Republicans Plan to Obstruct the Constitution -- Again

[bendog]

We can include 54 Republican Senators who do not have a clue

Ah yes.....the world according RW: " Republicans should rubber stamp EVERYTHING my side wants."

Rubber stamp?

They wouldn't even give the guy a hearing

Until Bork they mostly followed a "President should always get his Judge" agreement.

Well if Hillary nominates anyone who argues the constitution doesn't mean something most of us take for granted ... like if she nominated someone who said they'd repeal Heller because there's no individual right, then the gop should reject it.

But that hasn't happened and isn't going to.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ yeah , sure !!

Well, if it happens there's a remedy. Obama proposed two for the Scalia seat who supported Heller.

 

[rightwinger]

After leaving a seat empty for a year because they "wanted the people to decide"

I'd like to see how Republicans justify turning down a nomination after Hillary wins by a landslide

The seat's not empty. You need to read up on how many Supreme court justices are needed.
Crimine FDR wanted like about 15

Eight judges mean there is an empty seat

----------------------------------------------------- no it doesn't , I think that you are just used to 9 as you look to get your way . Supreme court has operated with 5 in the past RWinger !!

When

 

[bendog]

I see another one hasn't a clue to how this works.

We can include 54 Republican Senators who do not have a clue

Ah yes.....the world according RW: " Republicans should rubber stamp EVERYTHING my side wants."

Rubber stamp?

They wouldn't even give the guy a hearing

Until Bork they mostly followed a "President should always get his Judge" agreement.

Bork got a full hearing

Republicans have refused Garland even a phone call

Bork said the constitution permitted states to outlaw fucking birth control .. in NINETEEENEIGHTYSEVEN

 

[martybegan]

After leaving a seat empty for a year because they "wanted the people to decide"

I'd like to see how Republicans justify turning down a nomination after Hillary wins by a landslide

I see another one hasn't a clue to how this works.

They also don't see the fact that the whole reason Court appointments are becoming such an issue is that the Court is overstepping its bounds, legislating from the bench, not interpreting established law in light of the Constitution.

That isn't happening. What's happening is congress had used it's power to enact laws that heretofore congress didn't touch. there's no actual constitutional crises that congress cannot levy taxes for healthcare. Presumbably you'd go back to Roe, but that's been done.

I can go back to Roe and Obergfell, both which stretched "interpretation" to levels seen in Dred Scott and Plessey.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.

However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.

McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.


Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/17/us/politics/ap-us-mccain-supreme-court-.html

Can you explain how this is unconstitutional in YOUR OWN WORDS?

 

[bendog]

After leaving a seat empty for a year because they "wanted the people to decide"

I'd like to see how Republicans justify turning down a nomination after Hillary wins by a landslide

I see another one hasn't a clue to how this works.

They also don't see the fact that the whole reason Court appointments are becoming such an issue is that the Court is overstepping its bounds, legislating from the bench, not interpreting established law in light of the Constitution.

That isn't happening. What's happening is congress had used it's power to enact laws that heretofore congress didn't touch. there's no actual constitutional crises that congress cannot levy taxes for healthcare. Presumbably you'd go back to Roe, but that's been done.

I can go back to Roe and Obergfell, both which stretched "interpretation" to levels seen in Dred Scott and Plessey.

Well I didn't like Obergfell, but even Roberts conceded the gays would win the day. I thought Roe was also a political misstep, but while I respect your religious views, over 60% believe that there's some right to choice. There's just no real constitutional crisis.

Civil rights required the conservatives to accept govt intrusions on personal contracts. You had to contract with blacks. There was no way out. That was a crisis. The emacipation took property without compensation. That was a crisis.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. If you don't want health insurance, pay a tax.

 

[rightwinger]

We can include 54 Republican Senators who do not have a clue

Ah yes.....the world according RW: " Republicans should rubber stamp EVERYTHING my side wants."

Rubber stamp?

They wouldn't even give the guy a hearing

Until Bork they mostly followed a "President should always get his Judge" agreement.

Bork got a full hearing

Republicans have refused Garland even a phone call

Bork said the constitution permitted states to outlaw fucking birth control .. in NINETEEENEIGHTYSEVEN

Bork got a hearing and those voting against him gave specific reasons for their vote.

Cowardly Republicans will not even do that

 

[OldLady]

If this is their position when HRC is elected she should just respond 'there will be a blanket veto on EVERY bill Congress sends to my desk to be signed until the proper Congress is elected and 'the people have had their say in a proper election'.

The time has come for the Democrats to cram this shit right back down the Republican's throats. The Republicans have decided the Constitution isn't valid anymore and they can ignore it.

Let's find out.

Two wrongs don't make a right. This ship has to be put back on track. Retribution would feel good for a minute, but this is more important.

Sorry it's time to put and end to this endless childish Republican bullshit. Brute force is sometimes warranted.

I agree it's time to put an end to this endless bullshit. I do think Democrats are likely to follow suit if they are put back in the majority, and I don't agree with that either. Of course each side needs to fight for what they believe, but compromise is how this country has always managed to get along, and when it couldn't, we had a civil war. I'm not into that.

 

[bendog]

Ah yes.....the world according RW: " Republicans should rubber stamp EVERYTHING my side wants."

Rubber stamp?

They wouldn't even give the guy a hearing

Until Bork they mostly followed a "President should always get his Judge" agreement.

Bork got a full hearing

Republicans have refused Garland even a phone call

Bork said the constitution permitted states to outlaw fucking birth control .. in NINETEEENEIGHTYSEVEN

Bork got a hearing and those voting against him gave specific reasons for their vote.

Cowardly Republicans will not even do that

There's the problem. 90 senators would not find Garland's views to be ... controversial.

But again, the gop was ok with Obama getting two nominations. And presumably Hillary will also get two in one term.

After that .. possible culture wars.

 

[pismoe]

After leaving a seat empty for a year because they "wanted the people to decide"

I'd like to see how Republicans justify turning down a nomination after Hillary wins by a landslide

The seat's not empty. You need to read up on how many Supreme court justices are needed.
Crimine FDR wanted like about 15

Eight judges mean there is an empty seat

----------------------------------------------------- no it doesn't , I think that you are just used to 9 as you look to get your way . Supreme court has operated with 5 in the past RWinger !!

When

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Frequently Asked Questions - Supreme Court of the United States --- here you go RWinger !!

 

[Grizz]

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.

However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.

McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.


Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/17/us/politics/ap-us-mccain-supreme-court-.html

You are an idiot.
Why does someone doing their job as described by the Constitution scare you?

McCain is not talking specifically of a nominee he does not approve of. He is talking about four more years of partisan constipation in the law making body of our country. I don't approve.

We don't care whether or not you approve. Hillary will not nominate ANYONE a Conservative would ever approve of.

Then you have let the partisan blinkers restrict your vision and your perspective too much. Too much.

Says a complete Leftwing hack, I am crushed.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

After leaving a seat empty for a year because they "wanted the people to decide"

I'd like to see how Republicans justify turning down a nomination after Hillary wins by a landslide

Easily. It's called obstructionism.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If this is their position when HRC is elected she should just respond 'there will be a blanket veto on EVERY bill Congress sends to my desk to be signed until the proper Congress is elected and 'the people have had their say in a proper election'.

The time has come for the Democrats to cram this shit right back down the Republican's throats. The Republicans have decided the Constitution isn't valid anymore and they can ignore it.

Let's find out.

A blanket veto is just what republicans want. Grind the wheels of government to a halt. It would be nice if hilly cooperated.

 

[martybegan]

After leaving a seat empty for a year because they "wanted the people to decide"

I'd like to see how Republicans justify turning down a nomination after Hillary wins by a landslide

I see another one hasn't a clue to how this works.

They also don't see the fact that the whole reason Court appointments are becoming such an issue is that the Court is overstepping its bounds, legislating from the bench, not interpreting established law in light of the Constitution.

That isn't happening. What's happening is congress had used it's power to enact laws that heretofore congress didn't touch. there's no actual constitutional crises that congress cannot levy taxes for healthcare. Presumbably you'd go back to Roe, but that's been done.

I can go back to Roe and Obergfell, both which stretched "interpretation" to levels seen in Dred Scott and Plessey.

Well I didn't like Obergfell, but even Roberts conceded the gays would win the day. I thought Roe was also a political misstep, but while I respect your religious views, over 60% believe that there's some right to choice. There's just no real constitutional crisis.

Civil rights required the conservatives to accept govt intrusions on personal contracts. You had to contract with blacks. There was no way out. That was a crisis. The emacipation took property without compensation. That was a crisis.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. If you don't want health insurance, pay a tax.

I don't have any religious views on abortion. I'm a lapsed Catholic at best. My issue is with courts making crap up, mostly because a Court that can create "rights" out of thin air can just as easily take them away, with Plessey as a prime example of this.

As for SSM, I am a supporter of it as long as it is enacted by legislative or referendum at the State level, with the Feds only enforcing the validity of ANY valid marriage license issued by a State in all others, due to full faith and Credit.

Emancipation took property without compensation as punishment for insurrection. Without that, it probably would have been compensated. In DC it was compensated.

And your last statement is an improper comparison, the first, is "if don't like it do nothing", the 2nd is "if don't want it, still pay for it"

 

[WorldWatcher]

Imo that was more or less lip service. The gop just wanted to make sure the dems didn't get 3 Justices with Obama and another 2 with Hillary.

Assuming Hillary wins, I think they'll confirm Garland with 90 or so votes. The gop also knows Ginsburg is looking to retire, which will give Hillary two nominees. I assume they will confirm Ginsburg's replacement so long as "she" doesn't advocate an extremist view of the constitution, as did Bork, and now Kagan certainly doesn't and neither really does Sontomayor.

Hillary is under no obligation to re-nominate Garland.

Obama is under no obligation to appoint Garland if the Senate decides to try to confirm him after the election but before January 20th.



>>>>

 

[OldLady]

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.

However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.

McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.


Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/17/us/politics/ap-us-mccain-supreme-court-.html

Can you explain how this is unconstitutional in YOUR OWN WORDS?

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.

However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.

McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.


Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/17/us/politics/ap-us-mccain-supreme-court-.html

You are an idiot.
Why does someone doing their job as described by the Constitution scare you?

McCain is not talking specifically of a nominee he does not approve of. He is talking about four more years of partisan constipation in the law making body of our country. I don't approve.

We don't care whether or not you approve. Hillary will not nominate ANYONE a Conservative would ever approve of.

Then you have let the partisan blinkers restrict your vision and your perspective too much. Too much.

Says a complete Leftwing hack, I am crushed.

Thanks for demonstrating my point so clearly. WAKE UP!!!! This isn't about sides.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If this is their position when HRC is elected she should just respond 'there will be a blanket veto on EVERY bill Congress sends to my desk to be signed until the proper Congress is elected and 'the people have had their say in a proper election'.

The time has come for the Democrats to cram this shit right back down the Republican's throats. The Republicans have decided the Constitution isn't valid anymore and they can ignore it.

Let's find out.

Two wrongs don't make a right. This ship has to be put back on track. Retribution would feel good for a minute, but this is more important.

There's nothing more important than keeping globalist progressives out of the SC.

 

[bendog]

Imo that was more or less lip service. The gop just wanted to make sure the dems didn't get 3 Justices with Obama and another 2 with Hillary.

Assuming Hillary wins, I think they'll confirm Garland with 90 or so votes. The gop also knows Ginsburg is looking to retire, which will give Hillary two nominees. I assume they will confirm Ginsburg's replacement so long as "she" doesn't advocate an extremist view of the constitution, as did Bork, and now Kagan certainly doesn't and neither really does Sontomayor.

Hillary is under no obligation to re-nominate Garland.

Obama is under no obligation to appoint Garland if the Senate decides to try to confirm him after the election but before January 20th.



>>>>

I read Hillary will renominate the guy. He's older. But even if she has a small senate maj, I don't see the political payoff for her for not taking the compromise road. He's pro choice and pro taxing for healthcare.

 

[bendog]

If this is their position when HRC is elected she should just respond 'there will be a blanket veto on EVERY bill Congress sends to my desk to be signed until the proper Congress is elected and 'the people have had their say in a proper election'.

The time has come for the Democrats to cram this shit right back down the Republican's throats. The Republicans have decided the Constitution isn't valid anymore and they can ignore it.

Let's find out.

Two wrongs don't make a right. This ship has to be put back on track. Retribution would feel good for a minute, but this is more important.

There's nothing more important than keeping globalist progressives out of the SC.

You think Thomas Roberts and Alito met a multinational that bothers them?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.

However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.

McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.


Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/17/us/politics/ap-us-mccain-supreme-court-.html

Can you explain how this is unconstitutional in YOUR OWN WORDS?

You are an idiot.
Why does someone doing their job as described by the Constitution scare you?

McCain is not talking specifically of a nominee he does not approve of. He is talking about four more years of partisan constipation in the law making body of our country. I don't approve.

We don't care whether or not you approve. Hillary will not nominate ANYONE a Conservative would ever approve of.

Then you have let the partisan blinkers restrict your vision and your perspective too much. Too much.

Says a complete Leftwing hack, I am crushed.

Thanks for demonstrating my point so clearly. WAKE UP!!!! This isn't about sides.

Yes it is. It's about America vs globalist.
If you hate America and want to see our borders disappear go ahead and vote for hillary.