The Senate Is Unmoved

[Publius1787]

Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.

Especially to pay attention to Obama's choice of someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.

Read full story @ The Senate Will Not Confirm Merrick Garland

This should surprise no one. For one it's an election year. Second, if the roles were reversed the Dems would be doing the same thing. What other faux outrage are we going to drum up next?

No they wouldn't

Dems have never refused to consider a Supreme Court nominee and have suported numerous ultra conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas and Alito

Already addressed in this thread.

Actually it hasn't been

Dems have voted down nominees, but they got a vote

Refusing to even consider a candidate is charting new territory

Already addressed.

 

[Publius1787]

John Marshall. John Jay was asked first, and turned it down, as Jay thought the SC was kind of a joke.

What the hell are you talking about!!?? Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was on the court well before Marshall. And Marshall was confirmed by a Federalist Senate having been nominated by a Federalist President. No surprise he was confirmed before Jefferson took office.

 

[mamooth]

Yes, and Jay retired in 1795, and Adams renominated him in 1800. And Jay declined, having thought the the SC had gone downhill.

 

[Publius1787]

Yes, and Jay retired in 1795, and Adams renominated him in 1800. And Jay declined, having thought the the SC had gone downhill.

I learned something today. So how is it surprising that Federalist Adams nominated Marshall and Marshall was quickly confirmed by his Federalist peers in a Federalist Congress? If I recall correctly, Adams last act as President of the United States was to stuff down as many Federalists into government positions as he could before Jefferson took office. In fact, he packed the various offices so deep that he did not have time to deliver the commissions before Jefferson took office.

"On March 3, just before his term was to end, Adams, in an attempt to stymie the incoming Democratic-Republican Congress and administration, appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801. These appointees, the infamous "Midnight Judges", included William Marbury, a prosperous financier in Maryland. An ardent Federalist, Marbury was active in Maryland politics and a vigorous supporter of the Adams presidency.[3] He had been appointed to the position of justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The term for a justice of the peace was five years, and they were "authorized to hold courts and cognizance of personal demands of the value of 20 dollars."[4]

On the following day, the appointments were approved en masse by the Senate; however, to go into effect, the commissions had to be delivered to those appointed. This task fell to John Marshall, who, even though recently appointed Chief Justice of the United States, continued as the acting Secretary of State at President Adams's personal request." Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well if our founders are any indication, dirty politics were the word of the day. You hope to make political hay out of Republicans playing their games as well?

 

[rightwinger]

Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.

Especially to pay attention to Obama's choice of someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.

Read full story @ The Senate Will Not Confirm Merrick Garland

This should surprise no one. For one it's an election year. Second, if the roles were reversed the Dems would be doing the same thing. What other faux outrage are we going to drum up next?

No they wouldn't

Dems have never refused to consider a Supreme Court nominee and have suported numerous ultra conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas and Alito

Already addressed in this thread.

Actually it hasn't been

Dems have voted down nominees, but they got a vote

Refusing to even consider a candidate is charting new territory

Already addressed.

Far from it

Republicans are setting a new paradigm where filling the Supreme Court takes second fiddle to partisan politics

They will live to regret it

 

[Publius1787]

This should surprise no one. For one it's an election year. Second, if the roles were reversed the Dems would be doing the same thing. What other faux outrage are we going to drum up next?

No they wouldn't

Dems have never refused to consider a Supreme Court nominee and have suported numerous ultra conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas and Alito

Already addressed in this thread.

Actually it hasn't been

Dems have voted down nominees, but they got a vote

Refusing to even consider a candidate is charting new territory

Already addressed.

Far from it

Republicans are setting a new paradigm where filling the Supreme Court takes second fiddle to partisan politics

They will live to regret it

LOL, See Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. When it comes to partisan Supreme Court hackery, no one is more partisan than they. Yeah, the "Oh but this time is different" excuse doesn't exactly support your case. Dems were prepped to block Reagans nominees until he nominated a left of center judge. Then all was happy in the land of the Senate. You think Obama would nominate a right of center nominee for compromise as Reagan did left of center? Not a chance. The only difference is that the President in one instance compromised to an opposition congress.

 

[rightwinger]

No they wouldn't

Dems have never refused to consider a Supreme Court nominee and have suported numerous ultra conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas and Alito

Already addressed in this thread.

Actually it hasn't been

Dems have voted down nominees, but they got a vote

Refusing to even consider a candidate is charting new territory

Already addressed.

Far from it

Republicans are setting a new paradigm where filling the Supreme Court takes second fiddle to partisan politics

They will live to regret it

LOL, See Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. When it comes to partisan Supreme Court hackery, no one is more partisan than they.

They asked tough questions didn't they?

It is part of the confirmation process.....a process Republicans won't even consider. They will live to regret it

 

[HenryBHough]

Obama knew what was coming but, in his arrogance, he choose to play games instead of buckling down to some serious golf. I mean, where His time would be far more beneficial to all the world's children.

On the other hand, I'm not happy that The Senate is not respecting its duty to BORK the living shit outta.......

 

[Publius1787]

Already addressed in this thread.

Actually it hasn't been

Dems have voted down nominees, but they got a vote

Refusing to even consider a candidate is charting new territory

Already addressed.

Far from it

Republicans are setting a new paradigm where filling the Supreme Court takes second fiddle to partisan politics

They will live to regret it

LOL, See Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. When it comes to partisan Supreme Court hackery, no one is more partisan than they.

They asked tough questions didn't they?

It is part of the confirmation process.....a process Republicans won't even consider. They will live to regret it

They grandstanded and made political statements, often cutting off nominees in mid explanation of their decisions and directly calling them racist sexist bigots.

The only reason Democrats went ahead with hearings was because Reagan, knowing that the Democrats aimed to block his appointee, nominated a left of center justice. The difference between then and now was that Reagan compromised with a Democrat congress. Obama would have never pulled such a move.

 

[jillian]

Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.

Especially to pay attention to Obama's choice of someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.

Read full story @ The Senate Will Not Confirm Merrick Garland

hey... they're your do-nothing congress.

congrats

 

[rightwinger]

Actually it hasn't been

Dems have voted down nominees, but they got a vote

Refusing to even consider a candidate is charting new territory

Already addressed.

Far from it

Republicans are setting a new paradigm where filling the Supreme Court takes second fiddle to partisan politics

They will live to regret it

LOL, See Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. When it comes to partisan Supreme Court hackery, no one is more partisan than they.

They asked tough questions didn't they?

It is part of the confirmation process.....a process Republicans won't even consider. They will live to regret it

They grandstanded and made political statements, often cutting off nominees in mid explanation of their decisions and directly calling them racist sexist bigots.

The only reason Democrats went ahead with hearings was because Reagan, knowing that the Democrats aimed to block his appointee, nominated a left of center justice. The difference between then and now was that Reagan compromised with a Democrat congress. Obama would have never pulled such a move.

Nobody said confirmation is easy

Republicans say you can't even get a hearing. If they have tough questions for Garland, let's hear them

 

[Publius1787]

Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.

Especially to pay attention to Obama's choice of someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.

Read full story @ The Senate Will Not Confirm Merrick Garland

hey... they're your do-nothing congress.

congrats

Already addressed.

Far from it

Republicans are setting a new paradigm where filling the Supreme Court takes second fiddle to partisan politics

They will live to regret it

LOL, See Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. When it comes to partisan Supreme Court hackery, no one is more partisan than they.

They asked tough questions didn't they?

It is part of the confirmation process.....a process Republicans won't even consider. They will live to regret it

They grandstanded and made political statements, often cutting off nominees in mid explanation of their decisions and directly calling them racist sexist bigots.

The only reason Democrats went ahead with hearings was because Reagan, knowing that the Democrats aimed to block his appointee, nominated a left of center justice. The difference between then and now was that Reagan compromised with a Democrat congress. Obama would have never pulled such a move.

Nobody said confirmation is easy

Republicans say you can't even get a hearing. If they have tough questions for Garland, let's hear them

Perhaps you might .... In November. Perhaps not.

 

[jillian]

Obama knew what was coming but, in his arrogance, he choose to play games instead of buckling down to some serious golf. I mean, where His time would be far more beneficial to all the world's children.

On the other hand, I'm not happy that The Senate is not respecting its duty to BORK the living shit outta.......

you're a moron.

the arrogance is you rightwingnut pond scum thinking the president shouldn't nominate a justice.

now quiet, you uneducated twit

 

[jillian]

Already addressed.

Far from it

Republicans are setting a new paradigm where filling the Supreme Court takes second fiddle to partisan politics

They will live to regret it

LOL, See Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. When it comes to partisan Supreme Court hackery, no one is more partisan than they.

They asked tough questions didn't they?

It is part of the confirmation process.....a process Republicans won't even consider. They will live to regret it

They grandstanded and made political statements, often cutting off nominees in mid explanation of their decisions and directly calling them racist sexist bigots.

The only reason Democrats went ahead with hearings was because Reagan, knowing that the Democrats aimed to block his appointee, nominated a left of center justice. The difference between then and now was that Reagan compromised with a Democrat congress. Obama would have never pulled such a move.

Nobody said confirmation is easy

Republicans say you can't even get a hearing. If they have tough questions for Garland, let's hear them

they don't.... they'd rather sit there like the radical, rabid dolts they are and pretend the black guy isn't president.

 

[jillian]

Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.

Especially to pay attention to Obama's choice of someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.

Read full story @ The Senate Will Not Confirm Merrick Garland

hey... they're your do-nothing congress.

congrats

Far from it

Republicans are setting a new paradigm where filling the Supreme Court takes second fiddle to partisan politics

They will live to regret it

LOL, See Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. When it comes to partisan Supreme Court hackery, no one is more partisan than they.

They asked tough questions didn't they?

It is part of the confirmation process.....a process Republicans won't even consider. They will live to regret it

They grandstanded and made political statements, often cutting off nominees in mid explanation of their decisions and directly calling them racist sexist bigots.

The only reason Democrats went ahead with hearings was because Reagan, knowing that the Democrats aimed to block his appointee, nominated a left of center justice. The difference between then and now was that Reagan compromised with a Democrat congress. Obama would have never pulled such a move.

Nobody said confirmation is easy

Republicans say you can't even get a hearing. If they have tough questions for Garland, let's hear them

Perhaps you might .... In November. Perhaps not.

good luck ever getting a nominee if you don't win it all...

and you won't... so you're pretty well screwed.

 

[Publius1787]

Far from it

Republicans are setting a new paradigm where filling the Supreme Court takes second fiddle to partisan politics

They will live to regret it

LOL, See Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. When it comes to partisan Supreme Court hackery, no one is more partisan than they.

They asked tough questions didn't they?

It is part of the confirmation process.....a process Republicans won't even consider. They will live to regret it

They grandstanded and made political statements, often cutting off nominees in mid explanation of their decisions and directly calling them racist sexist bigots.

The only reason Democrats went ahead with hearings was because Reagan, knowing that the Democrats aimed to block his appointee, nominated a left of center justice. The difference between then and now was that Reagan compromised with a Democrat congress. Obama would have never pulled such a move.

Nobody said confirmation is easy

Republicans say you can't even get a hearing. If they have tough questions for Garland, let's hear them

they don't.... they'd rather sit there like the radical, rabid dolts they are and pretend the black guy isn't president.

I see a President exercising his power and a congress exercising theirs. No harm no foul.

 

[rightwinger]

Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.

Especially to pay attention to Obama's choice of someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.

Read full story @ The Senate Will Not Confirm Merrick Garland

hey... they're your do-nothing congress.

congrats

Far from it

Republicans are setting a new paradigm where filling the Supreme Court takes second fiddle to partisan politics

They will live to regret it

LOL, See Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. When it comes to partisan Supreme Court hackery, no one is more partisan than they.

They asked tough questions didn't they?

It is part of the confirmation process.....a process Republicans won't even consider. They will live to regret it

They grandstanded and made political statements, often cutting off nominees in mid explanation of their decisions and directly calling them racist sexist bigots.

The only reason Democrats went ahead with hearings was because Reagan, knowing that the Democrats aimed to block his appointee, nominated a left of center justice. The difference between then and now was that Reagan compromised with a Democrat congress. Obama would have never pulled such a move.

Nobody said confirmation is easy

Republicans say you can't even get a hearing. If they have tough questions for Garland, let's hear them

Perhaps you might .... In November. Perhaps not.

November?

I thought they were waiting for the new President. Are you admitting Republicans are slimy enough to confirm Obama 's appointment if Hillary is elected?

 

[Publius1787]

Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.

Especially to pay attention to Obama's choice of someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.

Read full story @ The Senate Will Not Confirm Merrick Garland

hey... they're your do-nothing congress.

congrats

LOL, See Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. When it comes to partisan Supreme Court hackery, no one is more partisan than they.

They asked tough questions didn't they?

It is part of the confirmation process.....a process Republicans won't even consider. They will live to regret it

They grandstanded and made political statements, often cutting off nominees in mid explanation of their decisions and directly calling them racist sexist bigots.

The only reason Democrats went ahead with hearings was because Reagan, knowing that the Democrats aimed to block his appointee, nominated a left of center justice. The difference between then and now was that Reagan compromised with a Democrat congress. Obama would have never pulled such a move.

Nobody said confirmation is easy

Republicans say you can't even get a hearing. If they have tough questions for Garland, let's hear them

Perhaps you might .... In November. Perhaps not.

good luck ever getting a nominee if you don't win it all...

and you won't... so you're pretty well screwed.

I dunno, Chris Wallace asked the President (To air on Fox News Sunday) if he will retract his nomination if a Democrat gets elected. Obama said no. So, if this is the case, Republicans have nothing to lose by delaying confirmation.

 

[Publius1787]

Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.

Especially to pay attention to Obama's choice of someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.

Read full story @ The Senate Will Not Confirm Merrick Garland

hey... they're your do-nothing congress.

congrats

LOL, See Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. When it comes to partisan Supreme Court hackery, no one is more partisan than they.

They asked tough questions didn't they?

It is part of the confirmation process.....a process Republicans won't even consider. They will live to regret it

They grandstanded and made political statements, often cutting off nominees in mid explanation of their decisions and directly calling them racist sexist bigots.

The only reason Democrats went ahead with hearings was because Reagan, knowing that the Democrats aimed to block his appointee, nominated a left of center justice. The difference between then and now was that Reagan compromised with a Democrat congress. Obama would have never pulled such a move.

Nobody said confirmation is easy

Republicans say you can't even get a hearing. If they have tough questions for Garland, let's hear them

Perhaps you might .... In November. Perhaps not.

November?

I thought they were waiting for the new President. Are you admitting Republicans are slimy enough to confirm Obama 's appointment if Hillary is elected?

I wouldn't put it passed them. Would you? Do you think that Democrats would be slimy enough to block the vote?

 

[Moonglow]

Already addressed.

Far from it

Republicans are setting a new paradigm where filling the Supreme Court takes second fiddle to partisan politics

They will live to regret it

LOL, See Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. When it comes to partisan Supreme Court hackery, no one is more partisan than they.

They asked tough questions didn't they?

It is part of the confirmation process.....a process Republicans won't even consider. They will live to regret it

They grandstanded and made political statements, often cutting off nominees in mid explanation of their decisions and directly calling them racist sexist bigots.

The only reason Democrats went ahead with hearings was because Reagan, knowing that the Democrats aimed to block his appointee, nominated a left of center justice. The difference between then and now was that Reagan compromised with a Democrat congress. Obama would have never pulled such a move.

Nobody said confirmation is easy

Republicans say you can't even get a hearing. If they have tough questions for Garland, let's hear them

They are too buzy doing nuffin...