Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[JoeB131]

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.

Except that's not what happened with GS Steel. With GS Steel, Bain Capital borrowed huge amounts of money on the basis of GS Assets to buy up other steel companies. At that point, the interest payments were so high that company couldn't possibly pay them off, no matter how much they cut payroll.

Meanwhile, Bain paid itself 50 million in consulting and management fees on a 25 million dollar investment. The banks who bankrolled them lost money when the company lost money. The Federal Government had to make good on 44 MILLION on payments to GS's pension fund because after bankruptcy, Bain stopped paying the obligations they inherited.

And guys like Joe Soptic, who had worked for this company for decades, lost their health insurance and pensions.

Bain wasn't venture capital, it was vulture capital. People got a good whiff of what Romney was - a blood-sucking Mormon piece of shit - and voted overwealmingly for Obama.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Why should it take a year? It's never taken a year before this. Bush got his two nominees in a few months.

 

[John93JK]

yaaaaasssss! go through the motion, let that ugly bloated fish face mitch mcconnell dribble out some doodaa nonsense as base to obstruct, wait 6 months excessively and finally a logical judge will be appointed. DING DONG SCALIA the fat useless witch is de.d!

 

[Faun]

yaaaaasssss! go through the motion, let that ugly bloated fish face mitch mcconnell dribble out some doodaa nonsense as base to obstruct, wait 6 months excessively and finally a logical judge will be appointed. DING DONG SCALIA the fat useless witch is de.d!

The guy's dead, have some respect.

 

[Arizona Willie]

How do I know you aren't a bright individual?

Justice's don't "vote".

They make their rulings in private and write their opinions....they don't debate.

You and some other nitwit have really no idea of what I meant and chose to concentrate on the word "vote" since you could not defend Thomas' performance...

BTW, justices do VOTE to hear a case, and have often VOTED in case of a tie when one of the justices recuses him/herself....

If you had an ounce of dignity, you'd apologize.

========
If right weiners had any dignity --- they wouldn't be right wingers.

 

[Freewill]

Should he, or will he?

Should he, considering his past remake no.

Will he? The only question is which lesbian will he nominate.

 

[hadit]

Read about what dems did to Bush's minority picks. Next.

Answer my questions...or have another drink.

Your questions don't address what I said. Democrats DID prevent some of Bush's nominations from getting a hearing, much less a vote. and some of those nominations WERE members of minorities. Rambling on about other picks doesn't relate.

 

[hadit]

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")

I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.

Obama doesn't know moderation.

========
If Republicans were in his position they WOULD nominate an Ultra - Conservative and you know it.

So why shouldn't Dems follow our ideology just as you would like to follow yours?

What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.

=====

You talk about rigid ideology as though it is a bad thing but I bet you would let someone cut off your left nut before you would vote for a Democrat.

There are some democrats I would vote for if they were running against certain Republicans. Bob Casey, for example, comes to mind. Of course, his own party hates him, so that might have something to do with it.

You think refusing to compromise in Congress is a good thing and then you yell about someone else having " rigid ideology ".

"Compromise" is not compromise when done by only those on one side of an issue, it's capitulation, and Obama shows no desire to compromise. Now, should Obama send up a serious minded moderate thinker that understands and respects the actual Constitution instead of a wild-eyed radical whose main claim to fame is the many grievance group requirements checked off, they should confirm. He will not do that, however, because he does not want to compromise.

 

[hadit]

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.

Except that's not what happened with GS Steel. With GS Steel, Bain Capital borrowed huge amounts of money on the basis of GS Assets to buy up other steel companies. At that point, the interest payments were so high that company couldn't possibly pay them off, no matter how much they cut payroll.

Meanwhile, Bain paid itself 50 million in consulting and management fees on a 25 million dollar investment. The banks who bankrolled them lost money when the company lost money. The Federal Government had to make good on 44 MILLION on payments to GS's pension fund because after bankruptcy, Bain stopped paying the obligations they inherited.

And guys like Joe Soptic, who had worked for this company for decades, lost their health insurance and pensions.

Bain wasn't venture capital, it was vulture capital. People got a good whiff of what Romney was - a blood-sucking Mormon piece of shit - and voted overwealmingly for Obama.

So, IOW, the company was going to fail no matter what, Bain kept it alive longer than it otherwise would have and the employees all had health insurance longer than they otherwise would have. And you're complaining about that?

 

[jon_berzerk]

As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN

 

[bendog]

I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.

Obama doesn't know moderation.

========
If Republicans were in his position they WOULD nominate an Ultra - Conservative and you know it.

So why shouldn't Dems follow our ideology just as you would like to follow yours?

What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.

=====

You talk about rigid ideology as though it is a bad thing but I bet you would let someone cut off your left nut before you would vote for a Democrat.

There are some democrats I would vote for if they were running against certain Republicans. Bob Casey, for example, comes to mind. Of course, his own party hates him, so that might have something to do with it.

You think refusing to compromise in Congress is a good thing and then you yell about someone else having " rigid ideology ".

"Compromise" is not compromise when done by only those on one side of an issue, it's capitulation, and Obama shows no desire to compromise. Now, should Obama send up a serious minded moderate thinker that understands and respects the actual Constitution instead of a wild-eyed radical whose main claim to fame is the many grievance group requirements checked off, they should confirm. He will not do that, however, because he does not want to compromise.

Obama could nominate Francis of Focking Assisi and the gop would still not confirm him to the scotus. That's been the gop position for 3Plus years.

 

[hadit]

Obama doesn't know moderation.

========
If Republicans were in his position they WOULD nominate an Ultra - Conservative and you know it.

So why shouldn't Dems follow our ideology just as you would like to follow yours?

What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.

=====

You talk about rigid ideology as though it is a bad thing but I bet you would let someone cut off your left nut before you would vote for a Democrat.

There are some democrats I would vote for if they were running against certain Republicans. Bob Casey, for example, comes to mind. Of course, his own party hates him, so that might have something to do with it.

You think refusing to compromise in Congress is a good thing and then you yell about someone else having " rigid ideology ".

"Compromise" is not compromise when done by only those on one side of an issue, it's capitulation, and Obama shows no desire to compromise. Now, should Obama send up a serious minded moderate thinker that understands and respects the actual Constitution instead of a wild-eyed radical whose main claim to fame is the many grievance group requirements checked off, they should confirm. He will not do that, however, because he does not want to compromise.

Obama could nominate Francis of Focking Assisi and the gop would still not confirm him to the scotus. That's been the gop position for 3Plus years.

I disagree. The current Republican leadership is scared of their own shadow. Obama will put on his petulant face and they'll cave, like they do every time. Cruz will filibuster and they'll throw him under the bus. It's what they do.

 

[bendog]

As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN

Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.

 

[jon_berzerk]

As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN

Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.

--LOL

there is no difference

and furthermore it is constitutional

 

[bendog]

========
If Republicans were in his position they WOULD nominate an Ultra - Conservative and you know it.

So why shouldn't Dems follow our ideology just as you would like to follow yours?

What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.

=====

You talk about rigid ideology as though it is a bad thing but I bet you would let someone cut off your left nut before you would vote for a Democrat.

There are some democrats I would vote for if they were running against certain Republicans. Bob Casey, for example, comes to mind. Of course, his own party hates him, so that might have something to do with it.

You think refusing to compromise in Congress is a good thing and then you yell about someone else having " rigid ideology ".

"Compromise" is not compromise when done by only those on one side of an issue, it's capitulation, and Obama shows no desire to compromise. Now, should Obama send up a serious minded moderate thinker that understands and respects the actual Constitution instead of a wild-eyed radical whose main claim to fame is the many grievance group requirements checked off, they should confirm. He will not do that, however, because he does not want to compromise.

Obama could nominate Francis of Focking Assisi and the gop would still not confirm him to the scotus. That's been the gop position for 3Plus years.

I disagree. The current Republican leadership is scared of their own shadow. Obama will put on his petulant face and they'll cave, like they do every time. Cruz will filibuster and they'll throw him under the bus. It's what they do.

Nah. The gop has no real choice but to filibuster it to death. McConnell is just trying to avoid it because it'll be a media nightmare and the gop has something like two dozen seats to defend, and Trump is not carrying swing states. McConnell may get away with just not scheduling any hearings.

 

[bendog]

As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN

Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.

--LOL

there is no difference

and furthermore it is constitutional

Sure there is Jon. I can I'd like to kick you in the balls, and then I could kick you in the balls.

 

[nat4900]

I disagree. The current Republican leadership is scared of their own shadow.

Actually, most republican senators are more afraid of their pimps (big donors)...and being the whores that they are they'll throw under the bus those republican senators up for reelection in purple states....Bear in mind that the GOP senators who sit on the judicial committee are virtually all from deep red states...so that they're safe.

 

[jon_berzerk]

As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN

Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.

--LOL

there is no difference

and furthermore it is constitutional

Sure there is Jon. I can I'd like to kick you in the balls, and then I could kick you in the balls.

nonsense that is your best argument to try and force the senate to appoint an nominee

--LOL

 

[Faun]

As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN

No, he did not make the same argument. I swear, righties don't even know what the argument is. <smh>

 

[jon_berzerk]

As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN

No, he did not make the same argument. I swear, righties don't even know what the argument is. <smh>

--LOL

excuses excuses