republicans get what they wish for

[bripat9643]

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

GOD'S WILL!

Thomas better be looking behind his back too or change his ways

Is that some kind of threat?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Republicans are trying to show that the Supreme Court in nonessential and that there is no reason to push through an appointment

I would say that's pretty nasty considering all that the SC did for republicans What are friends for? lol

Dim appointees to the court have never done a thing for Republicans.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

You choose to believe the character assassination in your link to be a legitimate form of exercising an opinion, I find it to be entirely partisan, sans any probative evidence supporting the opinion. In other words, (the usual) lies, half-truths, rumors, innuendos and echoes which are the grist of the RW Media, and parroted by arch conservatives on message boards such as this one.

 

[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?

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:​

Gee, thanks so much for sharing. But, "Blocking Obama's hand picked stooge is their job" is not specifically stated in the text.

 

[Kondor3]

So, SCOTUS is paralyzed for a few months, while the Presidential election sorts itself out...

Whatever's on the Front Burner will keep for a while...

The People and their Republic will survive the interim...

No big deal...

 

[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:​

Gee, thanks so much for sharing. But, "Blocking Obama's hand picked stooge is their job" is not specifically stated in the text.

It is in their power, and that's why they were elected.

 

[OKTexas]

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???

That was based on the reality of Obama sends up. If he sends in an Alito, he'll be confirmed. Don't believe me? Give it a shot ...

is there a person out there that can honestly be called non partisan ......or is it only thomases scalias or alito's that have a chance? and what if hillary is elected ,,,,are repubs ready for 8 more years of 8 judges??

May be less than 8, Ginsberg is already 94.

she'll vote from her death bed

Don't think they can call a vote in.

 

[kaz]

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?

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.

Yep, they gave their advice and consent, their Constitutional duty

Actually the gave their advice and withheld consent, which they have every right to do.

Is that supposed to be different than what I said?

 

[HUGGY]

The GOP leadership will wish like hell they had taken what was offered by Obama after the election and after they not only fail to take the white house but lose their majority in the senate. They are some VERY foolish men.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yep, they gave their advice and consent, their Constitutional duty

Actually the gave their advice and withheld consent, which they have every right to do.

Is that supposed to be different than what I said?

Ugh, yes. Giving consent is confirming the nomination.

con·sent
[kənˈsent]

NOUN

1. permission for something to happen or agreement to do something:

VERB

1. give permission for something to happen:

agreement · assent · acceptance · approval ·
Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press · Translation by Bing Translator

 

[kaz]

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.

Yep, they gave their advice and consent, their Constitutional duty

Actually the gave their advice and withheld consent, which they have every right to do.

Is that supposed to be different than what I said?

Ugh, yes. Giving consent is confirming the nomination.

con·sent
[kənˈsent]

NOUN

1. permission for something to happen or agreement to do something:

VERB

1. give permission for something to happen:

agreement · assent · acceptance · approval ·
Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press · Translation by Bing Translator

Right, for candidates they decide to approve. They decided not to approve another Democrat socialist. We obviously agree, I have no idea what point you're trying to make

 

[Redfish]

they gave their advice and did not consent-----------case closed. Next.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The GOP leadership will wish like hell they had taken what was offered by Obama after the election and after they not only fail to take the white house but lose their majority in the senate. They are some VERY foolish men.

The R leadership is afraid to lose and paralyzed by fear. Too bad they lack the integrity to follow the advice of Mark Twain: "When in doubt, tell the truth"

 

[Redfish]

The GOP leadership will wish like hell they had taken what was offered by Obama after the election and after they not only fail to take the white house but lose their majority in the senate. They are some VERY foolish men.

The R leadership is afraid to lose and paralyzed by fear. Too bad they lack the integrity to follow the advice of Mark Twain: "When in doubt, tell the truth"

fear of what? another liberal on the court? its not fear, its common sense.

and you fricken well know that if the parties were reversed the dems would be doing exactly the same thing.

 

[SmokeALib]

The GOP leadership will wish like hell they had taken what was offered by Obama after the election and after they not only fail to take the white house but lose their majority in the senate. They are some VERY foolish men.

The R leadership is afraid to lose and paralyzed by fear. Too bad they lack the integrity to follow the advice of Mark Twain: "When in doubt, tell the truth"

You mean like OBlamer and Hitlery?

 

[eddiew]

dems even gave the moron thomas an up or down

 

[kaz]

The GOP leadership will wish like hell they had taken what was offered by Obama after the election and after they not only fail to take the white house but lose their majority in the senate. They are some VERY foolish men.

The R leadership is afraid to lose and paralyzed by fear. Too bad they lack the integrity to follow the advice of Mark Twain: "When in doubt, tell the truth"

No, clueless git, they are perfectly willing to lose. What they fear is a candidate they can't control. They'd rather control a minority party than not control a majority party. My God, man, are you paying any attention at all? You just look at this through your leftist bigotry and decide it is whatever you want it to be?

 

[Redfish]

dems even gave the moron thomas an up or down

not in an election year. That's the issue here, fool.

 

[kaz]

The GOP leadership will wish like hell they had taken what was offered by Obama after the election and after they not only fail to take the white house but lose their majority in the senate. They are some VERY foolish men.

Why? What's the difference between one socialist and another?

Obviously you know that since you're sweating it so much

 

[kaz]

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:​

Gee, thanks so much for sharing. But, "Blocking Obama's hand picked stooge is their job" is not specifically stated in the text.

Sure it is, advise and consent. They are not consenting to an Obama hand picked stooge in an election year. Their Constitutional duty