No better way to energize the DEM voters than to block Obama's nominations...

[GWV5903]

Scalia was not even dead for 24 hours and that F'ING POS you voted for made this announcement, he is lower than whale shit...

His nominee will be blocked, they better have thick skin...

If she doesn't get indicted you mean...

O'Connell announced he wasn't going to entertain a nomination well before the White House got off the golf course. Whale shit right back at ya.

They are both wrong, McConnell should have kept his mouth shut and Obama the same...

 

[candycorn]

Yeah, which is the whole plan.

Nominate a BLACK FEMALE, make sure republicans try to block the BLACK FEMALE and make them look racist.

The victimology strategy will be in full effect and the left wing sheep will buy in with out a thought.

Left wingers are such unreal losers. All they know is race gender and class. Nothing else.

Tissue?

 

[Theowl32]

Yeah, which is the whole plan.

Nominate a BLACK FEMALE, make sure republicans try to block the BLACK FEMALE and make them look racist.

The victimology strategy will be in full effect and the left wing sheep will buy in with out a thought.

Left wingers are such unreal losers. All they know is race gender and class. Nothing else.

Tissue?

Kuuunt?

 

[candycorn]

Scalia was not even dead for 24 hours and that F'ING POS you voted for made this announcement, he is lower than whale shit...

His nominee will be blocked, they better have thick skin...

If she doesn't get indicted you mean...

O'Connell announced he wasn't going to entertain a nomination well before the White House got off the golf course. Whale shit right back at ya.

They are both wrong, McConnell should have kept his mouth shut and Obama the same...

No.

Obama has a responsibility to act. He is the President. The President is mentioned in the Constitution. This is one of the office's duties.
Try to wrap your head around that.

McConnell is a Senator for Kentucky. Sometime back in our history, we decided we wanted a "majority leader" which isn't mentioned in the Constitution. He is elected only by other Sentors of the same party. There is no constitutional mandate for the post he (or Harry Reid) held; ever. They are simply politically installed party officials determined to do what is best for their political party. If you don't believe me...look it up; point to the part of the Constitution that mentions the Senate Majority Leader. Here is a hint, there is none.

McConnell is wrong that he will not allow a hearing of the President's nominee. The Senate is under no obligation to rubber stamp Obama's nominee (or Mr. Trump's nominee or Ms. Clinton's nominee or whomever's nominee). A hearing should be held. I'm sure that after public pressure mounts, the GOP will once again cave in and you'll have a hearing of whomever Obama nominates. Depending on the election progress at the time of deliberations; we'll see if the GOP approves President Obama's nomination. I'm guessing that they will not in an attempt to salvage whatever manhood they have left.

 

[Misty]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations....

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

Keep dreaming. It will strengthen the GOP to reject anyone Obama nominates.

 

[Misty]

Scalia was not even dead for 24 hours and that F'ING POS you voted for made this announcement, he is lower than whale shit...

His nominee will be blocked, they better have thick skin...

If she doesn't get indicted you mean...

O'Connell announced he wasn't going to entertain a nomination well before the White House got off the golf course. Whale shit right back at ya.

They are both wrong, McConnell should have kept his mouth shut and Obama the same...

No.

Obama has a responsibility to act. He is the President. The President is mentioned in the Constitution. This is one of the office's duties.
Try to wrap your head around that.

McConnell is a Senator for Kentucky. Sometime back in our history, we decided we wanted a "majority leader" which isn't mentioned in the Constitution. He is elected only by other Sentors of the same party. There is no constitutional mandate for the post he (or Harry Reid) held; ever. They are simply politically installed party officials determined to do what is best for their political party. If you don't believe me...look it up; point to the part of the Constitution that mentions the Senate Majority Leader. Here is a hint, there is none.

McConnell is wrong that he will not allow a hearing of the President's nominee. The Senate is under no obligation to rubber stamp Obama's nominee (or Mr. Trump's nominee or Ms. Clinton's nominee or whomever's nominee). A hearing should be held. I'm sure that after public pressure mounts, the GOP will once again cave in and you'll have a hearing of whomever Obama nominates. Depending on the election progress at the time of deliberations; we'll see if the GOP approves President Obama's nomination. I'm guessing that they will not in an attempt to salvage whatever manhood they have left.

Oh shut up. If a liberal SCOTUS had died and a conservative was president libs would all be having a complete fit this close to an election.

 

[candycorn]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations....

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

Keep dreaming. It will strengthen the GOP to reject anyone Obama nominates.

Hilarious...

In an odd numbered year, you'd be right. In an even numbered year when folks are paying attention, will be watching political advertisements, and voting...rejecting for purely political reasons will backfire. Especially if the reasons crystalize all of the accepted things you ****-wits still oppose such as marijuana legalization, gay marriage, abortion rights, Obamacare, etc....

Bring it on.

 

[I amso IR]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations....

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

Or not.

 

[candycorn]

Scalia was not even dead for 24 hours and that F'ING POS you voted for made this announcement, he is lower than whale shit...

His nominee will be blocked, they better have thick skin...

If she doesn't get indicted you mean...

O'Connell announced he wasn't going to entertain a nomination well before the White House got off the golf course. Whale shit right back at ya.

They are both wrong, McConnell should have kept his mouth shut and Obama the same...

No.

Obama has a responsibility to act. He is the President. The President is mentioned in the Constitution. This is one of the office's duties.
Try to wrap your head around that.

McConnell is a Senator for Kentucky. Sometime back in our history, we decided we wanted a "majority leader" which isn't mentioned in the Constitution. He is elected only by other Sentors of the same party. There is no constitutional mandate for the post he (or Harry Reid) held; ever. They are simply politically installed party officials determined to do what is best for their political party. If you don't believe me...look it up; point to the part of the Constitution that mentions the Senate Majority Leader. Here is a hint, there is none.

McConnell is wrong that he will not allow a hearing of the President's nominee. The Senate is under no obligation to rubber stamp Obama's nominee (or Mr. Trump's nominee or Ms. Clinton's nominee or whomever's nominee). A hearing should be held. I'm sure that after public pressure mounts, the GOP will once again cave in and you'll have a hearing of whomever Obama nominates. Depending on the election progress at the time of deliberations; we'll see if the GOP approves President Obama's nomination. I'm guessing that they will not in an attempt to salvage whatever manhood they have left.

Oh shut up. If a liberal SCOTUS had died and a conservative was president libs would all be having a complete fit this close to an election.

Want a tissue beeotch?

On that, we both agree. Harry Reid is a scumbag who regularly puts Party ahead of the nation. Most of the bills he blocked would not have passed the Senate--not even close. Yet he didn't want his caucus to appear to be too off-center so he shielded them from having to vote.

No, you cited some bills that were stalled in the Senate by the scumbag Harry Reid.
You purposely ignored bills in the House that were passed by the Senate
You purposely ignored bills in the Senate that were filibustered by the minority party (the GOP).
There is plenty of blame/hypocrisy to go around.

I invite you to consider life without the Senate, the House sends a bill to the President; He vetoes it; then the House over-rides the veto or it dies. Sounds like government to me...

Consider today's reality. The House sends a bill to the Senate. Scumbag Harry Reid wads it up and tosses it into the garbage can. The President gets on the TV and urges the Congress to get to work on a bill he can sign....

Meanwhile, farm bill dies; student loan rates double; too big to fail banks are bigger than ever in some cases;

As always, History reports a very different reality than what the right wing is told to remember by your thought leaders. Try thinking for yourself and you'll realize how dumb you sound.

 

[GWV5903]

Scalia was not even dead for 24 hours and that F'ING POS you voted for made this announcement, he is lower than whale shit...

His nominee will be blocked, they better have thick skin...

If she doesn't get indicted you mean...

O'Connell announced he wasn't going to entertain a nomination well before the White House got off the golf course. Whale shit right back at ya.

They are both wrong, McConnell should have kept his mouth shut and Obama the same...

No.

Obama has a responsibility to act. He is the President. The President is mentioned in the Constitution. This is one of the office's duties.
Try to wrap your head around that.

McConnell is a Senator for Kentucky. Sometime back in our history, we decided we wanted a "majority leader" which isn't mentioned in the Constitution. He is elected only by other Sentors of the same party. There is no constitutional mandate for the post he (or Harry Reid) held; ever. They are simply politically installed party officials determined to do what is best for their political party. If you don't believe me...look it up; point to the part of the Constitution that mentions the Senate Majority Leader. Here is a hint, there is none.

McConnell is wrong that he will not allow a hearing of the President's nominee. The Senate is under no obligation to rubber stamp Obama's nominee (or Mr. Trump's nominee or Ms. Clinton's nominee or whomever's nominee). A hearing should be held. I'm sure that after public pressure mounts, the GOP will once again cave in and you'll have a hearing of whomever Obama nominates. Depending on the election progress at the time of deliberations; we'll see if the GOP approves President Obama's nomination. I'm guessing that they will not in an attempt to salvage whatever manhood they have left.

If it was Ginsburg you would have a different response, but it is beneath you to admit it...

 

[ptbw forever]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations....

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

It's further confirmation that most on the partisan right have no interest in sound, responsible governance.

Says the dipshits who want to make the Supreme Court partisan...

 

[candycorn]

Scalia was not even dead for 24 hours and that F'ING POS you voted for made this announcement, he is lower than whale shit...

His nominee will be blocked, they better have thick skin...

If she doesn't get indicted you mean...

O'Connell announced he wasn't going to entertain a nomination well before the White House got off the golf course. Whale shit right back at ya.

They are both wrong, McConnell should have kept his mouth shut and Obama the same...

No.

Obama has a responsibility to act. He is the President. The President is mentioned in the Constitution. This is one of the office's duties.
Try to wrap your head around that.

McConnell is a Senator for Kentucky. Sometime back in our history, we decided we wanted a "majority leader" which isn't mentioned in the Constitution. He is elected only by other Sentors of the same party. There is no constitutional mandate for the post he (or Harry Reid) held; ever. They are simply politically installed party officials determined to do what is best for their political party. If you don't believe me...look it up; point to the part of the Constitution that mentions the Senate Majority Leader. Here is a hint, there is none.

McConnell is wrong that he will not allow a hearing of the President's nominee. The Senate is under no obligation to rubber stamp Obama's nominee (or Mr. Trump's nominee or Ms. Clinton's nominee or whomever's nominee). A hearing should be held. I'm sure that after public pressure mounts, the GOP will once again cave in and you'll have a hearing of whomever Obama nominates. Depending on the election progress at the time of deliberations; we'll see if the GOP approves President Obama's nomination. I'm guessing that they will not in an attempt to salvage whatever manhood they have left.

If it was Ginsburg you would have a different response, but it is beneath you to admit it...

Actually I would not--I called Harry Reid a "scumbag" for this sort of obstructionism numerous times. Feel free to look it up if you dare to be proven wrong.

I guess you're talking about if we had a GOP President perhaps.... dunno. You RWNJs are a strange bunch.

 

[candycorn]

Scalia was not even dead for 24 hours and that F'ING POS you voted for made this announcement, he is lower than whale shit...

His nominee will be blocked, they better have thick skin...

If she doesn't get indicted you mean...

O'Connell announced he wasn't going to entertain a nomination well before the White House got off the golf course. Whale shit right back at ya.

They are both wrong, McConnell should have kept his mouth shut and Obama the same...

No.

Obama has a responsibility to act. He is the President. The President is mentioned in the Constitution. This is one of the office's duties.
Try to wrap your head around that.

McConnell is a Senator for Kentucky. Sometime back in our history, we decided we wanted a "majority leader" which isn't mentioned in the Constitution. He is elected only by other Sentors of the same party. There is no constitutional mandate for the post he (or Harry Reid) held; ever. They are simply politically installed party officials determined to do what is best for their political party. If you don't believe me...look it up; point to the part of the Constitution that mentions the Senate Majority Leader. Here is a hint, there is none.

McConnell is wrong that he will not allow a hearing of the President's nominee. The Senate is under no obligation to rubber stamp Obama's nominee (or Mr. Trump's nominee or Ms. Clinton's nominee or whomever's nominee). A hearing should be held. I'm sure that after public pressure mounts, the GOP will once again cave in and you'll have a hearing of whomever Obama nominates. Depending on the election progress at the time of deliberations; we'll see if the GOP approves President Obama's nomination. I'm guessing that they will not in an attempt to salvage whatever manhood they have left.

Oh shut up. If a liberal SCOTUS had died and a conservative was president libs would all be having a complete fit this close to an election.

Want a tissue beeotch?

On that, we both agree. Harry Reid is a scumbag who regularly puts Party ahead of the nation. Most of the bills he blocked would not have passed the Senate--not even close. Yet he didn't want his caucus to appear to be too off-center so he shielded them from having to vote.

No, you cited some bills that were stalled in the Senate by the scumbag Harry Reid.
You purposely ignored bills in the House that were passed by the Senate
You purposely ignored bills in the Senate that were filibustered by the minority party (the GOP).
There is plenty of blame/hypocrisy to go around.

I invite you to consider life without the Senate, the House sends a bill to the President; He vetoes it; then the House over-rides the veto or it dies. Sounds like government to me...

Consider today's reality. The House sends a bill to the Senate. Scumbag Harry Reid wads it up and tosses it into the garbage can. The President gets on the TV and urges the Congress to get to work on a bill he can sign....

Meanwhile, farm bill dies; student loan rates double; too big to fail banks are bigger than ever in some cases;

As always, History reports a very different reality than what the right wing is told to remember by your thought leaders. Try thinking for yourself and you'll realize how dumb you sound.

GWV5903
FYI

 

[EriktheRed]

Interesting article for any old wingnuts here still butthurt over the Bork nomination:

Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork on July 1st, 1987, despite being specificallywarned against it by the Democrats. Nonetheless, Bork’s nomination was taken up in a timely fashion by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was then chaired by Joe Biden who also happened to be running for president and hardly needed the headache of dealing with uncompromising liberal activist groups. Perhaps Biden’s ambition played some role in how he conducted himself, but Bork received a hearing.

On October 6th, the Judiciary Committee voted 9-5 to reject Bork’s nomination, which in the ordinary course of events would have meant that Bork received no further consideration- no full floor debate and no final confirmation vote.

That’s not what happened though. Bork refused to withdraw his name from consideration and penned an open letter explaining why.

<snip>

The Democrats acceded to his demand for “a full debate and a final Senate decision.

On October 23rd, the full Senate rejected Bork’s nomination in a 42-58 vote.

Please Treat Obama’s Nominee Like Bork

 

[Iceweasel]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations....

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

...................yawn.

 

[candycorn]

Interesting article for any old wingnuts here still butthurt over the Bork nomination:

Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork on July 1st, 1987, despite being specificallywarned against it by the Democrats. Nonetheless, Bork’s nomination was taken up in a timely fashion by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was then chaired by Joe Biden who also happened to be running for president and hardly needed the headache of dealing with uncompromising liberal activist groups. Perhaps Biden’s ambition played some role in how he conducted himself, but Bork received a hearing.

On October 6th, the Judiciary Committee voted 9-5 to reject Bork’s nomination, which in the ordinary course of events would have meant that Bork received no further consideration- no full floor debate and no final confirmation vote.

That’s not what happened though. Bork refused to withdraw his name from consideration and penned an open letter explaining why.

<snip>

The Democrats acceded to his demand for “a full debate and a final Senate decision.

On October 23rd, the full Senate rejected Bork’s nomination in a 42-58 vote.

Please Treat Obama’s Nominee Like Bork

I wonder if the RWNJs are just flat out ignorant on the difference between not having a hearing and having a hearing that rejects the nominee or if they are just this concerned that the GOP dominated Senate cannot hold it together long enough to vote down an Obama nominee....

I mean, how much of a ***** do you have to be to be afraid to even have a hearing when you have a multiple Senator advantage....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Scalia was not even dead for 24 hours and that F'ING POS you voted for made this announcement, he is lower than whale shit...

His nominee will be blocked, they better have thick skin...

If she doesn't get indicted you mean...

What you are saying that one branch of our Government can just shut down. SCOTUS will be locked at 4 to 4 on almost every decision it is called upon to rule on. Meaning is; the lower courts rulings will stand.And you want to have it shut down for the next year or so. What happens if a Left Wing gets in there? I shudder to think on that one. How about a right winger. Same thing. To get the system working again, a Moderate is called upon to fill the position. You can't have one side owning the whole of SCOTUS. We get in the same trouble when we have the Senate, House and President of the same stripe.
When you let the ultras rule on either side, we end up with a huge mess that it takes decades to clean up.

23 states passed Term Limits on Senate and House members. SCOTUS over turned that. in just one ruling. This is scaring the hell out of the Republicans. If a moderate is added to the SCOTUS the 23 states will have no choice but to revisit that ruling with a very good chance that it will be overturned in the States favor.

How about the unreported SuperPac contributions. The States wanted limits to it. SCOTUS overturned that. Can you imagine what 2020 will look like if either of these are corrected?

The good news is, Obama has at least one person he can nominate that Senate has already approved 97-0 from a lower court. If he presents one of those the Senate will either confirm them or confirm that they are doing more "Let's shut things down". And that could be desasterious for the 2016 Senate elections for the GOP.

Obama wins again either way.

 

[Rustic]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations.....

Would they? I don't know that the average voter even pays attention to this shit. Either way, the president has the right to appoint a new justice and the Senate should give his nomination a vote.

They pay attention to what gets talked about...
View attachment 63671

Like I said wait and next president should pick this guy...

Why?

It would cause Washington to melt down, and firearm/ammo sales would be off the charts...

 

[EriktheRed]

Scalia was not even dead for 24 hours and that F'ING POS you voted for made this announcement, he is lower than whale shit...

His nominee will be blocked, they better have thick skin...

If she doesn't get indicted you mean...

What you are saying that one branch of our Government can just shut down. SCOTUS will be locked at 4 to 4 on almost every decision it is called upon to rule on. Meaning is; the lower courts rulings will stand.And you want to have it shut down for the next year or so. What happens if a Left Wing gets in there? I shudder to think on that one. How about a right winger. Same thing. To get the system working again, a Moderate is called upon to fill the position. You can't have one side owning the whole of SCOTUS. We get in the same trouble when we have the Senate, House and President of the same stripe.
When you let the ultras rule on either side, we end up with a huge mess that it takes decades to clean up.

23 states passed Term Limits on Senate and House members. SCOTUS over turned that. in just one ruling. This is scaring the hell out of the Republicans. If a moderate is added to the SCOTUS the 23 states will have no choice but to revisit that ruling with a very good chance that it will be overturned in the States favor.

How about the unreported SuperPac contributions. The States wanted limits to it. SCOTUS overturned that. Can you imagine what 2020 will look like if either of these are corrected?

The good news is, Obama has at least one person he can nominate that Senate has already approved 97-0 from a lower court. If he presents one of those the Senate will either confirm them or confirm that they are doing more "Let's shut things down". And that could be desasterious for the 2016 Senate elections for the GOP.

Obama wins again either way.

You underestimate the power of the GOP's nutbag base. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few Repub Senators would like to just vote for a moderate and be done with it, but even if President Obama could find a way to resurrect Justice Scalia, they'd then be calling for Scalia II's removal.

 

[eagle7_31]

Scalia was not even dead for 24 hours and that F'ING POS you voted for made this announcement, he is lower than whale shit...

His nominee will be blocked, they better have thick skin...

If she doesn't get indicted you mean...

What you are saying that one branch of our Government can just shut down. SCOTUS will be locked at 4 to 4 on almost every decision it is called upon to rule on. Meaning is; the lower courts rulings will stand.And you want to have it shut down for the next year or so. What happens if a Left Wing gets in there? I shudder to think on that one. How about a right winger. Same thing. To get the system working again, a Moderate is called upon to fill the position. You can't have one side owning the whole of SCOTUS. We get in the same trouble when we have the Senate, House and President of the same stripe.
When you let the ultras rule on either side, we end up with a huge mess that it takes decades to clean up.

23 states passed Term Limits on Senate and House members. SCOTUS over turned that. in just one ruling. This is scaring the hell out of the Republicans. If a moderate is added to the SCOTUS the 23 states will have no choice but to revisit that ruling with a very good chance that it will be overturned in the States favor.

How about the unreported SuperPac contributions. The States wanted limits to it. SCOTUS overturned that. Can you imagine what 2020 will look like if either of these are corrected?

The good news is, Obama has at least one person he can nominate that Senate has already approved 97-0 from a lower court. If he presents one of those the Senate will either confirm them or confirm that they are doing more "Let's shut things down". And that could be desasterious for the 2016 Senate elections for the GOP.

Obama wins again either way.

You underestimate the power of the GOP's nutbag base. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few Repub Senators would like to just vote for a moderate and be done with it, but even if President Obama could find a way to resurrect Justice Scalia, they'd then be calling for Scalia II's removal.

Left wing speak for those who disagree with Obama. Your looney naming aside the Dems do not nominate moderates, just liberals. Republicans have nominated moderates (Souter for one) and conservatives. Look at Roberts and Kennedy on BO care and gay marriage as well. This will come in one of two flavors as I stated before, BO actually nominates someone who is some what to the right of his prior court nominees, but left of say Justice Thomas and he stands a chance of getting that name thru. He goes hard left it will get voted down (filibuster possible, maybe for a bit of time, but not long term)