Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[IsaacNewton]

Conservatives have really gone off the edge haven't they. A dead man can make decisions for them now. WTF.

We are nearing the end of Republican's major relevance in this society, demographics alone tell us that. They will be relegated to minority status in the next few years. What we are seeing from them is like the death throws of an ideology that just can't accept it won't get to tell the rest of society what to do.

Trump is really a graphic expression of this. An ugly old white man that yells and screams at people, doesn't care what he says or what anyone thinks of him, hates foreigners, and talks as if he will, in a dictatorial manner, 'make things right again for the rest of old white people'.

Careful though, the old adage about a wounded animal being most dangerous when cornered still holds true. We will see alot more bizarre behavior from these people, well beyond wanting dead men to vote on the Supreme Court.

 

[the_human_being]

Conservatives have really gone off the edge haven't they. A dead man can make decisions for them now. WTF.

We are nearing the end of Republican's major relevance in this society, demographics alone tell us that. They will be relegated to minority status in the next few years. What we are seeing from them is like the death throws of an ideology that just can't accept it won't get to tell the rest of society what to do.

Trump is really a graphic expression of this. An ugly old white man that yells and screams at people, doesn't care what he says or what anyone thinks of him, hates foreigners, and talks as if he will, in a dictatorial manner, 'make things right again for the rest of old white people'.

Careful though, the old adage about a wounded animal being most dangerous when cornered still holds true. We will see alot more bizarre behavior from these people, well beyond wanting dead men to vote on the Supreme Court.

Yes. Look forward to at least eight years of it.

 

[Faun]

Update On Drudge Report:

Obama cracks joke about Scalia's death!

Video: Obama Cracks Joke About Scalia’s Death

As usual, you prove to be brain-dead. That's not Obama making a joke about Scalia's death -- that's Obama making a joke about how the GOP is trying to deny him his Constitutional authority to appoint a Supreme Court justice.

If you want to see what an offensive joke really looks like, take a gander...

 

[Faun]

seems like the left is afraid letting the voters decide

When has the left EVER wanted the voters to decide anything?

You're fucking demented. Democrats wants the electorate to come out and decide. The more people come out to vote, the better Democrats do in elections.

No, the Democrats are not the least bit interested in letting the people decide anything. This is why their primaries have super-delegates that supersede the popular vote entirely, why all their policy victories come through judicial fiats and executive orders, why they want to change their tune and now demand that the Constitution requires that the Senate rubberstamp judicial nominees.

The country already decided. You can deny that all you want, doesn't really matter.

Uh huh. Anything decided against the will of liberals is a mere suggestion, totally mutable or even ignorable. Anything decided in favor of liberals is carved in fucking stone by the finger of God, unalterable for all eternity.

Your double standards and hypocrisy impress no one anymore. Suck it.

Again, cuz you really don't understand English. Denying the country picked Obama to do his job for 4 years, which includes filling vacant seats on the Supreme Court, does not alter that reality.

 

[Faun]

Well, I believe that's what we're proposing: letting the voters themselves decide. Why are you so insistent about denying it? Are you perhaps afraid to find out that the voters don't want Obama appointing a new Justice?

seems like the left is afraid letting the voters decide

That's because the voters already decided. The right is trying to change the rules and say no longer can a current president pick a replacement justice if the Senate so chooses.

Actually, that's always been the rule. It's ALSO the procedure once advocated by the man NOW bitching and complaining because it's been turned back on him.

No, it's not always been the rule. There is no such rule. In 1988, the Senate confirmed Reagan's nominee.

Hey, Captain Obtuse. Learn the difference between "Senate rules" and "what the Senate does with the rules." Duuuuhhhhh. "The Senate chose to do this, that OBVIOUSLY means they HAD to do it!" Do you hate being as stupid as you are, or are you not actually aware of it?

Demented bitch... there is no such rule. Not a formal Senate rule, not an informal rule the Senate follows. There have been two times in the last half century relevant to this situation. Abe Fortas and Anthony Kennedy. One was confirmed, the other not.

That's what you moronically refer to a rule.

 

[Faun]

Well duhhh. The President cannot force Mitch McConnell to bring his SC nomination to the floor. His only real option might have been to make another unconstitutional recess appointment when Congress takes a recess.

Unless the Senate does a pro-forma session like the house did in 2011.

The Senate will be in session this week and I fully expect Obama to announce a nominee.

That is his right and duty to do so.
The Senate Majority also has the right to not bring it up or to vote against it.

The Senate does not get to pick and choose which presidents get to appoint replacements.

So what is it you think "advice and consent" means?

It means the Senate will consider the president's nominees. They may or may not approve of them, but they have to consider them. Just how fucking retarded are you that you don't even know that?

 

[Faun]

Breaking: In Closed Door Meeting, Senate GOP Decides No Hearing For Any Obama SCOTUS Nom



Senate Republicans have decided they will not hold a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on an Obama nomination to the Supreme Court, senators confirmed as they filed out of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office Tuesday.

.........................................................................................................................................................
the manner of the refusal to even entertain the nomination of a President with a year left in office is, as Lauren Fox notes in this story, simply a culmination of Republican efforts not simply to block Obama's policies but to delegitimize, degrade and denigrate his presidency and the man himself.

Read More →

I hope they stick to their guns. They'll be handing the White House & the Senate to the Democrats if they do.

 

[the_human_being]

I do think President Trump will appoint good middle of the road honorable people with zero political bias to the bench when he takes office. Great men such as Judge Roy Moore and David Dukes.

 

[Faun]

I do think President Trump will appoint good middle of the road honorable people with zero political bias to the bench when he takes office. Great men such as Judge Roy Moore and David Dukes.

Seems he won't get to since the Democrat Senate won't hold hearings for 4 years, thanks to this new Senate rule, until a Democrat president is sworn in.

 

[Cecilie1200]

seems like the left is afraid letting the voters decide

That's because the voters already decided. The right is trying to change the rules and say no longer can a current president pick a replacement justice if the Senate so chooses.

Actually, that's always been the rule. It's ALSO the procedure once advocated by the man NOW bitching and complaining because it's been turned back on him.

No, it's not always been the rule. There is no such rule. In 1988, the Senate confirmed Reagan's nominee.

Hey, Captain Obtuse. Learn the difference between "Senate rules" and "what the Senate does with the rules." Duuuuhhhhh. "The Senate chose to do this, that OBVIOUSLY means they HAD to do it!" Do you hate being as stupid as you are, or are you not actually aware of it?

Demented bitch... there is no such rule. Not a formal Senate rule, not an informal rule the Senate follows. There have been two times in the last half century relevant to this situation. Abe Fortas and Anthony Kennedy. One was confirmed, the other not.

That's what you moronically refer to a rule.

Really? There's no formal Senate rule stating that the majority leader decides which business will be addressed and when? How very interesting.

REFERENCE TO COMMITTEES; MOTIONS TO DISCHARGE; REPORTS OF COMMITTEES; AND HEARINGS AVAILABLE - Rules of the Senate - United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

Just because the Senate CHOSE to consider nominees does not mean they were OBLIGATED to do so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Unless the Senate does a pro-forma session like the house did in 2011.

The Senate will be in session this week and I fully expect Obama to announce a nominee.

That is his right and duty to do so.
The Senate Majority also has the right to not bring it up or to vote against it.

The Senate does not get to pick and choose which presidents get to appoint replacements.

So what is it you think "advice and consent" means?

It means the Senate will consider the president's nominees. They may or may not approve of them, but they have to consider them. Just how fucking retarded are you that you don't even know that?

No, it doesn't. It means the President has to get their consent. It doesn't mean they have to give it. Doesn't even mean they have to think about giving it.

I guess I'm so "retarded" that I know where to find the complete text of the Senate Rules and Procedures.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

• Scalia was diagnosed with coronary artery disease, obesity and diabetes among other ailments leading up to his death, according to a doctor

• Presidio County DA Rod Ponton said nothing was suspicious about Scalia's death

• Scalia also had sleep apnea, degenerative joint disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and high blood pressure

• The conservative jurist was a smoker on top of that, the doctor said

 

[Faun]

That's because the voters already decided. The right is trying to change the rules and say no longer can a current president pick a replacement justice if the Senate so chooses.

Actually, that's always been the rule. It's ALSO the procedure once advocated by the man NOW bitching and complaining because it's been turned back on him.

No, it's not always been the rule. There is no such rule. In 1988, the Senate confirmed Reagan's nominee.

Hey, Captain Obtuse. Learn the difference between "Senate rules" and "what the Senate does with the rules." Duuuuhhhhh. "The Senate chose to do this, that OBVIOUSLY means they HAD to do it!" Do you hate being as stupid as you are, or are you not actually aware of it?

Demented bitch... there is no such rule. Not a formal Senate rule, not an informal rule the Senate follows. There have been two times in the last half century relevant to this situation. Abe Fortas and Anthony Kennedy. One was confirmed, the other not.

That's what you moronically refer to a rule.

Really? There's no formal Senate rule stating that the majority leader decides which business will be addressed and when? How very interesting.

REFERENCE TO COMMITTEES; MOTIONS TO DISCHARGE; REPORTS OF COMMITTEES; AND HEARINGS AVAILABLE - Rules of the Senate - United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

Just because the Senate CHOSE to consider nominees does not mean they were OBLIGATED to do so.

Sorry, but you fail in your attempt to move the goal posts. The "rule" in question, which isn't really in question since there is no such rule -- is about the Senate getting to pick and choose which president appoints Supreme Court justices.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Scalia-less SCOTUS Lets Stand Lower Court Ruling Against NC Gerrymandering

A federal district court ordered North Carolina to redraw two gerrymandered maps. NC wanted a stay but without Scalia, they didn't get it…

 

[Faun]

The Senate will be in session this week and I fully expect Obama to announce a nominee.

That is his right and duty to do so.
The Senate Majority also has the right to not bring it up or to vote against it.

The Senate does not get to pick and choose which presidents get to appoint replacements.

So what is it you think "advice and consent" means?

It means the Senate will consider the president's nominees. They may or may not approve of them, but they have to consider them. Just how fucking retarded are you that you don't even know that?

No, it doesn't. It means the President has to get their consent. It doesn't mean they have to give it. Doesn't even mean they have to think about giving it.

I guess I'm so "retarded" that I know where to find the complete text of the Senate Rules and Procedures.

You are beyond retarded. Apparently, I gave you more credit than you deserved. The Senate's job is to advise and consent. While they don't have to consent to whomever the president nominates, they do have to advise and consent -- which can't be done if they shut the confirmation process down.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, that's always been the rule. It's ALSO the procedure once advocated by the man NOW bitching and complaining because it's been turned back on him.

No, it's not always been the rule. There is no such rule. In 1988, the Senate confirmed Reagan's nominee.

Hey, Captain Obtuse. Learn the difference between "Senate rules" and "what the Senate does with the rules." Duuuuhhhhh. "The Senate chose to do this, that OBVIOUSLY means they HAD to do it!" Do you hate being as stupid as you are, or are you not actually aware of it?

Demented bitch... there is no such rule. Not a formal Senate rule, not an informal rule the Senate follows. There have been two times in the last half century relevant to this situation. Abe Fortas and Anthony Kennedy. One was confirmed, the other not.

That's what you moronically refer to a rule.

Really? There's no formal Senate rule stating that the majority leader decides which business will be addressed and when? How very interesting.

REFERENCE TO COMMITTEES; MOTIONS TO DISCHARGE; REPORTS OF COMMITTEES; AND HEARINGS AVAILABLE - Rules of the Senate - United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

Just because the Senate CHOSE to consider nominees does not mean they were OBLIGATED to do so.

Sorry, but you fail in your attempt to move the goal posts. The "rule" in question, which isn't really in question since there is no such rule -- is about the Senate getting to pick and choose which president appoints Supreme Court justices.

Sorry, but you fail in your attempt to understand English . . . just like every other time you try to converse, apparently.

The Senate Rule is about considering nominees. At no point in any law or rule of procedure is the question of WHY a nominee is or is not considered ever addressed. So the Senate Republicans can refuse to consider Obama's nominees because they don't want Obama choosing Justices, because they don't like the nominees' faces, or because they'd rather sit around watching movies and eating popcorn.

The Rules of the Senate still gives them the power to do so.

That wasn't even moving the goalposts. That was trying to retroactively pretend you got to set them in the first place.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is his right and duty to do so.
The Senate Majority also has the right to not bring it up or to vote against it.

The Senate does not get to pick and choose which presidents get to appoint replacements.

So what is it you think "advice and consent" means?

It means the Senate will consider the president's nominees. They may or may not approve of them, but they have to consider them. Just how fucking retarded are you that you don't even know that?

No, it doesn't. It means the President has to get their consent. It doesn't mean they have to give it. Doesn't even mean they have to think about giving it.

I guess I'm so "retarded" that I know where to find the complete text of the Senate Rules and Procedures.

You are beyond retarded. Apparently, I gave you more credit than you deserved. The Senate's job is to advise and consent. While they don't have to consent to whomever the president nominates, they do have to advise and consent -- which can't be done if they shut the confirmation process down.

Sorry, but no. They ARE advising the President right now. They are advising him that his nominees are not going to be referred to committee, much less approved.

And anyone who can read English - which manifestly does not include you - can see that the Constitution is not putting the onus on the Senate to do anything. It is putting the onus on the President to do something, ie. get the Senate's consent.

Your argument is akin to saying, "Because a child has to get his mother's consent to go outside and play, it is therefore his mother's job to consider his request to do so." Any parent with two functioning brain cells knows that the child's requirement to get permission does not preclude the parent from issuing a pre-emptive "NO".

 

[Faun]

No, it's not always been the rule. There is no such rule. In 1988, the Senate confirmed Reagan's nominee.

Hey, Captain Obtuse. Learn the difference between "Senate rules" and "what the Senate does with the rules." Duuuuhhhhh. "The Senate chose to do this, that OBVIOUSLY means they HAD to do it!" Do you hate being as stupid as you are, or are you not actually aware of it?

Demented bitch... there is no such rule. Not a formal Senate rule, not an informal rule the Senate follows. There have been two times in the last half century relevant to this situation. Abe Fortas and Anthony Kennedy. One was confirmed, the other not.

That's what you moronically refer to a rule.

Really? There's no formal Senate rule stating that the majority leader decides which business will be addressed and when? How very interesting.

REFERENCE TO COMMITTEES; MOTIONS TO DISCHARGE; REPORTS OF COMMITTEES; AND HEARINGS AVAILABLE - Rules of the Senate - United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

Just because the Senate CHOSE to consider nominees does not mean they were OBLIGATED to do so.

Sorry, but you fail in your attempt to move the goal posts. The "rule" in question, which isn't really in question since there is no such rule -- is about the Senate getting to pick and choose which president appoints Supreme Court justices.

Sorry, but you fail in your attempt to understand English . . . just like every other time you try to converse, apparently.

The Senate Rule is about considering nominees. At no point in any law or rule of procedure is the question of WHY a nominee is or is not considered ever addressed. So the Senate Republicans can refuse to consider Obama's nominees because they don't want Obama choosing Justices, because they don't like the nominees' faces, or because they'd rather sit around watching movies and eating popcorn.

The Rules of the Senate still gives them the power to do so.

That wasn't even moving the goalposts. That was trying to retroactively pretend you got to set them in the first place.

You poor, pathetic, demented bitch. Try reading the quotes of this argument. The "rule" being discussed was over the Senate claiming their right to deny a sitting president their Constitutional authority to appoint judges. You don't get to switch to a different rule about the Senate being in charge of the Senate. There is no "rule" which allows the Senate to obstruct the Constitution.

If there were such a rule, and there clearly isn't, yhen the only time Supreme Court vacancies would be filled would be when one party controls both the Senate and the presidency. Otherwise, the opposing party in the Senate would never confirm the president's nominee; but instead wait it out until that person was no longer president. Damn you're a special kind of retarded

 

[Nyvin]

The Senate does not get to pick and choose which presidents get to appoint replacements.

So what is it you think "advice and consent" means?

It means the Senate will consider the president's nominees. They may or may not approve of them, but they have to consider them. Just how fucking retarded are you that you don't even know that?

No, it doesn't. It means the President has to get their consent. It doesn't mean they have to give it. Doesn't even mean they have to think about giving it.

I guess I'm so "retarded" that I know where to find the complete text of the Senate Rules and Procedures.

You are beyond retarded. Apparently, I gave you more credit than you deserved. The Senate's job is to advise and consent. While they don't have to consent to whomever the president nominates, they do have to advise and consent -- which can't be done if they shut the confirmation process down.

Sorry, but no. They ARE advising the President right now. They are advising him that his nominees are not going to be referred to committee, much less approved.

And anyone who can read English - which manifestly does not include you - can see that the Constitution is not putting the onus on the Senate to do anything. It is putting the onus on the President to do something, ie. get the Senate's consent.

Your argument is akin to saying, "Because a child has to get his mother's consent to go outside and play, it is therefore his mother's job to consider his request to do so." Any parent with two functioning brain cells knows that the child's requirement to get permission does not preclude the parent from issuing a pre-emptive "NO".

Okay....so the new normal is to just not confirm any Justice from an opposing President's nominees?

The ONLY way to get a nominee confirmed is to control both the White House and 60 members of the Senate?

Is this how our country has operated the last 200+ years?

You're saying this is legal and how things should be handled...after all from a partisan stand point both political parties would gain the most from this.

 

[Faun]

The Senate does not get to pick and choose which presidents get to appoint replacements.

So what is it you think "advice and consent" means?

It means the Senate will consider the president's nominees. They may or may not approve of them, but they have to consider them. Just how fucking retarded are you that you don't even know that?

No, it doesn't. It means the President has to get their consent. It doesn't mean they have to give it. Doesn't even mean they have to think about giving it.

I guess I'm so "retarded" that I know where to find the complete text of the Senate Rules and Procedures.

You are beyond retarded. Apparently, I gave you more credit than you deserved. The Senate's job is to advise and consent. While they don't have to consent to whomever the president nominates, they do have to advise and consent -- which can't be done if they shut the confirmation process down.

Sorry, but no. They ARE advising the President right now. They are advising him that his nominees are not going to be referred to committee, much less approved.

And anyone who can read English - which manifestly does not include you - can see that the Constitution is not putting the onus on the Senate to do anything. It is putting the onus on the President to do something, ie. get the Senate's consent.

Advising isn't their only duty. Consenting is as well. They can't advise and consent when they shut the confirmation process down entirely because they don't like the president.

Your argument is akin to saying, "Because a child has to get his mother's consent to go outside and play, it is therefore his mother's job to consider his request to do so." Any parent with two functioning brain cells knows that the child's requirement to get permission does not preclude the parent from issuing a pre-emptive "NO".

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you??

The Senate/President are not akin to a mother/child.

They are co-equal branches of government. One cannot shut the other out of their Constitutional responsibilities.

How did you get to be so deranged?