The Reward Of A Win Just Went Up

[PaintMyHouse]

First off the Supreme Court spot CAN be held open. The court ran with six for years and has the needed rules in place to do so. The Sr. Judge simply holds the hearing and withholds his vote.

The fight is going to involve choice.
Trump has said he would like another Thomas.
Clinton has said Obama would be a good choice.
Obama has said Holder would be a good choice.

I do NOT want an islamic Supreme Court justice. Call it bigotry or whatever you want NO islamic Supreme Court justice.
I do NOT want somebody who has run guns to drug cartels in Mexico as a Supreme Court justice, once again call it whatever you want I could care less.

You know IF it was me heading into South Carolina looking for a MONSTER victory I might suggest the name Trey Gowdy. And if I was the GOP I would refuse to fill that spot until AFTER the election.

what rule? what do you mean on the Senior Justice holds the hearing and then with holds his vote?

That means John Roberts, the senior Justice as chief justice, would hold the hearings and then have to with hold his own vote in order to make it an odd number of Justices voting....

HOW would that help Republicans?

It wouldn't, then they'd be down two votes instead of one...

BUT is this REALLY a Rule like he said in the op?

No...

 

[Care4all]

I read the OP, and it matters not a damn. If Obama nominates, and he will, and the GOP refuses to do their job, and they will, the American public will hear about it day in and day until they do. They dislike paying for bullshit political games of chicken.

1, The court was not always nine you retard. It WAS expanded from six. And you will NOT have a tie vote because under the RULES of having a possible tie with 8, the lead judge does NOT vote.

I am aware of the history of the court, but it runs with nine now doesn't it, and with eight it will be deadlocked not to mention all the cases it has to rehear since Justice Scalia's votes no longer count.

They don't re-hear a case after it has been decided because a justice died. Where did you get that idiot idea?

In 4-4 cases they have no choice. Scalia's votes no longer count:

"Although in some of the cases, Justice Antonin Scalia probably indicated to his colleagues in conference which way he was going to vote, those preliminary votes aren't binding and are now void.

"The entire tenor of this term has now changed," said Stephen Vladeck a CNN contributor and a law professor at American University Washington College of Law. "The court can try to go ahead, but on cases where they are split 4-4 , their only options are to leave the lower court decision intact or to hold the case over until Justice Scalia's replacement is confirmed."

If the court is equally divided in a case, ruling 4-4, it means the lower court opinion stands and there is no precedent set by the Supreme Court."
What happens to Supreme Court cases this year? - CNNPolitics.com

In ANY case that has been DECIDED his vote stands. You are talking about how he MAY have voted on things before the bench now. Two entirely different things idiot. TWO entirely different thing.

Now as to your equally stupid idea of a split idiot well rules are in place to PREVENT that. The Sr. Judge is relived of his vote and conducts the hearing leaving an UNEVEN number to cast votes.That IS the way it worked under SIX which was the number before it was expanded to nine.

FIRST, just an fyi.....they are not judges, on the supreme court they are justices....

The senior Justice is the chief justice, if Roberts conducts the hearings as his job calls for as the senior level of chief justice, and he has to with hold his vote, that will make the SC a liberal / moderate majority.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

First off the Supreme Court spot CAN be held open. The court ran with six for years and has the needed rules in place to do so. The Sr. Judge simply holds the hearing and withholds his vote.

The fight is going to involve choice.
Trump has said he would like another Thomas.
Clinton has said Obama would be a good choice.
Obama has said Holder would be a good choice.

I do NOT want an islamic Supreme Court justice. Call it bigotry or whatever you want NO islamic Supreme Court justice.
I do NOT want somebody who has run guns to drug cartels in Mexico as a Supreme Court justice, once again call it whatever you want I could care less.

You know IF it was me heading into South Carolina looking for a MONSTER victory I might suggest the name Trey Gowdy. And if I was the GOP I would refuse to fill that spot until AFTER the election.

what rule? what do you mean on the Senior Justice holds the hearing and then with holds his vote?

That means John Roberts, the senior Justice as chief justice, would hold the hearings and then have to with hold his own vote in order to make it an odd number of Justices voting....

HOW would that help Republicans?

It wouldn't, then they'd be down two votes instead of one...

I am not saying it would help the GOP idiot I AM saying those are the rules idiot.

Post it? Oh wait, it's a option, not a rule. What is a rule, you have to be alive and on the court for your vote on a decision to count.

And why would Roberts, a conservative, withhold his vote and make the Cons down two votes instead of in a 4-4 tie? He wouldn't. It would be fucking dumb.

 

[Arianrhod]

1. 
   Sri Srinivasan
   Solicitor
   Padmanabhan Srikanth "Sri" Srinivasan is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was confirmed by the United States Senate by a vote of 97–0 on May 23, 2013. Wikipedia
   
   Born: February 23, 1967 (age 48),Chandigarh, India
   Spouse: Carla Garrett
   Party: Democratic Party
   Succeeded by: Ian Heath Gershengorn
   Education: Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford Law School, Stanford University
2. 

After graduating Stanford Law School in 1995, Srinivasan started working as a law clerk for two Republican-appointed judges. The first was Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was nominated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by Ronald Reagan. Although Wilkinson was considered Republican, he expressed bipartisanship in his personal views, most notably in an Op-Ed for the New York Times. After that, Srinivasan worked as a law clerk for Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Many viewed O'Connor as a moderate Conservative, but in her latter years she often had the swing vote, which made her more bipartisan. That means Srinivasan's early exposure to a legal career was largely nonpartisan, despite working with two judges who had fairly conservative beliefs.

Working Under George W. Bush
For five years, Srinivasan worked under the George W. Bush Justice Department. Bush stayed true to conservatism throughout his eight-year term, which proved to be a partisan experience for Srinivasan during his time under his Justice Department. However, many of the connections Srinivasan made while working for Bush helped get him appointed to the D.C. Circuit. According to the New York Times, Paul D. Clement and Theodore B. Olson, both solicitors general under Bush, sent a letter of support when Srinivasan was nominated for the D.C. Circuit.

Anti-Human Rights Defense
When Srinivasan worked for O'Melveny & Myers LLP, he defended Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit they faced for human rights violations abroad. During this private-sector work, Srinivasan argued that Exxon Mobil shouldn't be held accountable for these violations when they took place outside of the U.S. However, Liberals were not happy with Srinivasan's decision because of the severity of this lawsuit; an Indonesian village accused Exxon Mobil Corp's security forces of torture, murder, and other violations against their people. Similarly, Srinivasan successfully represented a newspaper publisher that fired its employees for unionizing against the publisher's biased interference in its reporting. He also defended Enron President Jeffrey Skilling, who was later convicted in a significant financial fraud. After these defense cases, Liberals weren't sure if Srinivasan shared their views, especially with regards to human rights.
Bustle


Viable argument?

Darkie's got several fallbacks. He might start with "birther" or he might question religious faith, or he might just go the melanin route.

So many choices.

 

[DarkFury]

1, The court was not always nine you retard. It WAS expanded from six. And you will NOT have a tie vote because under the RULES of having a possible tie with 8, the lead judge does NOT vote.

I am aware of the history of the court, but it runs with nine now doesn't it, and with eight it will be deadlocked not to mention all the cases it has to rehear since Justice Scalia's votes no longer count.

They don't re-hear a case after it has been decided because a justice died. Where did you get that idiot idea?

In 4-4 cases they have no choice. Scalia's votes no longer count:

"Although in some of the cases, Justice Antonin Scalia probably indicated to his colleagues in conference which way he was going to vote, those preliminary votes aren't binding and are now void.

"The entire tenor of this term has now changed," said Stephen Vladeck a CNN contributor and a law professor at American University Washington College of Law. "The court can try to go ahead, but on cases where they are split 4-4 , their only options are to leave the lower court decision intact or to hold the case over until Justice Scalia's replacement is confirmed."

If the court is equally divided in a case, ruling 4-4, it means the lower court opinion stands and there is no precedent set by the Supreme Court."
What happens to Supreme Court cases this year? - CNNPolitics.com

In ANY case that has been DECIDED his vote stands. You are talking about how he MAY have voted on things before the bench now. Two entirely different things idiot. TWO entirely different thing.

Now as to your equally stupid idea of a split idiot well rules are in place to PREVENT that. The Sr. Judge is relived of his vote and conducts the hearing leaving an UNEVEN number to cast votes.That IS the way it worked under SIX which was the number before it was expanded to nine.

FIRST, just an fyi.....they are not judges, on the supreme court they are justices....

The senior Justice is the chief justice, if Roberts conducts the hearings as his job calls for as the senior level of chief justice, and he has to with hold his vote, that will make the SC a liberal / moderate majority.

Agreed. BUT if he gives up his spot as Chief Justice and not his spot on the court it would then fall to .....
We went from six to nine because liberals were angry when one of theirs got the spot they lost power.

 

[DarkFury]

1. 
   Sri Srinivasan
   Solicitor
   Padmanabhan Srikanth "Sri" Srinivasan is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was confirmed by the United States Senate by a vote of 97–0 on May 23, 2013. Wikipedia
   
   Born: February 23, 1967 (age 48),Chandigarh, India
   Spouse: Carla Garrett
   Party: Democratic Party
   Succeeded by: Ian Heath Gershengorn
   Education: Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford Law School, Stanford University
2. 

After graduating Stanford Law School in 1995, Srinivasan started working as a law clerk for two Republican-appointed judges. The first was Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was nominated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by Ronald Reagan. Although Wilkinson was considered Republican, he expressed bipartisanship in his personal views, most notably in an Op-Ed for the New York Times. After that, Srinivasan worked as a law clerk for Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Many viewed O'Connor as a moderate Conservative, but in her latter years she often had the swing vote, which made her more bipartisan. That means Srinivasan's early exposure to a legal career was largely nonpartisan, despite working with two judges who had fairly conservative beliefs.

Working Under George W. Bush
For five years, Srinivasan worked under the George W. Bush Justice Department. Bush stayed true to conservatism throughout his eight-year term, which proved to be a partisan experience for Srinivasan during his time under his Justice Department. However, many of the connections Srinivasan made while working for Bush helped get him appointed to the D.C. Circuit. According to the New York Times, Paul D. Clement and Theodore B. Olson, both solicitors general under Bush, sent a letter of support when Srinivasan was nominated for the D.C. Circuit.

Anti-Human Rights Defense
When Srinivasan worked for O'Melveny & Myers LLP, he defended Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit they faced for human rights violations abroad. During this private-sector work, Srinivasan argued that Exxon Mobil shouldn't be held accountable for these violations when they took place outside of the U.S. However, Liberals were not happy with Srinivasan's decision because of the severity of this lawsuit; an Indonesian village accused Exxon Mobil Corp's security forces of torture, murder, and other violations against their people. Similarly, Srinivasan successfully represented a newspaper publisher that fired its employees for unionizing against the publisher's biased interference in its reporting. He also defended Enron President Jeffrey Skilling, who was later convicted in a significant financial fraud. After these defense cases, Liberals weren't sure if Srinivasan shared their views, especially with regards to human rights.
Bustle


Viable argument?

Darkie's got several fallbacks. He might start with "birther" or he might question religious faith, or he might just go the melanin route.

So many choices.

And YOUR fallback was you had NO IDEA who she was talking about. Sandra Day O'Conner"s former clerk you nitwit.

 

[DarkFury]

1, The court was not always nine you retard. It WAS expanded from six. And you will NOT have a tie vote because under the RULES of having a possible tie with 8, the lead judge does NOT vote.

I am aware of the history of the court, but it runs with nine now doesn't it, and with eight it will be deadlocked not to mention all the cases it has to rehear since Justice Scalia's votes no longer count.

They don't re-hear a case after it has been decided because a justice died. Where did you get that idiot idea?

In 4-4 cases they have no choice. Scalia's votes no longer count:

"Although in some of the cases, Justice Antonin Scalia probably indicated to his colleagues in conference which way he was going to vote, those preliminary votes aren't binding and are now void.

"The entire tenor of this term has now changed," said Stephen Vladeck a CNN contributor and a law professor at American University Washington College of Law. "The court can try to go ahead, but on cases where they are split 4-4 , their only options are to leave the lower court decision intact or to hold the case over until Justice Scalia's replacement is confirmed."

If the court is equally divided in a case, ruling 4-4, it means the lower court opinion stands and there is no precedent set by the Supreme Court."
What happens to Supreme Court cases this year? - CNNPolitics.com

In ANY case that has been DECIDED his vote stands. You are talking about how he MAY have voted on things before the bench now. Two entirely different things idiot. TWO entirely different thing.

Now as to your equally stupid idea of a split idiot well rules are in place to PREVENT that. The Sr. Judge is relived of his vote and conducts the hearing leaving an UNEVEN number to cast votes.That IS the way it worked under SIX which was the number before it was expanded to nine.

FIRST, just an fyi.....they are not judges, on the supreme court they are justices....

The senior Justice is the chief justice, if Roberts conducts the hearings as his job calls for as the senior level of chief justice, and he has to with hold his vote, that will make the SC a liberal / moderate majority.

Its been done before...
"In some of these cases, the nomination and confirmation of replacement Justices came quickly, but in other cases, the Senate delayed confirmations, with two instances of a replacement process taking more than two years."
Why the current Supreme Court nomination situation isn’t that unique

TWO years, this wait is nothing.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I am aware of the history of the court, but it runs with nine now doesn't it, and with eight it will be deadlocked not to mention all the cases it has to rehear since Justice Scalia's votes no longer count.

They don't re-hear a case after it has been decided because a justice died. Where did you get that idiot idea?

In 4-4 cases they have no choice. Scalia's votes no longer count:

"Although in some of the cases, Justice Antonin Scalia probably indicated to his colleagues in conference which way he was going to vote, those preliminary votes aren't binding and are now void.

"The entire tenor of this term has now changed," said Stephen Vladeck a CNN contributor and a law professor at American University Washington College of Law. "The court can try to go ahead, but on cases where they are split 4-4 , their only options are to leave the lower court decision intact or to hold the case over until Justice Scalia's replacement is confirmed."

If the court is equally divided in a case, ruling 4-4, it means the lower court opinion stands and there is no precedent set by the Supreme Court."
What happens to Supreme Court cases this year? - CNNPolitics.com

In ANY case that has been DECIDED his vote stands. You are talking about how he MAY have voted on things before the bench now. Two entirely different things idiot. TWO entirely different thing.

Now as to your equally stupid idea of a split idiot well rules are in place to PREVENT that. The Sr. Judge is relived of his vote and conducts the hearing leaving an UNEVEN number to cast votes.That IS the way it worked under SIX which was the number before it was expanded to nine.

FIRST, just an fyi.....they are not judges, on the supreme court they are justices....

The senior Justice is the chief justice, if Roberts conducts the hearings as his job calls for as the senior level of chief justice, and he has to with hold his vote, that will make the SC a liberal / moderate majority.

Its been done before...
"In some of these cases, the nomination and confirmation of replacement Justices came quickly, but in other cases, the Senate delayed confirmations, with two instances of a replacement process taking more than two years."
Why the current Supreme Court nomination situation isn’t that unique

TWO years, this wait is nothing.

Go for it. Americans love paying for nothing. And:

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT
By LINDA GREENHOUSE, Special to the New York Times
Published: November 12, 1987
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11— President Reagan, stung by the failure of two nominations to the Supreme Court in the last three weeks, today nominated Judge Anthony M. Kennedy and expressed the hope that he could be confirmed quickly in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation"
REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

 

[Arianrhod]

And YOUR fallback was you had NO IDEA who she was talking about. Sandra Day O'Conner"s former clerk you nitwit.

You were? Because that's how that^ mess reads. Try again in English?

 

[Care4all]

I am aware of the history of the court, but it runs with nine now doesn't it, and with eight it will be deadlocked not to mention all the cases it has to rehear since Justice Scalia's votes no longer count.

They don't re-hear a case after it has been decided because a justice died. Where did you get that idiot idea?

In 4-4 cases they have no choice. Scalia's votes no longer count:

"Although in some of the cases, Justice Antonin Scalia probably indicated to his colleagues in conference which way he was going to vote, those preliminary votes aren't binding and are now void.

"The entire tenor of this term has now changed," said Stephen Vladeck a CNN contributor and a law professor at American University Washington College of Law. "The court can try to go ahead, but on cases where they are split 4-4 , their only options are to leave the lower court decision intact or to hold the case over until Justice Scalia's replacement is confirmed."

If the court is equally divided in a case, ruling 4-4, it means the lower court opinion stands and there is no precedent set by the Supreme Court."
What happens to Supreme Court cases this year? - CNNPolitics.com

In ANY case that has been DECIDED his vote stands. You are talking about how he MAY have voted on things before the bench now. Two entirely different things idiot. TWO entirely different thing.

Now as to your equally stupid idea of a split idiot well rules are in place to PREVENT that. The Sr. Judge is relived of his vote and conducts the hearing leaving an UNEVEN number to cast votes.That IS the way it worked under SIX which was the number before it was expanded to nine.

FIRST, just an fyi.....they are not judges, on the supreme court they are justices....

The senior Justice is the chief justice, if Roberts conducts the hearings as his job calls for as the senior level of chief justice, and he has to with hold his vote, that will make the SC a liberal / moderate majority.

Its been done before...
"In some of these cases, the nomination and confirmation of replacement Justices came quickly, but in other cases, the Senate delayed confirmations, with two instances of a replacement process taking more than two years."
Why the current Supreme Court nomination situation isn’t that unique

TWO years, this wait is nothing.

The senate did NOT delay it, they vetted each SC Justice nominated, then rejected via a VOTE several nominated....which took 2 years... had nothing to do with it being an election year, they just did not support the president's choices after vetting them, and voted them down.

They did not just say, we will wait for an election and do nothing until then....

 

[DarkFury]

They don't re-hear a case after it has been decided because a justice died. Where did you get that idiot idea?

In 4-4 cases they have no choice. Scalia's votes no longer count:

"Although in some of the cases, Justice Antonin Scalia probably indicated to his colleagues in conference which way he was going to vote, those preliminary votes aren't binding and are now void.

"The entire tenor of this term has now changed," said Stephen Vladeck a CNN contributor and a law professor at American University Washington College of Law. "The court can try to go ahead, but on cases where they are split 4-4 , their only options are to leave the lower court decision intact or to hold the case over until Justice Scalia's replacement is confirmed."

If the court is equally divided in a case, ruling 4-4, it means the lower court opinion stands and there is no precedent set by the Supreme Court."
What happens to Supreme Court cases this year? - CNNPolitics.com

In ANY case that has been DECIDED his vote stands. You are talking about how he MAY have voted on things before the bench now. Two entirely different things idiot. TWO entirely different thing.

Now as to your equally stupid idea of a split idiot well rules are in place to PREVENT that. The Sr. Judge is relived of his vote and conducts the hearing leaving an UNEVEN number to cast votes.That IS the way it worked under SIX which was the number before it was expanded to nine.

FIRST, just an fyi.....they are not judges, on the supreme court they are justices....

The senior Justice is the chief justice, if Roberts conducts the hearings as his job calls for as the senior level of chief justice, and he has to with hold his vote, that will make the SC a liberal / moderate majority.

Its been done before...
"In some of these cases, the nomination and confirmation of replacement Justices came quickly, but in other cases, the Senate delayed confirmations, with two instances of a replacement process taking more than two years."
Why the current Supreme Court nomination situation isn’t that unique

TWO years, this wait is nothing.

The senate did NOT delay it, they vetted each SC Justice nominated, then rejected via a VOTE several nominated....which took 2 years... had nothing to do with it being an election year, they just did not support the president's choices after vetting them, and voted them down.

They did not just say, we will wait for an election and do nothing until then....

They have the power to schedule and thus can set the process anytime. What's a year?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They have the power to schedule and thus can set the process anytime. What's a year?

In a 24-hour news cycle, 8,760 hours too damn long of wasted time and money.

 

[Care4all]

In 4-4 cases they have no choice. Scalia's votes no longer count:

"Although in some of the cases, Justice Antonin Scalia probably indicated to his colleagues in conference which way he was going to vote, those preliminary votes aren't binding and are now void.

"The entire tenor of this term has now changed," said Stephen Vladeck a CNN contributor and a law professor at American University Washington College of Law. "The court can try to go ahead, but on cases where they are split 4-4 , their only options are to leave the lower court decision intact or to hold the case over until Justice Scalia's replacement is confirmed."

If the court is equally divided in a case, ruling 4-4, it means the lower court opinion stands and there is no precedent set by the Supreme Court."
What happens to Supreme Court cases this year? - CNNPolitics.com

In ANY case that has been DECIDED his vote stands. You are talking about how he MAY have voted on things before the bench now. Two entirely different things idiot. TWO entirely different thing.

Now as to your equally stupid idea of a split idiot well rules are in place to PREVENT that. The Sr. Judge is relived of his vote and conducts the hearing leaving an UNEVEN number to cast votes.That IS the way it worked under SIX which was the number before it was expanded to nine.

FIRST, just an fyi.....they are not judges, on the supreme court they are justices....

The senior Justice is the chief justice, if Roberts conducts the hearings as his job calls for as the senior level of chief justice, and he has to with hold his vote, that will make the SC a liberal / moderate majority.

Its been done before...
"In some of these cases, the nomination and confirmation of replacement Justices came quickly, but in other cases, the Senate delayed confirmations, with two instances of a replacement process taking more than two years."
Why the current Supreme Court nomination situation isn’t that unique

TWO years, this wait is nothing.

The senate did NOT delay it, they vetted each SC Justice nominated, then rejected via a VOTE several nominated....which took 2 years... had nothing to do with it being an election year, they just did not support the president's choices after vetting them, and voted them down.

They did not just say, we will wait for an election and do nothing until then....

They have the power to schedule and thus can set the process anytime. What's a year?

They need to vote and reject the nominees, not just sit and twiddle their thumbs...

but if they do delay, when Hillary or Bernie are president, they will have 4 supreme court justices to appoint during their terms, more than likely....

If cheif justice roberts has to sit out of the votes, along with Scalia not being there, that's fine with me....

I doubt R's would like the result of that, though.

 

[DarkFury]

They have the power to schedule and thus can set the process anytime. What's a year?

In a 24-hour news cycle, 8,760 hours too damn long of wasted time and money.

Waste of money? Not paying a dead guy? Firing his staff? What is costing me? Oh yeah, NOTHING.

 

[Disir]

In ANY case that has been DECIDED his vote stands. You are talking about how he MAY have voted on things before the bench now. Two entirely different things idiot. TWO entirely different thing.

Now as to your equally stupid idea of a split idiot well rules are in place to PREVENT that. The Sr. Judge is relived of his vote and conducts the hearing leaving an UNEVEN number to cast votes.That IS the way it worked under SIX which was the number before it was expanded to nine.

FIRST, just an fyi.....they are not judges, on the supreme court they are justices....

The senior Justice is the chief justice, if Roberts conducts the hearings as his job calls for as the senior level of chief justice, and he has to with hold his vote, that will make the SC a liberal / moderate majority.

Its been done before...
"In some of these cases, the nomination and confirmation of replacement Justices came quickly, but in other cases, the Senate delayed confirmations, with two instances of a replacement process taking more than two years."
Why the current Supreme Court nomination situation isn’t that unique

TWO years, this wait is nothing.

The senate did NOT delay it, they vetted each SC Justice nominated, then rejected via a VOTE several nominated....which took 2 years... had nothing to do with it being an election year, they just did not support the president's choices after vetting them, and voted them down.

They did not just say, we will wait for an election and do nothing until then....

They have the power to schedule and thus can set the process anytime. What's a year?

They need to vote and reject the nominees, not just sit and twiddle their thumbs...

but if they do delay, when Hillary or Bernie are president, they will have 4 supreme court justices to appoint during their terms, more than likely....

If cheif justice roberts has to sit out of the votes, along with Scalia not being there, that's fine with me....

I doubt R's would like the result of that, though.

That's the gamble.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They have the power to schedule and thus can set the process anytime. What's a year?

In a 24-hour news cycle, 8,760 hours too damn long of wasted time and money.

Waste of money? Not paying a dead guy? Firing his staff? What is costing me? Oh yeah, NOTHING.

The entire court, sitting around? Yeah, waste of money.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Try it, please...

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT
By LINDA GREENHOUSE, Special to the New York Times
Published: November 12, 1987
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11— President Reagan, stung by the failure of two nominations to the Supreme Court in the last three weeks, today nominated Judge Anthony M. Kennedy and expressed the hope that he could be confirmed quickly in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation"
REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

Old news pre-Thomas, after that Dems can pretty much fuck off on Scotus nominations

 

[DarkFury]

They have the power to schedule and thus can set the process anytime. What's a year?

In a 24-hour news cycle, 8,760 hours too damn long of wasted time and money.

Waste of money? Not paying a dead guy? Firing his staff? What is costing me? Oh yeah, NOTHING.

The entire court, sitting around? Yeah, waste of money.

To an extent it COULD happen idiot. See the court votes on if it will even hear a case. And the Chief Justice DOES maintain his vote on that one because it regards hearing the case NOT deciding the case.

Any and all splits would mean the lower court ruling stands and that right now is a very conservative group.