What's wrong with the GOP? Vote on Supreme Court Justice

[Stephanie]

snip:
Obama SCOTUS Nominee Mocked Donald Trump at Yale in 2012 (VIDEO)

March 19, 2016 by

Obama’s supposedly moderate nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court mocked Donald Trump during a court competition at Yale in 2012.

The Weekly Standard reports:

Video: Obama Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland Mocks Donald Trump

Here’s video of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, appearing to mock Donald Trump at a moot court competition at Yale University in the fall of 2012:

“Does your theory depend on the fact that this proposition you think is reasonable?” Garland asks a law student at the competition. “What if Donald Trump became the secretary of state of Arizona and insisted there’s only one way you can prove citizenship, and that’s with your long-form birth certificate?”

The crowd snickered.

Garland went on, “You would still say that that rules, right?”

Merrick Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court yesterday by President Obama.

Watch the video:

Video at the site
Obama SCOTUS Nominee Mocked Donald Trump at Yale in 2012 (VIDEO) - Progressives Today

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Furthermore...

Here are the FACTS from JUNE 1992:
1. There were no Supreme Court vacancies.
2. Clinton had just won the nomination to take on Bush.
3. There was talk about getting an older justice to retire so Bush could appoint a new one before he was out of office.
4. Bush was running for reelection, which would have intertwined this whole process right in the middle of the election.
5. Bidden's statement was under these circumstances, and it's pretty obvious he was trying to avoid the political manipulation of the appointment of a SC justice in the middle of an election.

Prove me wrong.
It's apples and oranges. How stupid does the GOP think we are using this as a talking point?

. Thank you for these points proves to show we are justified in following the Biden Rulr. however, Biden use or not, the GOP run Senate can tell the democrats to suck their dicks.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Then the Democrats should simply deny every Republican president, if there ever is one again, appointing anyone to the Supreme Court. I say give the Republicans what they appear to want. Shut all Republicans down starting today and never let them appoint anyone.

There you go, all equal now.

You're acting like a baby. The Biden rule is only valid
in an election year. Try preventing a hearing on President Cruz's nomination in his first year and you'll cause a riot. Face the FACT that Trump or Cruz will pick the next four justices.

 

[Vigilante]

It all comes down to this....It's entirely political, and it's why Donald Trump will be the next president and will appoint SCOTUS judges.... The Republican electorate is FED UP WITH THESE MOTHER FUCKERS.....

IF THEY COLLAPSE ON THIS, AFTER STATING THAT THE MANCHURIAN MUSLIM DOESN'T GET TO PICK USING THE DEMOCRATS HYPOCRISY AS SHOWN IN THOSE VIDEO'S, THE REPUBLICAN'S, AS THEY ARE TODAY, WILL BE COMPLETELY REPLACED BY PEOPLE SYMPATHETIC TO TRUMP'S STYLE OF GOVERNING! ....Go ahead and ask me how this is accomplished!

 

[Slade3200]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

Same reason the Democrats would, and have, done exactly the same thing when the situation is reversed. The Republicans believe their guy will win. Whether that's true or not, they believe it, and thus they will hold out until the election.

Why do they need a non-political, non-BS reason? Dude this is politics, not your local Chess club. For you to expect that politics shouldn't be involved in a political position, on the highest court in the land, is moronic. Grow up dude. You better get with it, or you'll be a bitter and whiny person for the rest of your life.

This is why, by the way, we on the right, don't want government involved in health care, and socialism. How would you like this political crap, determining whether you get care or not? That's a brilliant idea, eh?

I better get with it? Haha, ok I'll work on that. Dipshit. If you have a problem with me voicing problems and hypocrisy that I see in our government then you are free to not engage, that's fine. If you've just accepted that politics = gridlock/obstruction and your fine with it then that's your choice but that's not how it was meant to be and as corrupt as things have become it is still a government that is elected by the people. If the people speak out enough they will be heard. Go back to your video games.

 

[Slade3200]

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

Obama's already got his winky slammed in the door (9-0 vote) for assuming that he, not congress, has the authority to declare when the senate is in recess. (See National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning). You now purport that he has the right to decide when congress chooses to advise and consent? We have checks and balances. Obama just got checked.

I don't think anybody is arguing that the president should decide when the congress holds the hearing. It is their job to do it, and they are refusing to do it, plan and simple. The fact the constitution doesn't define a time period is a weak argument. The constitution also says that congress need to only meet once a year on January 3, should the members of congress only show up to work one day a year? That's what the constitution says, right? Bunch of idiots

 

[Slade3200]

Then the Democrats should simply deny every Republican president, if there ever is one again, appointing anyone to the Supreme Court. I say give the Republicans what they appear to want. Shut all Republicans down starting today and never let them appoint anyone.

There you go, all equal now.

You're acting like a baby. The Biden rule is only valid
in an election year. Try preventing a hearing on President Cruz's nomination in his first year and you'll cause a riot. Face the FACT that Trump or Cruz will pick the next four justices.

The funny thing is you think trump or Cruz could win the election. Maybe they should put Palin on the ticket for VP... Icing on the cake

 

[Slade3200]

They can more effectively make that point by vetting, holding a hearing, voting, and then justifying that vote. By doing nothing they just look like obstructing assholes

It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.

Obama's nomination was one that he thought the Senate would have to do some soul searching to refuse. He should have nominated a Black male Democrat since Thomas is just Scalia in Blackface. The president chose a White male with outstanding credentials showing that once again he was trying to meet the Senate more than half way...much to the chagrin of his Black constituency. Still, this unprecedented refusal to vet by the Senate continues with impunity.

No, the Dems have NEVER done the same to the Pubs. You cannot show me where the Democrats have ever refused to vet a nominee. They might have voted against confirmation or filibustered,but they engaged in the process as ordained by the Constitution. They have never refused to vet or conduct a hearing on USSC nominees.
Nice try but go back to square one and try again.

That's because when the Democrats tried to do so they didn't have the votes to sustain. Nevertheless I think Reid holds the record on blocked judicial nominees. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Well, YOU WERE wrong when you said the Dems did it to the Pubs. I am not interested in anecdotal reasons as to why the Dems didn't do it. BTW the Pubs have a chance to break Reid's record on this singe appointment if only they would do their jobs.

The Senates job, within their constitutional realm, is whatever they vote it to be within the rules. They have the right to do nothing. Sorry if this offends you.

They also have a right as defined by the constitution to show up to work for only one day a year. Maybe they should all just do that too.

 

[Slade3200]

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

How am I being stupid? You make no sense. If these were executives in a business they would be fired so fast for pulling this crap

It's not a business, it is a government institution. Can you show us the timeline the Senate has to follow when a judge is nominated?

It not about a timeline it about not coming out like a bunch of pouty children and stating that they are going to refuse to consider any nominee. Do you really not see it or are you just trying to be adversarial?

 

[Slade3200]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

You hit it on the head. It doesn't matter if Hillary or Trump wins. They won't have any choice but to approve of at least 2 SCOTUS in the next cycle regardless if they do nothing or do something. This is about "I Hate Obama.....spit on floor". It should have ended shortly after he was elected the first time but it's become a habit. That habit may be the end of the Whig.....er.......Republican unless it's turned around. They are too busy hating to actual govern. BTW, I am now supporting Trump. Trump may be the savior of the GOP yet or he may be the end of the GOP. If he doesn't save it then it's not worth saving.

so what if it's about: I hate Obama. when the Democrats did it to Bush, it was about, I hate Bush and you left/dems supported it then.

They were mean to us so now we get to be mean to them and it's ok!!! Is that your point?

 

[Slade3200]

Furthermore...

Here are the FACTS from JUNE 1992:
1. There were no Supreme Court vacancies.
2. Clinton had just won the nomination to take on Bush.
3. There was talk about getting an older justice to retire so Bush could appoint a new one before he was out of office.
4. Bush was running for reelection, which would have intertwined this whole process right in the middle of the election.
5. Bidden's statement was under these circumstances, and it's pretty obvious he was trying to avoid the political manipulation of the appointment of a SC justice in the middle of an election.

Prove me wrong.
It's apples and oranges. How stupid does the GOP think we are using this as a talking point?

. Thank you for these points proves to show we are justified in following the Biden Rulr. however, Biden use or not, the GOP run Senate can tell the democrats to suck their dicks.

You realize that this Biden Rule isn't really a rule right... It's a talking point your puppet masters have fed you. A little advise, don't take candy from strangers

 

[kaz]

It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.

Obama's nomination was one that he thought the Senate would have to do some soul searching to refuse. He should have nominated a Black male Democrat since Thomas is just Scalia in Blackface. The president chose a White male with outstanding credentials showing that once again he was trying to meet the Senate more than half way...much to the chagrin of his Black constituency. Still, this unprecedented refusal to vet by the Senate continues with impunity.

No, the Dems have NEVER done the same to the Pubs. You cannot show me where the Democrats have ever refused to vet a nominee. They might have voted against confirmation or filibustered,but they engaged in the process as ordained by the Constitution. They have never refused to vet or conduct a hearing on USSC nominees.
Nice try but go back to square one and try again.

That's because when the Democrats tried to do so they didn't have the votes to sustain. Nevertheless I think Reid holds the record on blocked judicial nominees. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Well, YOU WERE wrong when you said the Dems did it to the Pubs. I am not interested in anecdotal reasons as to why the Dems didn't do it. BTW the Pubs have a chance to break Reid's record on this singe appointment if only they would do their jobs.

The Senates job, within their constitutional realm, is whatever they vote it to be within the rules. They have the right to do nothing. Sorry if this offends you.

They also have a right as defined by the constitution to show up to work for only one day a year. Maybe they should all just do that too.

That would be fantastic!

 

[kaz]

Furthermore...

Here are the FACTS from JUNE 1992:
1. There were no Supreme Court vacancies.
2. Clinton had just won the nomination to take on Bush.
3. There was talk about getting an older justice to retire so Bush could appoint a new one before he was out of office.
4. Bush was running for reelection, which would have intertwined this whole process right in the middle of the election.
5. Bidden's statement was under these circumstances, and it's pretty obvious he was trying to avoid the political manipulation of the appointment of a SC justice in the middle of an election.

Prove me wrong.
It's apples and oranges. How stupid does the GOP think we are using this as a talking point?

. Thank you for these points proves to show we are justified in following the Biden Rulr. however, Biden use or not, the GOP run Senate can tell the democrats to suck their dicks.

You realize that this Biden Rule isn't really a rule right... It's a talking point your puppet masters have fed you. A little advise, don't take candy from strangers

The point is the hypocrisy and double standards of the Democrats. I mean duh

 

[kaz]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

You hit it on the head. It doesn't matter if Hillary or Trump wins. They won't have any choice but to approve of at least 2 SCOTUS in the next cycle regardless if they do nothing or do something. This is about "I Hate Obama.....spit on floor". It should have ended shortly after he was elected the first time but it's become a habit. That habit may be the end of the Whig.....er.......Republican unless it's turned around. They are too busy hating to actual govern. BTW, I am now supporting Trump. Trump may be the savior of the GOP yet or he may be the end of the GOP. If he doesn't save it then it's not worth saving.

so what if it's about: I hate Obama. when the Democrats did it to Bush, it was about, I hate Bush and you left/dems supported it then.

They were mean to us so now we get to be mean to them and it's ok!!! Is that your point?

You don't know that's the reality of life?



How old are you? Feel behind your ears, is it wet?

 

[kaz]

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

How am I being stupid? You make no sense. If these were executives in a business they would be fired so fast for pulling this crap

It's not a business, it is a government institution. Can you show us the timeline the Senate has to follow when a judge is nominated?

It not about a timeline it about not coming out like a bunch of pouty children and stating that they are going to refuse to consider any nominee. Do you really not see it or are you just trying to be adversarial?

Obviously if Obama nominated someone they like they would hold hearings. They are saying there's no way Obama will do that, and they're right.

Do you need the obvious explained this frequently to you?

 

[kaz]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

Same reason the Democrats would, and have, done exactly the same thing when the situation is reversed. The Republicans believe their guy will win. Whether that's true or not, they believe it, and thus they will hold out until the election.

Why do they need a non-political, non-BS reason? Dude this is politics, not your local Chess club. For you to expect that politics shouldn't be involved in a political position, on the highest court in the land, is moronic. Grow up dude. You better get with it, or you'll be a bitter and whiny person for the rest of your life.

This is why, by the way, we on the right, don't want government involved in health care, and socialism. How would you like this political crap, determining whether you get care or not? That's a brilliant idea, eh?

I better get with it? Haha, ok I'll work on that. Dipshit. If you have a problem with me voicing problems and hypocrisy that I see in our government then you are free to not engage, that's fine. If you've just accepted that politics = gridlock/obstruction and your fine with it then that's your choice but that's not how it was meant to be and as corrupt as things have become it is still a government that is elected by the people. If the people speak out enough they will be heard. Go back to your video games.

When DC isn't gridlock, that means the Republicans caved and Democrats got their way

 

[Slade3200]

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

You hit it on the head. It doesn't matter if Hillary or Trump wins. They won't have any choice but to approve of at least 2 SCOTUS in the next cycle regardless if they do nothing or do something. This is about "I Hate Obama.....spit on floor". It should have ended shortly after he was elected the first time but it's become a habit. That habit may be the end of the Whig.....er.......Republican unless it's turned around. They are too busy hating to actual govern. BTW, I am now supporting Trump. Trump may be the savior of the GOP yet or he may be the end of the GOP. If he doesn't save it then it's not worth saving.

so what if it's about: I hate Obama. when the Democrats did it to Bush, it was about, I hate Bush and you left/dems supported it then.

They were mean to us so now we get to be mean to them and it's ok!!! Is that your point?

You don't know that's the reality of life?



How old are you? Feel behind your ears, is it wet?

You live in your reality I'll live in mine. I'm well aware than many people think and live this way... Others hold themselves and others to a higher standard, those are the people I look for when placing my vote for leadership

 

[kaz]

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

You hit it on the head. It doesn't matter if Hillary or Trump wins. They won't have any choice but to approve of at least 2 SCOTUS in the next cycle regardless if they do nothing or do something. This is about "I Hate Obama.....spit on floor". It should have ended shortly after he was elected the first time but it's become a habit. That habit may be the end of the Whig.....er.......Republican unless it's turned around. They are too busy hating to actual govern. BTW, I am now supporting Trump. Trump may be the savior of the GOP yet or he may be the end of the GOP. If he doesn't save it then it's not worth saving.

so what if it's about: I hate Obama. when the Democrats did it to Bush, it was about, I hate Bush and you left/dems supported it then.

They were mean to us so now we get to be mean to them and it's ok!!! Is that your point?

You don't know that's the reality of life?



How old are you? Feel behind your ears, is it wet?

You live in your reality I'll live in mine. I'm well aware than many people think and live this way... Others hold themselves and others to a higher standard, those are the people I look for when placing my vote for leadership

So who do you write in then?

 

[American Horse]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

It seems to me like we are being given a very cogent and rational reason. Because of the timing - a year of a general election - let the electorate decide.

It could work out well for either side. Because the judiciary is functionally replacing the legislative branch, and because a single Justice is increasingly deciding extremely significant societal decisions, the American public should be directly involved in the selection of the decider.

This is particularly appropriate inasmuch as their awareness of the pertinent national questions is presently being maximized through the ongoing dialogue extant in the public sphere.

 

[Staidhup]

Four key facts appear to be overlooked, committee approval, senate confirmation debate, vote, however most importantly the candidate can not render a opinion or vote on current cases before the court and must recluse him or herself due to not sitting for the entire case proceedings. The process is a long lengthy process designed to insure the integrity of the court and Constitution. There is no way a justice can be vetted within the time frame as proposed. The question needs to be answered, if in fact Reid and company were able to ram rod this candidate through the system what good would it do other than stacking the court for political reasons, most importantly at what cost, so why the hurry?
What has become apparent is that democrat's preach yet fail to follow through nor adhere with their prior stated positions and opinions when it fails to fill their political agenda. So what else is new, same old do as I say not as I do syndrome. Maybe its time for Senator's Reid and Schumer to shut their crooked mouths and let the process proceed at its own pace.