Wonder WHY GOP senators are against a justice's nomination??

[Correll]

Standing up to a leftist that wants to put a leftist in the seat, is their jobs, as far as I am concerned.

Scalia was a far right hack........How did left-leaning dems. vote for his confirmation?

(and THAT is the difference between the 2 major parties)

Support your claim that he was a far right hack.

 

[nat4900]

He got plenty through Congress... see "ACA". AS for the EO's, that isn't what they are for. They're not there as a mechanism to bypass Congress when you don;t get your way.

Actually, that is precisely what EOs are for........When you have a congress that is either too lazy or too scared of their donors to legislate, that congress has forsaken its responsibilities......and the executive MUST act.

 

[Correll]

What I find disconcerting is that not all of us are against a non-elected, filthy rich cabal (re-read the O/P) meets to decide who should represent common citizens' interests....Right wingers should also realize that they are pawns of big moneyed groups who couldn't care a twit about their welfare.

There is big money on both sides of the ideological divide.

MOre sotomayors will not be a plus for my welfare.

 

[nat4900]

Support your claim that he was a far right hack.

Do your own homework and look at Scalia's record of decision (and if that weren't bad enough, Scalia had his puppet....Thomas.....to agree virtually 100% with right leaning decisions....basically a 2 for 1 duet)

 

[Correll]

Support your claim that he was a far right hack.

Do your own homework and look at Scalia's record of decision (and if that weren't bad enough, Scalia had his puppet....Thomas.....to agree virtually 100% with right leaning decisions....basically a 2 for 1 duet)

Got it. Unsupported assertion.

Say, did you support Sotomayor in her ruling on the blatant discrimination by the New Haven city government?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

He got plenty through Congress... see "ACA". AS for the EO's, that isn't what they are for. They're not there as a mechanism to bypass Congress when you don;t get your way.

Actually, that is precisely what EOs are for........When you have a congress that is either too lazy or too scared of their donors to legislate, that congress has forsaken its responsibilities......and the executive MUST act.

Wrongo:

"There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders. The term executive power in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution refers to the office of President as the executive. He is instructed therein by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 or face impeachment. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being removal from office."

They are not designed to be for "major policy directives".

 

[OldLady]

What you nitwits refuse to acknowledge is that "CHOOSING to not vote" does not go over well in an election cycle....Bear in mind that 24 GOP senators are up for election.

I'm sure the lib media will try to spin it negatively.

Hopefully the public will dismiss the media spin.

If not, well, it was a nice country while it lasted.

There is no 'spin' to it! You don't have to spin it, it is that obvious and clear that the Republicans are refusing to do their job.

Standing up to a leftist that wants to put a leftist in the seat, is their jobs, as far as I am concerned.

Fine. Let him at least name the leftist before you refuse.

Why?

To pretend that this is not going to be a bitter partisan battle?

Pretend is the game libs like to play.

You are the one deciding it will be a bitter partisan battle, before knowing the facts. (Actually, why doesn't that surprise me?) You afraid of a battle? Was the OP right?

 

[bendog]

Support your claim that he was a far right hack.

Do your own homework and look at Scalia's record of decision (and if that weren't bad enough, Scalia had his puppet....Thomas.....to agree virtually 100% with right leaning decisions....basically a 2 for 1 duet)

Scalia and Thomas seldom agreed on limits the 4th amendment puts on searches.

 

[nat4900]

They are not designed to be for "major policy directives".

Di you know that the Emancipation Proclamation and the Desegregation of Schools were done through Executive Orders? Were those two EOs NOT "major policy directives"?

 

[OldLady]

They are not designed to be for "major policy directives".

Di you know that the Emancipation Proclamation and the Desegregation of Schools were done through Executive Orders? Were those two EOs NOT "major policy directive"?

 

[Correll]

I'm sure the lib media will try to spin it negatively.

Hopefully the public will dismiss the media spin.

If not, well, it was a nice country while it lasted.

There is no 'spin' to it! You don't have to spin it, it is that obvious and clear that the Republicans are refusing to do their job.

Standing up to a leftist that wants to put a leftist in the seat, is their jobs, as far as I am concerned.

Fine. Let him at least name the leftist before you refuse.

Why?

To pretend that this is not going to be a bitter partisan battle?

Pretend is the game libs like to play.

You are the one deciding it will be a bitter partisan battle, before knowing the facts. (Actually, why doesn't that surprise me?) You afraid of a battle? Was the OP right?

I know that every single democratically appointed Justice supported the blatant anti-white discrimination in the New Haven Firefighter Case.

I know that the previous Obama appointee was one of the lower court judges that ruled in favor of the blatant anti-white discrimination in the New Haven Firefighter case.

What more facts do you think I needed to know?

The only way it wouldn't be a bitter battle would be if the GOP rolled over like bitches for your side.

I'm glad to see they found some spine.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

They are not designed to be for "major policy directives".

Di you know that the Emancipation Proclamation and the Desegregation of Schools were done through Executive Orders? Were those two EOs NOT "major policy directive"?

Tt
The Emancipation Proclamation was issued by a wartime Commander in Chief, hence very legal. As for the latter, it was issued to enforce a Supreme Court decision.

I get that.

 

[Iceweasel]

They are not designed to be for "major policy directives".

Di you know that the Emancipation Proclamation and the Desegregation of Schools were done through Executive Orders? Were those two EOs NOT "major policy directives"?

No, I didn't know that.

BROWN V. BOARD: Timeline of School Integration in the U.S. | Teaching Tolerance
1952
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Brown v. Board of Education. Thurgood Marshall, who will later become the first African American justice on the Supreme Court, is the lead counsel for the black school children.

1953
Earl Warren is appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court hears the second round of arguments in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

1954
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education overturns Plessy and declares that separate schools are "inherently unequal." The Court delays deciding on how to implement the decision and asks for another round of arguments.

The Court rules that the federal government is under the same duty as the states and must desegregate the Washington, D.C., schools. (Bolling v. Sharpe)

1955
In Brown II, the Supreme Court orders the lower federal courts to require desegregation "with all deliberate speed."

1955
Between 1955 and 1960, federal judges will hold more than 200 school desegregation hearings.

 

[Iceweasel]

They are not designed to be for "major policy directives".

Di you know that the Emancipation Proclamation and the Desegregation of Schools were done through Executive Orders? Were those two EOs NOT "major policy directive"?

LOL

 

[deaddogseye]

Actually, GOP senators are not so much against a nomination of a justice by Obama, their problem is the expected spectacle of their nitpicking even a moderate nomination during the subsequent hearings. Bear in mind that many of these GOP senators (if the nomination ever made it out of the judicial committee) are up for re-election, and their stalling tactics may not go over well among those independent voters that they so much need.

Realizing that the portion of a Daily Kos article below will be met with sneers by right wingers, for those who still have an open mind, the influence that big donors play on GOP senators (and representatives) is both informative and scary for any democracy turning into a plutocracy.....

So, if the McConnell and company "warning" to Obama to not even nominate someone, the author of the article offers the following:

What really matters is why they're doing it, and who it serves. The answer to that question leads straight to their donor base. Although it scarcely bears repeating, the Republican Senate and (to an even greater extent) the Republican House of Representatives now exists to serve the economic interests of a tiny group of very, very wealthy people, people who now stand to either gain or lose hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars spent complying with environmental, finance and labor laws and regulations, depending on who replaces Scalia. That is what this fight is all about. For the GOP and the billionaires who pull their strings, much ballyhooed rhetoric about abortion, affirmative action, union rights and voting rights are all subsidiary to this main event.
The two most prominent members of this tiny group of people are Charles and David Koch:

In this election cycle... the Kochs have publicly stated that they and their compatriots will spend $889 million, more than either the Republican or Democratic parties spent last time around. According to a recent analysis in Politico, their privatized political network is backed by a group of several hundred extremely rich fellow donors who often meet at off-the-record conclaves organized by the Kochs at desert resorts. It has at least 1,200 full-time staffers in 107 offices nationwide, or three and a half times as many as the Republican National Committee. They may be the most important un-elected political figures in American history.​

this goes far beyond the Koch brothers the donor class or republican special interests. Any number of conservative grass roots groups are warning McConnell vehemently that they feel stopping an Obama appointee is more important than even keeping the senate and their logic isn't terrible. They feel the Supreme Court is far more important than the Senate because the Senate hasnr done anything anyway and the supreme court is one liberal the ends justifies the means justice away from doing what they feel is a lot of damage. THe would rather roll the dice on the next election come what may.

bottom line is that the Republicans have no option but to scorch the earth over this - none. they may go through some theater and hold some hearings but they cant allow anything that coukld lead to a confirmation.

 

[nat4900]

I'm glad to see they found some spine.

Hang on to that "spine"......it'll help turn that senate blue next year.

 

[nat4900]

this goes far beyond the Koch brothers the donor class or republican special interests. Any number of conservative grass roots groups are warning McConnell vehemently that they feel stopping an Obama appointee is more important than even keeping the senate and their logic isn't terrible. They feel the Supreme Court is far more important than the Senate because the Senate hasnr done anything anyway and the supreme court is one liberal the ends justifies the means justice away from doing what they feel is a lot of damage. THe would rather roll the dice on the next election come what may.

Very much agree.....Special interests can "buy" representatives and/or senators every few years...A Justice, however, can be a thorn on their side for decades.

 

[nat4900]

They are not designed to be for "major policy directives".

Di you know that the Emancipation Proclamation and the Desegregation of Schools were done through Executive Orders? Were those two EOs NOT "major policy directives"?

No, I didn't know that.

BROWN V. BOARD: Timeline of School Integration in the U.S. | Teaching Tolerance
1952
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Brown v. Board of Education. Thurgood Marshall, who will later become the first African American justice on the Supreme Court, is the lead counsel for the black school children.

1953
Earl Warren is appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court hears the second round of arguments in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

1954
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education overturns Plessy and declares that separate schools are "inherently unequal." The Court delays deciding on how to implement the decision and asks for another round of arguments.

The Court rules that the federal government is under the same duty as the states and must desegregate the Washington, D.C., schools. (Bolling v. Sharpe)

1955
In Brown II, the Supreme Court orders the lower federal courts to require desegregation "with all deliberate speed."

1955
Between 1955 and 1960, federal judges will hold more than 200 school desegregation hearings.

Through Executive Order, Eisenhower "federalized" the Arkansas national guard to enforce the desegregation of schools.

 

[Iceweasel]

They are not designed to be for "major policy directives".

Di you know that the Emancipation Proclamation and the Desegregation of Schools were done through Executive Orders? Were those two EOs NOT "major policy directives"?

No, I didn't know that.

BROWN V. BOARD: Timeline of School Integration in the U.S. | Teaching Tolerance
1952
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Brown v. Board of Education. Thurgood Marshall, who will later become the first African American justice on the Supreme Court, is the lead counsel for the black school children.

1953
Earl Warren is appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court hears the second round of arguments in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

1954
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education overturns Plessy and declares that separate schools are "inherently unequal." The Court delays deciding on how to implement the decision and asks for another round of arguments.

The Court rules that the federal government is under the same duty as the states and must desegregate the Washington, D.C., schools. (Bolling v. Sharpe)

1955
In Brown II, the Supreme Court orders the lower federal courts to require desegregation "with all deliberate speed."

1955
Between 1955 and 1960, federal judges will hold more than 200 school desegregation hearings.

Through Executive Order, Eisenhower "federalized" the Arkansas national guard to enforce the desegregation of schools.

That's funny. I was in a segregated high school in Mississippi in 1969. Segregated up to the fourth grade at that point. Federal funds were going to be withheld if they didn't integrate in x number of years.

 

[nat4900]

That's funny. I was in a segregated high school in Mississippi in 1969.

Explains a LOT about your twisted stances.......You really should secede. LOL