Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[percysunshine]

Maybe Donald Trump will submit Donald Duck as the next Supreme Court Justice.

That would be a big improvement over anyone Obama would nominate.

True.

Obama will not get the opportunity. In an election year? ...heh..the fat is in the fire now.

 

[bripat9643]

The left dances on his grave.....

Hour 1: Liberals Respond to Antonin Scalia's Death with Hatred, Mockery, Joy - Breitbart

Not surprised. Liberals are scumbags.

who's the scumbag ? libs or the republican pos that got 1000's killed in his bs war??

Libs are the scumbags. If that's your yardstick, then FDR was a giant scumbag.

 

[bripat9643]

View attachment 63423

This just in, Al Sharpton has been nominated as the new Justice.

In his speech, he said, "Three and four score days ago, our country is founded. Since that time, we need a black Supreme for the first time and I will be the first."

This isn't a joke, don't treat it as such.

Wut? The entire Federal government is a joke.

No, it is not.

Yes it is, it's a sick practical joke.

 

[bripat9643]

Just a reminder the Cloture rules requiring 60 votes to end debate in the Senate still applies for SCOTUS nominees. Yes Harry Reid dropped the nuke for executive appointments but exempted SCOTUS nominees. If 40 GOPers stand strong the nightmare of Obama getting to replace Scalia shall not pass.

.
in that case you will be needing the same 40 to block Hilary from that same choice, that is if there are still 40 republicans in the Senate after November ...

.

Hillary can't nominate anyone from prison.

 

[Searcher44]

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

have no details. But this is huge.

Holy Shit...



Too bad...he was...you know...I can't say anymore.

 

[bripat9643]

Quite obviously, there is a political reality to the death of Justice Scalia.

The court is split 4-4 between those appointed by Republican Presidents and those appointed by Democratic Presidents. If party lines are not crossed, there will be a lot of lower court decisions that remain since a 4-4 decisions by the Supreme Court let the lower court rulings stand. I believe that the new formation of the court in the next session can decide to re-hear the cases once the bench is filled. So we may just be hitting the pause button on a lot of cases.

The intersection of our presidential politics and the constitutional duties of the President have, perhaps, never been more interesting. Can you imagine it? The Senate's Majority Leader has said that there will be no hearings this year. This is pretty absurd but whatever...most people do not know enough about the workings of the SCOTUS to weigh in responsibly and whether we need 9 justices or not. As stated...it will amount to hitting the "pause button" on a lot of cases. Anyway...the people do not want to hear about what they don't know; to most Americans, you don't wait a year to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court...its dumb.

So lets say that the Senate gives in to what is sure to be the overwhelming public opinion and has hearings. Obama nominates a....well, does it matter? Reflexively, the GOP congress will hate them. Eventually, whoever the eventual nominee that makes it out of committee makes it to the floor and the Senate is set to approve the nominee...It's mid May or June.

Meanwhile the California Primary and it's hundreds of delegates are up for grabs. Cruz is still in it but he has to do this filibuster. The entire Senate despises this dude so they are happy to schedule the vote on the day of the primary so he has to be in Washington talking about non-sense.

Meanwhile the Senate has 24 GOP seats up for grabs. The Dems need to take 4 to re-take the Senate. Its almost a given that they will.
It may be wise to negotiate with Obama over a nominee rather than have zero input next year with Hillary picking the nominee with a Democratic controlled Senate.

Or... even worse for the GOP, Bernie could win. That's a serious gamble on their part.

If Obama nominates a moderate Hispanic, the GOP will be against a wall. Their true "right wing loser" colors will come out.

Somehow, I think sticking it to this President will override that concern. Who knows, maybe they know they already look like dirt to that demographic and will jsut say, "**** it".

The political reality of Justice Scalia's death is likely the greatest blow to the Conservative Movement since Stonewall Jackson being killed by his own men. R.E. Lee was reported to have said that he had just lost "his right arm". The conservative anchor of the high court has passed. And us liberals have a golden opportunity to sieze the court for the next generation (or 2) if we don't screw up and nominate Bernie Sanders who simply cannot win in the General Election unless there is a MAJOR gaffe by his Republican Opponent. And by MAJOR gaffe, I'm saying something along the lines of using a racial slur or flashing a Crips or Bloods gang sign at a rally....

Its time for the Democrats to get serious about the election and install Secretary Clinton as their standard bearer. She is not only the best qualified person on either side in this election, she is the best qualified to take on the GOP. Obama's first year to eighteen months was almost criminally naive in terms of what he expected from Congress. Ms. Clinton will have no such illusions about the opposition. For them, it's party over people, principles that are for sale to the highest bidder, and a morally bankrupt constituency that seems to think a realty TV star is our best bet going forward.

These are the stakes; not only for the time and place but for the nation. I mean, who is he going to nominate for the High Court? Judge Judy...based on the fact that more people listen to her decisions than any other judge?


As we discuss the political reality, we should keep in mind that Justice Scalia had a large family and was admired (if not agreed with) by his contemporaries. He was a remarkable public servant who deserves our thanks for his service. We need more people like him--who will put up with the slings and arrows for 30 years in the public limelight when he could be making millions upon millions in private practice.

I agree with most of your statements however, I think we should be looking for really fair impartial judges. With the exception of political junkies, I think this is really what most Americans want. In so many countries, judges are bought and paid for before they ever sit on the bench. They serve their masters, not the people.

Whether we're conservative or liberal, we need to be looking for judges that know the law, the constitution, and can put their personal and political beliefs aside and judge cases based on their merit. Unfortunately in Washington, a good judge is one that will rule in favor of issues you support regardless of the law or case.

That's the last thing Obama wants.

 

[percysunshine]

Just a reminder the Cloture rules requiring 60 votes to end debate in the Senate still applies for SCOTUS nominees. Yes Harry Reid dropped the nuke for executive appointments but exempted SCOTUS nominees. If 40 GOPers stand strong the nightmare of Obama getting to replace Scalia shall not pass.

.
in that case you will be needing the same 40 to block Hilary from that same choice, that is if there are still 40 republicans in the Senate after November ...

.

Hillary can't nominate anyone from prison.

Mexican drug lords find it easy to run operations while in prison. Why can't Hillary do the same thing?

 

[bripat9643]

Just a reminder the Cloture rules requiring 60 votes to end debate in the Senate still applies for SCOTUS nominees. Yes Harry Reid dropped the nuke for executive appointments but exempted SCOTUS nominees. If 40 GOPers stand strong the nightmare of Obama getting to replace Scalia shall not pass.

.
in that case you will be needing the same 40 to block Hilary from that same choice, that is if there are still 40 republicans in the Senate after November ...

.

Hillary can't nominate anyone from prison.

Mexican drug lords find it easy to run operations while in prison. Why can't Hillary do the same thing?

It's against the law for a convicted felon to hold a federal office.

 

[percysunshine]

Just a reminder the Cloture rules requiring 60 votes to end debate in the Senate still applies for SCOTUS nominees. Yes Harry Reid dropped the nuke for executive appointments but exempted SCOTUS nominees. If 40 GOPers stand strong the nightmare of Obama getting to replace Scalia shall not pass.

.
in that case you will be needing the same 40 to block Hilary from that same choice, that is if there are still 40 republicans in the Senate after November ...

.

Hillary can't nominate anyone from prison.

Mexican drug lords find it easy to run operations while in prison. Why can't Hillary do the same thing?

It's against the law for a convicted felon to hold a federal office.

We already have Hillary in prison here...could she run the government from behind bars?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

McConnell correctly pointed out that the next President should get to pick the SCOTUS judge

Then your/the GOP's solution is to let the Supremes sit idle for 11/2 - 2 years to complete the process simply for the sake of leaderless GOP politics and Justice delayed be damned? Great ******* plan for those playing the obstructionist game they've been playing at for the last five plus years. The national electorate will 'love' <snark> the GOP's plan and will respond with their opinion in the ballot box in that case this November. Damned INSANE IDIOTS haven't drain the swamp YET.

 

[auditor0007]

Not good news for conservatives if Hussein gets to replace a Justice versed in Constitutional law with a justice versed in Sharia law.

Talk about stupid statements, but then again, look at the source.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

 

[Synthaholic]

Wow....unexpected...

Ya, shocking, a morbidly obese 79-year-old man dropped dead.

That's it! Goodbye!

Thank goodness - you're leaving the forum!

 

[Faun]

Conservatives Quickly Refuse Any Obama Court Replacement After Antonin Scalia's Death

What a surprise.

And the dems wouldn't do the exact same thing if the roles were reversed......yeah riiiiiight

Imbecile.

Democrats confirmed Reagan's nominee in February, 1988.

The vacancy occurred in June 1987. Do some research before spouting nonsense!.

Robert Bork was nominated and did not receive approval by the Senate who just happened to be controlled by Democrats. The second nominee withdrew because he smoked marijuana. The third nominee turned out to be Anthony Kennedy, who often sides with the other libs on the court.

Now, what were you saying?

And they confirmed Kennedy in February, 1988 -- 11 months before the next president would be sworn in, just like now.

I swear, you can't find two functioning brain cells among all you rightards combined. <smh>

How long did the seat stay vacant, dim bulb?

Also, how did that work out since Kennedy is the swing vote, depending on which way the wind is blowing?

Doesn't matter how long the seat was vacant as the president nominated someone in 1987 and the Democrat-led Senate began debating over him. The difference between then and now is that the Democrats then rejected Bork over issues where they disagreed with Bork whereas Republicans now say they will reject whomever Obama nominates because they want to pick the next nominee. And while the poster I responded to idiotically claimed Democrats would do that too if the roles were reversed, the reality is they didn't since Democrats confirmed Kennedy in February, 1988. She would have had a point had Democrats then said what Republicans are unbelievably saying now; that they wouldn't confirm Kennedy or any other nominee for another year until the next president was sworn in.

This is going to backfire badly for Republicans. Republicans, being the imbeciles they are, should never have positioned themselves as partisan obstructionists like they did. They could have moved forward with the process and simply found reasons to reject Obama's nominees. Now that they announced their goal is to sabotage Obama's Constitutional authority of nominating a replacement Supreme Court justice on purely partisan political reasons, they will likely piss off many voters.

 

[Faun]

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.

 

[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 ***** 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.

 

[candycorn]

McConnell correctly pointed out that the next President should get to pick the SCOTUS judge

If it were suggested that an American Citizen go 10 months (or more) without a Senator or Congressman; there would be zero support for such suggestion. Allowing the court to be incomplete for 10 months is a bizarre suggestion as well.

That's funny! The Dems took almost that long in 1987-88 when Powell retired. It took from June 1987 to February 1988 to get a new justice confirmed by the Dems in the Senate.

Did they hold hearings?

 

[Faun]

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 ***** 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.

In an off year, low turn out election. That won't be the case this year. Especially if voters feel like the GOP is intentionally obstructing the process of picking a new SC justice for political reasons.

Look how the electorate made Reid pay for his obstructionism.

Voters want Congress to do their job.

 

[Faun]

McConnell correctly pointed out that the next President should get to pick the SCOTUS judge

If it were suggested that an American Citizen go 10 months (or more) without a Senator or Congressman; there would be zero support for such suggestion. Allowing the court to be incomplete for 10 months is a bizarre suggestion as well.

That's funny! The Dems took almost that long in 1987-88 when Powell retired. It took from June 1987 to February 1988 to get a new justice confirmed by the Dems in the Senate.

Did they hold hearings?

Even worse -- they didn't hold out until the next president could be sworn in.

 

[candycorn]

McConnell correctly pointed out that the next President should get to pick the SCOTUS judge

If it were suggested that an American Citizen go 10 months (or more) without a Senator or Congressman; there would be zero support for such suggestion. Allowing the court to be incomplete for 10 months is a bizarre suggestion as well.

Actually, you may find a whole lot of support considering Congress only has a 13% approval rating.

Only from the mentally challenged (aka, TEA party types).