Obama to Announce Supreme Court Nominee at 11 a.m. Today

[Skylar]

Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for Supreme Court

CN chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a blog post that Judge Merrick’s record on the bench since 1997 “leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

And when did Merrick vote against Heller exactly?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

What justification do Republicans have ?

just that we are exorcising our constitutional right to advise and consent

You have no idea just how accurate your little Freudian slip is.

Good one. (What a freakin' idiot)

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Maybe that was true once but it sure as shit ain't now. Now they can kill you in Kabul, Afghanistan, while drinking coffee in New Mexico...

ONLY in the fascists' GUN FREE ZONES.


.

The people we kill with drones love guns, sometimes have tons of them, and they are just as fucking dead eh? Keep that in mind,

Here you don't need a gun, you need a lawyer. We've at least gotten that far...

No, I need my .357 Magnum.

You are free to carry a daisy.


.

If you think that will be a check on the powers of the government, I can't help you...

When tyranny reaches a certain threshold Americans will react accordingly

That's the same faith that keeps people thinking Jesus will soon return, for the last 2,000 years...

 

[g5000]

Remember when the pseudo-cons bitched and bitched and bitched about Harry Reid spiking legislation and not allowing it to be voted on in the Senate?

Remember that?

Rank hypocrites!

Tu quoque.

No. When someone is being a hypocrite, it is not tu quoque to point out their hypocrisy.

 

[Contumacious]

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, eventually went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the ban unconstitutional. While Garland’s actual decision was only to review the law and not to enforce it outright, the fact that he didn’t just agree to kill the ban may not sit well with conservatives.

Even more concerning for gun lovers is Garland’s 2000 decision in NRA v. Reno. In that case, the National Rifle Association fought against retention of background check information that is collected when people legally purchase guns. The NRA argued that the information was required to be immediately destroyed under the Brady Act. Then-Attorney General Janet Reno’s position was that it was necessary and allowed under the act to retain the data for six months in order to audit the background check system. Garland ruled in Reno’s favor, stating that her interpretation of the Brady Act was reasonable.

Nice Copy & Paste without attribution of a copyrighted piece you damn thief. At the bottom of the article one can read [ © 2016 LawNewz, LLC ], but you violated the fair use doctrine. Learn how to attribute/cite the SOURCE MATERIAL. By way of example at the bottom of the C&P, < Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland: Tough on Crime, but Soft on Guns? >

Really?

Did you click on the html hyperlink ?

.

Yes, Really. Having been the victim of a plagiarist who stole my intellectual property and money from my pocket, I'm just a litt6le prickly about other plagiarists I happen to come across, you Goddamn thief! Hiding the source within a hyperlink in the first sentence of two paragraphs of copyrighted material doesn't give the thief plausible deniability, asshole. Especially without any indication it is a QUOTE form the actual source.

Well , thank you for admitting that the reason for you anger is the fact that you have a little prick


.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Sources say it's Merrick Garland, an anti gunnner

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama will nominate federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, congressional sources said Wednesday. The pick sets up a confrontation with Republicans who say they will refuse to consider his nomination in an election year.

Garland, 63, is the chief judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a court whose influence over federal policy and national security matters has made it a proving ground for potential Supreme Court justices.

News from The Associated Press

See how easy it would be for the Republicans to do their job and vote against him? They've even got a reason. Why won't they?

They just did....it be like ....nope. Next topic

McConnell Says ‘No’ to Merrick Garland for SCOTUS, Citing ‘Biden Rule’

McConnell Says 'No' to Garland, Citing 'Biden Rule' - Breitbart

 

[g5000]

Mitch McConnell is blocking a vote in the Senate, and the rubes are supporting that obstruction.

Any one of them who whined about Democrats blocking votes is a hypocrite.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

This thread is like shooting red fish in a barrel.

I wouldn't go quite so far as to label ALL the nominees "red" (Communist-leaning) but given your insider status perhaps I should yield to your superiour information.

So is that why red states are called red, because they are communist-leaning?

 

[rightwinger]

The difference is that the Republicans in Senate can say....I object to Judge Garland because:
If their because is ...Because Obama nominated him they will be held accountable

Liberals declaring their opinions to be facts NEVER gets old...

The guy is a leftist who would (predicted) potentially overturn Scalia's decision and pave the way for Americans to be dis-armed. That is sure dawn-well good enough reason NOT to let this guy 'join the club'.

Then hold hearings and have the Senate vote for or against

That is what the Dems did with Scalia, Thomas and Alito

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Mitch McConnell is blocking a vote in the Senate, and the rubes are supporting that obstruction.

Any one of them who whined about Democrats blocking votes is a hypocrite.

I think McC also said in 2010 that he was going to make sure Obama was a one-term POTUS.

 

[g5000]

Here is another topic started by easyt65 whining about Harry Reid blocking a Senate vote: Senator Reid vows to OBSTRUCT Republican majority

 

[easyt65]

It's the Senate's job to vote up or down on a nomination. That's the "consent" part. Why are you so terrified of the Senate performing its Constitutional duty?

1. Liberals have made it their standard operating procedure NOT to bring up anything the GOP passed for a vote. Harry Reid's job in the Senate was simple - bring legislation passed in the house to the floor of the Senate for discussion and then for a vote. When Liberals still controlled the Senate Harry Reid refused to allow any legislation passed in the GOP-controlled House come to the floor for DEISCUSSION, let alone a vote. So please don't give me the hypocritical B$ NOW about what is and what is NOT the Constitutional Duty of the senate.

2. What were the liberals and harry Reid so afraid of that drove Reid to obstruct the people's business in Congress by refusing to allow over 100 pieces of legislation leave Reid's desk and come up for a vote?

Just stop with the hypocritical leftist B$! Doesn't go down so well when you are on the receiving end, is it?

That is one of the reason I hope - a little - the next GOP President of the United States in 2016 pushes his own agenda, bypassing Congress to do so, by pushing into law his own agendas/ideas through Executive Order, using the precedence established by OBAMA and LIBERALS. I can't wait to hear them whine and squeal like little girls when a Republican does what they did for 8 years, screaming, "It's not fair....It's not constitutional!"

 

[easyt65]

Here is another topic started by easyt65 whining about Harry Reid blocking a Senate vote: Senator Reid vows to OBSTRUCT Republican majority

Thanks for supporting the point I made.

 

[rightwinger]

Mitch McConnell is blocking a vote in the Senate, and the rubes are supporting that obstruction.

Any one of them who whined about Democrats blocking votes is a hypocrite.

It will get worse

Republicans claim they want "the next President to decide" See what happens when Hillary wins and Republicans try to rush through Obama's pick rather than risk who Hillary picks

 

[g5000]

It's the Senate's job to vote up or down on a nomination. That's the "consent" part. Why are you so terrified of the Senate performing its Constitutional duty?

1. Liberals have made it their standard operating procedure NOT to bring up anything the GOP passed for a vote. Harry Reid's job in the Senate was simple - bring legislation passed in the house to the floor of the Senate for discussion and then for a vote. When Liberals still controlled the Senate Harry Reid refused to allow any legislation passed in the GOP-controlled House come to the floor for DEISCUSSION, let alone a vote. So please don't give me the hypocritical B$ NOW about what is and what is NOT the Constitutional Duty of the senate.

2. What were the liberals and harry Reid so afraid of that drove Reid to obstruct the people's business in Congress by refusing to allow over 100 pieces of legislation leave Reid's desk and come up for a vote?

Just stop with the hypocritical leftist B$! Doesn't go down so well when you are on the receiving end, is it?

That is one of the reason I hope - a little - the next GOP President of the United States in 2016 pushes his own agenda, bypassing Congress to do so, by pushing into law his own agendas/ideas through Executive Order, using the precedence established by OBAMA and LIBERALS. I can't wait to hear them whine and squeal like little girls when a Republican does what they did for 8 years, screaming, "It's not fair....It's not constitutional!"

You are the hypocrite. You whined and whined about Reid obstructing Senate votes.

And now you are supporting McConnell obstructing a Senate vote on a nomination.

You are a rank hypocrite.

 

[dcbl]

it works both ways, and an election year is the perfect time for this showdown

the Senate has zero obligation to consider this nominee, that is the way it works

 

[g5000]

Mitch McConnell is blocking a vote in the Senate, and the rubes are supporting that obstruction.

Any one of them who whined about Democrats blocking votes is a hypocrite.

It will get worse

Republicans claim they want "the next President to decide" See what happens when Hillary wins and Republicans try to rush through Obama's pick rather than risk who Hillary picks

They are also setting a new precedent. One which will one day snap right back into their slackjawed faces.

 

[g5000]

it works both ways, and an election year is the perfect time for this showdown

the Senate has zero obligation to consider this nominee, that is the way it works

They have a Constitutional obligation to consider the nominee, retard.

You rubes only love the Constitution when it suits you.

 

[g5000]

Explain something, rubes. How are Senators who want to vote for or against a nominee going to exercise their Constitutional obligation to advise and consent in this McConnell obstructionist scheme?

 

[SwimExpert]

it works both ways, and an election year is the perfect time for this showdown

the Senate has zero obligation to consider this nominee, that is the way it works

It's a mistake. Garland is actually a very good appointment. McConnell was an idiot to come out a half hour after Scalia's death and declare that he would not allow any nominee to be considered. Now he's going to shoot himself in the foot a second time by allowing his ego to stand in his way.