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.
These are not the nominees we are looking for. McConnell can filibuster all he wants. But if Trump gets the nomination, we aren't going to get any better from Clinton.
The short list:
Sri Srinivasan - Liberal
In Sierra Club v. Jewell, 764 F. 3d 1 (2014),[26] Srinivasan authored the majority opinion in the D.C. Circuit's split decision holding that environmental groups seeking to protect the site of the historic Battle of Blair Mountain possessed Article III standing to challenge the removal of the site from the National Register of Historic Places in federal court.[27]
Srinivasan authored the D.C. Circuit's decision in Pom Wonderful v. FTC, 777 F.3d 478 (2015),[28] which upheld FTC regulations that require health-related advertising claims be supported by clinical studies while simultaneously trimming the number of studies required on First Amendment grounds.[29]
In Home Care Association of America v. Weil, 799 F. 3d 1084 (2015),[30] Srinivasan authored the D.C. Circuit's decision reinstating, under Chevron deference, regulations that guarantee overtime and minimum wage protection to home health care workers, citing "dramatic transformation" of the home care industry over the past forty years as reason for the change.[31]
Srinivasan authored the D.C. Circuit's decision in Hodge v. Talkin, 799 F. 3d 1145 (2015),[32] which upheld a federal law prohibiting demonstrations in the United States Supreme Court Building's plaza as justified by the Supreme Court's interest in not giving the appearance of being influenced by public opinion and as consistent with nonpublic forum viewpoint-neutral restrictions, where demonstrations could proceed on nearby public sidewalks.[33]
In Jarkesy v. SEC, 803 F. 3d 9 (2015),[34] Srinivasan authored the D.C. Circuit's decision holding that the securities laws under the Dodd-Frank Act provide an exclusive avenue for judicial review that plaintiffs may not bypass by filing suit in district court.[35]
Srinivasan authored the D.C. Circuit's decision in Simon v. Republic of Hungary, Slip Op. (2016),[36] holding that Article 27 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act merely creates a floor on compensation for Holocaust survivors because the text of the 1947 peace treaty between Hungary and the Allies does not bar claims outside of the treaty and because the Allies "lacked the power to eliminate (or waive) the claims of" Hungary’s own citizens against their government.[37]
Sri Srinivasan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paul Watford - Swing (at best)
In 1994 he served as a law clerk to Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit, and from 1995 to 1996 he clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court of the United States.
On October 17, 2011, President Obama nominated Watford to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Paul J. Watford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This guy is in the running just because he's black. That's about it.
Merrick Garland - Raging Liberal
Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
On September 6, 1995, President Bill Clinton nominated Garland to the D.C. Circuit seat vacated by Abner J. Mikva.
Garland told senators during his U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1995 that the U.S. Supreme Court justice for whom he had the greatest admiration was Chief Justice John Marshall, and that he had personal affection for the justice for whom he clerked, Justice William Brennan. "Everybody, I think, who hopes to become a judge would aspire to be able to write as well as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes," Garland told the committee at that time.
Merrick Garland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obama to name Supreme Court nominee - CNNPolitics.com
Agreed, but who said anyone declared they would leave the position on the USSC unfilled forever?The Senate can leave one of the three branches of Government unfilled forever
That's an interesting world you live in, but it's not the real one.Trump will destroy Hillary in the General.
Looking at a 57 state sweep and maybe 80 Republican Senators
Why not never fill it? It doesn't seem to concern you. If one year is good, why isn't two or ten even better?Agreed, but who said anyone declared they would leave the position on the USSC unfilled forever?The Senate can leave one of the three branches of Government unfilled forever
your kidding yourself if you think that the republicans would have ever been decent and willing to work with the president. in fact, your main criticism of him is born out of republican intransigence.Obama has the 'right' to nominate a fucking dog turd. It's in the Constitution right?
The Senate, according to the Constitution has the 'right' when and if they want to consider Obama's dog turd.
If Obama hadn't been such a fucking asshole from day one the way he habitually bypassed and ignored Congress and the Senate then he may have been able to put his choice on the SC.
You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.
They have a Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies
They have Constitutional authority to do so in their own good time.
And that is where the problem lies...
Up until now, "in their own good time" meant 3-6 months and actively vetting the Presidents nominee
Republicans are asking for 15 or more months to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
What happens if Trump wins and Democrats look to wait two years to approve his nominee?
The Constitution required the Senate Majority Leader to bring legislation passed by the House to the floor of the Senate for discussion and for a vote. Harry Reid took it upon himself NOT to do that and to basically not do so for approximately 2 years, until the libs lost the Senate. So, acting on that precedence, go tell Obama that he can expect a vote to be held on Garland's nomination in about 2 years.Actually they don't. The Constitution requires them to vote.
I see you could not answer the questions. So be it.How many years is their "own good time"? If one year is okay why not two, or four, or ten?You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.
They have a Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies
They have Constitutional authority to do so in their own good time.
I see you are bordering on understanding a salient point. Congratulations.
What would an Originalist say?
What I just said.
Nope, nothing like one.Nonsense. I am an originalist. Those are my answers.
Nope, nothing like one.Nonsense. I am an originalist. Those are my answers.
Actually, it doesn't.The Constitution required the Senate Majority Leader to bring legislation passed by the House to the floor of the Senate for discussion and for a vote...Actually they don't. The Constitution requires them to vote.
Assuming Trump wins but loses the Senate?your kidding yourself if you think that the republicans would have ever been decent and willing to work with the president. in fact, your main criticism of him is born out of republican intransigence.
You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.
They have a Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies
They have Constitutional authority to do so in their own good time.
And that is where the problem lies...
Up until now, "in their own good time" meant 3-6 months and actively vetting the Presidents nominee
Republicans are asking for 15 or more months to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. What happens if Trump wins and Democrats look to wait two years to approve his nominee?
That's very unlikely. Trump wins and Congress and the Senate stay REP.
Remember what Obama did when he had the same situation? Me too. I can' think of anything he accomplished when he literally controlled all three branches of government.
Watch Trump in the same circumstance.
THAT'S the LIBs worst nightmare.
Obama has the 'right' to nominate a fucking dog turd. It's in the Constitution right?The Founding Fathers put the Senate in place to stop the likes of Obama from behaving like a fucking Monarch.
Who was it that crowed: "Elections have consequences"?
Guess our 'Monarch-Lite' forgot that Senators are also elected.
So your saying that Obama doesn't have the right to nominate anybody? Or you are just blowing your racist shit again?
The Senate, according to the Constitution has the 'right' when and if they want to consider Obama's dog turd.
If Obama hadn't been such a fucking asshole from day one the way he habitually bypassed and ignored Congress and the Senate then he may have been able to put his choice on the SC.
Reps are not "asking" fuck all. They are telling the LIBs how it is.your kidding yourself if you think that the republicans would have ever been decent and willing to work with the president. in fact, your main criticism of him is born out of republican intransigence.
You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.
They have a Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies
They have Constitutional authority to do so in their own good time.
And that is where the problem lies...
Up until now, "in their own good time" meant 3-6 months and actively vetting the Presidents nominee
Republicans are asking for 15 or more months to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. What happens if Trump wins and Democrats look to wait two years to approve his nominee?
Trump belongs to only one party, Trump.Assuming Trump wins but loses the Senate?You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.
They have a Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies
They have Constitutional authority to do so in their own good time.
And that is where the problem lies...
Up until now, "in their own good time" meant 3-6 months and actively vetting the Presidents nominee
Republicans are asking for 15 or more months to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. What happens if Trump wins and Democrats look to wait two years to approve his nominee?
That's very unlikely. Trump wins and Congress and the Senate stay REP.
Remember what Obama did when he had the same situation? Me too. I can' think of anything he accomplished when he literally controlled all three branches of government.
Watch Trump in the same circumstance.
THAT'S the LIBs worst nightmare.
Trump doesn't get along with his own party...
Good lord............... I'm so sick with these Republicans.
Why don't you fucking move to Iran with Al Sharpton after Trump is elected. You can be the Reverend's bag-boy, dipshit.
There is no favor required to be earned. The Senate has a Constitutional requirement to fulfill. If Grassley and McConnell don't do their required duties under the Constitution and defiantly refuse to carryout their sworn responsibilities, then they should be impeached, tried and thrown out of the office of trust they hold.Obama will be denied a hearing on his SCOTUS nomination, period. The lawless punk hasn't earned any favors from the GOP senate.
Good lord............... I'm so sick with these Republicans.
Why don't you fucking move to Iran with Al Sharpton after Trump is elected. You can be the Reverend's bag-boy, dipshit.
Dude your getting desperate there. Adolf Trump will not and never be a president of the US. Your opinion just shows what kind of Adolf followers are............ You need this flag so you can be proud running around.
The Senate is only following the 'Biden Rule'.In and of itself, your statement is correct, but both the Executive and the Judicial are also co-equal branches. The Senate, upon receiving a named nominee for a SCOTUS appointment, is required to perform their Constitutional requirements under existing Senate rules and perform the hearings, and if necessary after the Senate Committee vote, put the appointee to an up or down confirmation vote.The Senate—which is a co-equal branch of government—has every right NOT to confirm
The Senate Judicial Committee and the Senate as a whole violate the check and balances set into the Constitution by sitting on their collective hands and obstructing the other two branches for purely partisan reasons. Anyone who believes that is a proper thing for the GOP Senate to do by setting an Unconstitutional precedent is nothing more than a partisan hack with no regard for the rule of law and the Constitution!
