Justice Scalia Dead

[NOIRTRASH]

Its for sure Obama wants to kill the 2nd Amendment and open the statue of liberty's golden door to muslim shits, so it aint gonna happen in 2016.

 

[sr71plt]

Its for sure Obama wants to kill the 2nd Amendment and open the statue of liberty's golden door to muslim shits, so it aint gonna happen in 2016.

If anyone thought you really believed that, I think they'd have your trailer under surveillance. but then, maybe they do. Those women in the next trailer you like to rag on could be FBI agents.

 

[sr71plt]

Conspiracy kooks shift into overdrive after learning Antonin Scalia was found dead with a pillow over head

Hmmm, I hadn't read the pillow aspect. Shades of John Grisham.

 

[Eyereadtoo]

THe only way to get a new nominee confirmed this year is to abolish Congress in its entirety.

You sir definitely underestimate the "get along to go along" republicans. If there is a way for an Obama nominee confirmation they will definitely do so. The entrenched, middle of the road republicans in Congress will be the end of that political party.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Go along to get along died with the Obama presidency and that is going to have massive reprocussions eventually.

 

[JackLuis]

Liberal rips Fox hosts’ unhinged obstructionism: Sorry Scalia didn’t die at a time ‘more to your liking’

Left-leaning Fox News contributor Julie Roginsky lashed out at her co-hosts on Monday after they complained that President Barack Obama did not deserve to nominate a Supreme Court justice to replace Antonin Scalia because he only had 11 months left in office.

Roginsky warned on Monday’s edition of Outnumbered that Republican presidential candidates, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and even her co-hosts were making a political mistake by arguing that Obama should not fulfill his constitutional duties.

“Obama cannot and will not replace Justice Scalia,” Fox News contributor Guy Benson opined. “There’s an election process already underway, the American people are voting to select a new president. That new president, no matter who he or she may be, will select that replacement.”

Roginsky called that thinking “insane.”

“The president does have the authority and the right — he’s still the president, I’m sorry to say for all of you until 2017 — he does have the right to put somebody forward,” Roginsky explained. “The Senate could very easily vote that person down, give them an up and down vote.”

“Where the Republicans are missing the boat here, I think, politically,” she continued, “is that instead of saying, ‘Sure, we’ll take up Obama, we’ll take him up on it, we’ll consider it, and we’ll vote on it.’ And then the person wouldn’t go through anyway. They are digging their heels in and saying we’re not even going to consider it.”

“That is a massive, massive political mistake for the Republicans, It makes them look obstructionist,” Roginsky added. “It makes them look as if they want to get nothing done.”

Well they are the party of NO!

 

[about_average]

So what is a president allowed to do during their last year in office?
Is Obama allowed to perform any of his constitutional duties?

 

[JackLuis]

Obama already working on picking a Supreme Court nominee: White House

The White House on Monday said President Barack Obama had started preliminary discussions with his team about naming a Supreme Court justice nominee and accused Republicans of “bluster” for saying they would not confirm his pick.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters that Obama would seek a nominee who understands that justice is not an abstract theory but something that affects Americans’ daily lives. Republicans say Obama should put off naming a replacement for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died this weekend, and leave it to whoever is elected president in November.

Schultz said there was clear precedence for the U.S. Senate to confirm a Supreme Court justice during a presidential election year.

 

[sr71plt]

So what is a president allowed to do during their last year in office?
Is Obama allowed to perform any of his constitutional duties?

Of course not. Why should the last year be any different from the previous seven?

 

[JackLuis]

Badass Sen. Elizabeth Warren Kindly Invites GOP To Shut Up About Scalia Replacement

Know what’s a nice thing to read on a Monday morning? No, not news that Antonin Scalia won’t be around to replace Roe v. Wade with a two word ruling that says “JIGGERY POKERY!” Instead, it is your girlfriend Sen. Elizabeth Warren responding to all those toolbag troglodyte shart-faces in the GOP who think it’s somehow un-American for Barack Obama, who is the president of the United States of America, to appoint a justice to replace Scalia.

Get your wet naps ready, because you’re about to fap:

"The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States."

"Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes."

" Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can’t find a clause that says “…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.”

Warren had just one more thing to say:

"Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk."

She's being mean to Cruz and Rubio, how dare she?

 

[about_average]

Obama already working on picking a Supreme Court nominee: White House

I think it's pretty weird he doesn't already have a top pick in mind. A just could die at any time, I would have thought any president would be prepared for that.

 

[domroger]

I think it's pretty weird he doesn't already have a top pick in mind. A just could die at any time, I would have thought any president would be prepared for that.

He might have ,but if he put it out straight away there would be even a bigger fuss .

 

[Sean Renaud]

I think it's pretty weird he doesn't already have a top pick in mind. A just could die at any time, I would have thought any president would be prepared for that.

So could any of your other top picks. I mean it seems like a strange thing to really prep but so much for other than being aware of the high ranking judges.

 

[about_average]

He might have ,but if he put it out straight away there would be even a bigger fuss .

Yeah, even more "proof" he had Scalia murdered.

So could any of your other top picks. I mean it seems like a strange thing to really prep but so much for other than being aware of the high ranking judges.

Yeah, but I would think they'd have a ready list or 3 or 4. It's unlikely they'd all die.

 

[Hard_Rom]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-nominations-during-george-w-bushs-last-year/

What Republicans Said About Supreme Court Nominations During George W. Bush’s Last Year

When Republicans argue that Barack Obama should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice to replace Antonin Scalia, they are embracing a modified version of the “Thurmond Rule,” a concept invented by one of the Senate’s most notorious racists.

The first thing to know about the Thurmond Rule is that it is not a rule but a pronouncement by late Senator Strom Thurmond that judicial nominees should not be confirmed in the six months leading up to an election. Thurmond used his “rule” to justify blocking the nomination of Abe Fortas, who was already on the court, to Chief Justice.

Thurmond, an ardent segregationalist, was upset that Fortas and Johnson supported civil rights for African Americans. The Republicans are now seeking to extend Thurmond’s “rule” in 2015.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
“[The idea that July 2008 would trigger the] Thurmond Rule **– that’s just plain bunk. The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president’s term.”

Today, Grassley says that “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year… it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
“There’s no excuse for not considering and voting upon a well* qualified judicial nominee in the United States of America today… [J]ust because it’s a presidential election year is no excuse for us to take a vacation. And we’re here. We’re ready to go to work.”

Today, Alexander says that “it is reasonable to give the American people a voice by allowing the next president to fill this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
“[N]ow is the perfect time for a new politics of judicial confirmation to arise where Republicans and Democrats work together to confirm qualified men and women to the federal bench. Now is the perfect time because, of course, we’re in a presidential election year and no one yet knows who the next president will be. What a unique opportunity to establish that regardless of the next president’s party, the nominees will be treated fairly and on the basis of their qualifications, and not on the basis of ancient political squabbles.”

Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
“I think it’s clear that there is no Thurmond Rule. And I think the facts demonstrate that.”

Today, McConnell is leading the charge for an expanded Thurmond Rule. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” he said, immediately after Scalia’s passing.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Die, retire, look at Obama funny at a beer summit. I presume there is a short list even if they aren't sharing it. Just like every one of the 20 Republican Candidates had a list of who they wanted as their VP.

 

[about_average]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-nominations-during-george-w-bushs-last-year/

That's all well and good, but Obama wasn't president then, it was Bush. So it's entirely different now. LMAO

 

[RUlookingup]

Die, retire, look at Obama funny at a beer summit. I presume there is a short list even if they aren't sharing it. Just like every one of the 20 Republican Candidates had a list of who they wanted as their VP.

I heard he has binders of women.

 

[mark_j]

Only because it's pointing out what a complete fucking twat McConnell is.

How is that relevant?

 

[BotanyBoy]

How is that relevant?

You said it's different....it's really not. There is an open seat, POTUS has an obligation to pick someone and the senate has an obligation to either tell POTUS to try again or to confirm. Their is no 'fuck it because Obama' option outlined in the US Constitution despite common 'conservative' belief.

The only thing really different is that (R) is acting like ass clowns shirking their responsibility.

And OF COURSE mark_j comes to (R) defense....

So? Reagan was almost 30 years ago. The country and congressional politics were different back then.. The comparison from then to the current cluster fuck is rather pointless..

Because we've changed congresses constitutional obligations since then right?

LOL

 

[about_average]

I heard he has binders of women.

Wasn't that Bill Clinton?

 

[mark_j]

You said it's different....it's really not. There is an open seat, POTUS has an obligation to pick someone and the senate has an obligation to either tell POTUS to try again or to confirm. Their is no 'fuck it because Obama' option outlined in the US Constitution despite common 'conservative' belief.

It's only different because of different times and political climate.

As far as anything else I'm perfectly aware of the process.

Article Two of the United States Constitution places the power of appointing Justices with the President of the United States, stating:

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law..."

And:

The term "advice and consent" first appears in the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, referring to the senate's role in the signing and ratification of treaties. This term is then used again, to describe the Senate's role in the appointment of public officials, immediately after describing the president's duty to nominate officials. Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Obama can nominate all the judges he wants and the Senate can either hear, confirm, reject or do nothing as they see fit...

The only thing really different is that (R) is acting like ass clowns shirking their responsibility.

And OF COURSE mark_j comes to (R) defense....

I would expect that if the situation was reversed with an (R) pres and a (D) senate the senate would be playing the same fuck fuck games anyway.. Its all political posturing any way you look at it..

Because we've changed congresses constitutional obligations since then right?

LOL

No.. but the political climate has sure changed..

 

[sr71plt]

I would expect that if the situation was reversed with an (R) pres and a (D) senate the senate would be playing the same fuck fuck games anyway.. Its all political posturing any way you look at it..

You mean like in the election year 1988, when a Republican president (Reagan) nominated a Supreme Court justice (Kennedy) who was confirmed unanimously (including all of the Democrats in the Senate)?

Yes, let's repeat precedence.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's only different because of different times and political climate.

You keep saying that but I don't see how in reguards to (R) deciding "fuck it we just aren't going to do our jobs anymore, because Obama." suddenly being ok?

Obama can nominate all the judges he wants and the Senate can either hear, confirm, reject or do nothing as they see fit...

They can also set the constitution on fire....doesn't make it right. It makes them a band of childish twats holding shit up just to be dicks.

I would expect that if the situation was reversed with an (R) pres and a (D) senate the senate would be playing the same fuck fuck games anyway.. Its all political posturing any way you look at it..

Except they didn't and haven't....they might have been hard to work with before but they've done this job.

(R) is the ones fucking off like a bunch of irresponsible tween dip shits, and you're so partisan you can't even admit it. You're on here defending that shit....I'll remember that next time you're in here with the rest of the RWCJ screaming about responsibility and or the Constitution you clearly don't give a fuck about as long as it's (R) wiping their ass with it.

No.. but the political climate has sure changed..

How exactly?

What about this alleged new political climate makes it totally cool for (R) to shirk their responsibilities?

 

[talis13]

Scalia Death Penalty

Scalia wrote in his dissent in the Troy Davis case:
“This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”

Pushed for death of now exonerated inmate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/scalia-death-penalty_n_5756362.html