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

[bodecea]

The nominee is a Jew. The court is already over-represented by the Jewish community.
Jews make up less than 2% of the general population, should this nominee be seated the court would be at about 45% Jewish.

Scratch a RWr and get an anti-semite.

 

[Dot Com]

Waaaay too many catholics as well

 

[Contumacious]

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.”

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The nominee is a Jew. The court is already over-represented by the Jewish community.
Jews make up less than 2% of the general population, should this nominee be seated the court would be at about 45% Jewish.

Scratch a RWr and get an anti-semite.

Not at all, just pointing out the over-representation.

 

[easyt65]

What is so funny Easy? You don't like it when the facts are right in front of your face?.

No, actually I had no intention of wasting my time responding to something so ignorant.... but since you insist....

Liberals are pathetic, specifically - as your comment demonstrates - because of your incredible ignorance and partisanship that drives your ability to completely ignore THE FACTS - such as his many FAILURES (such as his 'Red Line' disaster or claiming HE had confined ISIS...just before they proved him to be a liar by launching the largest attack on France since WWII) and somehow claim that the only reason the GOP (and many liberals) disagree with Obama is because they don't like anything about the MAN.

I don't know the man. I don't care about getting to know the man. I don't care about getting to 'know' any of my politicians. In the military I could get deployed into a location, be tasked with fighting side-by-side with someone I have never met before. I do not have to get to 'know' him. I only need to know I can trust him to do his job and NOT f* things up, thereby getting me and others killed.

I don't care about 'knowing Obama. The only thing I care about is that he is professional, intelligent, and can get the job done while ensuring I and my fellow Americans don't die as a result of something at which he failed. RESULTS. Obama has FAILED at many things. He has failed in regards to debt addition, deficit-spending, and being responsible for the 1st US Credit Downgrade in history. He has failed at foreign policy - arming Mexican Drug cartels, aiding terrorists, his 'Red line' disaster, taking the country to war on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya, abandoning Americans to die... There is a long list of Obama POLICY, AGENDA, AND IDEOLOGY FAILURES.

I don't hate the man. I don't know the man. What I do now and try to do, however, is judge his performance and actions as equally as I would anyone else's, without the rose-colored partisan B$ glasses that both parties often use to defend their members while hypocritically bashing the other's. If you could suddenly convince Liberals that Obama, Hillary, Reid, and Pelosi, for example, are Republicans - never were Liberals...liberals would savagely attack and crucify them for what they have DONE. It is only the partisan glasses that keep liberals defending the inexcusable actions of their own party members.

I am not saying everything Obama has done has been bad - never said that. I do not, however, play the partisan BS about how he can never get anything right....or wrong.

So, when I read your stupid, partisan comment I chose to ignore it...until you forced my hand. You wanted my honest, NON-partisan comment...there ya go, Oh, and don't bother responding / feel like you have to reply because I don't know YOU and don't care what you have to say in response to my comments in this post. Don't feel like I am calling you out - I'm NOT. I don't care.

 

[easyt65]

What justification do Republicans have ?

Anyone who...

- Arms Mexican Drug cartels

- Aids, abets, supplies, arms, defends, and helps terrorists take over their own countries..

- Refuses to enforce laws

- Violates both Constitution and rule of law

- Protects criminal Sanctuary Cities

- Who releases violent criminal illegals into the US population to prey upon citizens

- Engages in Human Trafficking and defies US Court Orders

- Refuses to hold accountable his US Attorney General who is caught perpetrating 3 Felony counts of Perjury

- Shows such a total disregard for our constitution, our national security, and the lives of the American people...

Should EVER be allowed to nominate a US supreme Court Justice.

That is more than enough justification.

How stupid.......Your losing your credibility on this thread by posting fabrications..

Ah, another low-information Liberal denier responds..."Uh-Uh!"

 

[bodecea]

The nominee is a Jew. The court is already over-represented by the Jewish community.
Jews make up less than 2% of the general population, should this nominee be seated the court would be at about 45% Jewish.

Scratch a RWr and get an anti-semite.

Not at all, just pointing out the over-representation.

uh huh

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Waaaay too many catholics as well

They are over-represented on the court as well.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The nominee is a Jew. The court is already over-represented by the Jewish community.
Jews make up less than 2% of the general population, should this nominee be seated the court would be at about 45% Jewish.

Scratch a RWr and get an anti-semite.

Not at all, just pointing out the over-representation.

uh huh

You should be in favor of a more diverse court.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Nomination is going NOWHERE so it's all a moot point

He'll get confirmed.

 

[Anathema]

So, you disagree with those who keep saying that the KKK is still Democrats. Ok...fair enough

I dont agree that any group is homogenous, politically; but I'd rather stand with members of a hate group over Abraham Lincoln, the man who inflicted the fatal wound on the United States.

 

[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.

 

[Eaglewings]

What is so funny Easy? You don't like it when the facts are right in front of your face?.

No, actually I had no intention of wasting my time responding to something so ignorant.... but since you insist....

Liberals are pathetic, specifically - as your comment demonstrates - because of your incredible ignorance and partisanship that drives your ability to completely ignore THE FACTS - such as his many FAILURES (such as his 'Red Line' disaster or claiming HE had confined ISIS...just before they proved him to be a liar by launching the largest attack on France since WWII) and somehow claim that the only reason the GOP (and many liberals) disagree with Obama is because they don't like anything about the MAN.

I don't know the man. I don't care about getting to know the man. I don't care about getting to 'know' any of my politicians. In the military I could get deployed into a location, be tasked with fighting side-by-side with someone I have never met before. I do not have to get to 'know' him. I only need to know I can trust him to do his job and NOT f* things up, thereby getting me and others killed.

I don't care about 'knowing Obama. The only thing I care about is that he is professional, intelligent, and can get the job done while ensuring I and my fellow Americans don't die as a result of something at which he failed. RESULTS. Obama has FAILED at many things. He has failed in regards to debt addition, deficit-spending, and being responsible for the 1st US Credit Downgrade in history. He has failed at foreign policy - arming Mexican Drug cartels, aiding terrorists, his 'Red line' disaster, taking the country to war on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya, abandoning Americans to die... There is a long list of Obama POLICY, AGENDA, AND IDEOLOGY FAILURES.

I don't hate the man. I don't know the man. What I do now and try to do, however, is judge his performance and actions as equally as I would anyone else's, without the rose-colored partisan B$ glasses that both parties often use to defend their members while hypocritically bashing the other's. If you could suddenly convince Liberals that Obama, Hillary, Reid, and Pelosi, for example, are Republicans - never were Liberals...liberals would savagely attack and crucify them for what they have DONE. It is only the partisan glasses that keep liberals defending the inexcusable actions of their own party members.

I am not saying everything Obama has done has been bad - never said that. I do not, however, play the partisan BS about how he can never get anything right....or wrong.

So, when I read your stupid, partisan comment I chose to ignore it...until you forced my hand. You wanted my honest, NON-partisan comment...there ya go, Oh, and don't bother responding / feel like you have to reply because I don't know YOU and don't care what you have to say in response to my comments in this post. Don't feel like I am calling you out - I'm NOT. I don't care.

I know your not calling me out, we are discussing and know I feel the same way as I am not attacking you...

First off I am not in a party right now and call bullshit when I see it, I am not a liberal so you can't go there.. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are automatically a liberal.

You refuse to see that many before Obama who made the call in their last term.

2nd your comments on what Obama has done wrong are all bullshit talk and something a liberal hater would say about any left president...

So with that...see the Facts Jack.....In your face Grace...

 

[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.

You are wrong, as usual. Obama's playing with the Senate committee, clearly.

I'm not afraid to lay my dick out...you of course don't have one.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

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.”

I thought I read that they said Obama wouldn't make the SCOTUS appointment, but the next President would....or was I imagining I'd read this?

 

[easyt65]

What is so funny Easy? You don't like it when the facts are right in front of your face?.

No, actually I had no intention of wasting my time responding to something so ignorant.... but since you insist....

Liberals are pathetic, specifically - as your comment demonstrates - because of your incredible ignorance and partisanship that drives your ability to completely ignore THE FACTS - such as his many FAILURES (such as his 'Red Line' disaster or claiming HE had confined ISIS...just before they proved him to be a liar by launching the largest attack on France since WWII) and somehow claim that the only reason the GOP (and many liberals) disagree with Obama is because they don't like anything about the MAN.

I don't know the man. I don't care about getting to know the man. I don't care about getting to 'know' any of my politicians. In the military I could get deployed into a location, be tasked with fighting side-by-side with someone I have never met before. I do not have to get to 'know' him. I only need to know I can trust him to do his job and NOT f* things up, thereby getting me and others killed.

I don't care about 'knowing Obama. The only thing I care about is that he is professional, intelligent, and can get the job done while ensuring I and my fellow Americans don't die as a result of something at which he failed. RESULTS. Obama has FAILED at many things. He has failed in regards to debt addition, deficit-spending, and being responsible for the 1st US Credit Downgrade in history. He has failed at foreign policy - arming Mexican Drug cartels, aiding terrorists, his 'Red line' disaster, taking the country to war on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya, abandoning Americans to die... There is a long list of Obama POLICY, AGENDA, AND IDEOLOGY FAILURES.

I don't hate the man. I don't know the man. What I do now and try to do, however, is judge his performance and actions as equally as I would anyone else's, without the rose-colored partisan B$ glasses that both parties often use to defend their members while hypocritically bashing the other's. If you could suddenly convince Liberals that Obama, Hillary, Reid, and Pelosi, for example, are Republicans - never were Liberals...liberals would savagely attack and crucify them for what they have DONE. It is only the partisan glasses that keep liberals defending the inexcusable actions of their own party members.

I am not saying everything Obama has done has been bad - never said that. I do not, however, play the partisan BS about how he can never get anything right....or wrong.

So, when I read your stupid, partisan comment I chose to ignore it...until you forced my hand. You wanted my honest, NON-partisan comment...there ya go, Oh, and don't bother responding / feel like you have to reply because I don't know YOU and don't care what you have to say in response to my comments in this post. Don't feel like I am calling you out - I'm NOT. I don't care.

I know your not calling me out, we are discussing and know I feel the same way as I am not attacking you...

First off I am not in a party right now and call bullshit when I see it, I am not a liberal so you can't go there.. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are automatically a liberal.

You refuse to see that many before Obama who made the call in their last term.

2nd your comments on what Obama has done wrong are all bullshit talk and something a liberal hater would say about any left president...

So with that...see the Facts Jack.....In your face Grace...

I am not ignoring anything. Obama can make the nomination if he wants. IMO, based oh his actions and decisions, he is not capable or worthy of being entrusted to make such a critical nomination. Disagree with me? Fine. Again, Obama can make all the nominations he wants...doesn't mean Congress is FORCED to give him who / what he wants. Congress is the Checks and balances system to the Executive Branch for a reason...and a large reason Obama has made it a habit of going around them and using Executive orders to do whatever the hell he wants / wants...Constitutional or not.

 

[Silhouette]

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.”

Yeah but what's his position on gay marriage? The reason most of the Trumpsters are angry and against everyone else...

 

[basquebromance]

Grassley is not backing off refusal to hold hearings. Says he won't consider nominee until Jan. 20, 2017. But says he will talk to Garland.

 

[Contumacious]

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.”

I thought I read that they said Obama wouldn't make the SCOTUS appointment, but the next President would....or was I imagining I'd read this?

The "Conservatives" have stated that they will NOT consider any nominee before the election. At any rate, this nominee sucks the big weenie.

.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This guy is unfit. PERIOD.