Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[Faun]

Then as I said, the democracy is compromised. The Democrats will stall all Republican nominees in kind and refuse, as have the Republicans, to allow a Republican president to accomplish anything via Congress.


Republicans are so blind with hatred they are willing to do this? Then get to it. And no bitching later.

Oh stop whining.

There is NO Constitutional requirement for the Senate to take it up right away.

If you think the Dems would if the situation were reversed then you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

Given every poll out on this issue indicates the public does not want the Senate to reject considering every one of Obama's nominees, it seems it doesn't look good for this GOP ploy to shut down the confirmation process.

Nothing spells out the timing son, and given you have Schumer and Biden both on record as trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be confirmations in he final year...well....you lose.

Nothing allows the

Then as I said, the democracy is compromised. The Democrats will stall all Republican nominees in kind and refuse, as have the Republicans, to allow a Republican president to accomplish anything via Congress.


Republicans are so blind with hatred they are willing to do this? Then get to it. And no bitching later.

Oh stop whining.

There is NO Constitutional requirement for the Senate to take it up right away.

If you think the Dems would if the situation were reversed then you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

Given every poll out on this issue indicates the public does not want the Senate to reject considering every one of Obama's nominees, it seems it doesn't look good for this GOP ploy to shut down the confirmation process.

Nothing spells out the timing son, and given you have Schumer and Biden both on record as trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be confirmations in he final year...well....you lose.

I can't help the meaning of the word, "with," eludes you. Just as the reality that Schumer was in no position to facilitate any such non-action and Biden, who was, never said there should be no confirmations in the final year.

 

[Grizz]

Oh stop whining.

There is NO Constitutional requirement for the Senate to take it up right away.

If you think the Dems would if the situation were reversed then you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

Given every poll out on this issue indicates the public does not want the Senate to reject considering every one of Obama's nominees, it seems it doesn't look good for this GOP ploy to shut down the confirmation process.

Nothing spells out the timing son, and given you have Schumer and Biden both on record as trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be confirmations in he final year...well....you lose.

Nothing allows the

Oh stop whining.

There is NO Constitutional requirement for the Senate to take it up right away.

If you think the Dems would if the situation were reversed then you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

Given every poll out on this issue indicates the public does not want the Senate to reject considering every one of Obama's nominees, it seems it doesn't look good for this GOP ploy to shut down the confirmation process.

Nothing spells out the timing son, and given you have Schumer and Biden both on record as trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be confirmations in he final year...well....you lose.

I can't help the meaning of the word, "with," eludes you. Just as the reality that Schumer was in no position to facilitate any such non-action and Biden, who was, never said there should be no confirmations in the final year.

LOL, dude pay NO attention to the facts or history.

You lose.
Bear in mind both Biden and Schumer went to great lengths to argue against your position.....

"Biden in ’92: No election-season Supreme Court nominees"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-supreme-court-nominee-1992-219635#ixzz40xMjg7wr

Go away kid, come back when you get educated.

 

[Faun]

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

Given every poll out on this issue indicates the public does not want the Senate to reject considering every one of Obama's nominees, it seems it doesn't look good for this GOP ploy to shut down the confirmation process.

Nothing spells out the timing son, and given you have Schumer and Biden both on record as trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be confirmations in he final year...well....you lose.

Nothing allows the

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

Given every poll out on this issue indicates the public does not want the Senate to reject considering every one of Obama's nominees, it seems it doesn't look good for this GOP ploy to shut down the confirmation process.

Nothing spells out the timing son, and given you have Schumer and Biden both on record as trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be confirmations in he final year...well....you lose.

I can't help the meaning of the word, "with," eludes you. Just as the reality that Schumer was in no position to facilitate any such non-action and Biden, who was, never said there should be no confirmations in the final year.

LOL, dude pay NO attention to the facts or history.

You lose.
Bear in mind both Biden and Schumer went to great lengths to argue against your position.....

"Biden in ’92: No election-season Supreme Court nominees"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-supreme-court-nominee-1992-219635#ixzz40xMjg7wr

Go away kid, come back when you get educated.

Holyfuckingshit!

Your own link proves you wrong. Your own link says Biden called for confirmation (which there wasn't one anyway) to be held off until the end of the "election season"

But speaking of getting educated, I'm more than happy to educate you....

What Biden said...

"It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed." Biden continued, "If that were the course were to choose as a Senate, to not consider holding hearings until after the election, instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway -- and it is -- action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

​

Now maybe in backwards rightwing world, the president's term ends in November, but here in the good ol' U.S.of A., it ends in January.

...no wonder you implore me to go away. How embarrassing for you.

 

[Nyvin]

Senator Mark Kirk has said Obama should nominate a qualified Justice and that he'd vote on them.

Sen. Kirk: Obama should nominate Supreme Court replacement

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This is how liberal democrats felt about judicial nominees near the end of President Reagan's term.

June 27, 1987
Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist.

Now why shouldn't this current senate follow after those same concerns that the liberal democrats once held in the past, and place control in the approval of whom the SENATE prefers to see sitting in the Supreme Court?

The situation our nation has found itself in with respect to the need to find a new justice, as well as the impact it will have on the highest court in the land, are identical... only the parties on each side of the judicial process has changed. If this senate decided it wants to ALSO form the same "solid phalanx" as the democrats once had, they have every right to do so.

As a right of center Republican, if the individual nominee is a bad one, not a problem rake'em over the coals and hold a vote on the Senate floor and vote him/her down.

Bork got his time in front of the Senate and a vote was taken. Now what my Majority Leader is planning on doing though is blocking any nomination based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the nominee. That is wrong and not the intent of Article 2 Section 2.


>>>>

And that is the whole thing. Interview, cajole, lecture, get mad, trash someone, but you have to vote someone in. That is the line Republicans are about to cross. The line where a political party says "we don't recognize the authority of the Constitution in forcing the Senate to pick someone we don't want based on who is president". This will turn into a Constitutional crisis if this is the thought.

The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine.

But saying they aren't going to fulfill the Constitutional requirement, and YES that includes approving SOMEONE, then they are in essence saying "our agreement to live by this document has run its course, we follow only or party's best interest now, even at the expense of the Constitution."

I don't think they've thought it through, this IS a gigantic moment on whether this democracy continues on as is. THAT is how fragile a democracy is.

"The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine."

In their own time, not Obama's.

Then as I said, the democracy is compromised. The Democrats will stall all Republican nominees in kind and refuse, as have the Republicans, to allow a Republican president to accomplish anything via Congress.


Republicans are so blind with hatred they are willing to do this? Then get to it. And no bitching later.

They have already done so before. If there wasn't any stalling or refusals to confirm, President George W Bush wouldn't have sought to utilize recess appointments as much as he had.

 

[Faun]

Senator Mark Kirk has said Obama should nominate a qualified Justice and that he'd vote on them.

Sen. Kirk: Obama should nominate Supreme Court replacement

While that is encouraging, McConnell and Cruz still have the ability to shut the confirmation process down -- and the last I heard, that is still their plan.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

No, they picked a President, and then pretty thoroughly repudiated him.

Under the circumstances, I'm willing to find out what the election tells us about what the voters want, and let the chips fall where they may. How about you?

The president picks the justice so picking the president is tantamount to picking the person America wants picking the justice.

And while I have no doubt you are willing to wait for the next president since that increases your chances of getting a conservative justice, the Constitution offers no relief in letting the Senate deny the president his Constitutional power of picking a replacement for Scalia.

You clearly failed at Civics.

Congress is a co-equal branch of government, with the Senate having the "advise and consent" power to approve Supreme Court justices. Just because any President nominates someone, the Senate doesn't owe that President a vote on the matter.

The wording in the constitution is pretty clear, "and he {the president} shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint To say the Senate Advice and Consent is a power and not a requirement is to say the Supreme Court is not a requirement.

Very well stated! A tip of the tam to you!

Hey, look at my thumb!















Gee you're dumb.

Well, **** you very much, I'm sure!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

Given every poll out on this issue indicates the public does not want the Senate to reject considering every one of Obama's nominees, it seems it doesn't look good for this GOP ploy to shut down the confirmation process.

Nothing spells out the timing son, and given you have Schumer and Biden both on record as trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be confirmations in he final year...well....you lose.

Nothing allows the

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

Given every poll out on this issue indicates the public does not want the Senate to reject considering every one of Obama's nominees, it seems it doesn't look good for this GOP ploy to shut down the confirmation process.

Nothing spells out the timing son, and given you have Schumer and Biden both on record as trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be confirmations in he final year...well....you lose.

I can't help the meaning of the word, "with," eludes you. Just as the reality that Schumer was in no position to facilitate any such non-action and Biden, who was, never said there should be no confirmations in the final year.

LOL, dude pay NO attention to the facts or history.

You lose.
Bear in mind both Biden and Schumer went to great lengths to argue against your position.....

"Biden in ’92: No election-season Supreme Court nominees"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-supreme-court-nominee-1992-219635#ixzz40xMjg7wr

Go away kid, come back when you get educated.

And EXACTLY WHERE does what Schumer or Biden have to say when they overloaded their asses with their mouths have any God Damn bearing on Constitutional law? What Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution and/or what Title, Chapter and Section is it codified in the U.S. Code? Show us what you got or STFU!!!! And don't cowardly dodge the question like I have a feeling you're likely going to do with a bag of bluster and bullshit!

 

[boedicca]

The president picks the justice so picking the president is tantamount to picking the person America wants picking the justice.

And while I have no doubt you are willing to wait for the next president since that increases your chances of getting a conservative justice, the Constitution offers no relief in letting the Senate deny the president his Constitutional power of picking a replacement for Scalia.

You clearly failed at Civics.

Congress is a co-equal branch of government, with the Senate having the "advise and consent" power to approve Supreme Court justices. Just because any President nominates someone, the Senate doesn't owe that President a vote on the matter.

The wording in the constitution is pretty clear, "and he {the president} shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint To say the Senate Advice and Consent is a power and not a requirement is to say the Supreme Court is not a requirement.

Very well stated! A tip of the tam to you!

Hey, look at my thumb!















Gee you're dumb.

Well, **** you very much, I'm sure!

Thank you very much for the not quite as generous offer as you no doubt intended, but I'll pass.

 

[paperview]

And, LITERALLY, more VPOTUS Wisdom:

Mr. Biden even said the Senate’s decision shouldn’t depend on the merits of a particular nominee. The inconveniences of a High Court with only eight Justices “are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate and the Nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President,” he said.

Joe Biden’s Supreme Court Advice

There is always a heaping mound of hippo-crissy that is spread between the two parties, especially at times like these, when epic proportion decisions are made, that affect all of us for generations to come - SCOTUlly speaking...that is --

So, it's to be expected, but my take away -- after listening to the full hour and a half speech (which I doubt many here will listen to), a cuppa things

Sen Joe Biden DDE Supreme Court Confirmation | User Clip | C-SPAN.org<---link to full speech

First, it was late June when he made this statement - not Feb. Biden states specifically in his extended speech : It was about a president nominating a candidate in the "summer or fall of an election season" Direct quote. He also was calling for a compromise candidate, and said he would consider one later in the speech.

2. There was no vacancy when Biden made that statement, that meant anyone on the Bench (wink to Byron White) when he said who might have made the decision to step down (a point he makes over and over) would be undergoing a confirmation process in the fall of the election year.

Something else he notes: Between Reagan and Bush at that point in 1992, Between just Reagan and Bush, the GOP had already named 8 nominees for SIX positions on the court.
8 out of 9 SCJ's had been picked by republican presidents.

I recommend a listen to the full Biden at the above link.

Doubt you, or any connie will, but for others interested -- It's awesome.

 

[paperview]

And LITERALLY from the VPOTUS:

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in June 1992, Mr. Biden spoke on the Senate floor the day before the Supreme Court was set to leave for recess. George H.W. Bush was President, Democrats controlled the Senate and they were worried that a Justice might resign before the election.

“President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Mr. Biden declared. And if the President were to plow ahead and name a new Justice anyway, “a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee or to the Senate itself.”

Mr. Biden added that the Senate would have to fulfill its own constitutional duty of advice and consent, but that could mean withholding consent when it believed doing so was in the best interests of the Court and the country. “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination,” Mr. Biden said, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Joe Biden’s Supreme Court Advice

So another example of where a president was NOT denied their Constitutional obligation to appoint a replacement to the Supreme Court.

Unlike what Republican leadership is saying now, that this president will not get to appoint a replacement.

Thanks for playin'.

Nope, he wasn't denied.

As far as the new Biden clip we'll be seeing bandied about again and again -- Worth a minute's watch:



A little further into the speech, Biden called for a "compromise" pick -- and when you look at the makeup of the court at the time:


John Paul Stevens - Appointed by Ford
William Rehnquist - Appointed by Nixon - Appointed to CJ by Reagan
Sandra Day O’Connor - Appointed by Reagan
Antonin Scalia - Appointed by Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - Appointed by Reagan
Clarence Thomas - Appointed by GHW Bush
David Souter.- Appointed by GHW Bush
Harry Blackmun - Appointed by Nixon

Byron White - Appointed by Kennedy


... with Byron White, the only Dem nominated Justice, signalling he perhaps might be retiring (White actually retired the following year), and the real probability of the entire slate of Justices being GOP, which swung far right in the previous decade...there was real concern of a totally stacked court.

Still, Biden was talking about what would have been a fall election year hearing in his hypothetical, and Biden goes on to say "compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate:"

From that same 1992 clip: "If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter. But if he does not, as is the President's right, then I will oppose his future nominees, as is my right."

 

[Flopper]

No - that is what you think I am saying.
That is not what I am saying at all.
It is not hard to figure out that McConnell set the time till after the Nov. election and the country is pretty close to be evenly split on this issue. It's only right to wait till after this very volatile and very strange election season is over.
It is also their Constitutional right to not consent.

Please stop trying to portray that there will be advise and consent proceedings after the November elections, that is false. What was said was that they will not do anything until the next President is seated which is after January.

The question isn't does the Senate have to confirm someone they don't feel is qualified. The issue is they have said they will not undertake any proceedings based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the candidate nominated. THAT is the danger.


>>>>

The Senate leadership is waiting till after the election to see who wins the presidency. If a Republican wins, they either vote down Obama's nomination or not bring it up for a vote, because they will get a more conservative justice in 2017.

If a Democrat wins, then they will probably confirm Obama's nominee because he or she would probably be less left leaning that a Clinton or Sander's nominee. Delaying till after the election makes good political sense for the party controlling the Senate. The only risk is losing the Senate.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Update On Drudge Report:

Obama cracks joke about Scalia's death!

Video: Obama Cracks Joke About Scalia’s Death

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Senate leadership is waiting till after the election to see who wins the presidency. If a Republican wins, they either vote down Obama's nomination or not bring it up for a vote, because they will get a more conservative justice in 2017.

If a Democrat wins, then they will probably confirm Obama's nominee because he or she would probably be less left leaning that a Clinton or Sander's nominee. Delaying till after the election makes good political sense for the party controlling the Senate. The only risk is losing the Senate.

"This comes after McConnell issued his most definitive statement on Tuesday: There will be no Supreme Court nominee confirmed in President Barack Obama's final year in office.

In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court."

Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee - CNNPolitics.com


>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

You're ******* 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 ******* stone by the finger of God, unalterable for all eternity.

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

 

[Cecilie1200]

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

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?

 

[Cecilie1200]

S. Res 334 states that it was “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.” The resolution obviously was meant to stop another recess appointment by President Dwight Eisenhower. But it also established the unwritten rule that presidents shouldn’t nominate judges to the court in their final year, except in the most dire of circumstances.

Read more: http://ihavethetruth.com/2016/02/21/the-55-year-old-senate-secret-that-could-prevent-obama-from-forcing-a-supreme-court-nomination/#ixzz40q0MM1w1

... what do recess appointments have to do with the current situation...?

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.

Hey, he ignores them. Turnabout is fair play, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

... what do recess appointments have to do with the current situation...?

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?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

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 →