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

[Iceweasel]

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

Well, I just proved you wrong so the twist was all yours. That's the way it was back then. It wasn't optional for the kids in school.

 

[nat4900]

Well, I just proved you wrong so the twist was all yours. That's the way it was back then. It wasn't optional for the kids in school.

NO, you didn;t prove anything "wrong"...The Emancipation Proclamation was issued through Executive Order.
Desegregation of schools was enforced through Executive Order....

You're entitled to your opinions (as wrong as they may be) but NOT to facts.

 

[Iceweasel]

Well, I just proved you wrong so the twist was all yours. That's the way it was back then. It wasn't optional for the kids in school.

NO, you didn;t prove anything "wrong"...The Emancipation Proclamation was issued through Executive Order.
Desegregation of schools was enforced through Executive Order....

You're entitled to your opinions (as wrong as they may be) but NOT to facts.

You shifted to "enforced" but I proved you are a retard since I was there and no "federalized" national guard was forcing anyone to do anything. You don't even know what the National Guard is. How do you federalize a federal force?

 

[eagle7_31]

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.​

Check what Obama, Biden and Schumer said about Bush appts before going on another one of your hypocritical rants.

 

[deaddogseye]

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.

Yes but the Eisenhower order was clearly in furtherance of a clear Supreme court decision so its pretty hard to attack as an abuse of the power. Im no expert but the Emanciaption Proclamation arguably was more along the lines of the raw exercise of executive power

 

[nat4900]

You shifted to "enforced" but I proved you are a retard since I was there and no "federalized" national guard was forcing anyone to do anything. You don't even know what the National Guard is. How do you federalize a federal force?

Such stupidity is not even worth a response....I'll let others also have a chuckle at what an imbecile you are....Go light a cross on someone's yard.

 

[BluesLegend]

^^^ nothing more needs to be said

Will you be "singing the same tune" when this Nov. the WH AND the Senate are in Dems. hands?

The last liberal asshole elected president destroyed the Democratic party. He lost control of the House and the Senate in historic bitch slap losses so epic you have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a beating that bad.

 

[blackhawk]

The same reason in 2007 Chuck Schumer didn't want to see any possible Bush Supreme Court nominee get confirmed.

 

[Avatar4321]

No need to wonder. It's obvious to anyone who has a brain. You don't just give up control of the supreme Court. Duh

 

[Iceweasel]

You shifted to "enforced" but I proved you are a retard since I was there and no "federalized" national guard was forcing anyone to do anything. You don't even know what the National Guard is. How do you federalize a federal force?

Such stupidity is not even worth a response....I'll let others also have a chuckle at what an imbecile you are....Go light a cross on someone's yard.

You're a typical smarmy liberal asshole. All those words are synonymous. I said nothing racist, I pointed out that you don't know what you're babbling about. You can't handle the truth, tough shit. Put your big girl panties on and start dealing with reality.