Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[auditor0007]

It's pronounced " now we have a real reason to rally Democrats throughout the country to take back the Senate as well as the White House." You clowns are fucked.

Fuck, you assholes can't decide whether you want a lying, corrupt, murderous OLD white bitch or a AGED, old WHITE, Communist/Socialist as your presidential candidate, and YOU think the rest of the country is as dumb as you and will vote the DemoRAT/Socialist/Communist party back into power especially with OVER $18 TRILLION in debt put on our backs by a mulatto, Kenyan, Marxist?

Oh the anger. You should really get some help for that. It really would help if you knew what a Communist was, because it is more than apparent that you are completely clueless on that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Republican Senate better deny every last Obama nominee.

Damn straight. Nothing like galvanizing Democrats to not only win the White House but to also take back the Senate. I'm getting my checkbook out for every close Senate race.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this stunt costs Republicans the Senate. Many people will be pissed if the Senate shirks its responsibility to advise and consent the president's nominees.

I guess the historic bitch slapping voters put on Democrats hasn't sunk in yet, the people are fed up with the left and rejected them in an historic blow out election.

You completely fail to understand the dynamics of the electorate, which seats were up for reelection, and how that affected the outcome. BTW, there was no historic bitch slapping. Despite losing many seats, Democratic candidates received 98.7 million votes to Republicans 94.1 million votes. It's way too early to even begin to try and guess which way things will go, but it is conceivable that Dems will win the White House, take back the Senate, and win back a substantial number of Congressional seats.

To Democrats, even if it is "conceivable", they will just opt to abort.

 

[Vigilante]

It's pronounced " now we have a real reason to rally Democrats throughout the country to take back the Senate as well as the White House." You clowns are fucked.

Fuck, you assholes can't decide whether you want a lying, corrupt, murderous OLD white bitch or a AGED, old WHITE, Communist/Socialist as your presidential candidate, and YOU think the rest of the country is as dumb as you and will vote the DemoRAT/Socialist/Communist party back into power especially with OVER $18 TRILLION in debt put on our backs by a mulatto, Kenyan, Marxist?

For you vigilante and there's more coming
Infamous scene of Samuel L Jackson
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

I'm also AGNOSTIC, and couldn't care LESS what bullshit you write, you're a fucking moron anyway!

 

[Vigilante]

It's pronounced " now we have a real reason to rally Democrats throughout the country to take back the Senate as well as the White House." You clowns are fucked.

Fuck, you assholes can't decide whether you want a lying, corrupt, murderous OLD white bitch or a AGED, old WHITE, Communist/Socialist as your presidential candidate, and YOU think the rest of the country is as dumb as you and will vote the DemoRAT/Socialist/Communist party back into power especially with OVER $18 TRILLION in debt put on our backs by a mulatto, Kenyan, Marxist?

Oh the anger. You should really get some help for that. It really would help if you knew what a Communist was, because it is more than apparent that you are completely clueless on that.

TRUTH isn't anger..U of which you know little of!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Apparently no one has noticed this about recess appointments.... To remain in effect, a recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress....TA DA!!!

That's incorrect. According the the Constitution Article 2 Section 2 "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

Recess appointments automatically expire. Now if the same person is nominated that is filling the recess appointment, then the Senate gets normal advise and consent on the nominee, but the Senate need not approve at any time a recess appointment. And why have to approve an appointment at the end of a session that will already expire? That makes no sense.

Why do you think the Senate has been going through the whole proforma session business? Yep, to prevent recess appointments.


>>>>

 

[Flopper]

The timing could not be worse for the GOP, but the court cannot be left deadlocked for more than a year simply because the GOP is being childish. Doing so would clearly show that the GOP is only too happy to damage the country to get their way. Refusing to govern in a presidential election year, with 24 GOP Senate seats to defend would be a huge mistake. If they do, and they might, they will lose the Senate, lose the White House, and lose the chance to name the next SC Justice.

If McConnell follows through, refusing to allow an Obama's nomination to come to the Senate floor for a vote, he will be creating the longest vacancy in the history of the 9 man court. That will leave the left leaning 8 justice court to make crucial decision over the next year and possibly much longer if there's a democrat elected. Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

If the court has a tie vote on a case, then the ruling of previous federal court will stand. Court decisions can have a huge impact. Suppose the court was called to make a decision that would determine the presidency as they did with Bush vs. Gore and could not reach a decision.

Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

having an even number of justices seems like a good way to go the more i think about it

Having only 8 justices will probably mean that some cases that should be heard by the court won't be. Some cases may end in a tie vote which is not fair to the plaintiff or defendant as the case was taken to the Supreme Court for a final decision. In a tie, the party that brought the case to he court can ask the court to hear the case a second time with a full bench. If the court agrees, then the other party would have to go through the process a second time.

the SC does not take the majority of appeals they select some

so i do not see the unfairness of tie

the lower courts opinion remains valid

i hear what you are saying

i was just wondering about the full count of justices becoming an even number

You're right the court receives about 10,000 petitions for a hearing of which they select about a hundred. A tie is very unfair because when you're case is selected for a hearing, you expect that the case is going to be finally resolved after years in the court system. And after the waiting and the costs of taking the case to the Supreme Court for a final decision, there is none.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The timing could not be worse for the GOP, but the court cannot be left deadlocked for more than a year simply because the GOP is being childish. Doing so would clearly show that the GOP is only too happy to damage the country to get their way. Refusing to govern in a presidential election year, with 24 GOP Senate seats to defend would be a huge mistake. If they do, and they might, they will lose the Senate, lose the White House, and lose the chance to name the next SC Justice.

If McConnell follows through, refusing to allow an Obama's nomination to come to the Senate floor for a vote, he will be creating the longest vacancy in the history of the 9 man court. That will leave the left leaning 8 justice court to make crucial decision over the next year and possibly much longer if there's a democrat elected. Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

If the court has a tie vote on a case, then the ruling of previous federal court will stand. Court decisions can have a huge impact. Suppose the court was called to make a decision that would determine the presidency as they did with Bush vs. Gore and could not reach a decision.

Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

having an even number of justices seems like a good way to go the more i think about it

Having only 8 justices will probably mean that some cases that should be heard by the court won't be. Some cases may end in a tie vote which is not fair to the plaintiff or defendant as the case was taken to the Supreme Court for a final decision. In a tie, the party that brought the case to he court can ask the court to hear the case a second time with a full bench. If the court agrees, then the other party would have to go through the process a second time.

the SC does not take the majority of appeals they select some

so i do not see the unfairness of tie

the lower courts opinion remains valid

i hear what you are saying

i was just wondering about the full count of justices becoming an even number

You're right the court receives about 10,000 petitions for a hearing of which they select about a hundred. A tie is very unfair because when you're case is selected for a hearing, you expect that the case is going to be finally resolved after years in the court system. And after the waiting and the costs of taking the case to the Supreme Court for a final decision, there is none.

Oh the Republicans are going to be on defense for a year if they try to stall for that long. There are really only no-win scenarios for the Republicans on this. Obama will certainly either nominate a minority or a woman, denying either of which will destroy the GOP concept of winning in November, which is on a precarious loose gravel cliff to begin with.

 

[Flopper]

Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch

have no details. But this is huge.

Well, there goes our privilege to bear arms.

Sad, very very sad.


.

Not if they are willing to use the Dems play book..........they can stall 10 months using the Dems on changing rules against them.

Absolutely nothing actually REQUIRES them to move any more expeditiously than they choose to, nor does anything require them to approve anyone before they're ready. It's not like approvals for Justices move all that particularly quickly, anyway. And it would not be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy for that length of time.

Actually, it probably would be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy this long. The record is 339 days, from May 14, 1969 to June 9,1970. If this Senate does not act, it will over a year before this seat is filled, possibly a lot longer.

 

[Synthaholic]

Please let us try to absorb the significance of the man's tenure at SCOTUS.

Unfortunately the country has been absorbing it for decades.

 

[Synthaholic]

Republicans are playing a dangerous game

If they hold out for a Scalia type conservative, they may end up with a young liberal who will torment them for decades

Obama will be forced to nominate a moderate. Hillary will be able to trot out Liberal after Liberal until they get confirmed

How will they end up with a young liberal if they refuse to confirm them?

You libs never make any sense because you don't put any thought into anything.

Because if it is a wave election for Democrats, due to the country hating Rafael Edwardo or fearing Don Drumpf, then that would mean a return to Democratic control of the Senate.

Once again, it's you who doesn't put any thought into anything.

 

[Flopper]

If McConnell follows through, refusing to allow an Obama's nomination to come to the Senate floor for a vote, he will be creating the longest vacancy in the history of the 9 man court. That will leave the left leaning 8 justice court to make crucial decision over the next year and possibly much longer if there's a democrat elected. Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

If the court has a tie vote on a case, then the ruling of previous federal court will stand. Court decisions can have a huge impact. Suppose the court was called to make a decision that would determine the presidency as they did with Bush vs. Gore and could not reach a decision.

Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

having an even number of justices seems like a good way to go the more i think about it

Having only 8 justices will probably mean that some cases that should be heard by the court won't be. Some cases may end in a tie vote which is not fair to the plaintiff or defendant as the case was taken to the Supreme Court for a final decision. In a tie, the party that brought the case to he court can ask the court to hear the case a second time with a full bench. If the court agrees, then the other party would have to go through the process a second time.

the SC does not take the majority of appeals they select some

so i do not see the unfairness of tie

the lower courts opinion remains valid

i hear what you are saying

i was just wondering about the full count of justices becoming an even number

You're right the court receives about 10,000 petitions for a hearing of which they select about a hundred. A tie is very unfair because when you're case is selected for a hearing, you expect that the case is going to be finally resolved after years in the court system. And after the waiting and the costs of taking the case to the Supreme Court for a final decision, there is none.

Oh the Republicans are going to be on defense for a year if they try to stall for that long. There are really only no-win scenarios for the Republicans on this. Obama will certainly either nominate a minority or a woman, denying either of which will destroy the GOP concept of winning in November, which is on a precarious loose gravel cliff to begin with.

I really don't think the Republicans are planning on getting the black vote. If it's a Hillary Trump match, Trump isn't going to get the Democrat or Independent women's vote and possibly not even the Republican women.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Republicans are playing a dangerous game

If they hold out for a Scalia type conservative, they may end up with a young liberal who will torment them for decades

Obama will be forced to nominate a moderate. Hillary will be able to trot out Liberal after Liberal until they get confirmed

How will they end up with a young liberal if they refuse to confirm them?

You libs never make any sense because you don't put any thought into anything.

Because if it is a wave election for Democrats, due to the country hating Rafael Edwardo or fearing Don Drumpf, then that would mean a return to Democratic control of the Senate.

Once again, it's you who doesn't put any thought into anything.

Yeah, good luck with that! The only wave that the Dems have to be concerned about is being on the beach when a tidal wave hits them like it did in 1984!

 

[BluesLegend]

The Republican Senate better deny every last Obama nominee.

Damn straight. Nothing like galvanizing Democrats to not only win the White House but to also take back the Senate. I'm getting my checkbook out for every close Senate race.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this stunt costs Republicans the Senate. Many people will be pissed if the Senate shirks its responsibility to advise and consent the president's nominees.

I guess the historic bitch slapping voters put on Democrats hasn't sunk in yet, the people are fed up with the left and rejected them in an historic blow out election.

You completely fail to understand the dynamics of the electorate, which seats were up for reelection, and how that affected the outcome. BTW, there was no historic bitch slapping. Despite losing many seats, Democratic candidates received 98.7 million votes to Republicans 94.1 million votes. It's way too early to even begin to try and guess which way things will go, but it is conceivable that Dems will win the White House, take back the Senate, and win back a substantial number of Congressional seats.

LOL you libs remain in denial. You have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a ass beating as bad as the Democrats took that's a bitch slapping. After getting their asses handed to them in an historic blow out loss in 2010, even with Obama lying his ass off in 2012 Democrats were only able to scrape back 6 of the 55 House seats the lost, then in 2014 when it was clear to voters Obama had lied his ass off voters again dished out a bitch slapping loss to Democrats giving the GOP control of the Senate. Voters threw Democrats to the ground, stomped on them, and kicked dirt in their faces.

 

[eddiew]

The Republican Senate better deny every last Obama nominee.

Damn straight. Nothing like galvanizing Democrats to not only win the White House but to also take back the Senate. I'm getting my checkbook out for every close Senate race.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this stunt costs Republicans the Senate. Many people will be pissed if the Senate shirks its responsibility to advise and consent the president's nominees.

I guess the historic bitch slapping voters put on Democrats hasn't sunk in yet, the people are fed up with the left and rejected them in an historic blow out election.

You completely fail to understand the dynamics of the electorate, which seats were up for reelection, and how that affected the outcome. BTW, there was no historic bitch slapping. Despite losing many seats, Democratic candidates received 98.7 million votes to Republicans 94.1 million votes. It's way too early to even begin to try and guess which way things will go, but it is conceivable that Dems will win the White House, take back the Senate, and win back a substantial number of Congressional seats.

LOL you libs remain in denial. You have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a ass beating as bad as the Democrats took that's a bitch slapping. After getting their asses handed to them in an historic blow out loss in 2010, even with Obama lying his ass off in 2012 Democrats were only able to scrape back 6 of the 55 House seats the lost, then in 2014 when it was clear to voters Obama had lied his ass off voters again dished out a bitch slapping loss to Democrats giving the GOP control of the Senate. Voters threw Democrats to the ground, stomped on them, and kicked dirt in their faces.

revenge is a dish best served cold,,,,you've got it coming

 

[AceRothstein]

The Republican Senate better deny every last Obama nominee.

Damn straight. Nothing like galvanizing Democrats to not only win the White House but to also take back the Senate. I'm getting my checkbook out for every close Senate race.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this stunt costs Republicans the Senate. Many people will be pissed if the Senate shirks its responsibility to advise and consent the president's nominees.

I guess the historic bitch slapping voters put on Democrats hasn't sunk in yet, the people are fed up with the left and rejected them in an historic blow out election.

You completely fail to understand the dynamics of the electorate, which seats were up for reelection, and how that affected the outcome. BTW, there was no historic bitch slapping. Despite losing many seats, Democratic candidates received 98.7 million votes to Republicans 94.1 million votes. It's way too early to even begin to try and guess which way things will go, but it is conceivable that Dems will win the White House, take back the Senate, and win back a substantial number of Congressional seats.

LOL you libs remain in denial. You have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a ass beating as bad as the Democrats took that's a bitch slapping. After getting their asses handed to them in an historic blow out loss in 2010, even with Obama lying his ass off in 2012 Democrats were only able to scrape back 6 of the 55 House seats the lost, then in 2014 when it was clear to voters Obama had lied his ass off voters again dished out a bitch slapping loss to Democrats giving the GOP control of the Senate. Voters threw Democrats to the ground, stomped on them, and kicked dirt in their faces.

2014 saw the lowest turnout since the 40's. Don't put much stock in it. You cons were super excited about 2012 as well but got throat fucked by the Dems. The Republicans are also playing defense with 70% of the Senate seats.

 

[Faun]

Find a libertarian Judge or Conservative Judge and nominate that one..............Presto.........nomination..........The Constitution requires vetting of a Life Time Appointment for a reason.......so the Senate can vote for or against the nominee from the executive............So the Senate has no obligation to appoint what is probably coming from Obama...

The Dems have stone walled in the past and had some thrown out............It's time for them to get a taste of their own medicine.

Then you agree that Senate Democrats don't have to even vote on any nominees sent their way by Trump or Cruz, should one of them win the presidency?

 

[Flopper]

The timing could not be worse for the GOP, but the court cannot be left deadlocked for more than a year simply because the GOP is being childish. Doing so would clearly show that the GOP is only too happy to damage the country to get their way. Refusing to govern in a presidential election year, with 24 GOP Senate seats to defend would be a huge mistake. If they do, and they might, they will lose the Senate, lose the White House, and lose the chance to name the next SC Justice.

If McConnell follows through, refusing to allow an Obama's nomination to come to the Senate floor for a vote, he will be creating the longest vacancy in the history of the 9 man court. That will leave the left leaning 8 justice court to make crucial decision over the next year and possibly much longer if there's a democrat elected. Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

If the court has a tie vote on a case, then the ruling of previous federal court will stand. Court decisions can have a huge impact. Suppose the court was called to make a decision that would determine the presidency as they did with Bush vs. Gore and could not reach a decision.

Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

Disingenous.

Two vacancies occurred on the Supreme Court during Tyler's presidency, as Justices Smith Thompson and Henry Baldwin died in 1843 and 1844, respectively. Tyler, ever at odds with Congress—including the Whig-controlled Senate—nominated several men to the Supreme Court to fill these seats. However, the Senate successively voted against confirming John Canfield Spencer, Reuben Walworth, Edward King and John M. Read (King was rejected twice). One reason cited for the Senate's actions was the hope that Clay would fill the vacancies after winning the 1844 presidential election.[92] Tyler's four unsuccessful nominees are the most by a president.[104]
Finally, in February 1845, with less than a month remaining in his term, Tyler's nomination of Samuel Nelson to Thompson's seat was confirmed by the Senate. Nelson, a Democrat, had a reputation as a careful and noncontroversial jurist. Still, his confirmation came as a surprise. Baldwin's seat remained vacant until James K. Polk's nominee, Robert Grier, was confirmed in 1846.

Now, Smith Thompson died in December of 1843 and Henry Baldwin died in April of 1844. Thompson's seat was filled February of 1845, which by my math would be a vacancy of 14 months. Baldwin's seat was filled in August of 1846 by the next President, James Polk. That works out to 28 months, if I'm counting correctly.

Your attempt to limit it ONLY to the "9-man court" to try to make it look like the Senate has some obligation to allow the outgoing President to appoint Justices is duly noted, and summarily dismissed. It's reminiscent of "hottest summer in recorded history, so GLOBAL WARMING!", which leaves out the fact that we've only been tracking and recording such things for a few decades. And you already know how much respect we give THAT crap.

Let's all just keep in mind that our nation's history extends back well past the liberal saint, FDR, and is just as relevant.

We have had a 9 justice Supreme Court since 1869, 147 years. Prior to that the court size varied from 6 to 9. The court traveled extensively between circuits, had no control of their docket and handled mostly civil cases. The Supreme Court in those days was far different than today

The Senate has the obligation to approve Supreme Court nominees just as the president has the obligation to nominate them. There is the presumption that the Senate and the President will perform their duties in a timely manner. The constitution doesn't define a timely manner. Voters certainly will.

To leave a Supreme Court seat vacant puts an added workload on existing justices. It is certainly unfair to those pleading their case not have a full court hear their case not to mention the possibility of a tie vote where nothing is decided.

In regard to the Advice and Consent clause, some framers of the constitution felt that whatever advice the Senate might have for the president should come before the nomination while others felt it should be given after the nomination. However, I don't think any of framers would agree with the Senate advising the president not do his job because we're not going to do ours.

 

[Faun]

Apparently no one has noticed this about recess appointments.... To remain in effect, a recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress....TA DA!!!

Dumbfuck.... the reason no one has noticed that is because Obama isn't looking to nominate a Supreme Court justice as recess appointment. He's looking to appoint someone who will serve on that bench for life (or retirement).

 

[Vigilante]

Apparently no one has noticed this about recess appointments.... To remain in effect, a recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress....TA DA!!!

Dumbfuck.... the reason no one has noticed that is because Obama isn't looking to nominate a Supreme Court justice as recess appointment. He's looking to appoint someone who will serve on that bench for life (or retirement).

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” 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.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

Hat tip: Instapundit


Read more: Blog: Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Flopper]

Apparently no one has noticed this about recess appointments.... To remain in effect, a recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress....TA DA!!!

Dumbfuck.... the reason no one has noticed that is because Obama isn't looking to nominate a Supreme Court justice as recess appointment. He's looking to appoint someone who will serve on that bench for life (or retirement).

I think you're absolutely correct. Politically, it will be far better for Democrats to have a republican senate refusing to do their job than have a temporary Obama appointed justice.

For the senate not to do their job and give a fair hearing to a nominee isn't going sit well with voters. Republicans have control of the Senate. If they decide the nominee is not qualified then they can vote him down but they should at least see who is nominated and hear what he has to say. I think that is what most voters would expect.