackery when you don't like the result.

 

[TNHarley]

The people don't seat the Supreme Court, the Senate does. The Senate advised the President they will not hold a hearing, this fulfilling their Constitutional duty. Do try to keep up...

but the radical right is always yelling about "we the people".

perhaps *you* should keep up. although it is always amusing when idiots like you try to insult others' intelligence.

Again for the slow....."We the People" already spoke for this in 2014. Remember how elections have consequences? The people already had their say. Since we have a Constitutional Republic & the Constitution spells out the process, all the boxes have been checked. It's not that hard...

we the people re-elected this president twice with 52% of the vote. your gerrymandered house still had more democratic votes than republican votes.... and the senate...well, no question dems didn't do their job in the midterms.

but like I said, we the people RIGHT THIS SECOND want this justice confirmed by 52%

so what we the people are you loons talking about ... your 40% of 47% of the electorate who have obstructed the government for 7 years?

But a majority doesn't even know who he is. Partisanship and hackery doesn't run a country.

partisanship and hackery apparently does run the country since the 40 wackio members of the house have obstructed business for 7 years.

and since when does the percentage of the electorate that votes matter? the percentage of the electorate that voted for the winger senate certainly is smaller than the percentage that voted for the president by more than 5 million votes the second time around and more than that the first time.

you seem to call it partisan and hackery when you don't like the result.

Bullshit. I have been calling the republicans hacks for not voting. Its childish theater. That's it. Vote, then deny that fucker and be done with it.
It isn't just congress that obstructs. Remember Obama and his brilliant fuckin lines right after he lost congress :
"I want to work with republicans on the issues" not 2 minutes later "if I don't get what I want, I have a pen"
And btw, hack attack, remember harry reid in 2012? "I will obstruct everything Mitt puts forth"
CONGRESS is nothing but a bunch of hacks.
Get your head out of your ass. Your side is NOT better than the other.

 

[TNHarley]

another moron that thinks I like the GOP lol
Do people actually read anything on here, or are they just too emotional for that?

 

[Rustic]

so much for "we the people" (unless the "We" is the rightwingnut minority, of course)

"Americans are more likely to favor (52%) than oppose (29%) Senate confirmation of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, according to Gallup’s first reading on public support for his nomination. That level of support essentially matches the average 51% in initial readings for the eight nominees Gallup has tested since 1991. CONT."

U.S. Support for Garland Average for Supreme Court Nominees

Wait till the next president, Barry sucks ass...

 

[Valerie]

Bullshit. I have been calling the republicans hacks for not voting. Its childish theater. That's it.

Vote, then deny that fucker and be done with it.

deny him based on what, exactly? blind obstruction is not leadership..


"that fucker" is a highly accomplished individual whose work as a judge is highly regarded by all, and the man deserves the dignity of a thorough review process, and should only be denied based on an expressed valid rationale to deny him.

 

[American Horse]

so much for "we the people" (unless the "We" is the rightwingnut minority, of course)

"Americans are more likely to favor (52%) than oppose (29%) Senate confirmation of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, according to Gallup’s first reading on public support for his nomination. That level of support essentially matches the average 51% in initial readings for the eight nominees Gallup has tested since 1991. CONT."

U.S. Support for Garland Average for Supreme Court Nominees

The public definitely needs to be more informed about Chief Judge Garland. Here's just a smattering of information about Garland the public would benefit from learning:

Judge Garland’s record on the D.C. Circuit Court:

In NAHB v. EPA, Judge Garland in 2011 refused to consider a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) claim by the National Association of Home Builders against the Environmental Protection Agency despite the law’s clear language. The RFA is one of the few federal statutes that explicitly require certain agencies to take into account the effect of their actions on small employers.

Consider that the federal government itself estimates that the typical small business must spend $12,000 per worker annually just to be compliant with federal regulations. With Judge Garland on the Supreme Court, the EPA and other regulators would have a freer hand to impose even more costs on small businesses.

In another case, Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, in 2003, Judge Garland argued that the Commerce Clause, which regulates economic activity between the states, applies to an animal species found in only one state and which has no economic value. In doing so he foreshadowed the creative reasoning that the Obama administration used to defend the Affordable Care Act inNFIB v. Sebelius.

Wouldn’t Garland as a pivotal justice on the Supreme Court, apply his elastic view of the Commerce Clause to almost anything else?

In two other cases involving the National Labor Relations Board, Judge Garland didn’t just side with the government—he argued that business owners should be personally liable for labor violations. In other words, their personal assets, including their homes and their savings, would be exposed to government penalties.

Judge Garland has been consistently wrong on labor law. In 16 major labor decisions examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the National Labor Relations Board.

Judge Garland would be a strong ally of the regulatory bureaucracy, big labor and trial lawyers.

Based on these facts Garland would not be confirmed, were he to be given a hearing; there is no way.

 

[jillian]

but the radical right is always yelling about "we the people".

perhaps *you* should keep up. although it is always amusing when idiots like you try to insult others' intelligence.

Again for the slow....."We the People" already spoke for this in 2014. Remember how elections have consequences? The people already had their say. Since we have a Constitutional Republic & the Constitution spells out the process, all the boxes have been checked. It's not that hard...

we the people re-elected this president twice with 52% of the vote. your gerrymandered house still had more democratic votes than republican votes.... and the senate...well, no question dems didn't do their job in the midterms.

but like I said, we the people RIGHT THIS SECOND want this justice confirmed by 52%

so what we the people are you loons talking about ... your 40% of 47% of the electorate who have obstructed the government for 7 years?

But a majority doesn't even know who he is. Partisanship and hackery doesn't run a country.

partisanship and hackery apparently does run the country since the 40 wackio members of the house have obstructed business for 7 years.

and since when does the percentage of the electorate that votes matter? the percentage of the electorate that voted for the winger senate certainly is smaller than the percentage that voted for the president by more than 5 million votes the second time around and more than that the first time.

you seem to call it partisan and hackery when you don't like the result.

Bullshit. I have been calling the republicans hacks for not voting. Its childish theater. That's it. Vote, then deny that fucker and be done with it.
It isn't just congress that obstructs. Remember Obama and his brilliant fuckin lines right after he lost congress :
"I want to work with republicans on the issues" not 2 minutes later "if I don't get what I want, I have a pen"
And btw, hack attack, remember harry reid in 2012? "I will obstruct everything Mitt puts forth"
CONGRESS is nothing but a bunch of hacks.
Get your head out of your ass. Your side is NOT better than the other.

control yourself dear.. I hadn't seen you say anything of the sort. that doesn't mean you didn't say it. it means I didn't see it.

and? should he not have pointed out that if congress didn't give him what he wanted, he had a veto pen? there was nothing unusual about that.

or do we have to point out again that the day the president was inaugurated, the hacks had their little meeting where they said they'd never work with him?

nah... nothing hackish about that.