Obama Vetting Career Public Defender for SCOTUS?

[georgephillip]

Yo, waste of time, the Democrats would do the same thing the Republicans are going to do, nothing! "POLITICS"

"GTP"
View attachment 65812

I think you're right about the politics part. What if Kelly is the best candidate for the job?

. She has to be a conservative to replace Scalia.

Where is that mentioned in the Constitution? Scalia advanced the corporate agenda for four decades, so many would argue it's time to revisit decisions like Citizens United.

Citizens United was the greatest judicial decision made in this country. As for judge picks, Democrats demanded a Thurgood Marshall type would be picked instead of Clarence Thomas.

Conservatives find the same greatness in Citizens United today they found in Plessy v Ferguson circa 1896; Thomas has more in common with Edward White than Thurgood Marshall.
The Supreme Court's Lurch To The Right (CHARTS)

 

[georgephillip]

"The White House is vetting federal appellate judge Jane Kelly as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court, The New York Times reported Wednesday..."

"A career public defender, Kelly was backed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who now serves as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Iowa Republican praised Kelly during her 2013 confirmation hearing. He cited a glowing endorsement letter from 8th Circuit Judge David Hansen, who is close with Grassley and for whom Kelly previously clerked.

“'Every sentence of it speaks highly of your work,' he said. 'In that letter, he states that Ms. Kelly has practiced law in an exemplary fashion. … Judge Hansen concludes that she will be a welcome addition to the court, if confirmed, and I have a great deal of confidence in Judge Hansen.'”
WH vetting appellate judge Jane Kelly for SCOTUS: report
Ready for the bad news?
"Jane Louise Kelly was born in 1964 to Richard and Judith C. Kelly,[2] and raised in Greencastle, Indiana. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree summa cum laude, in 1987, from Duke University, and her Juris Doctorcum laude from Harvard Law School, in 1991.[2] Her graduating class included Barack Obama, who became the 44th President of the United States.[2]"
Jane L. Kelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have warned MY Senator, Chuck Grassley, to not consider any Obama nominee. Kelly is probably a whore anyway.

Why did your senator endorse her for the Eighth Circuit?
Does that make him a pimp?
Likely Supreme Court Nominee Judge Jane Kelly Is a True Moderate
"Kelly may have the best chance of any nominee: she was confirmed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2013 by a 96-0 vote; she is from Iowa, home state of Republican Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair; and Grassley himself has praised her effusively in the past.

"All that may make it harder for Grassley to honor his pledge not to hold hearings on a potential Supreme Court Justice, in defiance of custom and constitutional law.

"But what does Judge Kelly believe?

"There’s not much to go on. Prior to becoming a judge, Jane Kelly served as a public defender for 17 years, which afforded few opportunities for making public statements on the finer points of jurisprudence.

"But she has been an appellate court judge for the past three years, and during that time has written 82 opinions for the court. Over the past week, I have read and reviewed all of them. And what emerges is, as her reputation suggests, a moderate, thoughtful jurist without ideological biases, though with a slight tilt to the conservative side of some issues.

Approving a judge for the circuit court isn't the same as approving them for the Supreme Court when it's Obama making the nomination. Obama picked two judges and he wasn't opposed. That's enough. He boycotted Alito's nomination because he would be chosen in an election year. We're going to do the same to Obama. No judges will be interviewed or picked.

"White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee"
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...grets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee
"Conservatives have seized on Obama’s filibuster vote to accuse him of hypocrisy for criticizing Republicans for saying the next president, and not Obama, should nominate Scalia’s successor.

"But Earnest said the GOP is going further than Obama did in pledging to not consider any nominee the president puts forward.

“'These are two different things,' the spokesman said.

"He argued that the Democrats’ 2006 filibuster of Alito was symbolic because he had the votes to be confirmed.

"And he said Obama’s decision to filibuster was 'based on substance' whereas the GOP’s blanket opposition to any Obama nominee is purely political.

"The president has yet to choose a nominee to replace Scalia."

Alito was confirmed, and now it's Kelly's turn.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

"The White House is vetting federal appellate judge Jane Kelly as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court, The New York Times reported Wednesday..."

"A career public defender, Kelly was backed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who now serves as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Iowa Republican praised Kelly during her 2013 confirmation hearing. He cited a glowing endorsement letter from 8th Circuit Judge David Hansen, who is close with Grassley and for whom Kelly previously clerked.

“'Every sentence of it speaks highly of your work,' he said. 'In that letter, he states that Ms. Kelly has practiced law in an exemplary fashion. … Judge Hansen concludes that she will be a welcome addition to the court, if confirmed, and I have a great deal of confidence in Judge Hansen.'”
WH vetting appellate judge Jane Kelly for SCOTUS: report
Ready for the bad news?
"Jane Louise Kelly was born in 1964 to Richard and Judith C. Kelly,[2] and raised in Greencastle, Indiana. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree summa cum laude, in 1987, from Duke University, and her Juris Doctorcum laude from Harvard Law School, in 1991.[2] Her graduating class included Barack Obama, who became the 44th President of the United States.[2]"
Jane L. Kelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have warned MY Senator, Chuck Grassley, to not consider any Obama nominee. Kelly is probably a whore anyway.

Why did your senator endorse her for the Eighth Circuit?
Does that make him a pimp?
Likely Supreme Court Nominee Judge Jane Kelly Is a True Moderate
"Kelly may have the best chance of any nominee: she was confirmed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2013 by a 96-0 vote; she is from Iowa, home state of Republican Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair; and Grassley himself has praised her effusively in the past.

"All that may make it harder for Grassley to honor his pledge not to hold hearings on a potential Supreme Court Justice, in defiance of custom and constitutional law.

"But what does Judge Kelly believe?

"There’s not much to go on. Prior to becoming a judge, Jane Kelly served as a public defender for 17 years, which afforded few opportunities for making public statements on the finer points of jurisprudence.

"But she has been an appellate court judge for the past three years, and during that time has written 82 opinions for the court. Over the past week, I have read and reviewed all of them. And what emerges is, as her reputation suggests, a moderate, thoughtful jurist without ideological biases, though with a slight tilt to the conservative side of some issues.

Approving a judge for the circuit court isn't the same as approving them for the Supreme Court when it's Obama making the nomination. Obama picked two judges and he wasn't opposed. That's enough. He boycotted Alito's nomination because he would be chosen in an election year. We're going to do the same to Obama. No judges will be interviewed or picked.

"White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee"
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee
"Conservatives have seized on Obama’s filibuster vote to accuse him of hypocrisy for criticizing Republicans for saying the next president, and not Obama, should nominate Scalia’s successor.

"But Earnest said the GOP is going further than Obama did in pledging to not consider any nominee the president puts forward.

“'These are two different things,' the spokesman said.

"He argued that the Democrats’ 2006 filibuster of Alito was symbolic because he had the votes to be confirmed.

"And he said Obama’s decision to filibuster was 'based on substance' whereas the GOP’s blanket opposition to any Obama nominee is purely political.

"The president has yet to choose a nominee to replace Scalia."

Alito was confirmed, and now it's Kelly's turn.

Ain't gonna happen.

 

[dannyboys]

This is another characteristic trait of your classic Liberal.
They were raised in homes and taught in the Liberal Indoctrination Centers that 'NO' never really means 'NO'.
'NO' always really means it's not happening right now but in a minute or so if I play my cards right 'NO' ends up meaning: "OK but only one more time".
'NO' this time really means 'NO' and the fucking LIBs are going apoplectic.
The REP controlled Senate know if they back down "Only one more time" they will lose the Senate in Nov.
The fucking LIBs could put up John Bolton and he won't even get an invitation from the Senate to share a pizza.

 

[georgephillip]

This is another characteristic trait of your classic Liberal.
They were raised in homes and taught in the Liberal Indoctrination Centers that 'NO' never really means 'NO'.
'NO' always really means it's not happening right now but in a minute or so if I play my cards right 'NO' ends up meaning: "OK but only one more time".
'NO' this time really means 'NO' and the fucking LIBs are going apoplectic.
The REP controlled Senate know if they back down "Only one more time" they will lose the Senate in Nov.
The fucking LIBs could put up John Bolton and he won't even get an invitation from the Senate to share a pizza.

Wouldn't you losers really be happier in China?
You know, where all you had to do was make a whole bunch of money with no worries about Democracy or Basic Law?

 

[georgephillip]

SCOTUS: Bias towards the corporate elite.
"...from the 1890s to 1936, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional over 200 federal, state, and local laws designed to protect workers and consumers.

"During this time the Supreme Court repeatedly declared unconstitutional minimum wage laws, maximum hour laws.

"The court during this time declared unconstitutional the first federal law to limit the use of child labor in manufacturing.

"All of these were decisions that strongly favored businesses at the expense of the people of the country.

"But that's not just a long time ago.

"The Roberts court, which has existed since 2005, has been the most pro-business Supreme Court since the 1930s.

"That's not just my opinion.

"A couple years ago a book came out by Richard Posner, a Federal Court of Appeals judge, William Landes, professor at the University of Chicago, and Lee Epstein a professor at Washington, St. Louis. And they concluded, by a number of statistical measures, that this is the most pro-business court there's been since the 1930s."

How Precedent and Judicial Restraint Protect Elite Interests at SCOTUS

 

[dannyboys]

This is another characteristic trait of your classic Liberal.
They were raised in homes and taught in the Liberal Indoctrination Centers that 'NO' never really means 'NO'.
'NO' always really means it's not happening right now but in a minute or so if I play my cards right 'NO' ends up meaning: "OK but only one more time".
'NO' this time really means 'NO' and the fucking LIBs are going apoplectic.
The REP controlled Senate know if they back down "Only one more time" they will lose the Senate in Nov.
The fucking LIBs could put up John Bolton and he won't even get an invitation from the Senate to share a pizza.

Wouldn't you losers really be happier in China?
You know, where all you had to do was make a whole bunch of money with no worries about Democracy or Basic Law?

Why didn't you post who conducted the surrey, if that's what it is?
14 Do you think Obama should nominate a SCJ before the end of his Presidency? 99%-NO
15 Do you think the US Senate should refuse to consider any SCJ nomination until after the next Presidential election? 99%-YES
See how it works asshole?

 

[HenryBHough]

He should nominate.

As many times as it takes to ensure that The Democrat Party learns the true meaning of the term: BORKED.

OK, that cold take hundreds of tries but, hey, a "president" busy is a "president" harmless.

 

[georgephillip]

This is another characteristic trait of your classic Liberal.
They were raised in homes and taught in the Liberal Indoctrination Centers that 'NO' never really means 'NO'.
'NO' always really means it's not happening right now but in a minute or so if I play my cards right 'NO' ends up meaning: "OK but only one more time".
'NO' this time really means 'NO' and the fucking LIBs are going apoplectic.
The REP controlled Senate know if they back down "Only one more time" they will lose the Senate in Nov.
The fucking LIBs could put up John Bolton and he won't even get an invitation from the Senate to share a pizza.

Wouldn't you losers really be happier in China?
You know, where all you had to do was make a whole bunch of money with no worries about Democracy or Basic Law?

Why didn't you post who conducted the surrey, if that's what it is?
14 Do you think Obama should nominate a SCJ before the end of his Presidency? 99%-NO
15 Do you think the US Senate should refuse to consider any SCJ nomination until after the next Presidential election? 99%-YES
See how it works asshole?

"A poll shows a majority of Americans want a Supreme Court nominee who wouldn’t upset the past balance of the high court, even as liberal groups and lawmakers ramp up pressure on Senate Republicans to allow President Obama to fill the court’s vacancy.
Most Americans want Senate to hold hearings on Supreme Court nominee: poll
"In a CNN/ORC survey, a plurality of respondents — 37 percent — said Mr. Obama should nominate 'someone who would keep the court about as it was' before the death Feb. 13 of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. Another 32 percent said they want a justice who would tilt the court to the liberal side, and 29 percent said the nominee should be more conservative."
It appears 98% of these respondents want to preserve the Constitution's original intent.

 

[georgephillip]

He should nominate.

As many times as it takes to ensure that The Democrat Party learns the true meaning of the term: BORKED.

OK, that cold take hundreds of tries but, hey, a "president" busy is a "president" harmless.

Robert Bork - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"On October 20, 1973, Solicitor General Bork was instrumental in the 'Saturday Night Massacre', U.S. President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, following Cox's request for tapes of his Oval Office conversations.

"Nixon initially ordered U.S. Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Cox.

"Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order. Richardson's top deputy, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, also considered the order 'fundamentally wrong'[16] and also resigned, making Bork the Acting Attorney General.

"When Nixon reiterated his order, Bork complied and fired Cox, an act found illegal in November of that year in a suit brought by Ralph Nader.

"The Justice Department did not appeal the ruling, and because Cox indicated that he did not want his job back, the issue was considered resolved.[16]

"Bork remained Acting Attorney General until the appointment of William B. Saxbe on January 4, 1974.[17]"
Even a corporate tool like Bork got a hearing.