Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[WorldWatcher]

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

Except that is not what is happening, the Senate leadership has said they will not allow a vote on any nomination and not allow the Senate to vote as required in the Constitution. By not allowing a vote, they are expression the rejection of the leadership and not the Senate itself - those are two different things.


>>>>

 

[FA_Q2]

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

Except that is not what is happening, the Senate leadership has said they will not allow a vote on any nomination and not allow the Senate to vote as required in the Constitution. By not allowing a vote, they are expression the rejection of the leadership and not the Senate itself - those are two different things.


>>>>

That is the rhetoric - yes. If they do block any nomination process from proceeding then I will agree that they are pulling some unacceptable bullshit. I, however, do not think that is likely to be the case. As already pointed out, this is nothing more than political maneuvering so that both sides can claim a victory here - the right after they reject the first nominee(s) for the more moderate and Obama for getting a judge approved through a hostile senate.

 

[Flopper]

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.

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 ***** 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 ***** 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 ***** 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.

Riiiiiight and in 2006 when Dem's took control of congress with a similar turn out you libs claimed you had a mandate from the people and it was a repudiation of Bush. The old liberal double standard.

there is plenty of audio and video out there

with the democrats promising to bar ANY nominees bush forwards

so their complaining about the republicans doing so now

is a dead issue

what goes around comes around

Regardless of what democrats said 10 or 15 years ago, two wrongs don't make a right. No leader in the Senate, democratic or republican should say or indicate in anyway that his party will not give a fair hearing to a nominee. Tactics like this elevate the level of polarization and make our government even more dysfunctional.

If we keep going in this direction, eventually the American people will reject this constitutional republic for a more efficient form of government with a leader that can get things done and won't be hampered by an ineffective congress or court. The handwriting is on wall, just no one is reading it.

 

[FA_Q2]

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 ***** 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 ***** 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 ***** 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.

Riiiiiight and in 2006 when Dem's took control of congress with a similar turn out you libs claimed you had a mandate from the people and it was a repudiation of Bush. The old liberal double standard.

there is plenty of audio and video out there

with the democrats promising to bar ANY nominees bush forwards

so their complaining about the republicans doing so now

is a dead issue

what goes around comes around

Regardless of what democrats said 10 or 15 years ago, two wrongs don't make a right. No leader in the Senate, democratic or republican should say or indicate in anyway that his party will not give a fair hearing to a nominee. Tactics like this elevate the level of polarization and make our government even more dysfunctional.

If we keep going in this direction, eventually the American people will reject this constitutional republic for a more efficient form of government with a leader that can get things done and won't be hampered by an ineffective congress and courts. The handwriting is on wall, just no one is reading it.

It seems so considering that we keep getting more and more divisive figures rather than uniting ones. Bush started this rift (at least in its current form IMHO) and it has only worsened under Obama. I don't see it getting any better with Hillary either.

Partisan politics is digging an ever widening chasm between the two parties in power. You almost have to wonder if that is the point - after all they tend to support the same legislation and practices.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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 ***** 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 ***** 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 ***** 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.

Riiiiiight and in 2006 when Dem's took control of congress with a similar turn out you libs claimed you had a mandate from the people and it was a repudiation of Bush. The old liberal double standard.

there is plenty of audio and video out there

with the democrats promising to bar ANY nominees bush forwards

so their complaining about the republicans doing so now

is a dead issue

what goes around comes around

Regardless of what democrats said 10 or 15 years ago, two wrongs don't make a right. No leader in the Senate, democratic or republican should say or indicate in anyway that his party will not give a fair hearing to a nominee. Tactics like this elevate the level of polarization and make our government even more dysfunctional.

If we keep going in this direction, eventually the American people will reject this constitutional republic for a more efficient form of government with a leader that can get things done and won't be hampered by an ineffective congress or court. The handwriting is on wall, just no one is reading it.

i dont think is wrong at all

all the president has to do

is nominate a justice that the right likes

 

[eddiew]

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 ***** 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 ***** 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 ***** 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.

Riiiiiight and in 2006 when Dem's took control of congress with a similar turn out you libs claimed you had a mandate from the people and it was a repudiation of Bush. The old liberal double standard.

there is plenty of audio and video out there

with the democrats promising to bar ANY nominees bush forwards

so their complaining about the republicans doing so now

is a dead issue

what goes around comes around

Regardless of what democrats said 10 or 15 years ago, two wrongs don't make a right. No leader in the Senate, democratic or republican should say or indicate in anyway that his party will not give a fair hearing to a nominee. Tactics like this elevate the level of polarization and make our government even more dysfunctional.

If we keep going in this direction, eventually the American people will reject this constitutional republic for a more efficient form of government with a leader that can get things done and won't be hampered by an ineffective congress or court. The handwriting is on wall, just no one is reading it.

Flopper pardon my saying ,,,,man you are good

 

[eddiew]

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 ***** 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 ***** 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.

Riiiiiight and in 2006 when Dem's took control of congress with a similar turn out you libs claimed you had a mandate from the people and it was a repudiation of Bush. The old liberal double standard.

there is plenty of audio and video out there

with the democrats promising to bar ANY nominees bush forwards

so their complaining about the republicans doing so now

is a dead issue

what goes around comes around

Regardless of what democrats said 10 or 15 years ago, two wrongs don't make a right. No leader in the Senate, democratic or republican should say or indicate in anyway that his party will not give a fair hearing to a nominee. Tactics like this elevate the level of polarization and make our government even more dysfunctional.

If we keep going in this direction, eventually the American people will reject this constitutional republic for a more efficient form of government with a leader that can get things done and won't be hampered by an ineffective congress or court. The handwriting is on wall, just no one is reading it.

i dont think is wrong at all

all the president has to do

is nominate a justice that the right likes

and go back to 5-4 judgements??? No thank you At least give us an even chance huh??

 

[jon_berzerk]

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

Except that is not what is happening, the Senate leadership has said they will not allow a vote on any nomination and not allow the Senate to vote as required in the Constitution. By not allowing a vote, they are expression the rejection of the leadership and not the Senate itself - those are two different things.


>>>>

so what in that case the senate did not give its consent

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Riiiiiight and in 2006 when Dem's took control of congress with a similar turn out you libs claimed you had a mandate from the people and it was a repudiation of Bush. The old liberal double standard.

there is plenty of audio and video out there

with the democrats promising to bar ANY nominees bush forwards

so their complaining about the republicans doing so now

is a dead issue

what goes around comes around

Regardless of what democrats said 10 or 15 years ago, two wrongs don't make a right. No leader in the Senate, democratic or republican should say or indicate in anyway that his party will not give a fair hearing to a nominee. Tactics like this elevate the level of polarization and make our government even more dysfunctional.

If we keep going in this direction, eventually the American people will reject this constitutional republic for a more efficient form of government with a leader that can get things done and won't be hampered by an ineffective congress or court. The handwriting is on wall, just no one is reading it.

i dont think is wrong at all

all the president has to do

is nominate a justice that the right likes

and go back to 5-4 judgements??? No thank you At least give us an even chance huh??

find someone the right likes

it is that simple

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

Except that is not what is happening, the Senate leadership has said they will not allow a vote on any nomination and not allow the Senate to vote as required in the Constitution. By not allowing a vote, they are expression the rejection of the leadership and not the Senate itself - those are two different things.


>>>>

so what in that case the senate did not give its consent

No the Senate Leadership gave their rejection, not the Senate - two different things.


>>>>

 

[Flopper]

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 ***** 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 ***** 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.

Riiiiiight and in 2006 when Dem's took control of congress with a similar turn out you libs claimed you had a mandate from the people and it was a repudiation of Bush. The old liberal double standard.

there is plenty of audio and video out there

with the democrats promising to bar ANY nominees bush forwards

so their complaining about the republicans doing so now

is a dead issue

what goes around comes around

Regardless of what democrats said 10 or 15 years ago, two wrongs don't make a right. No leader in the Senate, democratic or republican should say or indicate in anyway that his party will not give a fair hearing to a nominee. Tactics like this elevate the level of polarization and make our government even more dysfunctional.

If we keep going in this direction, eventually the American people will reject this constitutional republic for a more efficient form of government with a leader that can get things done and won't be hampered by an ineffective congress and courts. The handwriting is on wall, just no one is reading it.

It seems so considering that we keep getting more and more divisive figures rather than uniting ones. Bush started this rift (at least in its current form IMHO) and it has only worsened under Obama. I don't see it getting any better with Hillary either.

Partisan politics is digging an ever widening chasm between the two parties in power. You almost have to wonder if that is the point - after all they tend to support the same legislation and practices.

Most governments that fail, do so because of internal power struggles and the inability of government to meet the needs of the people. In a media dominated society such as ours those needs may be real or imaginary. All it takes is a high enough level of dissatisfaction with the government, a charismatic authoritarian leader, and a plan.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

Except that is not what is happening, the Senate leadership has said they will not allow a vote on any nomination and not allow the Senate to vote as required in the Constitution. By not allowing a vote, they are expression the rejection of the leadership and not the Senate itself - those are two different things.


>>>>

so what in that case the senate did not give its consent

No the Senate Leadership gave their rejection, not the Senate - two different things.


>>>>

yes indeed

that is why they are called the "leadership"

 

[WorldWatcher]

yes indeed

that is why they are called the "leadership"

No, the "leadership" making the acceptance or rejection of a nominee is not in the Constitution.


>>>>

 

[jon_berzerk]

yes indeed

that is why they are called the "leadership"

No, the "leadership" making the acceptance or rejection of a nominee is not in the Constitution.


>>>>

it certainly does

 

[Flopper]

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

Except that is not what is happening, the Senate leadership has said they will not allow a vote on any nomination and not allow the Senate to vote as required in the Constitution. By not allowing a vote, they are expression the rejection of the leadership and not the Senate itself - those are two different things.


>>>>

so what in that case the senate did not give its consent

No the Senate Leadership gave their rejection, not the Senate - two different things.


>>>>

Actually it was the Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell. I haven't heard a single republican senator voice any disagreement so I would assume they agree with him.

 

[hunarcy]

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

Except that is not what is happening, the Senate leadership has said they will not allow a vote on any nomination and not allow the Senate to vote as required in the Constitution. By not allowing a vote, they are expression the rejection of the leadership and not the Senate itself - those are two different things.


>>>>

And, it's unprecedented, right? No one has EVER suggested such a thing in the past?

Schumer: No More Free Rides For Bush SCOTUS Nominees - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, if that's the case, then the people will have spoken as to what sort of Justice they want.

I don't fear that. Do you?

 

[Iceweasel]

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

Except that is not what is happening, the Senate leadership has said they will not allow a vote on any nomination and not allow the Senate to vote as required in the Constitution. By not allowing a vote, they are expression the rejection of the leadership and not the Senate itself - those are two different things.


>>>>

so what in that case the senate did not give its consent

No the Senate Leadership gave their rejection, not the Senate - two different things.


>>>>

Actually it was the Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell. I haven't heard a single republican senator voice any disagreement so I would assume they agree with him.

I don't get you libs. You like to divide and paint Republicans as evil troglodytes then you expect them to roll over for you. Do you not understand how silly that is?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yes, because Hillary is proving SOOOOO popular with the women.

Thank you for sharing your belief that women are all interchangeable dimwits who care nothing for issues and are only interested in sharing similar reproductive organs with a candidate.