Scalia has died
- Thread starter oneforthebus
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2014
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 3,238
- Points
- 113
Wasn't the main reason Kennedy was a late appointment because Reagan's two previous nominees were rejected by the Senate? He was basically the third choice and I know Bork was grilled for months.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,944
- Reaction score
- 15,770
- Points
- 113
When liberals copy and paste their flawed arguments based on revisionist history and half truths, you are not allowed to refute with facts. It upsets them.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,944
- Reaction score
- 15,770
- Points
- 113
He was a short term replacement for Jon Stewart. Like Stewart, he's a liberal shill who hides behind the mask of comedian. Now he has his own show on HBO. He's Colbert with an accent.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,022
- Reaction score
- 585
- Points
- 113
Exactly. I have no real expectation for either party to live up to the obligation of serving the people before serving their party and the special interests that finance them.
In the end, I hope that the President nominates a credible and accomplished judge (be they male or female, and of any ethnic background) that is able to see past the political posturing and appeals to both the Democrats and Republicans. That person can't lean too far one way or the other else the senators will just vote against them.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I guess the democrats have to go back to 1988.
What about the 25 democrats that wanted to filibuster Samuel Alito in 2006 because of a SENATE voting year in hopes the thin Republican majority would give way to a Democrat dominated Senate and force Bush to select a more moderate justice?
Does Tibs just want to ignore this?
And listen to the list of democrats: Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Boxer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Reid, Schumer.... That's practically every ******* high-ranking liberal in the whole country. That's the who's who of being a democrat right now (supposedly).
So when they wanted to filibuster from January to November in hopes of winning the Senate, that was okay, but now a majority Republican Senate wants to do it and it's all high-and-mighty wrong? What a ******* crock of ****.
Look, I'm against not voting. I'm against a filibuster. But for these democrats to stand up on some soap box and tell me it's dishonest and "wrong" when those same people wanted to do it less than a decade ago. Well, they can go to hell.
What about the 25 democrats that wanted to filibuster Samuel Alito in 2006 because of a SENATE voting year in hopes the thin Republican majority would give way to a Democrat dominated Senate and force Bush to select a more moderate justice?
Does Tibs just want to ignore this?
And listen to the list of democrats: Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Boxer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Reid, Schumer.... That's practically every ******* high-ranking liberal in the whole country. That's the who's who of being a democrat right now (supposedly).
So when they wanted to filibuster from January to November in hopes of winning the Senate, that was okay, but now a majority Republican Senate wants to do it and it's all high-and-mighty wrong? What a ******* crock of ****.
Look, I'm against not voting. I'm against a filibuster. But for these democrats to stand up on some soap box and tell me it's dishonest and "wrong" when those same people wanted to do it less than a decade ago. Well, they can go to hell.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
Oh.. and John Oliver should go back to England and worry about his own country and what their country does wrong. ****, he comes from a country that still has a god damn monarchy worth something like $35 billion. Go back across the ******* ocean and ***** and moan about that inequality of wealth and when you get that fixed, maybe I'll start listening to your whiny ***.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
he can't now
Chuck Schumer insists that lame-duck president should not get Supreme Court pick
Stop the presses. This just in. Hipocracy in Washington! Hipocracy in Washington!
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2014
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 3,238
- Points
- 113
Obama has already shifted the power of the lower courts over to the Democrats. I think now 9 of the 13 court of appeals are now led by Dems when they invoked a procedural maneuver that allowed appointments to be passed by simple majority versus 60 votes a couple years ago. The Supreme Court still requires a 60 vote count. The Republicans are still BS over that move and if they do not stand up they will lose the courts for at least a generation.
The real question is WILL they vote down a nominee? Or will they play chicken and allow it?
When has Mitch McConnell and most of the Senate stood up to Bomma on anything? The man has all the spine of a wet noodle.
This is all a bunch of hogwash, just about all of yinz have got it 100% wrong. One wrong-headed argument holds the role to be quite modest: Senators should defer to a president’s choices except in extreme circumstances. That position is advanced far too often by Republicans, and almost never by Democrats (except when a member of their party is doing the nominating). It has led some Republican senators to have a policy against filibustering presidential nominees, no matter how much a nominee’s confirmation may endanger the rule of law and adherence to the constitutional order.
The argument for deference rests on the idea that the president, elected by the people, is entitled to exercise his judgment on who should be officers of the executive branch and judges in the judicial branch, particularly since Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the president the power to make those choices.
But this claim fails to recognize the important difference between executive- and judicial-branch nominations and the separation-of-powers doctrine embedded in the Constitution.
A strong argument can certainly be made that when it comes to nominees who would serve in the executive branch, the Senate should give deference to the president’s choices. Those nominees would be working directly for the president and responsible for implementing his policies and priorities in the branch that he heads.
Unlike executive-branch officials, federal judges do not work for the president; neither do they work for Congress. If Congress—specifically the Senate—gives undue deference to a president’s judicial nominees, it cedes tremendous power to the president to shape and control the judiciary, the third branch of government.
Our doctrine of separation of powers demands that both the legislative and executive branches have a voice in who become federal judges with lifetime appointments. Otherwise, giving undue deference gives the executive branch too much power over what is supposed to be an independent, separate part of our federal government.
The Senate has an absolute duty to delve deeply into the judicial philosophy of such nominees. The Senate must ensure that any nominee’s past history and prior statements demonstrate an uncompromising fidelity to the Constitution as written. These days, all nominees profess that fidelity because their handlers tell them they must do so to get confirmed. It is up to the Senate to investigate the credibility of such claims based on the nominee’s overall record, a record that provides actual evidence of his or her view of the Constitution and the rule of law.
Senators who believe that the president’s choice of judicial nominees should be given substantial deference are deeply mistaken. They owe deference to the Constitution, not the president. The importance of preserving the rule of law and adhering to the Constitution is too important for them to continue to hold this manifestly wrong—and, frankly, dangerous—view.
I don't really care so much whether Barry nominates his candidate or not.....although Spike's avatar will come to life if he doesn't. I care if the Senate does their absolute constitutional duty to vet that candidate against their record of upholding that so called "outdated" document literally and not treating it like some living breathing philosophy. That lack of proper background investigation has resulted in the pickle we are in right now. Our Judicial system is being systematically 'changed' to meet the political goals of those in power ( both sides) instead of the intent of our framers.
The argument for deference rests on the idea that the president, elected by the people, is entitled to exercise his judgment on who should be officers of the executive branch and judges in the judicial branch, particularly since Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the president the power to make those choices.
But this claim fails to recognize the important difference between executive- and judicial-branch nominations and the separation-of-powers doctrine embedded in the Constitution.
A strong argument can certainly be made that when it comes to nominees who would serve in the executive branch, the Senate should give deference to the president’s choices. Those nominees would be working directly for the president and responsible for implementing his policies and priorities in the branch that he heads.
Unlike executive-branch officials, federal judges do not work for the president; neither do they work for Congress. If Congress—specifically the Senate—gives undue deference to a president’s judicial nominees, it cedes tremendous power to the president to shape and control the judiciary, the third branch of government.
Our doctrine of separation of powers demands that both the legislative and executive branches have a voice in who become federal judges with lifetime appointments. Otherwise, giving undue deference gives the executive branch too much power over what is supposed to be an independent, separate part of our federal government.
The Senate has an absolute duty to delve deeply into the judicial philosophy of such nominees. The Senate must ensure that any nominee’s past history and prior statements demonstrate an uncompromising fidelity to the Constitution as written. These days, all nominees profess that fidelity because their handlers tell them they must do so to get confirmed. It is up to the Senate to investigate the credibility of such claims based on the nominee’s overall record, a record that provides actual evidence of his or her view of the Constitution and the rule of law.
Senators who believe that the president’s choice of judicial nominees should be given substantial deference are deeply mistaken. They owe deference to the Constitution, not the president. The importance of preserving the rule of law and adhering to the Constitution is too important for them to continue to hold this manifestly wrong—and, frankly, dangerous—view.
I don't really care so much whether Barry nominates his candidate or not.....although Spike's avatar will come to life if he doesn't. I care if the Senate does their absolute constitutional duty to vet that candidate against their record of upholding that so called "outdated" document literally and not treating it like some living breathing philosophy. That lack of proper background investigation has resulted in the pickle we are in right now. Our Judicial system is being systematically 'changed' to meet the political goals of those in power ( both sides) instead of the intent of our framers.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I agree with this.
The problem is republican leaders are threatening not ever letting a nominee get to the voting stage. They can block it before that using some filibuster or equal congressional technique.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 4,878
- Reaction score
- 5,064
- Points
- 113
It will be nothing but, Talk, Talk, Cave. We are already half way through the first bit of talking.
Welllll.....there was no autopsy?
Elizabeth Warren Humiliates Mitch McConnell For Threat To Block Obama SCOTUS Nominee
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02...s-mcconnell-pres-obama-won-million-votes.html
After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that he would lead Republicans in obstructing President Obama yet again, this time by leading his party to abdicate their Constitutional duties, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) reminded McConnell that President Obama’s will is the will of the people and that he won by five million votes.
Senator Warren said in a statement,“Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did – when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.”
Then Warren proceeded to remind McConnell about that thing Republicans are always claiming to worship – the Constitution, specifically Article II, “Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
Wait for it…“I can’t find a clause that says ‘…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.'”
Warren reminded McConnell that Republicans took an oath just like Democrats did and if they fail to do their duty, their talk about loving the Constitution is empty, “Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that – empty talk.”
Senator Warren is absolutely correct. The idea that Republicans get to obstruct the power of the presidency invested in Obama by the people in not one but two elections is outrageous.
Who cares what Fauxcahontas says?
Yep.
Good luck reconciling those two.
Yep. Just when you think they couldn't be any more dumb.........they totally redeem themselves. Just do it. Don't SAY you're doing it.
Never happen. McConnell will have the Senate approve Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch or whoever Bomma wants. Hell, maybe Bomma resigns and has Biden appoint him since that job is lifetime. Could happen except that I think He is too lazy and doesn't really want to do that much work.
As much as I would like to call you out on that opinion, history is more on your side than mine. I sincerely hope you are wrong.
or he could just cut out the middle man, he is after all....the ONE !
President Obama submitted the final budget of his presidency to Congress in Washington with an added sense of urgency Tuesday. He just looked at the calendar and realized he has less than a year to finish off the country. Without the help of Iran and North Korea, he may not be able to do it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
McConnell wouldn't be caving to Obama, but rather the Constitution. If someone like Srinvasan is nominated who was previously confirmed
unanimously with votes from Rubio and Cruz it would be political suicide to block a vote. The act would look purely political and not in the best
interest of the country. Could actually swing the White House and the Senate to the Dems because many voters would swing their vote on
the principal of this. Then look what you get if Clinton is President and the Senate is Dem.
Srinvasan is another Justice Kennedy, not a liberal vote.
unanimously with votes from Rubio and Cruz it would be political suicide to block a vote. The act would look purely political and not in the best
interest of the country. Could actually swing the White House and the Senate to the Dems because many voters would swing their vote on
the principal of this. Then look what you get if Clinton is President and the Senate is Dem.
Srinvasan is another Justice Kennedy, not a liberal vote.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
I don't think Obama wants to be a Supreme Court Justice, Secretary General of the UN might be of interest to him.
I think he wants to have more of a world-wide impact after getting out of the White House.
I think he wants to have more of a world-wide impact after getting out of the White House.
resolution in 1960, passed by Democrats, prevents election year Supreme Court appointments.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415
S.RES. 334. EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE PRES. SHOULD NOT MAKE RECESS APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT, EXCEPT TO PREVENT OR END A BREAKDOWN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT'S BUSINESS. KEATING MOTION TO RECOMMIT TO JUDICARY COMM.
This vote was to kill a nonbinding resolution proposed by the Democrats who hoped to prevent President Eisenhower from using recess appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court. (This vote failed, and the resolution was subsequently passed.)
Although the vote occurred in an election year, there is no indication that this vote was about election year appointments specifically. Eisenhower had used the recess appointment power to make previous appointments to the Supreme Court, and Democrats objected to further use of the recess appointment power. No President has used the recess appointment power to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court since then.
A recess appointment is made while the Senate is in recess, and while such appointments do not require Senate approval they instead expire at the end of the subsequent legislative session (these days, a calendar year). The Washington Post explained:
Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment. Not surprisingly, the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times.
These days, the Senate often holds pro forma sessions, by gaveling-in for one minute each day, rather than go on recess in a time when the President is expected to use the recess appointment or pocket veto power, thus typically preventing recess appointments. On Feb. 14, 2016, President Obama stated that he would not use the recess appointment power to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Justice Scalia, which occurred during a Senate recess.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415
S.RES. 334. EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE PRES. SHOULD NOT MAKE RECESS APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT, EXCEPT TO PREVENT OR END A BREAKDOWN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT'S BUSINESS. KEATING MOTION TO RECOMMIT TO JUDICARY COMM.
This vote was to kill a nonbinding resolution proposed by the Democrats who hoped to prevent President Eisenhower from using recess appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court. (This vote failed, and the resolution was subsequently passed.)
Although the vote occurred in an election year, there is no indication that this vote was about election year appointments specifically. Eisenhower had used the recess appointment power to make previous appointments to the Supreme Court, and Democrats objected to further use of the recess appointment power. No President has used the recess appointment power to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court since then.
A recess appointment is made while the Senate is in recess, and while such appointments do not require Senate approval they instead expire at the end of the subsequent legislative session (these days, a calendar year). The Washington Post explained:
Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment. Not surprisingly, the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times.
These days, the Senate often holds pro forma sessions, by gaveling-in for one minute each day, rather than go on recess in a time when the President is expected to use the recess appointment or pocket veto power, thus typically preventing recess appointments. On Feb. 14, 2016, President Obama stated that he would not use the recess appointment power to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Justice Scalia, which occurred during a Senate recess.
he can go impact a certain Kenyan village
James Woods says it best...
http://cnsnews.com/blog/melanie-hun..._content=facebook&utm_campaign=n-woods-scalia
James Woods: Don’t Confirm Obama SCOTUS Nominee - ‘Just Ignore Him, as He Does the Law’
By Melanie Hunter | February 15, 2016 | 1:53 PM EST
Actor James Woods (AP Photo)
Actor James Woods weighed in on the nomination of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s successor.
Woods tweeted Sunday that Congress should not confirm a SCOTUS nominee by President Barack Obama.
“This could not be simpler,” Woods tweeted. “Absolutely, do not confirm an #Obama SCOTUS nominee. Don’t discuss it; just ignore him, as he does the law.”
Scalia died Saturday of natural causes at a ranch in West Texas at the age of 79.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/melanie-hun..._content=facebook&utm_campaign=n-woods-scalia
James Woods: Don’t Confirm Obama SCOTUS Nominee - ‘Just Ignore Him, as He Does the Law’
By Melanie Hunter | February 15, 2016 | 1:53 PM EST
Actor James Woods (AP Photo)
Actor James Woods weighed in on the nomination of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s successor.
Woods tweeted Sunday that Congress should not confirm a SCOTUS nominee by President Barack Obama.
“This could not be simpler,” Woods tweeted. “Absolutely, do not confirm an #Obama SCOTUS nominee. Don’t discuss it; just ignore him, as he does the law.”
Scalia died Saturday of natural causes at a ranch in West Texas at the age of 79.