Republicans Plan to Obstruct the Constitution -- Again

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If I were Mitch McConnell I would be confirming Merrick Garland really quick

 

[TooTall]

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.

The ACA was sold to the Democrats in Congress based on the lie that it absolutely was NOT a tax. Then the Administration lawyers argued in front of the Supreme Court that it WAS a tax.

 

[TooTall]

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.

What is stopping Obama from passing a law that if you don't buy a car you have to pay a tax? That makes just as much sense as the ACA tax.

 

[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.

The ACA was sold to the Democrats in Congress based on the lie that it absolutely was NOT a tax. Then the Administration lawyers argued in front of the Supreme Court that it WAS a tax.

Yeah, Obama lied.

 

[2aguy]

There have been 35 actual, substantiated cases of fraud in voting out of millions and millions. 35. That is not "fixed Primary elections, massive fraud." You do not have evidence that Hillary's campaign hired homeless and mentally ill people to disrupt and engage in violence at GOP events. I'd put my money on a Hillary supporter firebombing the GOP HQ, but you fail to mention the DNC has raised $13,000 to restore it. Without any fuss or muss or need to call names.
I know you can't prove any of the above hyperbolic slander about rigged elections. It IS NOT TRUE. You are being used to move forward an agenda to destroy this country through rebellion against the majority's decision. That is so third world and tacky.
Grow up.

There is a video out today of democrat operatives describing exactly what they do to commit voter fraud, they bus people to mutiple districs, the find abandoned houses and use those addresses and they even have an illegal alien who gets other illegal aliens to vote.....it is out on video, they admit it and are proud about it ......

You are not a very wise person.....

Yes...we have the leaders of the group stating they use homeless people and union thugs from the AFL-CIO to disrupt trump rallies...they are on video admitting to it, and one of them was just fired because of it....he is now going to get an even better job with the democrats once the election is over...

You can't deny it......they have actually admitted to all of it on video....they have been caught and there is no way to say they didn't say it......

 

[Grizz]

Throw out the bums that refuse to do their jobs and refuse to do anything but warm a chair in Congress and collect a paycheck.

Harry Reid left hundred of GOP bills on his desk, refusing to allow them to come up for a vote. Where was that sentiment then?


Harry Reid’s Obstructionism

Harry Reid’s reign of paralysis


Many of these comments / thread, and posts reek of the stench of hypocrisy.

How many of those GOP bills had the 60 votes needed to go to the floor?

Let me check.........ummmmmm....None

Wait.....so like the average hack you "support" the rules when they "favor" you.
Got it.

 

[TooTall]

I have to say kudos for McCain for having balls for once

However I dont see how they keep the political will to block it after the election

It only takes one Senator to force cloture on an SC nomination and it takes 60 votes to allow a vote. Even a minority can stop a confirmation in the Senate.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

If the congress doesn't confirm Garland, Hillary will appoint 2 but possibly 3 justices to the court. That is if Hillary wins.

Judge Anthony Kennedy is 80 years old. It's possible that he would retire or possibly die during a Hillary presidency.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not hoping that Kennedy or anyone dies. I hope he continues to live a healthy life.

 

[bendog]

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.

What is stopping Obama from passing a law that if you don't buy a car you have to pay a tax? That makes just as much sense as the ACA tax.

Come on, let's be just a tad realistic. Tthe reality is still that if a person is uninsured, and he gets really sick or even needs an ER, he often doesn't pay for, but instead shifts the cost to the insured folks. Congress said "buy insurance or pay a tax." I'm not relitigating the ACA again, because IT WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Congress has the power to levy taxes. There is a rational reason to treat those who refuse to buy insurance (and freeload) differently from insured. It was not a difficult question.

It was a POLITICAL question. Court's don't go there. Or shouldn't. The gop could have nominated someone capable of winning this election, and go at HC by just making sure everyone has X dollars to get services and then let them buy them in a transparent market.

 

[Kosh]

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.

McCain Suggests GOP Would Oppose Clinton Supreme Court Picks

Let us see a far left drone using a far left blog site for their "facts"..

 

[TooTall]

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.

Oh, I didn't meant to imply that she wouldn't nominate Garland again. I was saying that even if the Senate decides "Oh shit, Hillary won, we need to confirm Garland", that doesn't mean he will be seated on the Court.

1. Obama could withdraw the nomination on November 9th.
2. The Senate could vote to confirm, but Obama can decide not to appoint.
3. The Senate can take no action and come January 20th Clinton could nominate someone else.


>>>>

I think it will be a real test of Obama's disposition how he handles it--payback or get 'er done.

I would like for the Senate Republicans to hold hearings on Garland, then one Senator filibuster and then try to get 60 votes to override cloture.

 

[bendog]

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.

If the congress doesn't confirm Garland, Hillary will appoint 2 but possibly 3 justices to the court. That is if Hillary wins.

Judge Anthony Kennedy is 80 years old. It's possible that he would retire or possibly die during a Hillary presidency.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not hoping that Kennedy or anyone dies. I hope he continues to live a healthy life.

I suspect the gop will confirm two Hillary appointees. IF Kennedy were to pass away during Hillary's first term, I doubt a gop Senate would take up a third. And it would be punted to 2020 and beyond.

 

[TooTall]

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.

The Republicans would get the blame.

It doesn't matter, it's time the Republicans were put in their place. They are not Americans anymore. Sorry.

Who did you blame when Reagan shut down the government several times?

 

[TooTall]

If you could go to jail for refusing for refusing to vote for a President's nominee to fill a position there would be THOUSANDS of 'Ex-' and 'Current' Democrats in jail right now who have engaged in this long-time partisan political bull shit.

To the Democrats whining about this now I offer YOU the same advice Barry offered up to Trump earlier: 'STOP YOUR WHINING!'

As far as 'violating the Constitution' goes, Barry has set a new US record for doing that during his time in office. For the record, refusing to vote for / preventing the election of a nominee that could potentially act in direct contradiction to the intents and purpose of the US Constitution would NOT be violating the Constitution but would be in reality PROTECTING the Constitution...against 'DOMESTIC Enemies'.

This has never happened before. Check it out.

Two of Bush's nominees were withdrawn because of Democrat promises to filibuster.

 

[IsaacNewton]

If I were Mitch McConnell I would be confirming Merrick Garland really quick

If HRC wins and the Republicans do come out the next day and say 'well we've had an election so we'll vote on Garland now' Obama will probably say 'a new President will be seated in just 3 months, I will leave the SC choices to her. But I think you are right about McConnell and Garland. If HRC wins they will likely be sprinting to vote on him.

 

[Preacher]

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.

McCain Suggests GOP Would Oppose Clinton Supreme Court Picks

"obstructing" the constitution to save the constitution...good for them. I'll believe it when it actually happens but I hope they do! That bitch gets her choices bye bye first and second amendments.

 

[kaz]

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.

McCain Suggests GOP Would Oppose Clinton Supreme Court Picks

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.

The President has to obtain advice and consent. Just repeatedly nominating hard left judges the Senate turns down isn't violating anything other than the President's refusal to work with the Senate in good faith.

You suddenly get that when it's a Republican President and a Democrat senate

 

[Dana7360]

If you could go to jail for refusing for refusing to vote for a President's nominee to fill a position there would be THOUSANDS of 'Ex-' and 'Current' Democrats in jail right now who have engaged in this long-time partisan political bull shit.

To the Democrats whining about this now I offer YOU the same advice Barry offered up to Trump earlier: 'STOP YOUR WHINING!'

As far as 'violating the Constitution' goes, Barry has set a new US record for doing that during his time in office. For the record, refusing to vote for / preventing the election of a nominee that could potentially act in direct contradiction to the intents and purpose of the US Constitution would NOT be violating the Constitution but would be in reality PROTECTING the Constitution...against 'DOMESTIC Enemies'.

Considering the Democrats as Domestic Enemies tells me you are one of those who has gone too far.

That has been going on since the 80s.

A group of conservatives believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them are enemies of our nation.

It's only gotten worse since the 80s.

Believing our fellow American citizen is your enemy isn't American, patriotic or how a sane, mature person behaves.

 

[kaz]

If I were Mitch McConnell I would be confirming Merrick Garland really quick

If HRC wins and the Republicans do come out the next day and say 'well we've had an election so we'll vote on Garland now' Obama will probably say 'a new President will be seated in just 3 months, I will leave the SC choices to her. But I think you are right about McConnell and Garland. If HRC wins they will likely be sprinting to vote on him.

You're still pushing the canard he's not hard left, are you?

 

[kaz]

If you could go to jail for refusing for refusing to vote for a President's nominee to fill a position there would be THOUSANDS of 'Ex-' and 'Current' Democrats in jail right now who have engaged in this long-time partisan political bull shit.

To the Democrats whining about this now I offer YOU the same advice Barry offered up to Trump earlier: 'STOP YOUR WHINING!'

As far as 'violating the Constitution' goes, Barry has set a new US record for doing that during his time in office. For the record, refusing to vote for / preventing the election of a nominee that could potentially act in direct contradiction to the intents and purpose of the US Constitution would NOT be violating the Constitution but would be in reality PROTECTING the Constitution...against 'DOMESTIC Enemies'.

Considering the Democrats as Domestic Enemies tells me you are one of those who has gone too far.

That has been going on since the 80s.

A group of conservatives believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them are enemies of our nation.

It's only gotten worse since the 80s.

Believing our fellow American citizen is your enemy isn't American, patriotic or how a sane, mature person behaves.

What a Klown, you got that right. Democrats say that about Republicans all the time and I never see you saying shit about that. Fix your own house before worrying about your neighbor