Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[Kondor3]

On the other hand, if the 9 Dems can get 2 Republicans to side with them, they can move the nominee to the floor and that's not unlikely

True.....If you look up which republicans sit on the judiciary committee you can see that they come from the reddest of states....Grassley is (maybe) the only one that has a shade of purple in his state.

Sounds like the Judiciary Committee is bullet-proof in this context, anyway...

 

[Boss]

On the other hand, if the 9 Dems can get 2 Republicans to side with them, they can move the nominee to the floor and that's not unlikely

True.....If you look up which republicans sit on the judiciary committee you can see that they come from the reddest of states....Grassley is (maybe) the only one that has a shade of purple in his state.

Well you have Grassley and Goober Graham... Could they be the Gang of Two?

 

[blackhawk]

He will nominate someone the Republicans might filibuster the nominee as Obama did with judge Alito's nomination in 2006 or the Senate might do everything in it's power to stop any Obama nomination going through as Chuck Schumer suggested in 2007 the Democrats do if Bush was given the chance to nominate another justice. This all part of politics and not unique to either party.

 

[JoeB131]

after 100 years the company Joe Soptic was working for was failing. That is why it was up on the blocks. Whether Bain bought it or not, its future was limited.

Im not trying to sell anyone. I am simply showing you how spin was used to give the simple minded, like you, something to hate Romney for.

Guy, lots of people have turned companies around without looting the assets and stealing the pension fund, which is what Romney did at GS Steel.

Obama ad claims Romney, Bain left misery in wake of GST Steel takeover

Long and short of it, what killed GS Steel was that Bain had loaded it down with so much debt that it couldn't possibly pay them off. Yes, changes in the steel market were a factor, but they wouldn't have been a problem hadn't Bain used the company as a piggy bank to start iwth.

but here's the kicker-

The L.A. Times said Bain invested a total of $24 million in the entire steel company deal (including the merger in South Carolina) and ended up with a $50 million return -- "a 100 percent gain."

Reuters also noted that Romney continued receiving dividends from Bain after he left, and Bain collected $900,000 a year from the steel company for management consulting services through 1999.

Following the bankruptcy, GS Industries announced it would not provide workers with severance pay, health insurance, life insurance and pension supplements that had been promised.

GS Industries also left the company’s pension underfunded by $44 million and in 2002 the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. bailed it out.

In short, the Mormon looted the company, and the rest of us ended up paying the bill for it through taxes.

Although, seeing as you identified him by his religion....it seems quite apparent you hated him for that as well.

and they say conservatives have no tolerance for others that are different.

Uh, guy, first, I'm not liberal. I'm a pragmatist.

If you think Joseph Smith, a con man who was fucking little girls, was God's messenger on Earth, that pretty much disqualifies you from making any big-boy decisions.

I've met Mormons. I've never met a bunch of people who will smile in your face and stab you in the back in my life. The k ind of people who would loot a company and let a man's wife die of cancer.

 

[Wildman]

What ARE they teaching in government schools today?

absolutely NOTHING.., they are indoctrinating from pre-skool to PhD's.

 

[JoeB131]

Stuck on the spin.

Me? I am by no means a trump fan. But I am well aware that the little old lady story was spun.

You, apparently, are too simple minded to realize that.

And those you support COUNT ON YOU being simple minded and believing the spin.

Whats it like to support a party that sees you as simple minded?

Simple minded is thinking it's okay for the rich to abuse the rest of us. It's the kind of mentality that kept serfs on their land for centuries.

But by all means, run Trump. We will find every little person he ever screwed on a business deal.

 

[TooTall]

Was the will of the American people observed when Judge Bork was nominated?

YES !!!! (unless the entire country has turned racist and fascist)

OK, then you won't mind if anyone Obama nominates is "borked" will you?

You understand the difference between considering a nominee versus not even considering them, don't you?

No, no you don't.

How about the difference between rejecting one nominee versus rejecting any nominees?

No, you don't understand that either.

How about the difference between rejecting a nominee based on their record and their position on the issues versus rejecting all nominees because the president only has a year remaining in his term?

No, you don't understand that either.

What is your point? I understand perfectly that the Senate has the duty to reject or accept any nominee. If they don't like his haircut they can vote no and they have fulfilled their constitutional duty. Is that too difficult for you?

Thanks for confirming you truly don't understand what is wrong with what Republicans say they want to do.

Wasn't necessary, but thanks just the sane.

Perhaps you will tell me what ALL Republicans say they want to do. The last one I read about was Sen Grassley who plans to give any SC nominee hearings in his committee. Thanks for confirming that you don't keep up with current events.

Was the will of the American people observed when Judge Bork was nominated?

YES !!!! (unless the entire country has turned racist and fascist)

OK, then you won't mind if anyone Obama nominates is "borked" will you?

You understand the difference between considering a nominee versus not even considering them, don't you?

No, no you don't.

How about the difference between rejecting one nominee versus rejecting any nominees?

No, you don't understand that either.

How about the difference between rejecting a nominee based on their record and their position on the issues versus rejecting all nominees because the president only has a year remaining in his term?

No, you don't understand that either.

What is your point? I understand perfectly that the Senate has the duty to reject or accept any nominee. If they don't like his haircut they can vote no and they have fulfilled their constitutional duty. Is that too difficult for you?

Thanks for confirming you truly don't understand what is wrong with what Republicans say they want to do.

Wasn't necessary, but thanks just the sane.

Perhaps you will tell me what ALL Republicans say they want to do. The last one I read about was Sen Grassley who plans to give any SC nominee hearings in his committee. Thanks for confirming that you don't keep up with current events.

“As the White House shifts its vetting of potential Supreme Court nominees into high gear, the handling of that nomination is set to rest largely with the 82-year-old chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles E. Grassley.
Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a Washington Post op-ed published Friday, co-authored with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), that the Senate should “withhold its consent” for anyone President Obama nominates to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
But in earlier public comments, Grassley did not rule out holding hearings or votes on the nominee — which have emerged as points of division for Senate Republicans determined to block an Obama nominee but also blunt political attacks that could threaten their majority in November.
“Take it a step at a time,” Grassley told Iowa reporters on Tuesday.”
Sen. Grassley lies at center of Senate’s Supreme Court drama

 

[TooTall]

They'll hold votes. They're not like the democrats of GW's day, who used the filibuster to prevent votes on his picks. In fact, they're so squishy the'll probably give Obama every pick he wants.

McConnell said they wouldn't consider any nominee Obama puts up. Some Republicans, not wanting to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities, even implored Obama to shirk his by not even putting one up.

Political grandstanding. Obama's ego is too big to not do it, and the Republicans are too chicken to follow through. As for the Constitution, who's afraid of violating that old thing any more? Certainly not the current political class in DC.

Declaring they will abdicate the Constitutional responsibilities of the office they hold is "grandstanding?"

Is that what plays to their base? Shirking their fucking job?

Wait, don't tell me you think they're being serious? I mean, blocking votes on appointees is something democrats do.

Sell stupid elsewhere...

Ted Cruz says he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia

Speaking of "stupid."

President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.

White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee

 

[Redfish]

No one has said that obozo cannot nominate someone or that the senate cannot call a vote on that person. NO ONE has said or done anything that violates the constitution.

Exactly how would you (try some objectivity) interpret McConnell's statement (about an hour after Scalia's death was announced) to Obama, "don't even bother to nominate anyone...we will not consider a hearing..."

I know I'm paraphrasing here, but the gist is pretty much the same as to what McConnell stated.

Yep, that's what he said. No interpretation needed. Schumer and Obama both said the same thing when Bush was president. Wake up, this is nothing new.

It has been explained in detail how you are distorting that talking point, but you keep repeating it. Neither Obama or Schumer said the same thing as the Senate Leader, and neither was in the position to stop a nomination and hearing the way McConnell is.
You only get away with these exaggerations and distortions because you refuse to use links to back up your dishonesty.

Schumer and Obama's quotes have been posted. What they said is what they said. It doesn't matter if they were senate leader of just a voting member of the senate.

Now, if you want to talk about unconstitutional actions by the leader of the senate, shall we discuss Reid's tenure in that job?

Do you know what the word distortion means? It doesn't matter that the links showing the distortions are posted. You need to post ones that show they are not distorted. You can't do it. All you can do is give a lame opinion that you can not back up with fact. And it makes a big difference whether a Senator is just one out of 100 making a statement with no authority to act, or the one making the statement is the leader that actually has the power to act on his opinion or threat.

Yes, it does. So what? Reid took unilateral action to block legislation the entire time he led the senate. Your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your ignorance.

 

[Redfish]

Republicans have already dug their heels in to not confirming whomever he puts up

Just to watch McConnell's head explode along with his many chins, Obama should perhaps nominate Ted Cruz. LOL

cruz might get a hearing and a vote. Whoopi Goldberg will not.

 

[Fang]

We know how this will play out...

1. Obama will nominate a new justice soon. It'll be the one of the few things he gets done quickly.
2. The Republican Senate will not approve of the nominee (as they shouldn't)
3. Democrats will accuse Republicans of playing politics and holding up progress. (they would do the same thing) They'll make up slogans like "GOP war on America". They'll ride this all the way to the November election.
4. America will decide the next justice with the election. (as it should be)

========

All your " as it should be " are ONLY your opinion flavored by your political bias.

THE CONSTITUTION SAYS OTHERWISE

But then you Repubs only believe in the Constitution when it suits you.

No, the Constitution does not say Republicans need to approve Obama's nominee. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the GOP needs to do anything in a timely manner. In fact, Mitch McConnell is doing exactly what Harry Reid would do. If you deny it then you are a liar.

 

[HenryBHough]

Any potential nominee proposed by Our Kenyan Emperor owes it to his/her/its family to "Google" ROBERT BORK before agreeing to being properly vetted. "Properly" according to the way The Democrat Party has shown it must be done.

 

[Redfish]

Any potential nominee proposed by Our Kenyan Emperor owes it to his/her/its family to "Google" ROBERT BORK before agreeing to being properly vetted. "Properly" according to the way The Democrat Party has shown it must be done.

and with that all the libtards abandoned the thread, imagine that. Liberals always run from the truth.

 

[Faun]

YES !!!! (unless the entire country has turned racist and fascist)

OK, then you won't mind if anyone Obama nominates is "borked" will you?

You understand the difference between considering a nominee versus not even considering them, don't you?

No, no you don't.

How about the difference between rejecting one nominee versus rejecting any nominees?

No, you don't understand that either.

How about the difference between rejecting a nominee based on their record and their position on the issues versus rejecting all nominees because the president only has a year remaining in his term?

No, you don't understand that either.

What is your point? I understand perfectly that the Senate has the duty to reject or accept any nominee. If they don't like his haircut they can vote no and they have fulfilled their constitutional duty. Is that too difficult for you?

Thanks for confirming you truly don't understand what is wrong with what Republicans say they want to do.

Wasn't necessary, but thanks just the sane.

Perhaps you will tell me what ALL Republicans say they want to do. The last one I read about was Sen Grassley who plans to give any SC nominee hearings in his committee. Thanks for confirming that you don't keep up with current events.

YES !!!! (unless the entire country has turned racist and fascist)

OK, then you won't mind if anyone Obama nominates is "borked" will you?

You understand the difference between considering a nominee versus not even considering them, don't you?

No, no you don't.

How about the difference between rejecting one nominee versus rejecting any nominees?

No, you don't understand that either.

How about the difference between rejecting a nominee based on their record and their position on the issues versus rejecting all nominees because the president only has a year remaining in his term?

No, you don't understand that either.

What is your point? I understand perfectly that the Senate has the duty to reject or accept any nominee. If they don't like his haircut they can vote no and they have fulfilled their constitutional duty. Is that too difficult for you?

Thanks for confirming you truly don't understand what is wrong with what Republicans say they want to do.

Wasn't necessary, but thanks just the sane.

Perhaps you will tell me what ALL Republicans say they want to do. The last one I read about was Sen Grassley who plans to give any SC nominee hearings in his committee. Thanks for confirming that you don't keep up with current events.

“As the White House shifts its vetting of potential Supreme Court nominees into high gear, the handling of that nomination is set to rest largely with the 82-year-old chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles E. Grassley.
Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a Washington Post op-ed published Friday, co-authored with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), that the Senate should “withhold its consent” for anyone President Obama nominates to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
But in earlier public comments, Grassley did not rule out holding hearings or votes on the nominee — which have emerged as points of division for Senate Republicans determined to block an Obama nominee but also blunt political attacks that could threaten their majority in November.
“Take it a step at a time,” Grassley told Iowa reporters on Tuesday.”
Sen. Grassley lies at center of Senate’s Supreme Court drama

Only two Republicans matter in this context -- McConnell and Cruz. Even if the Judiciary Committee reviews Obama's nominees and reports them to the Senate, McConnell will do everything in his power to prevent an up/down vote by the full Senate. Should the Senate get past McConnell's wall of obstruction and call for a vote, Cruz is going to filibuster it.

 

[Faun]

McConnell said they wouldn't consider any nominee Obama puts up. Some Republicans, not wanting to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities, even implored Obama to shirk his by not even putting one up.

Political grandstanding. Obama's ego is too big to not do it, and the Republicans are too chicken to follow through. As for the Constitution, who's afraid of violating that old thing any more? Certainly not the current political class in DC.

Declaring they will abdicate the Constitutional responsibilities of the office they hold is "grandstanding?"

Is that what plays to their base? Shirking their fucking job?

Wait, don't tell me you think they're being serious? I mean, blocking votes on appointees is something democrats do.

Sell stupid elsewhere...

Ted Cruz says he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia

Speaking of "stupid."

President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.

White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee

Your comment about Democrats blocking Republicans' nominees is moronic because Bush still appointed a Supreme Court justice despite Obama's filibuster.

Holyfuck, are you rightwingers retarded.

 

[Freewill]

Political grandstanding. Obama's ego is too big to not do it, and the Republicans are too chicken to follow through. As for the Constitution, who's afraid of violating that old thing any more? Certainly not the current political class in DC.

Declaring they will abdicate the Constitutional responsibilities of the office they hold is "grandstanding?"

Is that what plays to their base? Shirking their fucking job?

Wait, don't tell me you think they're being serious? I mean, blocking votes on appointees is something democrats do.

Sell stupid elsewhere...

Ted Cruz says he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia

Speaking of "stupid."

President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.

White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee

Your comment about Democrats blocking Republicans' nominees is moronic because Bush still appointed a Supreme Court justice despite Obama's filibuster.

Holyfuck, are you rightwingers retarded.

The nomination went through because the dems didn't have the votes, had they had the votes they would have blocked the nomination.

 

[Faun]

Declaring they will abdicate the Constitutional responsibilities of the office they hold is "grandstanding?"

Is that what plays to their base? Shirking their fucking job?

Wait, don't tell me you think they're being serious? I mean, blocking votes on appointees is something democrats do.

Sell stupid elsewhere...

Ted Cruz says he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia

Speaking of "stupid."

President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.

White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee

Your comment about Democrats blocking Republicans' nominees is moronic because Bush still appointed a Supreme Court justice despite Obama's filibuster.

Holyfuck, are you rightwingers retarded.

The nomination went through because the dems didn't have the votes, had they had the votes they would have blocked the nomination.

Great. So now the argument is IF Democrats had prevented a president from appointing a Supreme Court justice, then what Republicans are about to do would have a precedent?

 

[Redfish]

OK, then you won't mind if anyone Obama nominates is "borked" will you?

You understand the difference between considering a nominee versus not even considering them, don't you?

No, no you don't.

How about the difference between rejecting one nominee versus rejecting any nominees?

No, you don't understand that either.

How about the difference between rejecting a nominee based on their record and their position on the issues versus rejecting all nominees because the president only has a year remaining in his term?

No, you don't understand that either.

What is your point? I understand perfectly that the Senate has the duty to reject or accept any nominee. If they don't like his haircut they can vote no and they have fulfilled their constitutional duty. Is that too difficult for you?

Thanks for confirming you truly don't understand what is wrong with what Republicans say they want to do.

Wasn't necessary, but thanks just the sane.

Perhaps you will tell me what ALL Republicans say they want to do. The last one I read about was Sen Grassley who plans to give any SC nominee hearings in his committee. Thanks for confirming that you don't keep up with current events.

OK, then you won't mind if anyone Obama nominates is "borked" will you?

You understand the difference between considering a nominee versus not even considering them, don't you?

No, no you don't.

How about the difference between rejecting one nominee versus rejecting any nominees?

No, you don't understand that either.

How about the difference between rejecting a nominee based on their record and their position on the issues versus rejecting all nominees because the president only has a year remaining in his term?

No, you don't understand that either.

What is your point? I understand perfectly that the Senate has the duty to reject or accept any nominee. If they don't like his haircut they can vote no and they have fulfilled their constitutional duty. Is that too difficult for you?

Thanks for confirming you truly don't understand what is wrong with what Republicans say they want to do.

Wasn't necessary, but thanks just the sane.

Perhaps you will tell me what ALL Republicans say they want to do. The last one I read about was Sen Grassley who plans to give any SC nominee hearings in his committee. Thanks for confirming that you don't keep up with current events.

“As the White House shifts its vetting of potential Supreme Court nominees into high gear, the handling of that nomination is set to rest largely with the 82-year-old chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles E. Grassley.
Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a Washington Post op-ed published Friday, co-authored with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), that the Senate should “withhold its consent” for anyone President Obama nominates to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
But in earlier public comments, Grassley did not rule out holding hearings or votes on the nominee — which have emerged as points of division for Senate Republicans determined to block an Obama nominee but also blunt political attacks that could threaten their majority in November.
“Take it a step at a time,” Grassley told Iowa reporters on Tuesday.”
Sen. Grassley lies at center of Senate’s Supreme Court drama

Only two Republicans matter in this context -- McConnell and Cruz. Even if the Judiciary Committee reviews Obama's nominees and reports them to the Senate, McConnell will do everything in his power to prevent an up/down vote by the full Senate. Should the Senate get past McConnell's wall of obstruction and call for a vote, Cruz is going to filibuster it.

So what? Reid did the same thing for years. He sat on 300 house passed bills and never let one come to a vote in the senate. Sorry, but pay back sucks. And, your messiah Obozo the great filibustered Alitos nomination. Why was that OK?

 

[Freewill]

Wait, don't tell me you think they're being serious? I mean, blocking votes on appointees is something democrats do.

Sell stupid elsewhere...

Ted Cruz says he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia

Speaking of "stupid."

President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.

White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee

Your comment about Democrats blocking Republicans' nominees is moronic because Bush still appointed a Supreme Court justice despite Obama's filibuster.

Holyfuck, are you rightwingers retarded.

The nomination went through because the dems didn't have the votes, had they had the votes they would have blocked the nomination.

Great. So now the argument is IF Democrats had prevented a president from appointing a Supreme Court justice, then what Republicans are about to do would have a precedent?

NO, I am saying if Obama had his way he would have blocked the nomination, now he is saying he was sorry.

 

[Redfish]

Wait, don't tell me you think they're being serious? I mean, blocking votes on appointees is something democrats do.

Sell stupid elsewhere...

Ted Cruz says he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia

Speaking of "stupid."

President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.

White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee

Your comment about Democrats blocking Republicans' nominees is moronic because Bush still appointed a Supreme Court justice despite Obama's filibuster.

Holyfuck, are you rightwingers retarded.

The nomination went through because the dems didn't have the votes, had they had the votes they would have blocked the nomination.

Great. So now the argument is IF Democrats had prevented a president from appointing a Supreme Court justice, then what Republicans are about to do would have a precedent?

Its politics, dipshit. They all play the same games. Grow up.