There’s ample precedent for rejecting lame duck supreme court nominees

[American_Jihad]

It's like the McDonalds deal, get rid of the black CEO and the company is recovering, hope the same for America and the world...

 

[BluesLegend]

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia...

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

February 13, 2016 By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

...

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees

There's a difference between rejecting A nominee. And rejecting ANY nominee. No senate in our nation's history has ever insisted that they will reject any nominee. This is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and belligerence. And it will define the GOP.

Obama and the left reaps what they have sown, sucks to be them.

 

[Skylar]

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia...

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

February 13, 2016 By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

...

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees

There's a difference between rejecting A nominee. And rejecting ANY nominee. No senate in our nation's history has ever insisted that they will reject any nominee. This is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and belligerence. And it will define the GOP.

Obama and the left reaps what they have sown, sucks to be them.

And when did Obama as a senator insist that any nominee offered by GW would be rejected?

Never. Again, the GOP just defined its legacy. And it will define them.

 

[BluesLegend]

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia...

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

February 13, 2016 By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

...

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees

There's a difference between rejecting A nominee. And rejecting ANY nominee. No senate in our nation's history has ever insisted that they will reject any nominee. This is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and belligerence. And it will define the GOP.

Obama and the left reaps what they have sown, sucks to be them.

And when did Obama as a senator insist that any nominee offered by GW would be rejected?

Never. Again, the GOP just defined its legacy. And it will define them.

Your forgetting, we hate his guts and all his lawless left filth pals hence he can pound sand. That's as clear as I can make it for you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia...

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

February 13, 2016 By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

...

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees

There's a difference between rejecting A nominee. And rejecting ANY nominee. No senate in our nation's history has ever insisted that they will reject any nominee. This is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and belligerence. And it will define the GOP.

Obama and the left reaps what they have sown, sucks to be them.

And when did Obama as a senator insist that any nominee offered by GW would be rejected?

Never. Again, the GOP just defined its legacy. And it will define them.

Your forgetting, we hate his guts and all his lawless left filth pals hence he can pound sand. That's as clear as I can make it for you.

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

 

[BluesLegend]

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia...

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

February 13, 2016 By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

...

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees

There's a difference between rejecting A nominee. And rejecting ANY nominee. No senate in our nation's history has ever insisted that they will reject any nominee. This is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and belligerence. And it will define the GOP.

Obama and the left reaps what they have sown, sucks to be them.

And when did Obama as a senator insist that any nominee offered by GW would be rejected?

Never. Again, the GOP just defined its legacy. And it will define them.

Your forgetting, we hate his guts and all his lawless left filth pals hence he can pound sand. That's as clear as I can make it for you.

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

That's big talk from the party that has suffered multiple epic beatings since 2008. I know why don't they run on Obamacare again

 

[Skylar]

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia...

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

February 13, 2016 By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

...

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees

There's a difference between rejecting A nominee. And rejecting ANY nominee. No senate in our nation's history has ever insisted that they will reject any nominee. This is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and belligerence. And it will define the GOP.

Obama and the left reaps what they have sown, sucks to be them.

And when did Obama as a senator insist that any nominee offered by GW would be rejected?

Never. Again, the GOP just defined its legacy. And it will define them.

Your forgetting, we hate his guts and all his lawless left filth pals hence he can pound sand. That's as clear as I can make it for you.

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

Even strategically, this was a stupid move. The GOP senate could have done exactly what they announced they would do....without the announcement. It would have given them the same result, but with far more wiggle room.

But within the current GOP, even the *possibility* of compromise is considered anathema. And that will define the GOP's historical legacy in this era. People will look back at their actions with dumbfounded awe that anyone could be this fucking stupid. They'll write books on how the GOP could have let itself get this profoundly broken.

 

[Skylar]

There's a difference between rejecting A nominee. And rejecting ANY nominee. No senate in our nation's history has ever insisted that they will reject any nominee. This is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and belligerence. And it will define the GOP.

Obama and the left reaps what they have sown, sucks to be them.

And when did Obama as a senator insist that any nominee offered by GW would be rejected?

Never. Again, the GOP just defined its legacy. And it will define them.

Your forgetting, we hate his guts and all his lawless left filth pals hence he can pound sand. That's as clear as I can make it for you.

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

That's big talk from the party that has suffered multiple epic beatings since 2008. I know why don't they run on Obamacare again

You mean a pair of presidential wins?

 

[American_Jihad]

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia...

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

February 13, 2016 By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

...

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees

There's a difference between rejecting A nominee. And rejecting ANY nominee. No senate in our nation's history has ever insisted that they will reject any nominee. This is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and belligerence. And it will define the GOP.

Obama and the left reaps what they have sown, sucks to be them.

And when did Obama as a senator insist that any nominee offered by GW would be rejected?

Never. Again, the GOP just defined its legacy. And it will define them.

Obongo was in senate for what 2yrs, greenhorn...

I see your obsessed with legacy, obongo's will be way worse than carters and he to might also become a moron when he leaves the WH...

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama and the left reaps what they have sown, sucks to be them.

And when did Obama as a senator insist that any nominee offered by GW would be rejected?

Never. Again, the GOP just defined its legacy. And it will define them.

Your forgetting, we hate his guts and all his lawless left filth pals hence he can pound sand. That's as clear as I can make it for you.

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

That's big talk from the party that has suffered multiple epic beatings since 2008. I know why don't they run on Obamacare again

You mean a pair of presidential wins?

LOL we took away congress and neutered the fool. He's spent years pouting and flinging out the odd executive order which won't be worth the paper its printed on once his term is up. Poor libs

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There's a difference between rejecting A nominee. And rejecting ANY nominee. No senate in our nation's history has ever insisted that they will reject any nominee. This is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and belligerence. And it will define the GOP.

Obama and the left reaps what they have sown, sucks to be them.

And when did Obama as a senator insist that any nominee offered by GW would be rejected?

Never. Again, the GOP just defined its legacy. And it will define them.

Your forgetting, we hate his guts and all his lawless left filth pals hence he can pound sand. That's as clear as I can make it for you.

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

That's big talk from the party that has suffered multiple epic beatings since 2008. I know why don't they run on Obamacare again

Nothing like big talk. It's throw the bums out time again, in a do-nothing Congress, with 24 GOP seats to defend, and you're the bums. Not governing, not doing their job, saying they won't do their job on a Supreme Court Justice, pennies from Heaven...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And when did Obama as a senator insist that any nominee offered by GW would be rejected?

Never. Again, the GOP just defined its legacy. And it will define them.

Your forgetting, we hate his guts and all his lawless left filth pals hence he can pound sand. That's as clear as I can make it for you.

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

That's big talk from the party that has suffered multiple epic beatings since 2008. I know why don't they run on Obamacare again

You mean a pair of presidential wins?

LOL we took away congress and neutered the fool. He's spent years pouting and flinging out the odd executive order which won't be worth the paper its printed on once his term is up. Poor libs

Poor libs are about to take back the Senate, and most likely to keep the White House. You have Trump, we have your party not doing their fuckin' jobs, and being proud of it.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama and the left reaps what they have sown, sucks to be them.

And when did Obama as a senator insist that any nominee offered by GW would be rejected?

Never. Again, the GOP just defined its legacy. And it will define them.

Your forgetting, we hate his guts and all his lawless left filth pals hence he can pound sand. That's as clear as I can make it for you.

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

That's big talk from the party that has suffered multiple epic beatings since 2008. I know why don't they run on Obamacare again

Nothing like big talk. It's throw the bums out time again, in a do-nothing Congress, with 24 GOP seats to defend, and you're the bums. Not governing, not doing their job, saying they won't do their job on a Supreme Court Justice, pennies from Heaven...

Only one problem in your theory, nobody likes liberals anymore.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And when did Obama as a senator insist that any nominee offered by GW would be rejected?

Never. Again, the GOP just defined its legacy. And it will define them.

Your forgetting, we hate his guts and all his lawless left filth pals hence he can pound sand. That's as clear as I can make it for you.

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

That's big talk from the party that has suffered multiple epic beatings since 2008. I know why don't they run on Obamacare again

Nothing like big talk. It's throw the bums out time again, in a do-nothing Congress, with 24 GOP seats to defend, and you're the bums. Not governing, not doing their job, saying they won't do their job on a Supreme Court Justice, pennies from Heaven...

Only one problem in your theory, nobody likes liberals anymore.

Who gives a fuck, they can't vote for those idiots you're running. What choice do they have? Oh right, none.

 

[American_Jihad]

Senators Must Keep Scalia’s Legacy Alive and Reject Obama’s Nominee
Justice Scalia’s true legacy was fighting for the Constitution.
February 15, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

Even in death, he always had the last word. As debate over a possible recess appointment to the Supreme Court by Obama continues, Justice Antonin Scalia had already made the case against it.

“The court’s decision transforms the recess-appointment power from a tool carefully designed to fill a narrow and specific need into a weapon to be wielded by future presidents against future Senates,” Justice Scalia wrote in his usual unsparing language in NLRB v. Noel Canning.

And, as always, he took the side of the Constitution over everything else indicting the court for casting “aside the plain, original meaning of the constitutional text in deference to late-arising historical practices”. In clear and forceful language, he warned that “the Constitution’s core, government-structuring provisions are no less critical to preserving liberty than are the later adopted provisions of the Bill of Rights” in maintaining “the “enduring structure” of constitutional government”.

To Justice Scalia, liberty meant limiting the powers of government by maintaining the Constitution. A recess appointment, the topic revived by his passing, is as grave a threat to liberty as a violation of the First Amendment. He was convinced that government breaking its constitutional chains was the true threat to liberty. Attacks on the First or Second Amendment were symptoms of that larger problem.

Often outnumbered, but never outwitted, Justice Scalia saw government as a monster that the Founders had chained with manacles made of words. His task was reforging them with his voice and pen.

Leftist judges and lawyers love to style themselves as defenders of civil rights, but their idea of civil rights is providing unlimited power to government. Justice Scalia was an actual believer in civil rights. Unlike the activist leftist judges to whom the law is merely a means to a leftist end, dressing up their usurpation of power under the mocking name of “Living Constitution”, he was an Originalist who truly fought for civil rights every time he fought for the truth of the word of the law over the power of men.

The best way to memorialize one of the greatest friends of the Constitution is by taking up his fight.

...

Senators Must Keep Scalia’s Legacy Alive and Reject Obama’s Nominee

 

[Skylar]

And when did Obama as a senator insist that any nominee offered by GW would be rejected?

Never. Again, the GOP just defined its legacy. And it will define them.

Your forgetting, we hate his guts and all his lawless left filth pals hence he can pound sand. That's as clear as I can make it for you.

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

That's big talk from the party that has suffered multiple epic beatings since 2008. I know why don't they run on Obamacare again

Nothing like big talk. It's throw the bums out time again, in a do-nothing Congress, with 24 GOP seats to defend, and you're the bums. Not governing, not doing their job, saying they won't do their job on a Supreme Court Justice, pennies from Heaven...

Only one problem in your theory, nobody likes liberals anymore.

Oh, obviously. That's why self identified liberals are at an all time high. And self identified conservatives are a point off an all time low. With conservatives having managed to convince the electorate to vote for their presidential candidate a grand total of once in the last generation.

 

[BluesLegend]

Your forgetting, we hate his guts and all his lawless left filth pals hence he can pound sand. That's as clear as I can make it for you.

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

That's big talk from the party that has suffered multiple epic beatings since 2008. I know why don't they run on Obamacare again

You mean a pair of presidential wins?

LOL we took away congress and neutered the fool. He's spent years pouting and flinging out the odd executive order which won't be worth the paper its printed on once his term is up. Poor libs

Poor libs are about to take back the Senate, and most likely to keep the White House. You have Trump, we have your party not doing their fuckin' jobs.

Ahahaha you libs are funny we gave the Dems a beating, threw them to the ground and kicked dirt in their faces while laughing, and they lay there talking smack. lol

 

[BluesLegend]

Your forgetting, we hate his guts and all his lawless left filth pals hence he can pound sand. That's as clear as I can make it for you.

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

That's big talk from the party that has suffered multiple epic beatings since 2008. I know why don't they run on Obamacare again

Nothing like big talk. It's throw the bums out time again, in a do-nothing Congress, with 24 GOP seats to defend, and you're the bums. Not governing, not doing their job, saying they won't do their job on a Supreme Court Justice, pennies from Heaven...

Only one problem in your theory, nobody likes liberals anymore.

Oh, obviously. That's why self identified liberals are at an all time high. And self identified conservatives are a point off an all time low. With conservatives having managed to convince the electorate to vote for their presidential candidate a grand total of once in the last generation.

Bush beat you people twice, a man who could barely put a sentence together.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

That's big talk from the party that has suffered multiple epic beatings since 2008. I know why don't they run on Obamacare again

You mean a pair of presidential wins?

LOL we took away congress and neutered the fool. He's spent years pouting and flinging out the odd executive order which won't be worth the paper its printed on once his term is up. Poor libs

Poor libs are about to take back the Senate, and most likely to keep the White House. You have Trump, we have your party not doing their fuckin' jobs.

Ahahaha you libs are funny we gave the Dems a beating, threw them to the ground and kicked dirt in their faces while laughing, and they lay there talking smack. lol

Smack? No. That's American politics, little friend, which kicks GOP ass whenever the kids and stupid ******* come out to vote, which is every four years.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He won't be pounding sand, and we will be pounding your folks right out of office for not doing their goddamned jobs...

That's big talk from the party that has suffered multiple epic beatings since 2008. I know why don't they run on Obamacare again

Nothing like big talk. It's throw the bums out time again, in a do-nothing Congress, with 24 GOP seats to defend, and you're the bums. Not governing, not doing their job, saying they won't do their job on a Supreme Court Justice, pennies from Heaven...

Only one problem in your theory, nobody likes liberals anymore.

Oh, obviously. That's why self identified liberals are at an all time high. And self identified conservatives are a point off an all time low. With conservatives having managed to convince the electorate to vote for their presidential candidate a grand total of once in the last generation.

Bush beat you people twice, a man who could barely put a sentence together.

Appointed once, won once. That's politics, in America.