Obama to Announce Supreme Court Nominee at 11 a.m. Today

[PaintMyHouse]

your kidding yourself if you think that the republicans would have ever been decent and willing to work with the president. in fact, your main criticism of him is born out of republican intransigence.

You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.

They have a Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies

They have Constitutional authority to do so in their own good time.

How many years is their "own good time"? If one year is okay why not two, or four, or ten?

I see you are bordering on understanding a salient point. Congratulations.

What would an Originalist say?

What I just said.

I see you could not answer the questions. So be it.

 

[Skylar]

IF you and others are correct about Trump losing badly and us losing the Senate as well, we may be well served to accept this nominee over what would likely be some one much worse next January...

From what I have read so far he Garland is very liberal regarding the 2nd amendment and gun ownership. I disagree that it is better to go ahead and certify as a Justice the guy who is going to go in, overturn Scalia's opinion, and help strip Americans of their gun rights.

And when did Merrick vote against, say....Heller.

He is NOT going to get a second chance.

Not gonna happen.

So he's not going to get a second chance to do....what?

Remember, your ilk are condemning him for a vote...he didn't even make.

 

[easyt65]

Well, it won't be two years, but if there's gop potus 3 years into a term, and a dem maj senate, bet your buptukass that there won't be hearings let alone a vote.

Yeah, like when Reid ran the Senate and refused to let over 100 pieces of House legislation die on his desk without ever letting them come up for discussion or a vote.

Why are the whiny little bitches (libs) claiming 'elections have consequences' yet when the GOP won the House Liberals turned complete Obstructionists and THAT was ok? What hypocritical B$!

Garland has enough on him to reject him, if only his liberal stance on the 2nd Amendment.

And YOU say, "Wait til it's your turn'....Liberals should have thought of that when they were F*ing the GOP by being Obstructionists 1st, letting Harry Reid bring Congress to a crawl because of his own personal partisan agenda.

You wanna burn bridges and pee on people's legs THEN get pissed off at THEM when you need something from them and they don't feel amiable?! REALLY?!

Stupid liberals.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, but Democrats and Obama have demonstrated the constitution (to them) is like the 'Pirates Code'....more like guidelines than actually rules / laws, capable of being ignored as it suits them.

Actually the Constitution (1787-1935) was abolished by FDR.

Says who?

Under fascism we only have those liberties the powers-that-be decide that we can have

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini

I don't think fascism means what you think it means.

Well , let's not debate semantics

And by 'semantics', you mean fascism being utterly different than our system of government?

And and you've completely abandoned the 'constitution was disbanded by FDR' horseshit?

I have already proven that FDR abolished the Constitution and adopted fascism as our socioeconomic system

Except that you haven't.

Perhaps 'proven' doesn't mean what you think it means. The word you're looking for is 'typed'.

 

[Contumacious]

IF you and others are correct about Trump losing badly and us losing the Senate as well, we may be well served to accept this nominee over what would likely be some one much worse next January...

From what I have read so far he Garland is very liberal regarding the 2nd amendment and gun ownership. I disagree that it is better to go ahead and certify as a Justice the guy who is going to go in, overturn Scalia's opinion, and help strip Americans of their gun rights.

And when did Merrick vote against, say....Heller.

He is NOT going to get a second chance.

Not gonna happen.

So he's not going to get a second chance to do....what?

Remember, your ilk are condemning him for a vote...he didn't even make.

He is NOT going to get a second chance to REVERSE Heller, no way. no how.

The issue was previously before him he could have easily adopted a DISSENTING OPINION affirming our right to bear arms. He didn't .


.

 

[Skylar]

IF you and others are correct about Trump losing badly and us losing the Senate as well, we may be well served to accept this nominee over what would likely be some one much worse next January...

From what I have read so far he Garland is very liberal regarding the 2nd amendment and gun ownership. I disagree that it is better to go ahead and certify as a Justice the guy who is going to go in, overturn Scalia's opinion, and help strip Americans of their gun rights.

And when did Merrick vote against, say....Heller.

He is NOT going to get a second chance.

Not gonna happen.

So he's not going to get a second chance to do....what?

Remember, your ilk are condemning him for a vote...he didn't even make.

He is NOT going to get a second chance to REVERSE Heller, no way. no how.

The issue was previously before him he could have easily adopted a DISSENTING OPINION affirming our right to bear arms. He didn't .

So you're condemning the man for a ruling he didn't make, a position he didn't take.

 

[Contumacious]

Actually the Constitution (1787-1935) was abolished by FDR.

Says who?

Under fascism we only have those liberties the powers-that-be decide that we can have

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini

I don't think fascism means what you think it means.

Well , let's not debate semantics

And by 'semantics', you mean fascism being utterly different than our system of government?

And and you've completely abandoned the 'constitution was disbanded by FDR' horseshit?

I have already proven that FDR abolished the Constitution and adopted fascism as our socioeconomic system

Except that you haven't.

Perhaps 'proven' doesn't mean what you think it means. The word you're looking for is 'typed'.

Except that I have and you can't handle the truth.There is no worse blind man than he who wishes not to see.

 

[Contumacious]

From what I have read so far he Garland is very liberal regarding the 2nd amendment and gun ownership. I disagree that it is better to go ahead and certify as a Justice the guy who is going to go in, overturn Scalia's opinion, and help strip Americans of their gun rights.

And when did Merrick vote against, say....Heller.

He is NOT going to get a second chance.

Not gonna happen.

So he's not going to get a second chance to do....what?

Remember, your ilk are condemning him for a vote...he didn't even make.

He is NOT going to get a second chance to REVERSE Heller, no way. no how.

The issue was previously before him he could have easily adopted a DISSENTING OPINION affirming our right to bear arms. He didn't .

So you're condemning the man for a ruling he didn't make, a position he didn't take.

Again, the Senate ought not confirm a man who is another scumbag like John Roberts.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Again, the Senate ought not confirm a man who is another scumbag like John Roberts.

Roberts is scum because he didn't vote your way?

 

[Skylar]

Says who?

I don't think fascism means what you think it means.

Well , let's not debate semantics

And by 'semantics', you mean fascism being utterly different than our system of government?

And and you've completely abandoned the 'constitution was disbanded by FDR' horseshit?

I have already proven that FDR abolished the Constitution and adopted fascism as our socioeconomic system

Except that you haven't.

Perhaps 'proven' doesn't mean what you think it means. The word you're looking for is 'typed'.

Except that I have and you can't handle the truth.There is no worse blind man than he who wishes not to see.

Or that I don't accept you typing a claim as proof of anything beyond your ability to type.

Show me the evidence. Don't tell me about it.

 

[bendog]

I don't think Obama really wants hearings .... now. The Nevada PRO GUN REPUBLICAN governor was the soft toss to McConnell. But McConnell just has a visceral dislike of Obama, that truly mystifies me. Politics is all about getting along with guys YOU DON'T LIKE. McConnell acts like Obama took his virginity and posted it on a bathroom wall or something. But the fact is the gop never really offered a compromise on healthcare, beyond maybe expanding Medicaid some more, and that actually may have been the worst aspect of Obamacare, because gop governors have gotten waivers to use the fed money for tax credits to allow people to buy coverage individually .... which is at least a market based solution, which is what we gopers are supposed to be for. And Porkulus didn't really have anything, beyond the pork of just shoveling money at make work projects, that the gop hasn't traditionally supported. Obama did offer a good faith debt compromise.

Odds have to be at least 65-35 that Hill clobbers the Donald. McConnell said no to Republican. Hillary and the senate candidates are gonna hit this "no hearings" thing like a cheap gong. McConnell likely will be a less advantageous position. McConnell's move made no political sense ... unless he was betting the farm the establishment could not run the Donald and still have a unified party going into the election. If that was his bet, he bet bad.

Obama's a big govt liberal elitist. But he won two elections.

McConnell is playing bad cop for the Republicans. If he allows a vote, then individual Senators have to go on record. Tough on those up for election

This way, when a Republican Senator is asked why Republicans will not fill Scalias seat, he gets to say...Its not me, Its McConnell

I don't think so. I don't think Garland would be confirmed on an up or down vote, and I don't see why voting no would be a difficult thing for a sitting gop senator running to defend. Just say, I question whether he would affirm an individ right to guns.

What is hard to defend is acquiescing to leadership that wouldn't even hold hearings on republican pro-gun governor for the sup ct, who would be less controversial in confirming than was Kennedy, whom the dems confirmed in Reagan's final year, and now won't even give the courtesy of hearings to Garland. Voters want congress to get shite done.

 

[Contumacious]

Again, the Senate ought not confirm a man who is another scumbag like John Roberts.

Roberts is scum because he didn't vote your way?

Unless you can prove to me using historical facts that the Founding fathers wanted the federal government to be in the healthcare and/or eleemosynary business then he is a scumbag.


.

 

[HenryBHough]

Anyone who allows their name to be placed in nomination by Our Kenyan Emperor in the dying gasps of His regime is sufficiently stupid as to be self-disqualified.

 

[bendog]

Again, the Senate ought not confirm a man who is another scumbag like John Roberts.

Roberts is scum because he didn't vote your way?

Cont doesn't do grey.

 

[easyt65]

As long as we are diving into the divergent topic of a fractured, if not 'abolished' Constitution....

ANYONE who thinks the US Federal Government is following, obeying, and up-holding the U.S. Constitution is own crack. Where to begin....How about how:

Our Federal Officials have UN-Constitutionally exempted themselves and their staff members from the very laws / 'edicts' they pass.
- PLEASE show me where that is ok in the Constitution.

Our Federal Politicians have exempted themselves from any PUNISHMENT for breaking ANY laws
- Charlie Rangel, caught numerous times hiding money, not paying taxes, etc.
- Several politicians got busted for Insider Trading, announced they had no idea those laws applied to them (WTF?!), and declared they would fix the problem by passing a NEW law saying from now on it WOULD apply to them. (AGAIN, WTF?! That law already existed and there was no need to pass another one. All that was required was that they start being held accountable to the law - ALL OF THEM!)

There's 2 out of a 'shload' of examples. Again, people seriously need to wake up! The Constitution is not 'A La Carte'! Oaths of office are either kept, the Constitution - the whole Constitution is upheld or it's 'violated'. Republicans, Democrats, Obama...they have all been treating it like an A La Carte Chinese take-Out Menu! And instead of being pissed off about ALL of it, people on both sides only get pissed off about it when it negatively effects THEM / their party.

So pardon me if I ignore and make fun of people on BOTH sides who feign concern for and outrage when someone else ignores the Constitution but is ok with their own preferred politicians / party does it.

 

[Contumacious]

Well , let's not debate semantics

And by 'semantics', you mean fascism being utterly different than our system of government?

And and you've completely abandoned the 'constitution was disbanded by FDR' horseshit?

I have already proven that FDR abolished the Constitution and adopted fascism as our socioeconomic system

Except that you haven't.

Perhaps 'proven' doesn't mean what you think it means. The word you're looking for is 'typed'.

Except that I have and you can't handle the truth.There is no worse blind man than he who wishes not to see.

Or that I don't accept you typing a claim as proof of anything beyond your ability to type.

Show me the evidence. Don't tell me about it.

You lack the intellectual capability to determine what is or isn't evidence.

.

 

[Skylar]

I don't think Obama really wants hearings .... now. The Nevada PRO GUN REPUBLICAN governor was the soft toss to McConnell. But McConnell just has a visceral dislike of Obama, that truly mystifies me. Politics is all about getting along with guys YOU DON'T LIKE. McConnell acts like Obama took his virginity and posted it on a bathroom wall or something. But the fact is the gop never really offered a compromise on healthcare, beyond maybe expanding Medicaid some more, and that actually may have been the worst aspect of Obamacare, because gop governors have gotten waivers to use the fed money for tax credits to allow people to buy coverage individually .... which is at least a market based solution, which is what we gopers are supposed to be for. And Porkulus didn't really have anything, beyond the pork of just shoveling money at make work projects, that the gop hasn't traditionally supported. Obama did offer a good faith debt compromise.

Odds have to be at least 65-35 that Hill clobbers the Donald. McConnell said no to Republican. Hillary and the senate candidates are gonna hit this "no hearings" thing like a cheap gong. McConnell likely will be a less advantageous position. McConnell's move made no political sense ... unless he was betting the farm the establishment could not run the Donald and still have a unified party going into the election. If that was his bet, he bet bad.

Obama's a big govt liberal elitist. But he won two elections.

McConnell is playing bad cop for the Republicans. If he allows a vote, then individual Senators have to go on record. Tough on those up for election

This way, when a Republican Senator is asked why Republicans will not fill Scalias seat, he gets to say...Its not me, Its McConnell

I don't think so. I don't think Garland would be confirmed on an up or down vote, and I don't see why voting no would be a difficult thing for a sitting gop senator running to defend. Just say, I question whether he would affirm an individ right to guns.

You could ask him.

Oh, wait. No hearings. Never mind.

What is hard to defend is acquiescing to leadership that wouldn't even hold hearings on republican pro-gun governor for the sup ct, who would be less controversial in confirming than was Kennedy, whom the dems confirmed in Reagan's final year, and now won't even give the courtesy of hearings to Garland. Voters want congress to get shite done.

Its just a continuation of the same tune the GOP has been dancing to for about 7 years: a refusal to co-govern.

 

[Skylar]

And by 'semantics', you mean fascism being utterly different than our system of government?

And and you've completely abandoned the 'constitution was disbanded by FDR' horseshit?

I have already proven that FDR abolished the Constitution and adopted fascism as our socioeconomic system

Except that you haven't.

Perhaps 'proven' doesn't mean what you think it means. The word you're looking for is 'typed'.

Except that I have and you can't handle the truth.There is no worse blind man than he who wishes not to see.

Or that I don't accept you typing a claim as proof of anything beyond your ability to type.

Show me the evidence. Don't tell me about it.

You lack the intellectual capability to determine what is or isn't evidence.

.

Laughing....is that your latest excuse for failing miserably to back up your claims?

 

[rightwinger]

The Senate is fully within its rights to vet the guy and vote him up or down. That is what the Democrats did with conservative nominees

So now we have gone from the liberal declaration that the Senate MUST / HAS TO vote to 'it is fully within their rights to vet and vote'...but they don't HAVE to .

Thanks for admitting you were wrong. I mean if you actually meant they HAD to, that would mean Harry Reid was guilty of heinous obstruction of the people's / U.S. business and failure / refusal to do his job by blocking all that legislation coming from the House.

The Senate can leave one of the three branches of Government unfilled forever

In publically demonstrating they do not consider the SCOTUS worthy of an expeditious decision, they leave it open to a partial court indefinitely

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Again, the Senate ought not confirm a man who is another scumbag like John Roberts.

Roberts is scum because he didn't vote your way?

Unless you can prove to me using historical facts that the Founding fathers wanted the federal government to be in the healthcare and/or eleemosynary business then he is a scumbag.

They wanted, and formed, a government that worked for the needs of the people (kind of since it actually worked best for liberal elites) in the times in which they lived. They expected us to do the same. They never thought we wouldn't still be using their Constitution 20 years later, let alone 230...