Republican Senator admits Supreme Court block is Partisan

[bendog]

Obama plays McConnell like a bad gong. Of course it's political, and no the dems really have not done the same thing to a goper president, and the closet parallel was when the dem senate confirmed Kennedy .... but the scoutus was already GOP leaning then, so whether the gop is right in not even considering Garland is not really the issue. The issue is that the dems will do this to the gop someday in the future .... but they might have anyway.

But Obama nominated a guy who truly is not a judicial activist. He largely defers to the authority of the other two branches. Obama knows Garland has no chance, but the nomination both illustrates the gop is actually the party preferring activist judges, and McConnell is facing his own senators telling him, "JFC if Trump loses, which he will, Hillary will go left of Sontomayor!"

the guy is anti 2nd amendment. that alone gets him more nays than ayes.

The Senate should hold hearings in the summer and then vote him down. I think it will force Obama to choose a moderate. Then see how the election goes before hearings.

McConnell already turned down the moderate pro gun governor of Nev.

 

[NightFox]

This is good, the more the works get gummed up at the Federal Gub'mint the less damage they can do to the life, liberty and property of the citizenry; personally I couldn't care less if the partisan miscreants never get another unelected black robe tyrant approved, it's not like the dickheads over at SCOTUS have been conducive to a healthy Republic.

 

[Papageorgio]

Obama plays McConnell like a bad gong. Of course it's political, and no the dems really have not done the same thing to a goper president, and the closet parallel was when the dem senate confirmed Kennedy .... but the scoutus was already GOP leaning then, so whether the gop is right in not even considering Garland is not really the issue. The issue is that the dems will do this to the gop someday in the future .... but they might have anyway.

But Obama nominated a guy who truly is not a judicial activist. He largely defers to the authority of the other two branches. Obama knows Garland has no chance, but the nomination both illustrates the gop is actually the party preferring activist judges, and McConnell is facing his own senators telling him, "JFC if Trump loses, which he will, Hillary will go left of Sontomayor!"

the guy is anti 2nd amendment. that alone gets him more nays than ayes.

The Senate should hold hearings in the summer and then vote him down. I think it will force Obama to choose a moderate. Then see how the election goes before hearings.

McConnell already turned down the moderate pro gun governor of Nev.

Okay. I didn't say he didn't. Not sure of your point.

 

[bendog]

Obama plays McConnell like a bad gong. Of course it's political, and no the dems really have not done the same thing to a goper president, and the closet parallel was when the dem senate confirmed Kennedy .... but the scoutus was already GOP leaning then, so whether the gop is right in not even considering Garland is not really the issue. The issue is that the dems will do this to the gop someday in the future .... but they might have anyway.

But Obama nominated a guy who truly is not a judicial activist. He largely defers to the authority of the other two branches. Obama knows Garland has no chance, but the nomination both illustrates the gop is actually the party preferring activist judges, and McConnell is facing his own senators telling him, "JFC if Trump loses, which he will, Hillary will go left of Sontomayor!"

the guy is anti 2nd amendment. that alone gets him more nays than ayes.

The Senate should hold hearings in the summer and then vote him down. I think it will force Obama to choose a moderate. Then see how the election goes before hearings.

McConnell already turned down the moderate pro gun governor of Nev.

Okay. I didn't say he didn't. Not sure of your point.

The point is this is over. Garland or nothing is McConnell's choice. McConnell painted himself into the corner ... again. For some reason or another Obama just owns this guy. It will be an issue in at least five senate elections. And, if come summer and the polls show the Donald losing, McConnell may try to fast track this, and at that point Obama could just pull the nomination.

 

[NightFox]

Obama plays McConnell like a bad gong. Of course it's political, and no the dems really have not done the same thing to a goper president, and the closet parallel was when the dem senate confirmed Kennedy .... but the scoutus was already GOP leaning then, so whether the gop is right in not even considering Garland is not really the issue. The issue is that the dems will do this to the gop someday in the future .... but they might have anyway.

But Obama nominated a guy who truly is not a judicial activist. He largely defers to the authority of the other two branches. Obama knows Garland has no chance, but the nomination both illustrates the gop is actually the party preferring activist judges, and McConnell is facing his own senators telling him, "JFC if Trump loses, which he will, Hillary will go left of Sontomayor!"

the guy is anti 2nd amendment. that alone gets him more nays than ayes.

The Senate should hold hearings in the summer and then vote him down. I think it will force Obama to choose a moderate. Then see how the election goes before hearings.

McConnell already turned down the moderate pro gun governor of Nev.

Hmmmm.... according to what I've read Sandoval publicly and privately (with Reid, Heller and McConnell) took himself out of consideration for the position.

 

[Papageorgio]

Obama plays McConnell like a bad gong. Of course it's political, and no the dems really have not done the same thing to a goper president, and the closet parallel was when the dem senate confirmed Kennedy .... but the scoutus was already GOP leaning then, so whether the gop is right in not even considering Garland is not really the issue. The issue is that the dems will do this to the gop someday in the future .... but they might have anyway.

But Obama nominated a guy who truly is not a judicial activist. He largely defers to the authority of the other two branches. Obama knows Garland has no chance, but the nomination both illustrates the gop is actually the party preferring activist judges, and McConnell is facing his own senators telling him, "JFC if Trump loses, which he will, Hillary will go left of Sontomayor!"

the guy is anti 2nd amendment. that alone gets him more nays than ayes.

The Senate should hold hearings in the summer and then vote him down. I think it will force Obama to choose a moderate. Then see how the election goes before hearings.

McConnell already turned down the moderate pro gun governor of Nev.

Okay. I didn't say he didn't. Not sure of your point.

The point is this is over. Garland or nothing is McConnell's choice. McConnell painted himself into the corner ... again. For some reason or another Obama just owns this guy. It will be an issue in at least five senate elections. And, if come summer and the polls show the Donald losing, McConnell may try to fast track this, and at that point Obama could just pull the nomination.

Okay?

 

[dannyboys]

Obama will not be allowed to appoint another SCOTUS, boohoo. Also the wall will be built, illegals will be deported, coal will dug and burned, oil will be drilled and refined, you libs are in for some rough times.

Ain't that the truth!
BONOBO behaved like a fucking dictator would in an african country from the day he took office.
Pay back time.

 

[BluesLegend]

This is good, the more the works get gummed up at the Federal Gub'mint the less damage they can do to the life, liberty and property of the citizenry; personally I couldn't care less if the partisan miscreants never get another unelected black robe tyrant approved, it's not like the dickheads over at SCOTUS have been conducive to a healthy Republic.

The real damage is being done via government agencies like the EPA who are running amok. That's not gummed up at all.

 

[NightFox]

This is good, the more the works get gummed up at the Federal Gub'mint the less damage they can do to the life, liberty and property of the citizenry; personally I couldn't care less if the partisan miscreants never get another unelected black robe tyrant approved, it's not like the dickheads over at SCOTUS have been conducive to a healthy Republic.

The real damage is being done via government agencies like the EPA who are running amok. That's not gummed up at all.

You'll get no argument from me on that one, however when it comes to gumming up the Federal Works one must take the opportunities that one finds.

 

[BluesLegend]

This is good, the more the works get gummed up at the Federal Gub'mint the less damage they can do to the life, liberty and property of the citizenry; personally I couldn't care less if the partisan miscreants never get another unelected black robe tyrant approved, it's not like the dickheads over at SCOTUS have been conducive to a healthy Republic.

The real damage is being done via government agencies like the EPA who are running amok. That's not gummed up at all.

You'll get no argument from me on that one, however when it comes to gumming up the Federal Works one must take the opportunities that one finds.

Government gridlock is a good thing and by design. Its supposed to be difficult, the founders designed it to be difficult. Government making wild swings in policy every time the political wind changes direction would be chaos. Both sides bitch and complain about opposition obstruction and Constitutional limits on their power but without them our country would be a corrupted shit hole.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's the Republicans giving the 65,915,796 Americans who voted for President Obama in 2012 a hardy "Fuck you! Your vote doesn't matter!"

 

[boilermaker55]

Relax waldo!!

Why, hell yes its partisan.

Obama has been bending the Congress over and making them bring their own vaseline for 7 long years. Never negotiated shit in good faith.

Now Congress has the chance to give him a dose of his own medicine. It would be malpractice not to.

Fuck Obama. Fuck Socialists.

 

[Votto]

Here is a run down why the system is the way it is. It goes back all the way to Marbury vs. Madison.


In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court can declare an act of Congress void when it conflicts with the Constitution, according to the Legal Information Institute. The decision mades the Court the final arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation.

Thomas Jefferson was furious with the Marbury decision. In a letter to Abigail Adams he wrote, "The Constitution meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

He later wrote, "To consider judges as the ulitimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.....and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

This is what Lincoln said of the Dred Scott decision that denied blacks equal rights under the law.

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne that could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decision to political purposes."

Just think, the nation was at the mercy of 5 men to overturn the inequality of blacks imposed by SCOTUS. Luckily it happened but only due to political expediency. If racists had continued to rule the day, SCOTUS would have been prone to the political leanings of their power base and not have overturned it.

Now turn the page to Woodrow Wilson, who held the opposite view of SCOTUS.

"The character of the process of constitutional adaption depends first of all upon the wise or unwise choice of statesmen, but ultimately and chiefly upon the option and purpose of the courts. The chief instrumentality by which the law of the Constitution has been extended to cover the facts of national development has course been judicial interpretations -- the decisions of the courts. The process of formal amendment of the Constitution was made so difficult by the provision of the Constitution itself that it has seldom been feasible to use it; and the difficulty of formal amendment has undoubtedly made the courts more liberal, not to say more lax, in their interpretation than they would otherwise have been. The whole business of adaption has been theirs, and they have undertaken it with open minds, sometimes even with boldness and a touch of audacity"


So, on the one hand, you have men like Jefferson and Lincoln who hold the view that the courts now have too much power. An oligarchy of 5 justices is all that is needed who are prone to the same vices of seeking money and political power as everyone else is prone to having. Then you have President Wilson and the rest of his Prog followers that are now in power who essentially advocate is appointing "wise" and "good" men to the post so that they can have a 5 man never ending perpetual constitutional convention.

It seems to me the only way to fix this, if at all, is the Article V movement. We need to return to the Constitution.

 

[whitehall]

Call it partisan if you want to but being partisan isn't against the law or freaking Joe Biden would be in jail for stating in 1992 that democrats would not consider a supreme court nominee during a republican lame duck administration.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course it's partisan. They've never hidden that fact. What is there to admit?

That this being an election year is a lie and not the real reason for Senate Republicans to refuse to hold hearings and a vote.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All of a sudden Dems want to renounce Reid, the Schumer rule and "elections have consequences"

 

[LeftofLeft]

GOP Senator Gets Honest: 'Trust Me, We Will Not Allow The Supreme Court To Flip'

“No, trust me, we will not allow the Supreme Court to flip,” Johnson told a Wisconsin radio station on Friday. “It’s not going to happen.”

“When other Americans, other than the members of the press, can get their message out, the press’s power is reduced. You engage in campaign finance reform, which restricts free speech, that makes a few members of the press have all the more power. So the press is really not for freedom of speech. They like restrictions in speech because it gives them more power. So again, they want to see the Supreme Court flipped. I got that.”

In an attempt to block campaign finance reform...Senate Republicans are blocking a Supreme Court nomination, to prevent it from being "flipped". There is nothing the Republicans have against the nominee Obama put up in particular...it's all just partisan obstruction of Constitutional duties.

CNN.com - Democrats grill Supreme Court nominee - Jan 11, 2006

At least he got a hearing.

Not just a hearing. He got the confirmation.

Republicans won't even hold a hearing. Which they blame on democrats.

See, in the party of personal responsibility...its always someone else's fault. The folks least responsible for Republican policy....are republicans.

It's just another Albatross the Republicans have hung around their necks.

Point being on the link; whether blocking or making a nominee's wife break to tears, it's all partisan. Kennedy said so himself.

 

[g5000]

GOP Senator Gets Honest: 'Trust Me, We Will Not Allow The Supreme Court To Flip'

“No, trust me, we will not allow the Supreme Court to flip,” Johnson told a Wisconsin radio station on Friday. “It’s not going to happen.”

“When other Americans, other than the members of the press, can get their message out, the press’s power is reduced. You engage in campaign finance reform, which restricts free speech, that makes a few members of the press have all the more power. So the press is really not for freedom of speech. They like restrictions in speech because it gives them more power. So again, they want to see the Supreme Court flipped. I got that.”

In an attempt to block campaign finance reform...Senate Republicans are blocking a Supreme Court nomination, to prevent it from being "flipped". There is nothing the Republicans have against the nominee Obama put up in particular...it's all just partisan obstruction of Constitutional duties.

Of course it's partisan, just as every action Obama has taken in office is partisan.

A classic Tu Quoque Fallacy.

Two Wrongs Make A Right Winger? That's what you want to go with?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

GOP Senator Gets Honest: 'Trust Me, We Will Not Allow The Supreme Court To Flip'

“No, trust me, we will not allow the Supreme Court to flip,” Johnson told a Wisconsin radio station on Friday. “It’s not going to happen.”

“When other Americans, other than the members of the press, can get their message out, the press’s power is reduced. You engage in campaign finance reform, which restricts free speech, that makes a few members of the press have all the more power. So the press is really not for freedom of speech. They like restrictions in speech because it gives them more power. So again, they want to see the Supreme Court flipped. I got that.”

In an attempt to block campaign finance reform...Senate Republicans are blocking a Supreme Court nomination, to prevent it from being "flipped". There is nothing the Republicans have against the nominee Obama put up in particular...it's all just partisan obstruction of Constitutional duties.

Of course it's partisan, just as every action Obama has taken in office is partisan.

A classic Tu Quoque Fallacy.

Two Wrongs Make A Right Winger? That's what you want to go with?

Politics, nothing new.
Not going with it, just pointing it out.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Why, hell yes its partisan.

Obama has been bending the Congress over and making them bring their own vaseline for 7 long years. Never negotiated shit in good faith.

Now Congress has the chance to give him a dose of his own medicine. It would be malpractice not to.

Fuck Obama. Fuck Socialists.

Why don't you present one instance of Obama 'bending the Congress over' so I can prove you an idiot.

_____________

Why don't you bend over...and stick your head up your ass...and jump, and lets see if you disappear.

========
So you admit you are a liar and can't back up your claims.

Well we knew that all along anyway. Nice to see you admit it.