Justice Scalia Dead

[talis13]

Supreme Court Appointment
Four of the last fourteen Supreme Court justices were nominated and/or confirmed within one year of a presidential election. Furthermore, all of them were nominated by Republican presidents. (Powell and Rehnquist were appointed by Nixon, Stevens was appointed by Ford, and Kennedy was appointed by Reagan). That's over 28% of the justices seated over that time period. And being that presidential elections are held every four years, it's also more than the number of vacancies one would expect to occur randomly (about 25%). And that doesn't even include Barack Obama's pending appointment. In other words, the truth is precisely the opposite of what the corporate media are reporting.

St. Ronnie Speaks On Question Of SCOTUS Confirmation In Final Year
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/st-ronnie-speaks-question-scotus

This needs to change:
The SC makes its own rules for itself and polices itself.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-roth-supreme-court-transparency-20141201-story.html

http://fortune.com/2015/12/18/john-roberts-texas-instruments/

Do you serfs really expect change under Roberts?
After all he sees no quid pro quo in unlimited (legal bribery) money in politics.

 

[sr71plt]

What happened to the two previous nominees, pilot?

One wasn't confirmed by the Senate for being a Neandrathal and one withdrew for smoking pot. What does that have to do with the third one being confirmed unanimously in an election year, thus belying the post I quoted?

The position being countered is whether the president has the right to put forward a nomination within a year of the end of his term. Anyone who upholds the Constitution will say yes, certainly. McConnell, Cruz, and Rubio, although claiming to be strict Constitutionists, self-servingly and idiotically claim no.

I'm betting that Obama puts up a moderate, the congressional Republicans will stonewall that appointee, the voters will see what asshats they are and respond accordingly in the next congressional elections, that all of the more liberal rulings at the lower levels will be upheld for a year because of an SC deadlock, and the Democrats will win the White House and slam in far more liberal nominees than Obama did for the next four vacancies.

 

[mark_j]

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?

Did I say it was?

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.

Then they are a bunch of childish twats as you put it... So what?

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

Right and (D)s have NEVER played fuck fuck politics before... because they are soooo altruistic and all.

(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.

Well, that is your opinion and like every other flaming asshole on here you are entitled to it. Truthfully, I don't give a shit what you think of me...

How exactly?

I don't recall this level of partisan hackery back then. It may very well have existed but I don't recall it being nearly this bad.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Did I say it was?

You sure defended the shit out of them when it was brought up....

So? <--this right here is your clear support of the GOP's behaviorReagan 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..

The rest of it is you making up excuses for it because you know it's fucking scummy as fuck but you're too partisan to hold your overlords accountable.

Right and (D)s have NEVER played fuck fuck politics before... because they are soooo altruistic and all.

OHHHH Bit touchy about the (R) criticism eh?

I never said anything close that that ya partisan loon. But currently, right now (D)'s aren't the ones giving the over the top finger to the Constitution and the people of the United States of America because Kenyan communist in White House.

Well, that is your opinion and like every other flaming asshole on here you are entitled to it. Truthfully, I don't give a shit what you think of me...

WELL.....ya really told me off there pal!!

I don't recall this level of partisan hackery back then. It may very well have existed but I don't recall it being nearly this bad.

Oh well that sounds like a perfectly good reason for (R) to blow off their constitutional duties for the year....because Kenyan Commie just seals it with super glue am I right??

LOL keep making excuses for (R)

 

[about_average]

Just saw on the news Rubio weighing in again. It "wouldn't be fair" for Obama to appoint a new justice.

 

[phrodeau]

Just saw on the news Rubio weighing in again. It "wouldn't be fair" for Obama to appoint a new justice.

It's the new definition of "fair".

http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/foxnews-lies.jpg

 

[JackLuis]

Glenn Beck: God had to kill Antonin Scalia to help put Ted Cruz in the White House

That God sure works in mysterious ways.

Glenn Beck has been campaigning for Ted Cruz this week in South Carolina, so he hasn’t been able to keep up his radio schedule. He did take a moment to call in on Tuesday to talk about the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Beck’s co-host Pat Gray couldn’t understand why God wouldn’t allow Scalia to live on until the election had finished. According to Right Wing Watch, Beck swiftly called the show to explain that God’s motivation for taking the Justice had everything to do with Ted Cruz’s campaign for president. Evidently, Beck believes Scalia’s death will motivate Americans to elect him if they are faced with the haunting reality of a world without the Justice to fight for their liberty.

“I just woke the American people up,” Beck said, pretending to be the mind of God. “I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, ‘look at how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy and you now have 5-4 decisions in the other direction. Just with this one guy, you’ve lost your liberty so you’d better elect somebody that is going to be somebody on [the court] because for the next 30 years, if you don’t, the Constitution as you know it [is gone].'”

 

[Hard_Rom]

Sounds more like God wants a lefty SC. Why else take a known righty away with a lefty POTUS just itching to fill the spot with a lefty?

Bog's son was an anti-establishment bleeding heart liberal. Probably picked that up from his dad.

 

[mark_j]

You sure defended the shit out of them when it was brought up....

The rest of it is you making up excuses for it because you know it's fucking scummy as fuck but you're too partisan to hold your overlords accountable.

OHHHH Bit touchy about the (R) criticism eh?

I never said anything close that that ya partisan loon. But currently, right now (D)'s aren't the ones giving the over the top finger to the Constitution and the people of the United States of America because Kenyan communist in White House.

WELL.....ya really told me off there pal!!

Oh well that sounds like a perfectly good reason for (R) to blow off their constitutional duties for the year....because Kenyan Commie just seals it with super glue am I right??

LOL keep making excuses for (R)

Which in the end means basically fuck-all.. Nothing changes.

Obama is free to appoint whoever he wants, no one is denying that he has that constitutional duty, with the advice and consent of the senate. If the senate (specifically McConnell) decides to play politics with the advice and consent portion of the process there really isn't a damn thing you can do about it..

 

[sr71plt]

Obama is free to appoint whoever he wants, no one is denying that he has that constitutional duty, with the advice and consent of the senate. If the senate (specifically McConnell) decides to play politics with the advice and consent portion of the process there really isn't a damn thing you can do about it..

The Democrats can exploit it, by putting forth a moderate judge appointment, continually pointing to unreasonable Republican intransigence (which the electorate is already railing against with its primary voting), and sitting back and enjoying appellate rulings confirmed by a hung Supreme Court, when the appellate courts are already leaning left.

Here in Virginia we're going to have a former Republican governor sent to the slammer by an appellate court ruling if the SC is hung on his appeal, when Scalia had taken up getting him off the hook.

 

[about_average]

Which in the end means basically fuck-all.. Nothing changes.

Obama is free to appoint whoever he wants, no one is denying that he has that constitutional duty, with the advice and consent of the senate. If the senate (specifically McConnell) decides to play politics with the advice and consent portion of the process there really isn't a damn thing you can do about it..

No, but they are saying it would be "unfair". And by saying they won't even let anyone out of committee that there's no point in him nominating anyone.

 

[Wrong Element]

Which in the end means basically fuck-all.. Nothing changes.

Obama is free to appoint whoever he wants, no one is denying that he has that constitutional duty, with the advice and consent of the senate. If the senate (specifically McConnell) decides to play politics with the advice and consent portion of the process there really isn't a damn thing you can do about it..

True, the Senate can always turn down whoever Obama nominates.

But that raises the question of why, since this is no big secret, the Republicans have been so insistent that Obama not even try to put someone forward. Pretty clear that it's because they don't actually want to go on record as rejecting a specific person, especially if that person represents a demographic that no one wants to offend going into an election. If the nominee is someone who makes a decent case for themselves, it might look "too political" to turn him or her down -- at the same time the GOP presidential candidates are falling over themselves promising to nominate a culture warrior to the post. So having no nomination at all removes that risk.

 

[loquere]

Why Obama Should Nominate Barack Obama For The Supreme Court Vacancy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...elf-supreme-court_us_56c35b6ee4b0b40245c80061

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Personally I hope that President Obama makes his nomination, the GOP controlled Senate refuses to even consider he appointment and the Democrats bang that political obstructionist drum all the way to November.

 

[JackLuis]

With 24 Senate Rethuglicans up for reelection it's time a revolutionized electorate strikes for a Fresh Deck instead of a New Deal.

Chuck Grassley is wavering about considering a SC nomination as he is considering how his obstruction could effect his election. A Chairman of the Judiciary he will have to bare the brunt of this fight. O'Connell can just tell him to stiff Obama but Grassley will have to pay the price in November.

 

[Tigersman]

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

Get a female intern to give him a blow job.

 

[KingOrfeo]

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

We can do that?!

 

[about_average]

Get a female intern to give him a blow job.

Well, I went and looked and I can't find anything in the constitution about the president getting blow jobs so I'm not sure why you think that's one of his constitutional duties.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, I went and looked and I can't find anything in the constitution about the president getting blow jobs so I'm not sure why you think that's one of his constitutional duties.

Precedence, apparently.

 

[about_average]

Looks like the republican message is working, only 54% of americans say it should be up to obama to nominate someone
https://www.yahoo.com/news/most-ame...te-scalias-replacement-reuters-110104458.html

Or, in other words, 46% of Americans are idiots.

 

[RUlookingup]

On the other hand...Obama is skipping Scalia's funeral! That should bring smiles to the lefties.

AND..this is even better....He's going to hang out with the Castro's in Cuba. Y'know...that repressive dictatorship.

They're soooo accommodating to the LGBTQ community. Lots of individual rights in that country. It's no wonder Obama is kowtowing to them.

What is it with the left? They treat our allies poorly, but suck up to dictators???

Lefties are a delusional lot. They can justify anything in their minds.

 

[Dream_Operator]

Lefties are a delusional lot. They can justify anything in their minds.

They embrace the Pope for his pro Illegal Immigration stance, while they ignore his views on homosexuality, contraception, abortion, war on women, pedophilia, etc.

 

[sr71plt]

Lefties are a delusional lot. They can justify anything in their minds.

You mean like a strict constitutionalist saying the president can't nominate people for federal jobs in the last year of his presidency?

 

[sr71plt]

Cite a source, Pilot?

A source for what?

What the Constitution says? Well, the Constitution. You can read it as well as I can.

What strict constitutionalists like Cruz and Rubio have said? Well, you can listen to what they say in debates and town hall meetings as easily as I have.

Other than that, who do you think you're fooling?

This is basically why the Republicans aren't going to get anywhere this year or why some of them can't handle a Barnum and Bailey barker like Trump. It's because they are as dumb as a rock. You seem intent on joining them.

 

[Dream_Operator]

This is basically why the Republicans aren't going to get anywhere this year or why some of them can't handle a Barnum and Bailey barker like Trump. It's because they are as dumb as a rock. You seem intent on joining them.

I'm an Independent, but I have heard these same predictions in the last two Congressional elections, how did they turn out?

Stereotyping anyone who doesn't agree with you makes you what? Enlightened?

Am I dumb as a rock?