Antonin Scalia dead?

[B-Man]

This is the Stupidest, Most Hypocritical Op-Ed Ever Written: Of course, it was by alleged pederast Harry Reid

by Leon H. Wolf

 

You expect Democrats to be dishonest, and you kind of expect them to try to score political points off the SCOTUS vacancy caused by Antonin Scalia’s untimely death. However, this op-ed by alleged pederast Harry Reid in the Washington Post is the most amazingly and hilariously hypocritical (and stupid) thing possibly ever written. The basic gist is that the guy who pretty much invented the judicial filibuster thinks it is the worst, most unprecedented thing ever for Republicans to obstruct Obama from nominating a replacement for Scalia.....Seriously.

 

You know what it’s time for? It’s time for some fisking. Let’s confront insanity wherever we might find it.

 

We are entering uncharted waters in the history of the U.S. system of checks and balances, with potentially momentous consequences. Having gridlocked the Senate for years, Republicans now want to gridlock the Supreme Court with a campaign of partisan sabotage aimed at denying the president’s constitutional duty to pick nominees.

 

Republicans should not insult the American people’s intelligence by pretending there is historical precedent for what they are about to do. There is not.

 

I bet this kind of bullcrap was a lot easier for alleged pederasts like Harry Reid to pull off before the Internet was invented. In point of fact, both Republicans and Democrats joined to prevent the outgoing and extremely unpopular LBJ from nominating a successor to Earl Warren as chief justice. Moreover, as has been discussed ad nauseam, Chuck Schumer announced just as recently as 2007 that he planned to do this exact same thing to all of Bush’s nominees.

 

With respect to obstruction of Supreme Court nominees for partisan reasons, Democrats tried (but failed) to mount one for Justice Alito, as a filibuster mounted by Kerry (and joined by President Obama) to prevent his nomination ultimately failed. Now keep in mind, this was not a case where Democrats had even majority support to block Alito’s nomination, just a case where they wanted to use minority obstruction to stop him.

 

 

The Senate has confirmed Supreme Court nominees both in election years and in the last year of a presidency — as recently as 1988, a presidential election year when a Democratic Senate confirmed President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in the final year of his administration. My colleague and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), was a member of the Judiciary Committee then and voted to confirm Kennedy

 

Kennedy was nominated in November of 1987, to fill a vacancy that occurred on June 26, 1987, well before campaign season even started. The reason that it took so long for Kennedy to be nominated is that the Democrats took several months dragging Robert Bork through the mud. That is of course categorically different than a vacancy that occurs in February of an election year.

 

More recently, Sen. Grassley stated, “The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president’s term.”

A statement, it should be noted, that he made in response to Chuck Schumer announcing that he planned to do this exact thing, you dishonest hack.

 

 

That is true. For his part, my counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), on Saturday called for the American people to have a “voice” in this process. Their voice was heard loud and clear when they elected and reelected President Obama, twice handing him the constitutional power to nominate Supreme Court justices.

 

 

Yes, and they were so enamored with the job he was doing that they sent 54 Republicans to the Senate to prevent more of them from being confirmed, according to this “logic.”

 

That is how our system works and has worked for more than 200 years. Until now, even through all the partisan battles of recent decades, the Senate’s constitutional duty to give a fair and timely hearing and a floor vote to the president’s Supreme Court nominees has remained inviolable. This Republican Senate would be the first in history to abdicate that vital duty.

 

You personally led the effort to prevent numerous judicial nominees from getting a fair and timely hearing, or a hearing at all, sir. Not, you know, Democrats in general – you personally. Are you suffering from some form of organic brain dementia that causes you to be unable to remember this, or has your sense of shame just been permanently injured in a fight with your “exercise machine”?

 

This constitutional duty has transcended partisan battles because it is essential to the basic functioning of our co-equal branches of government. By ignoring its constitutional mandate, the Senate would sabotage the highest court in the United States and aim a procedural missile at the foundation of our system of checks and balances.

 

I am sorry, but Obama has been a little too busy with his pen and his phone – with your express help – for anyone to greet this declaration with anything other than gales of laughter.

 

The good news is that there is still time for heated rhetoric to yield to reasoned action. The Senate can get there if Republicans take a deep breath, put partisan politics aside and think this through, as Americans first and foremost. It is easy to get caught up in the partisan swirl of an election year, but I would urge my Republican colleagues to remember that the consequences of blocking any nominee, regardless of merits, would hang over their heads for the rest of their careers.

 

On the contrary, Democrats demonstrated in 2008 that there is literally no electoral consequence for acting like partisan hacks in the judicial nomination process – in fact, if anything, there are rewards. But then, given your record since then, I wouldn’t expect you to know anything about how to win elections, Mr. Reid.

 

If my Republican colleagues proceed down this reckless path, they should know that this act alone will define their time in the majority. Thinking otherwise is fantasy. If Republicans proceed, they will ensure that this Republican majority is remembered as the most nakedly partisan, obstructionist and irresponsible majority in history. All other impressions will be instantly and irretrievably swept away

I tell you, one guy you can definitely trust not to engage in concern trolling for the health and future of the GOP is Harry Reid.

 

The only way this op ed (which goes on for several more paragraphs in this vein) even makes sense is to read it as intentional comedy or self-parody. Even if it’s unintentional, the only proper response to Harry Reid’s concern for the right of judges to receive a vote on the Senate floor is to laugh.

 

 

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/02/16/stupidest-hypocritical-op-ed-ever-written/

 

 

.

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

Also, it is a given that President Obama, knowing the political situation, will not nominate the most qualified person available, but the one who give the most political benefit to be being held up by the GOP

 

THAT is why it will not be as costly a move for the Republicans as many here surmise.

 

 

I tend to agree with this. Regardless of how often the left yells about racism, the reality is that while many American's may think Barry is an okay guy, they are also brutally tired of his child's play. No one will ever confuse him for a leader, but rather for the entitled, elitist, snobby, finger-pointing agitator he has proven himself to be.

 

This entire election should now be about the Supreme Court. Advantage GOP because everyone is about to see just how much Barry has overstayed his welcome. It will probably become most obvious when he has yet another prime-time address to the nation about this, and about 50 people watch it.

[truth on hold]

Now your just sounding like a crazy conspiracy theorist. Nothing like this ever happens. Hillary can win 6 coin tosses in a row. It's all good. Besides, Fox News says your a kook if you find it strange no autopsy for a Supreme Court judge which I would assume has had lots of death threat by left wing loonies. It's all good and normal just move along.

If its accurate he was found with a pillow over his face, that's kinda odd. Not saying for sure foul play was a factor, but it would seem worth investigating. He was probably the most politically charged justice

[DC Tom]

If its accurate he was found with a pillow over his face, that's kinda odd. Not saying for sure foul play was a factor, but it would seem worth investigating. He was probably the most politically charged justice

 

Maybe he was taking a nap, and was using the pillow to block out the light and noise.

 

No, of course not. It's got to be that he was smothered by the ranch owner. The ranch owner (an Obama donor, who received a medal from Obama) then conspired with the judge (who's a democrat and Obama supporter to the point where her campaign slogan was "Yes We Can!") and the county sheriff (whose crime-free county received millions in crime prevention grants from the Obama administration) to cover it up.

 

Unless you want to go full-goose bozo, and agree that Scalia was killed by Leonard Nimoy (who faked his own death in order to become the new head of the Illuminati) in order to give Obama enough Supreme Court justices to cancel the 2016 elections. http://harddawn.com/nimoy-and-obama-killed-scalia/

[B-Man]

Just a reminder:

 

Justice Powell resigned 26, June 1987

 

Justice Kennedy was confirmed 3 Feb. 1988

 

222 days elapsed

 

Judiciary survived just fine

 

 

 

 

ADVICE ON CHOOSING A SUCCESSOR:..............FROM JUSTICE SCALIA

 

In a largely overlooked passage in his dissent from the court’s decision in June establishing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, he left detailed suggestions.

Avoid “tall-building lawyers,” especially ones who work in skyscrapers in New York. Find someone who did not go to law school at Harvard or Yale. Look for a candidate from the Southwest. Consider an evangelical Christian.

 

Justice Scalia was criticizing the lack of diversity of the court he sat on, and he did not exclude himself. He was right as a factual matter: Supreme Court justices these days are by many measures remarkably similar, giving the court the insular quality of a private club or a faculty lounge. . . .

 

To be sure, the court is by some standards reasonably diverse. For the first time it has three women, one of whom is Hispanic. It has an African-American member, only the second in its history.

 

On the other hand, Justice Scalia wrote, the court “consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School.” Justice Scalia attended Harvard, as did five other current members of the court. The other three went to Yale.

 

 

 

Well, that’s America’s elite bar, where diversity means people from Harvard and Yale.

 

 

 

 

 

Harry-Reid-shaming fail, so: pic.twitter.com/59MeMbeMJf

Hillary ClintonVerified account ‏@HillaryClinton 19h19 hours ago

I have news for Republicans who would put politics over the Constitution: Refusing to do your duty isn’t righteous, it's disgraceful. -H

 

...................Ambassador Stevens was unavailable for comment

 

 

.

[....lybob]

 

Maybe he was taking a nap, and was using the pillow to block out the light and noise.

 

No, of course not. It's got to be that he was smothered by the ranch owner. The ranch owner (an Obama donor, who received a medal from Obama) then conspired with the judge (who's a democrat and Obama supporter to the point where her campaign slogan was "Yes We Can!") and the county sheriff (whose crime-free county received millions in crime prevention grants from the Obama administration) to cover it up.

 

Unless you want to go full-goose bozo, and agree that Scalia was killed by Leonard Nimoy (who faked his own death in order to become the new head of the Illuminati) in order to give Obama enough Supreme Court justices to cancel the 2016 elections. http://harddawn.com/nimoy-and-obama-killed-scalia/

Any conspiracy DCTom makes fun of is likely to be true, it is a well known fact that DCTom is a disinformation agent for the Order of the Red garter, the white owl branch of the northern orthodoxy Illuminati- As we all know Obama is the living intersection between Set and Thoth making him commander of the shadow people but while Obama's ability to kill with undetectable stealth is Egyptian born his reason to kill Scalia is a bloody internecine conflict of Catholic sects, Scalia representing the haughty corruption of modern day Jesuits (worldly pleasure seekers and intellectual bullies) his death one day before St Valentines is to symbolize that such a life falls short of a life of self sacrificing love - consider something as soft and comfortable as a silk pillow being such a powerful man's downfall - I think the symbolism is pretty obvious.

[B-Man]

It's like they don't realize that we can look up their past stances.

 

First Obama,

Then Schumer,

and Hillary,

and Harry

 

Now comes another shining example of hypocrisy.........the NYT saying exactly what the GOP is saying now.

 

 

 

New York Times, 1987: Party That Won the Senate Has ‘Every Right to Resist’

The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.

 

Gee, I guess that means that the Republicans who won control of the Senate in 2014 have every right to resist, right?

After all, this is not the same Senate that confirmed Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan…

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431474/new-york-times-1987-party-won-senate-has-every-right-resist

[Tiberius]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/16/3750110/johnson-we-might-vote-on-obama-supreme-court-nominee/

 

 

Cracks in the obstructionist wall

[Doc]

So some Repubs would grant a hearing but still not vote "yes"? Same end result, but a waste of time and taxpayer money.

[keepthefaith]

The process should play out. Barry can make a nomination and the Senate can make an evaluation. My guess is that Barry will nominate an African American with a very liberal history of judgements just so the senate can reject that person and the Dems can play the race card during this election season.

Edited February 17, 2016 by keepthefaith

[TakeYouToTasker]

The process should play out. Barry can make a nomination and the Senate can make an evaluation. My guess is that Barry will nominate an African American with a very liberal history of judgements just so the senate can reject that person and the Dems can play the race card during this election season.

It will be Liz Warren.

Edited February 17, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

It will be Liz Warren.

 

Not a bad calculation, TYTT.

 

Putting a Senator on the bench hasn't happened in 75 years, but it would please the Left.

 

If not confirmed would that be because of the "war on women" or the war on "high cheekbones" ??

[Joe Miner]

Just a reminder:

 

Justice Powell resigned 26, June 1987

 

Justice Kennedy was confirmed 3 Feb. 1988

 

222 days elapsed

 

Judiciary survived just fine

 

 

With Kennedy on the bench, just fine is debatable.

[IDBillzFan]

If not confirmed would that be because of the "war on women" or the war on "high cheekbones" ??

 

War on fake native Americans.

[unbillievable]

We need a non-gender specific Asian Native American on the bench. It doesn't even have to be a lawyer, it's not like the justices vote based on the law.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

War on fake native Americans.

I believe that the nomination will be Warren for two reasons, both of them designed to help Bernie Sanders:

 

1) Warren's nomination, and the subsequent Republican blockage, will be stacks of red meat for Sanders supporters, who will be able to frame it, quite clearly and cleanly, as a Constitutional attack on regular working class Americans.

 

2) It will strengthen Warrens own credentials as an eventual running mate for Sanders.

[Dante]

Any conspiracy DCTom makes fun of is likely to be true, it is a well known fact that DCTom is a disinformation agent for the Order of the Red garter, the white owl branch of the northern orthodoxy Illuminati- As we all know Obama is the living intersection between Set and Thoth making him commander of the shadow people but while Obama's ability to kill with undetectable stealth is Egyptian born his reason to kill Scalia is a bloody internecine conflict of Catholic sects, Scalia representing the haughty corruption of modern day Jesuits (worldly pleasure seekers and intellectual bullies) his death one day before St Valentines is to symbolize that such a life falls short of a life of self sacrificing love - consider something as soft and comfortable as a silk pillow being such a powerful man's downfall - I think the symbolism is pretty obvious.

Well, they never blew a presidents head off on live tv in front of millions of people. That never happened. Crazy conspiracy theory guys. That was just some random commie dude that did that. Scalia got whacked. Lots of big decisions coming up that mean a lot of dirty money to people. Carbon tax crap and so on.

[IDBillzFan]

So now I'm reading Obama won't attend Scalia's funeral?

 

Stand tall and stay classy, Barry. But never give up that tee time, amirite?

[DC Tom]

So now I'm reading Obama won't attend Scalia's funeral?

 

Stand tall and stay classy, Barry. But never give up that tee time, amirite?

 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-house-obama-will-not-attend-justice-scalia-s-funeral-n520236

 

 

President Barack Obama will not attend Justice Antonin Scalia's funeral Saturday, the White House confirmed.

[...]

When asked whether Obama's Saturday plans include golfing...

 

Gutsy question.

 

It's not unheard-of for the President to not attend a Justice's funeral, though. And I wonder if there's other factors involved (e.g. it's a private family funeral and Obama is respecting the family's wishes or something.)

[IDBillzFan]

 

It's not unheard-of for the President to not attend a Justice's funeral, though. And I wonder if there's other factors involved (e.g. it's a private family funeral and Obama is respecting the family's wishes or something.)

 

A sitting Justice?

 

If there's a good reason, let's hear what it is.

 

Otherwise, he should be there.

 

You can't spend seven years whining like a little high school B word about how everyone else is responsible for Washington being broken, and then decide you're too much of a pusssssy to attend the funeral of a Supreme Court Justice.

 

But then, would anyone here ever expect Obama to be the bigger man in ANY scenario?

 

Of course not.