Antonin Scalia dead?

[3rdnlng]

 

I was not referring to the Supreme Court being understaffed but the wider federal judiciary.

 

Obama will not nominate Scalia junior but nor will he nominate Ginsberg Jr. I suspect he'l put up a Liberal version of Roberts.

Roberts is a liberal version of Roberts.

[boyst]

 

Yes.

 

The process is actually that simple and the GOP will hurt their credibility with their stance.

 

Obama is just waiting for the right moment in the campaign to make the nomination. The 15th as Trump more or less sows up nomination would be a good time.

 

 

does the Constitution provide a definition of what consent is? maybe silence is consent "Qui tacet consentit", Obama nominates and when the Senate does nothing that is considered consent.

all i ever needed to know about lybob's love life.

 

all those years in college with so many lovers. i feel bad them, all those tears of shame cried the next morning...who ever said boys dont cry?

[....lybob]

 

 

all i ever needed to know about lybob's love life.

 

all those years in college with so many lovers. i feel bad them, all those tears of shame cried the next morning...who ever said boys dont cry?

lol, you needed to know about my love life? I don't need to know about your love life and I'm sure the cows ain't telling.

[boyst]

lol, you needed to know about my love life? I don't need to know about your love life and I'm sure the cows ain't telling.

I went to bovine university. Ralph was my rookie at the dorm.

[DC Tom]

Roberts is a liberal version of Roberts.

 

There's no such thing as a "liberal version of Roberts." There's only liberal justices, which are basically defined as "justices who vote liberal doctrine, regardless of the law."

[3rdnlng]

 

There's no such thing as a "liberal version of Roberts." There's only liberal justices, which are basically defined as "justices who vote liberal doctrine, regardless of the law."

Ummmm, isn't that what I said?

[Doc]

But Filthy Harry refusing to bring House-passed bills up for votes was okay, right?

[Tiberius]

"We are building this campaign for the long haul. Our number one goal is that Senate Republicans do their job, follow their Constitutional responsibility and take up the president's nominee and put that person on the court," said one of the people involved in the outside efforts. "But if they want a political fight, we're more than willing to accommodate them. And if they maintain this unprecedented obstruction, they can kiss their majority goodbye."

Senate Democrats have been pitching in too. First up: photos and video of the nominee going to meet with Democratic senators on Capitol Hill, hoping will keep the nominee in the news. The administration and Senate Democrats are also weighing whether to stage mock hearings or other photo ops highlighting the nominees inability to even talk to Republicans — all in the hope of generating embarrassing footage for the GOP.

“Unprecedented Republican obstruction calls for an unconventional response,” is how one Senate Democratic leadership aide put it.

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/white-house-supreme-court-220691#ixzz42ssspfhe

Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[B-Man]

Notice Grassley’s Not Flinching on Supreme Court Nominee Hearings

Look who’s holding the line against an Obama Supreme Court nominee: Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

On Thursday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa dug in on blocking all action on an eventual nominee this year, saying Democrats are only criticizing the strategy to score political points. He and other Republicans stood firm in opposition to an election-year confirmation, arguing that American voters should have a say in November.

On Capitol Hill, Grassley said at a committee meeting Thursday that Democrats’ efforts to pressure him to change his mind will be futile. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has delivered daily speeches on the Senate floor against Grassley, sometimes attacking him personally.

“I think we need to be crystal clear, it won’t work,” Grassley said.

The 82-year-old Grassley is up for reelection this year – running for a seventh term – and his likely Democratic opponent is going to make the most out of the Supreme Court nominee issue:

Patty Judge made clear that Grassley’s staunch refusal to entertain a nominee to the Supreme Court vacancy opened by the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month was the driving force behind her entry into the race.

{snip}

Grassley’s probably going to come through 2016 okay…

The latest Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll — which was conducted Feb. 21-24, as the court controversy was unfolding — shows Grassley’s approval rating holding steady at 57 percent, while just 28 percent say they disapprove of the job he’s doing.

… but his willingness to take the criticism for this stance is worth noting for two reasons. First, there was a time when Grassley was more likely to be more conciliatory to President Obama, to be seen as “bipartisan” and so on. He was perceived as a “moderate,” voted to confirm Eric Holder, and was, for a while, trying to work out a compromise version of the Affordable Care Act. Years of Obama being Obama, trolling and mocking and ignoring Congress, have demonstrated to Grassley there’s no point in trying to appear “bipartisan” or conciliatory.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

[Tiberius]

So Republicans want the people to have a say on this but in 2000 that thought the Courts should decide the presidency. A-holes

[IDBillzFan]

So Republicans want the people to have a say on this but in 2000 that thought the Courts should decide the presidency. A-holes

 

Buck up, princess. They're only following liberal precedent. Surely you don't need us to re-post all the Harry Reid, Barack Obama comments, right?

 

I mean, we can if you need us to because we know you're a little slow on facts that you don't make up.

[boyst]

Can we make a new thread if all we are going to do is tarnish up an RIP thread with politics?

[B-Man]

Can we make a new thread if all we are going to do is tarnish up an RIP thread with politics?

 

 

We had one and the moderator combined it.

 

.

[Tiberius]

 

Buck up, princess. They're only following liberal precedent. Surely you don't need us to re-post all the Harry Reid, Barack Obama comments, right?

 

I mean, we can if you need us to because we know you're a little slow on facts that you don't make up.

So you follow Liberals? Good idea!

[Chef Jim]

So Republicans want the people to have a say on this but in 2000 that thought the Courts should decide the presidency. A-holes

 

That was a !@#$ing fiasco.

[Deranged Rhino]

Can we make a new thread if all we are going to do is tarnish up an RIP thread with politics?

 

I'm not sure how any man who was murdered by Spock and a pillow can rest in peace... I'd be pissed.

[IDBillzFan]

Good idea!

Glad to see you finally agreeing with what the GOP needs to do about the SCOTUS appointment.

 

Welcome aboard.

[keepthefaith]

 

That was a !@#$ing fiasco.

Yes but Bush won Florida and won the election.

[B-Man]

Hilarious........... ..................only the libs..

 

U. Chicago Law School grads say Antonin Scalia was ‘racist’ for giving them low grades http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26612/

 

FTA:

 

“Scalia flunked every black student who took his classes" that year wrote former UChicago Law student Arnim Johnson in a Facebook post.

 

The university said in a statement that “it was saddened by the allegations,” but could not determine if they were actually true.

 

Part of the reason may be due to UChicago Law’s “blind exam testing” system, which is supposed to keep a test taker’s identity secret. In order for Scalia to know who a student was, he “would have to have subverted that system in order to change black students’ scores.”

Edited March 14, 2016 by B-Man

[Nanker]

The only way sweet Loretta modern could get a hearing would be if she puts the hammer down on Hill.

We all know she can't do that unless B. O. gives her the high sign.