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

[JakeStarkey]

That was not the ruling, asshole, and you know it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This joke of a nominee was overruled by the Supreme Court on his decision that no one should be allowed to own a gun. Ain't no fucking way he will be confirmed even if they held hearings.

In the Heller case the District Court dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals upheld the right to own firearms and the Supreme Court affirmed the Appeals Court, they didn't overrule it.


On top of getting the case outcomes wrong, Garland was not one of the Judges that even ruled on the case.


>>>>

 

[ogibillm]

This joke of a nominee was overruled by the Supreme Court on his decision that no one should be allowed to own a gun. Ain't no fucking way he will be confirmed even if they held hearings.

you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about

 

[ninja007]

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.

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.

google biden rule.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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.

google biden rule.

There is no Biden rule. If there is, why didn't Biden follow it

 

[peach174]

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.

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.

google biden rule.

There is no Biden rule. If there is, why didn't Biden follow it

Not a written one.
Biden rule;

 

[WorldWatcher]

google biden rule.

You mean a speech delivered in June 1992 saying that hearings should be held after the election.


Which of course is quite different then the McConnell Rule that says a President shouldn't nominate a justice in the last year of a term and even if they do the Senate will refuse to do their job and take any action until a new President submits a nomination.


The two are very different things.



>>>>

 

[peach174]

google biden rule.

You mean a speech delivered in June 1992 saying that hearings should be held after the election.


Which of course is quite different then the McConnell Rule that says a President shouldn't nominate a justice in the last year of a term and even if they do the Senate will refuse to do their job and take any action until a new President submits a nomination.


The two are very different things.



>>>>

McConnell never said the President should not nominate a Justice in his last year of term.
The same basic idea was the same which was a very contentious race.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing...........Soetero's first pick is a huge gun grabber guy = zero chance of confirmation

 

[ogibillm]

Im laughing...........Soetero's first pick is a huge gun grabber guy = zero chance of confirmation

"huge gun grabber guy"

citation, please

 

[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.

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!

Saying the President has the "last word" in appointing a SCJ AFTER the Senate gives it's consent is like claiming you can drive your mommy's car anytime you want to AFTER your mommy hands you the car keys.
Wise up asshole.
The Senators are elected and as BONOBO always says: "Elections have consequences" right?

 

[dannyboys]

google biden rule.

You mean a speech delivered in June 1992 saying that hearings should be held after the election.


Which of course is quite different then the McConnell Rule that says a President shouldn't nominate a justice in the last year of a term and even if they do the Senate will refuse to do their job and take any action until a new President submits a nomination.


The two are very different things.



>>>>

You are a liar. McConnell NEVER said Obama should not nominate a SCJ.

 

[Fang]

Republicans are following the "Biden Rule". No hearings held during the election season. Makes sense to me.

 

[EverCurious]

Im laughing...........Soetero's first pick is a huge gun grabber guy = zero chance of confirmation

"huge gun grabber guy"

citation, please

What Is Merrick Garland’s Position on Gun Control?

And a more Right slanted one here The 'Moderates' Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

 

[dannyboys]

Im laughing...........Soetero's first pick is a huge gun grabber guy = zero chance of confirmation

"huge gun grabber guy"

citation, please

What Is Merrick Garland’s Position on Gun Control?

And a more Right slanted one here The 'Moderates' Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

What Garland's position on gun control is or is not is a moot point.
It's like making a note of what color you want your next Ferrari to be but knowing you'll never own one.
Just 'mental masterbation'.
The LIBs from now until Inauguration day will be trying to stick their nose under the tent.
Ain't going to happen.

 

[EverCurious]

Are you shitting me? Of course it matters if the SOTUS judges blow off constitutionally guaranteed rights, and it's not just chat either, the guy voted soft on gun regulation's in the past. Come on now...

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are a liar. McConnell NEVER said Obama should not nominate a SCJ.

No, I'm not a liar.

I may have been incorrect with the nomination statement, that doesn't make me a liar, and therefore I retract it.

McConnell did say, "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”


I disagree, the Senate should do it's job and proceed with the confirmation process, and if the Senate votes to reject a nominee - I'm fine with that. There is nothing constitutional about the Senate refusing to do it's job saying it should be the responsibility of the next President to make a nomination seeing as how Justice Scalia died (God rest his soul) almost a year out from a new President being sworn in.

I agree with McConnell when he said: "Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate."


We should be better then the Dem's.


>>>>
>>>>

 

[jon_berzerk]

it is called the Biden rule

--LOL

deal with it

the guy is a far left crank

he is not going to get the nod from Congress

 

[WorldWatcher]

Republicans are following the "Biden Rule". No hearings held during the election season. Makes sense to me.

No we're not.

The "Biden Rule", a statement made in JUNE was that hearings and confirmation should occur after the November elections, not that the Senate wouldn't do it's job and would stall until the next President.

If there was a GOP President in office right now the GOP Leadership in the Senate would be falling all over themselves to ensure the confirmation process proceeded with the current President and not saying they should wait almost a year for the next President.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

it is called the Biden rule

--LOL

deal with it

the guy is a far left crank

he is not going to get the nod from Congress

So your saying that the Senate should hold hearings and a confirmation vote, just wait until after the November elections since that is what Biden said.

Right?


>>>>