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

[dannyboys]

Obama will be denied a hearing on his SCOTUS nomination, period. The lawless punk hasn't earned any favors from the GOP senate.

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.

If Obama is lawless as you and others so vehemently affirm, then why the Hell haven't the House and Senate done the same to him? Again, they're not carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities.

Your bitching about one and not about the other smacks of bloody partisan hypocrisy!

Apparently you are refusing to read what the Constitution says.
Biden read it.

 

[dannyboys]

I don't think Obama really wants hearings .... now. The Nevada PRO GUN REPUBLICAN governor was the soft toss to McConnell. But McConnell just has a visceral dislike of Obama, that truly mystifies me. Politics is all about getting along with guys YOU DON'T LIKE. McConnell acts like Obama took his virginity and posted it on a bathroom wall or something. But the fact is the gop never really offered a compromise on healthcare, beyond maybe expanding Medicaid some more, and that actually may have been the worst aspect of Obamacare, because gop governors have gotten waivers to use the fed money for tax credits to allow people to buy coverage individually .... which is at least a market based solution, which is what we gopers are supposed to be for. And Porkulus didn't really have anything, beyond the pork of just shoveling money at make work projects, that the gop hasn't traditionally supported. Obama did offer a good faith debt compromise.

Odds have to be at least 65-35 that Hill clobbers the Donald. McConnell said no to Republican. Hillary and the senate candidates are gonna hit this "no hearings" thing like a cheap gong. McConnell likely will be a less advantageous position. McConnell's move made no political sense ... unless he was betting the farm the establishment could not run the Donald and still have a unified party going into the election. If that was his bet, he bet bad.

Obama's a big govt liberal elitist. But he won two elections.

McConnell is playing bad cop for the Republicans. If he allows a vote, then individual Senators have to go on record. Tough on those up for election

This way, when a Republican Senator is asked why Republicans will not fill Scalias seat, he gets to say...Its not me, Its McConnell

I don't think so. I don't think Garland would be confirmed on an up or down vote, and I don't see why voting no would be a difficult thing for a sitting gop senator running to defend. Just say, I question whether he would affirm an individ right to guns.

You could ask him.

Oh, wait. No hearings. Never mind.

What is hard to defend is acquiescing to leadership that wouldn't even hold hearings on republican pro-gun governor for the sup ct, who would be less controversial in confirming than was Kennedy, whom the dems confirmed in Reagan's final year, and now won't even give the courtesy of hearings to Garland. Voters want congress to get shite done.

Its just a continuation of the same tune the GOP has been dancing to for about 7 years: a refusal to co-govern.

In your most lucid moments do you actually believe that the concept of "co-governing" ever entered Obama's mind? REALLY?
The asshole Obama never even met with the Congressional House leader until a year after he took office. THINK!!!!!

 

[georgephillip]

This should be rich.
Lemme guess - a fucking Liberal bull-dyke with a dyke spike, a gut, and an attitude. Of course, she'll have military experience. That'll be the big highlight. She spent four years munching carpet in the barracks at some Air Farce base, bringing hard-working servicemen up on charges of "sexual assault."

"(Merrick) Garland was born on November 13, 1952 in Chicago, Illinois.[2] He was raised in the Chicago area,[3] in the northern suburb of Lincolnwood.[4]

"Garland's mother Shirley (née Horwitz) was a director of volunteer services at Chicago's Council for Jewish Elderly; his father, Cyril Garland, headed Garland Advertising, a small business run out of the family's home.[5][6][3][7]

"Garland was raised as a Jew.[7]

"His grandparents left the Pale of Settlement in the early 20th century, fleeing anti-Semitism and seeking a better life for their children in the United States."

Merrick Garland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ogibillm]

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.

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?

actually from nomination to confirmation or rejection takes on average 25 days and has never taken more than 125.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Senate is only following the 'Biden Rule'.
The Constitution clearly states the Senate the has the last word on any SCJ nomination put up by any President.
If the situation was reversed? Ya fucking right!

Actually they are not following even what Biden said.

Biden said the nomination shouldn't occur and the senate shouldn't act until after the election. (The election being in the beginning of November.)

McConnell and company are not to doing that, they are refusing to consider any nomination until after a new President is sworn in in January.


>>>>

 

[Borillar]

Let the games begin....

How long can the do nothing Senate, do nothing?

They've been doing nothing for years.

 

[Borillar]

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

Spoiler

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)

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

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

My bet is on Sri. The name fits...closest you can get to a Muslim...and Obabble will be able to whine racism when the Senate committee shoves the nomination up his ass.

The dude is Hindu, not Muslim. He was also confirmed unanimously to his current position. Be hard for the repugs to turn his nomination down since they confirmed him without a single objection.

 

[deltex1]

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

Spoiler

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)

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

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

My bet is on Sri. The name fits...closest you can get to a Muslim...and Obabble will be able to whine racism when the Senate committee shoves the nomination up his ass.

The dude is Hindu, not Muslim. He was also confirmed unanimously to his current position. Be hard for the repugs to turn his nomination down since they confirmed him without a single objection.

I knew that...but with Obama...he is comfortable with a non Christian. It's a roots thingy.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

Spoiler

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)

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

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

My bet is on Sri. The name fits...closest you can get to a Muslim...and Obabble will be able to whine racism when the Senate committee shoves the nomination up his ass.

The dude is Hindu, not Muslim. He was also confirmed unanimously to his current position. Be hard for the repugs to turn his nomination down since they confirmed him without a single objection.

They don't have to accept or reject anything. All they have to do is simply refrain from any action upon it.

 

[Borillar]

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

Spoiler

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)

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

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

My bet is on Sri. The name fits...closest you can get to a Muslim...and Obabble will be able to whine racism when the Senate committee shoves the nomination up his ass.

The dude is Hindu, not Muslim. He was also confirmed unanimously to his current position. Be hard for the repugs to turn his nomination down since they confirmed him without a single objection.

I knew that...but with Obama...he is comfortable with a non Christian. It's a roots thingy.

Well, it's all academic anyway. Got enough Catholic justices already.

 

[jon_berzerk]

easily there is a big dif between the district court and the supreme court

sure. the district court is one step removed. one step. how does someone that doesn't merit any dissent for that important job not merit at least hearings?

so what

it'll matter in their re-election bids

why is that

as an example let's look at my state and the senate race there. In Missouri first term Senator Roy Blunt is up for re-election, running against Sec. of State Jason Kander - so both have won state wide elections in the past. in a presidential election year voter turnout is higher - higher turnout helps the democratic candidate nearly every time. missouri, while i wouldn't term it a swing state, is not afraid to vote for democrats. we have a democratic governor and the senior senator from missouri is a democrat.

so an unremarkable senator - an old career politician that helped his disastrous son become a one term governor - will be running against a young army veteran and political newcomer.
so it might be that blunt can overcome all that - the polls right now have him leading even though campaigning hasn't really kicked off in earnest - but how will it look when kander calls him out as a 'do-nothing' career politician ignoring his duties and putting party before country? it certainly won't help blunt any.

yes the infallible lefty Crystal ball

what sort of a chance do you think a Republican Roy Blunt would have getting re elected

if he voted in favor of placing a lefty judge to the bench

--LOL

get real

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

This should be rich.
Lemme guess - a fucking Liberal bull-dyke with a dyke spike, a gut, and an attitude. Of course, she'll have military experience. That'll be the big highlight. She spent four years munching carpet in the barracks at some Air Farce base, bringing hard-working servicemen up on charges of "sexual assault."

"(Merrick) Garland was born on November 13, 1952 in Chicago, Illinois.[2] He was raised in the Chicago area,[3] in the northern suburb of Lincolnwood.[4]

"Garland's mother Shirley (née Horwitz) was a director of volunteer services at Chicago's Council for Jewish Elderly; his father, Cyril Garland, headed Garland Advertising, a small business run out of the family's home.[5][6][3][7]

"Garland was raised as a Jew.[7]

"His grandparents left the Pale of Settlement in the early 20th century, fleeing anti-Semitism and seeking a better life for their children in the United States."

Merrick Garland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do you seek?
A reward?
Good
Happy to oblige

Bend over bitch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JakeStarkey]

a Chicagoan, a Jew, weak on 2d Amendment.

Harvard, good legal sense, solid on domestic terrorism (ask Timothy M in hell)

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama will be denied a hearing on his SCOTUS nomination, period. The lawless punk hasn't earned any favors from the GOP senate.

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.

If Obama is lawless as you and others so vehemently affirm, then why the Hell haven't the House and Senate done the same to him? Again, they're not carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities.

Your bitching about one and not about the other smacks of bloody partisan hypocrisy!

They are pretty busy, they probably won't get to this until Jan 20th of next year.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama will be denied a hearing on his SCOTUS nomination, period. The lawless punk hasn't earned any favors from the GOP senate.

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.

If Obama is lawless as you and others so vehemently affirm, then why the Hell haven't the House and Senate done the same to him? Again, they're not carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities.

Your bitching about one and not about the other smacks of bloody partisan hypocrisy!

Apparently you are refusing to read what the Constitution says.
Biden read it.

Biden can read?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Senate—which is a co-equal branch of government—has every right NOT to confirm

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 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!

The Senate is only following the 'Biden Rule'.
The Constitution clearly states the Senate the has the last word on any SCJ nomination put up by any President.
If the situation was reversed? Ya fucking right!

Remarks by Joe Biden in 1992 have somehow mystically and magically become law, USSC precedent and/or a Senate Rule? Can you cite the Title, Chapter and Section in the US Code where that is codified or became law and legal precedent by citing the SCOTUS case in which that was established OR the Senate Rule? No, you can't because you are in gross error and being a GOP lemming parroting the party line from The Minders!

You also assert that the, "The Constitution clearly states the Senate the has the last word on any SCJ nomination...." It is the President who actually has the last word regarding SCOTUS by actually making the appointment with the Senate in an intermediate role with only the power to give advice and to consent or withhold their consent through the Constitutional process in Article II, § 2, Clause 2, your errors notwithstanding!

The "advice and consent" clause is a de facto check and balance on the process as conceived by the Framers of the Constitution, and was not envisioned to be used as political tool so one corrupt faction can dominate and run the clock until a more favorable time, betting on the come!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Obama will be denied a hearing on his SCOTUS nomination, period. The lawless punk hasn't earned any favors from the GOP senate.

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.

If Obama is lawless as you and others so vehemently affirm, then why the Hell haven't the House and Senate done the same to him? Again, they're not carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities.

Your bitching about one and not about the other smacks of bloody partisan hypocrisy!

Apparently you are refusing to read what the Constitution says.
Biden read it.

Again Mr. Know-It-All, a second read for you. You really shouldn't let your big mouth overload your fat ass, sport!!

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Remarks by Joe Biden in 1992 have somehow mystically and magically become law, USSC precedent and/or a Senate Rule? Can you cite the Title, Chapter and Section in the US Code where that is codified or became law and legal precedent by citing the SCOTUS case in which that was established OR the Senate Rule? No, you can't because you are in gross error and being a GOP lemming parroting the party line from The Minders!

You also assert that the, "The Constitution clearly states the Senate the has the last word on any SCJ nomination...." It is the President who actually has the last word regarding SCOTUS by actually making the appointment with the Senate in an intermediate role with only the power to give advice and to consent or withhold their consent through the Constitutional process in Article II, § 2, Clause 2, your errors notwithstanding!

The "advice and consent" clause is a de facto check and balance on the process as conceived by the Framers of the Constitution, and was not envisioned to be used as political tool so one corrupt faction can dominate and run the clock until a more favorable time, betting on the come!

 

[aris2chat]

Merrick Garland, moderate

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama will be denied a hearing on his SCOTUS nomination, period. The lawless punk hasn't earned any favors from the GOP senate.

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.

If Obama is lawless as you and others so vehemently affirm, then why the Hell haven't the House and Senate done the same to him? Again, they're not carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities.

Your bitching about one and not about the other smacks of bloody partisan hypocrisy!

Apparently you are refusing to read what the Constitution says.
Biden read it.

Again Mr. Know-It-All, a second read for you. You really shouldn't let your big mouth overload your fat ass, sport!!

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Remarks by Joe Biden in 1992 have somehow mystically and magically become law, USSC precedent and/or a Senate Rule? Can you cite the Title, Chapter and Section in the US Code where that is codified or became law and legal precedent by citing the SCOTUS case in which that was established OR the Senate Rule? No, you can't because you are in gross error and being a GOP lemming parroting the party line from The Minders!

You also assert that the, "The Constitution clearly states the Senate the has the last word on any SCJ nomination...." It is the President who actually has the last word regarding SCOTUS by actually making the appointment with the Senate in an intermediate role with only the power to give advice and to consent or withhold their consent through the Constitutional process in Article II, § 2, Clause 2, your errors notwithstanding!

The "advice and consent" clause is a de facto check and balance on the process as conceived by the Framers of the Constitution, and was not envisioned to be used as political tool so one corrupt faction can dominate and run the clock until a more favorable time, betting on the come!

Obama will be denied and there's not a damn thing Democrats can do about it, especially since they themselves have advocated for the exact same thing when a Republican was president.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Merrick Garland, moderate

nope far left crank

big time anti gun

not even a chance of confirmation