Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[TooTall]

Some Republicans, not wanting to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities, even implored Obama to shirk his by not even putting one up.

Who? Liberals keep repeating that yet none of you have been able to back it up

It was said at the beginning of the debate on CBS by Kasich and Rubio just hours after Scalia's death was announced.

The CBS News Republican debate transcript, annotated

I don't want to hear any more whining from Obama or his sheep.

"During his brief time in the Senate, President Obama himself played a key role in the Democratic filibuster campaign, helping lead the effort to block the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit. Then-Senator Obama also joined Democrat colleagues in voting to filibuster the judicial nominations of Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Samuel Alito."

Imbecile, those seats were filled by Bush.

Do you even know what the issue is? It appears not.

What issue has your tit in a wringer?

 

[mudwhistle]

First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.

But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.

Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.

He can nominate another Lesbian to the court.

Doesn't mean it will go anywhere.

 

[Faun]

Some Republicans, not wanting to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities, even implored Obama to shirk his by not even putting one up.

Who? Liberals keep repeating that yet none of you have been able to back it up

It was said at the beginning of the debate on CBS by Kasich and Rubio just hours after Scalia's death was announced.

The CBS News Republican debate transcript, annotated

I don't want to hear any more whining from Obama or his sheep.

"During his brief time in the Senate, President Obama himself played a key role in the Democratic filibuster campaign, helping lead the effort to block the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit. Then-Senator Obama also joined Democrat colleagues in voting to filibuster the judicial nominations of Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Samuel Alito."

Imbecile, those seats were filled by Bush.

Do you even know what the issue is? It appears not.

What issue has your tit in a wringer?

Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?

 

[hadit]

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

And what happens when Cruz filibusters something? He gets no support from his party, they wait until he gets tired, then they go on and do what they had planned to do in the first place.

 

[hadit]

Wow, you sound like you actually believe your own tripe. Both Romney and Trump employ and pay thousands of people billions of dollars and you want to complain about that. Why don't you dig a little deeper than campaign ads on Soptic's wife before you sound even more foolish than normal?

I've studied the Soptic case. The cocksucking Mormon killed her.. Next topic.

If you believe that, you didn't study very well, your source was stupid, or you're incapable of reason.

 

[hadit]

Romney did what he was supposed to do as a company that took over ailing companies and either stopped the bleeding or put it to rest before it bled out. When he stopped the bleeding, he saved many jobs. When the option was to put it to rest, he did what was going to happen anyway. They did not perform unfriendly takeovers. They bought companies up for sale that were marketplace viable but poorly run. Spin it anyway you want....but when they bought companies, they bought them to profit....no argument here.....some were not salvageable...and if they could not save them, certainly the original ownership that got them in trouble couldn't save them. That whole Joe Soptic's wife dying story was spun and designed to fool the simple minded voter.....I guess...and no disrespect meant.....like you.

The company Joe Soptic worked for had been around for 100 years. Romney and Bain looted it to leverage other buyouts.

Hey, guy you try selling this Mormon Bloodsucker 4 years ago, and no one bought it then.

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.

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.

This is where the "hate Romney" meme goes off the rails. When a company is in dire straits, its options are limited to a few unpleasant choices. It can try to increase revenue, but that will likely fail, because if they could do that, they would not be in dire straits. That leaves cutting costs. Since one of the biggest costs a company has is labor, that means jobs. That's usually where liberals start going bat crap crazy, demanding that no one ever lose a job because the company is struggling. Of course, if a company does not cut costs, it goes out of business and everyone loses their job. It would seem that liberals would prefer all employees losing their jobs to some employees losing their jobs but the company survive and continue employing others. Weird people, liberals.

 

[hadit]

when was the last time a SCOTUS nominee was voted on by the senate in an election year? Don't know? Look it up. There is nothing new taking place in 2016.

A Senate controlled by Democrats confirmed President Reagan’s nomination of Anthony Kennedy on a 97 to 0 vote in February 1988, which happened to be an election year.

OK, good job, 28 years ago. You may pass the class yet. Now, Kennedy is/was which of the following: conservative, liberal, moderate?

Kennedy has been the swing vote on many issues, do you think Obama will nominate someone like him?

What difference does it make who he nominates?? Republicans have already dug their heels in to not confirming whomever he puts up.

You sound like you really believe that, but they won't.

 

[Esmeralda]

First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.

But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.

Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.

Of course he should. Any other president would do the same. Why shouldn't he? It's what any president should do. Why should he act unlike any other head of state?

 

[Rustic]

Romney did what he was supposed to do as a company that took over ailing companies and either stopped the bleeding or put it to rest before it bled out. When he stopped the bleeding, he saved many jobs. When the option was to put it to rest, he did what was going to happen anyway. They did not perform unfriendly takeovers. They bought companies up for sale that were marketplace viable but poorly run. Spin it anyway you want....but when they bought companies, they bought them to profit....no argument here.....some were not salvageable...and if they could not save them, certainly the original ownership that got them in trouble couldn't save them. That whole Joe Soptic's wife dying story was spun and designed to fool the simple minded voter.....I guess...and no disrespect meant.....like you.

The company Joe Soptic worked for had been around for 100 years. Romney and Bain looted it to leverage other buyouts.

Hey, guy you try selling this Mormon Bloodsucker 4 years ago, and no one bought it then.

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.

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.

This is where the "hate Romney" meme goes off the rails. When a company is in dire straits, its options are limited to a few unpleasant choices. It can try to increase revenue, but that will likely fail, because if they could do that, they would not be in dire straits. That leaves cutting costs. Since one of the biggest costs a company has is labor, that means jobs. That's usually where liberals start going bat crap crazy, demanding that no one ever lose a job because the company is struggling. Of course, if a company does not cut costs, it goes out of business and everyone loses their job. It would seem that liberals would prefer all employees losing their jobs to some employees losing their jobs but the company survive and continue employing others. Weird people, liberals.

No doubt, the dumbass morons think starting a company up is all about hiring...
Job 1 of a successful company is to make a profit, hiring is a by-product of job 1.
Job 2 and 3 and so on... See job 1

Socialists have to be the stupidest people...
Lol

 

[nat4900]

He can nominate another Lesbian to the court.

Yet another right wing reject from the Dale Carnagie workshops.

 

[nat4900]

No doubt, the dumbass morons think starting a company up is all about hiring...
Job 1 of a successful company is to make a profit,

Another right wing moron shows his stupidity......Hey, imbecile, how does a company make a "profit" without the right folks having been hired?

 

[mudwhistle]

No doubt, the dumbass morons think starting a company up is all about hiring...
Job 1 of a successful company is to make a profit,

Another right wing moron shows his stupidity......Hey, imbecile, how does a company make a "profit" without the right folks having been hired?

That goes without saying.

But does hiring the right folks mean hiring blacks because of their race? Does it mean interviewing someone because AL Sharpton threatened a lawsuit?

BTW, what does this have to do with the Supreme Court?

 

[nat4900]

BTW, what does this have to do with the Supreme Court?

That you'll have to ask your fellow nitwit who posted the non sequitur (post #689)

 

[mudwhistle]

It should take over a year to vet anyone that he's nominated.....so Obama missed out on his chance. Judging by his previous picks, he doesn't deserve the benefit of a doubt. Besides, he wants to make sure Hillary is elected. She's offered him a bribe of a Supreme Court appointment and he's not gonna throw that away.

 

[hadit]

Romney did what he was supposed to do as a company that took over ailing companies and either stopped the bleeding or put it to rest before it bled out. When he stopped the bleeding, he saved many jobs. When the option was to put it to rest, he did what was going to happen anyway. They did not perform unfriendly takeovers. They bought companies up for sale that were marketplace viable but poorly run. Spin it anyway you want....but when they bought companies, they bought them to profit....no argument here.....some were not salvageable...and if they could not save them, certainly the original ownership that got them in trouble couldn't save them. That whole Joe Soptic's wife dying story was spun and designed to fool the simple minded voter.....I guess...and no disrespect meant.....like you.

The company Joe Soptic worked for had been around for 100 years. Romney and Bain looted it to leverage other buyouts.

Hey, guy you try selling this Mormon Bloodsucker 4 years ago, and no one bought it then.

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.

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.

This is where the "hate Romney" meme goes off the rails. When a company is in dire straits, its options are limited to a few unpleasant choices. It can try to increase revenue, but that will likely fail, because if they could do that, they would not be in dire straits. That leaves cutting costs. Since one of the biggest costs a company has is labor, that means jobs. That's usually where liberals start going bat crap crazy, demanding that no one ever lose a job because the company is struggling. Of course, if a company does not cut costs, it goes out of business and everyone loses their job. It would seem that liberals would prefer all employees losing their jobs to some employees losing their jobs but the company survive and continue employing others. Weird people, liberals.

No doubt, the dumbass morons think starting a company up is all about hiring...
Job 1 of a successful company is to make a profit, hiring is a by-product of job 1.
Job 2 and 3 and so on... See job 1

Socialists have to be the stupidest people...
Lol

They seem to think companies are sitting on oceans of cash.

 

[Faun]

It should take over a year to vet anyone that he's nominated.....so Obama missed out on his chance. Judging by his previous picks, he doesn't deserve the benefit of a doubt. Besides, he wants to make sure Hillary is elected. She's offered him a bribe of a Supreme Court appointment and he's not gonna throw that away.

Well, no. In reality, the average time it takes to appoint a judge is little more than 2 months. So there is still plenty of time for Obama to get a judge on the bench.

 

[Arizona Willie]

It should take over a year to vet anyone that he's nominated.....so Obama missed out on his chance. Judging by his previous picks, he doesn't deserve the benefit of a doubt. Besides, he wants to make sure Hillary is elected. She's offered him a bribe of a Supreme Court appointment and he's not gonna throw that away.

Well, no. In reality, the average time it takes to appoint a judge is little more than 2 months. So there is still plenty of time for Obama to get a judge on the bench.

========
Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.

And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.

 

[mudwhistle]

It should take over a year to vet anyone that he's nominated.....so Obama missed out on his chance. Judging by his previous picks, he doesn't deserve the benefit of a doubt. Besides, he wants to make sure Hillary is elected. She's offered him a bribe of a Supreme Court appointment and he's not gonna throw that away.

Well, no. In reality, the average time it takes to appoint a judge is little more than 2 months. So there is still plenty of time for Obama to get a judge on the bench.

Not with Republican presidents. Dingy Harry had some Bush nominees waiting for years. Many appointments stayed vacant.

Bush’s circuit court nominees had to wait an average of 283 days for confirmation after being nominated; Obama’s nominees have had to wait for 240 days.
Harry Reid, Obama Sell Myth of GOP Obstructing Judicial Nominations​

 

[nat4900]

Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.

And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.

My friend, THAT is exactly what the DNC is hoping for in an election cycle.....A spectacle that will show to the average voter (not the ultra conservative) what a DO-NOTHING senate is all about.
(Actually, Scalia gave the DNC quite the "gift")

 

[Faun]

It should take over a year to vet anyone that he's nominated.....so Obama missed out on his chance. Judging by his previous picks, he doesn't deserve the benefit of a doubt. Besides, he wants to make sure Hillary is elected. She's offered him a bribe of a Supreme Court appointment and he's not gonna throw that away.

Well, no. In reality, the average time it takes to appoint a judge is little more than 2 months. So there is still plenty of time for Obama to get a judge on the bench.

Not with Republican presidents. Dingy Harry had many Bush nominees waiting for years. Many appointments stayed vacant.

We're talking about the Supreme Court. Even Bush's nominees averaged about two months.

Plenty of time.