republicans get what they wish for

[Redfish]

His record on the bench. Look it up.

Why should the senate waste time with hearings on a guy who has zero chance of being confirmed?

Sure, its politics, and if the roles were reversed the dems would be doing exactly the same things. Schumer and Biden are on record confirming that.

The Democrats did not do the same thing when the roles were reversed

All Republican nominees received a hearing in the Senate. That is their job
A few were rejected but overall, Democrats have supported conservative nominees like Thomas and Alito

Republicans are entering new territory

What history book are you reading?

Mrs. Tuzla Clinton vote no. Biden voted to filibuster.

Full Senate[edit]
The Senate voted 58-42 on Tuesday, January 31, to confirm Alito as the 110th Justice of the Supreme Court. All but one of the 55 Senate Republicans voted to confirm Alito, as well as four Democrats: Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), and Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND). Forty-two Senators voted against Alito's confirmation (40 Democrats, Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and Jim Jeffords (I-VT)).[10]

Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Senate confirmation[edit]
In 1991, public opinion polls showed that the vast majority of those polled believed Thomas over Hill.[51] After extensive debate, the Committee sent the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation either way. Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a 52 to 48 vote on October 15, 1991,[52] the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. Vice President Quayle presided over the vote in his role as President of the Senate, partly in case his vote was needed to break a potential 50-50 tie for confirmation.[53] The final floor vote was not along strictly party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats (Dixon (D-IL), Exon (D-NE), DeConcini (D-AZ), Robb (D-VA), Hollings (D-SC), Fowler (D-GA), Nunn (D-GA), Breaux (D-LA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans (Jeffords (R-VT) and Packwood (R-OR)) voted to reject the nomination.

Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas was sworn in on October 23, 1991, by Justice Byron White as the 106th Justice of the Supreme Court.[54] Chief Justice William Rehnquist was to have sworn Thomas in a ceremony initially scheduled for October 21, but was postponed until October 23 due to the death of Rehnquist’s wife. The ceremony would have been postponed longer but was held on October 23 at the request of Thomas.[54][55] The swearing-in cut short continued journalistic investigation into Thomas’s private life.[56]

Seems both Alito and Thomas not only received a Senate hearing but were confirmed with Democratic votes

Why won't Republicans allow a vote like Thomas and Alito received?

already been answered multiple times. For another answer google Schumer and Biden's comments on this situation. Its a two way street, dude. deal with it.

You lie

Neither Schumer or Biden has ever denied a Senate hearing or vote on SCOTUS

what planet are you on? the clips of them have been all over the news for weeks.

 

[Redfish]

Republicans had the choice of a vacancy or another leftist, how is the latter a better choice, explain that

A lefty??? did your heroes give him an opportunity ???? an up or down vote??? cowards traitors

no need for a vote, the senate has already told obozo that this guy will not be confirmed.

did they not say NO GUY will be confirmed???

not really, but Biden and Schumer did when the roles were reversed.

If obozo nominate Judge Napolitano or Pirro, I think they would get a vote.

The GOP controlled senate is not going to let Obama, unbalance the court to the left. Its just not going to happen.

Now you admit it at least

Republicans are stacking the court for political reasons

and the dems aren't????? of course both sides want a majority on the court. only a fool doesn't know that.

 

[hazlnut]

I'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.

sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for that

How is it outrageous that the republicans don't want to approve an anti second amendment jurist to SCOTUS?

The nominee is not anti-second amendment.

Scalia himself said the 2nd Amendment has limits and exceptions...


District of Columbia v Heller - Justice Scalia


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Redfish]

I'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.

sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for that

How is it outrageous that the republicans don't want to approve an anti second amendment jurist to SCOTUS?

The nominee is not anti-second amendment.

Scalia himself said the 2nd Amendment has limits and exceptions...


District of Columbia v Heller - Justice Scalia


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The guy is not going to get a vote before November, that's just the way it is. deal with it and move on.

if the parties were reversed the situation would be exactly the same------------and you know it.

 

[Freewill]

How is it outrageous that the republicans don't want to approve an anti second amendment jurist to SCOTUS?

What evidence do you have that the nominee is anti second amendment?

His record on the bench. Look it up.

Why should the senate waste time with hearings on a guy who has zero chance of being confirmed?

Sure, its politics, and if the roles were reversed the dems would be doing exactly the same things. Schumer and Biden are on record confirming that.

The Democrats did not do the same thing when the roles were reversed

All Republican nominees received a hearing in the Senate. That is their job
A few were rejected but overall, Democrats have supported conservative nominees like Thomas and Alito

Republicans are entering new territory

What history book are you reading?

Mrs. Tuzla Clinton vote no. Biden voted to filibuster.

Full Senate[edit]
The Senate voted 58-42 on Tuesday, January 31, to confirm Alito as the 110th Justice of the Supreme Court. All but one of the 55 Senate Republicans voted to confirm Alito, as well as four Democrats: Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), and Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND). Forty-two Senators voted against Alito's confirmation (40 Democrats, Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and Jim Jeffords (I-VT)).[10]

Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Senate confirmation[edit]
In 1991, public opinion polls showed that the vast majority of those polled believed Thomas over Hill.[51] After extensive debate, the Committee sent the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation either way. Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a 52 to 48 vote on October 15, 1991,[52] the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. Vice President Quayle presided over the vote in his role as President of the Senate, partly in case his vote was needed to break a potential 50-50 tie for confirmation.[53] The final floor vote was not along strictly party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats (Dixon (D-IL), Exon (D-NE), DeConcini (D-AZ), Robb (D-VA), Hollings (D-SC), Fowler (D-GA), Nunn (D-GA), Breaux (D-LA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans (Jeffords (R-VT) and Packwood (R-OR)) voted to reject the nomination.

Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas was sworn in on October 23, 1991, by Justice Byron White as the 106th Justice of the Supreme Court.[54] Chief Justice William Rehnquist was to have sworn Thomas in a ceremony initially scheduled for October 21, but was postponed until October 23 due to the death of Rehnquist’s wife. The ceremony would have been postponed longer but was held on October 23 at the request of Thomas.[54][55] The swearing-in cut short continued journalistic investigation into Thomas’s private life.[56]

Seems both Alito and Thomas not only received a Senate hearing but were confirmed with Democratic votes

Why won't Republicans allow a vote like Thomas and Alito received?

Really, that is what you are going with? I think the one was 4 democrats and the other 11. Hardly with democrat votes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

appraise and verify? bring it on ,,,but don't sit there in congress like nitwits doing nothing the man is more qualified than the moron thomas ,,,

The most brilliant member of the court is a "moron?"

You know fucktard, I suspect you just hate black people....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Gist: The signs that the Supreme Court is grappling with a depleted bench are starting to show. But what has been a trickle of tie-votes, bizarre orders and slowed activity could turn into a series of orders with contradictory effects as the court is confronted with an onslaught of election-related litigation in the lead-up to Nov. 8...........hows it feel repubs to get what you wished for?

Such is the irresponsible, reprehensible partisan right.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What evidence do you have that the nominee is anti second amendment?

His record on the bench. Look it up.

Why should the senate waste time with hearings on a guy who has zero chance of being confirmed?

Sure, its politics, and if the roles were reversed the dems would be doing exactly the same things. Schumer and Biden are on record confirming that.

No! You post his record on 2nd A. rulings or STFU. A statement was made sans evidence, one which you seem to support. Thus you are either a fool, dishonest or have the evidence.

I gave you a link. You don't like it? Find your own. By the way, you're welcome.

Your link was incredulous; it did not suggest any effort on the part of the nominee to repeal or modify the 2nd.

You obviously did not read it. If you did, you did not bother to process the information. Don't sweat it. Just call me some more names!

Seriously, you're going to argue an opinion piece on a right wing web site is evidence? I read it, I considered the source, and once I stopped laughing, i read statements of opinion which did not link to any credible source.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It would make more sense then Abolishing and destroying our nations capabilities in compete in most ways. The republicans are turning into idiots.

 

[Compost]

UOTE="Wry Catcher, post: 13997455, member: 20297"]

His record on the bench. Look it up.

Why should the senate waste time with hearings on a guy who has zero chance of being confirmed?

Sure, its politics, and if the roles were reversed the dems would be doing exactly the same things. Schumer and Biden are on record confirming that.

No! You post his record on 2nd A. rulings or STFU. A statement was made sans evidence, one which you seem to support. Thus you are either a fool, dishonest or have the evidence.

I gave you a link. You don't like it? Find your own. By the way, you're welcome.

Your link was incredulous; it did not suggest any effort on the part of the nominee to repeal or modify the 2nd.

You obviously did not read it. If you did, you did not bother to process the information. Don't sweat it. Just call me some more names!

Seriously, you're going to argue an opinion piece on a right wing web site is evidence? I read it, I considered the source, and once I stopped laughing, i read statements of opinion which did not link to any credible source.[/QUOTE]




As I said before, I offered the piece because it summarized 2nd amendment issues and Garland. That you are incapable of considering the opinion of someone with views to the right of yours has been made abundantly clear .

At this point, all you are doing is repeating yourself. You are wasting my time.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.

True, but the point of the thread is their wish to appoint another Alito or Thomas, the former a theocrat and the latter a Scalia echo; in not doing their job they have created another mess - the one thing the Republican's are good at.

Blocking Obama's hand picked stooge is their job.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.

sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for that

Why would accepting the "blame" for keeping a commie who hates the Constitution off the court bother them?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.

True, but the point of the thread is their wish to appoint another Alito or Thomas, the former a theocrat and the latter a Scalia echo; in not doing their job they have created another mess - the one thing the Republican's are good at.

Blocking Obama's hand picked stooge is their job.

It is? Is that in Art. I or II?

 

[whitehall]

Actually democrats including high profile democrats are on record wishing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would die. I doubt if you could find a republican who wished Scalia would die. As far as his replacement goes the current V.P. said it best when he was a member of the senate. "The majority (democrats) would not vote for a Supreme Court replacement during a lame duck administration".

 

[bripat9643]

I'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.

sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for that

You have a problem with vetting?

appraise and verify? bring it on ,,,but don't sit there in congress like nitwits doing nothing the man is more qualified than the moron thomas ,,,

And much more honest than the hack Alitio.

ROFL! How so? He's a fucking commie who hates the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.

True, but the point of the thread is their wish to appoint another Alito or Thomas, the former a theocrat and the latter a Scalia echo; in not doing their job they have created another mess - the one thing the Republican's are good at.

Blocking Obama's hand picked stooge is their job.

It is? Is that in Art. I or II?

Art II Section II

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:​

 

[bripat9643]

I'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.

sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for that

You have a problem with vetting?

appraise and verify? bring it on ,,,but don't sit there in congress like nitwits doing nothing the man is more qualified than the moron thomas ,,,

Hardly. He's a commie who hates the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.

sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for that

How is it outrageous that the republicans don't want to approve an anti second amendment jurist to SCOTUS?

What evidence do you have that the nominee is anti second amendment?

In 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation” and voted “to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement.” Obama will use his pick to pursue a gun control agenda.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.

sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for that

How is it outrageous that the republicans don't want to approve an anti second amendment jurist to SCOTUS?

What evidence do you have that the nominee is anti second amendment?

His record on the bench. Look it up.

Why should the senate waste time with hearings on a guy who has zero chance of being confirmed?

Sure, its politics, and if the roles were reversed the dems would be doing exactly the same things. Schumer and Biden are on record confirming that.

You would think Democrats would be against elections since they are so opposed to "politics."