Obama To Name Court Pick Today

[Doc]

I'm going to love hearing libs whine about this for the next 9 months. You reap what you sow.

[IDBillzFan]

I will not compromise on the 2nd ammendment or abortion. I don't care what else a nominee thinks if I don't like their views on those 2 issues.

 

Don't let the Trumpettes hear you say that. They think Trump agrees with you.

[Observer]

 

 

So we allow the people to elect the politicians who agree with what they want in a Scalia replacement in November.

 

See the Solution ?

 

 

.

 

The people elected the politicians now in office who have a Constitutional duty right now.

 

See the law?

 

Under your system, the Senate only has to have hearings when it wants to. 6 years, 10 years, 45 years from nomination if it wants. And the President doesn't even have to nominate because there's no timeline given to do it.

 

The Senate is playing a dumb game. Put him up in a hearing. Beat him up over stupid 2nd Amendment stuff. Reject him. Bring on Sri. Reject him too even though he was approved unanimously. But at least that's the process.

I'm going to love hearing libs whine about this for the next 9 months. You reap what you sow.

 

Yeah, that's showing 'em.

 

And when Hillary nominates Obama, you get to reap what you sowed.

 

Way to put America first Doc. No one will mistake you for a patriot but you'll feel good.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Observer

[Doc]

Yeah, that's showing 'em.

 

And when Hillary nominates Obama, you get to reap what you sowed.

 

Way to put America first Doc. No one will mistake you for a patriot but you'll feel good.

 

How is confirming who Barry's choice "putting America first"? And Barry would never get confirmed either, unless the Senate flips.

[VABills]

No respect for the longest serving Justice. Names a replacement the day after they remove the black cloth from his seat. So little respect for the position, the man being replaced, the family, and our country. I am not passing judgement on Garland but the choice or selection could not have garnered all possible vetting, background, and understanding of his positions or capability. The fact the person at 1600 didn't do a thorough job in this selection nor show any respect for the person being replaced. If they do bring this up for a vote, which they shouldn't and there is nothing in the constitution to say they must, then the whole vetting of this candidate must be done by the Senate when it really should have been done before they even heard of this selection.

Edited March 16, 2016 by VABills

[boyst]

No respect for the longest serving Justice. Names a replacement the day after they remove the black cloth from his seat. So little respect for the position, the man being replaced, the family, and our country. I am not passing judgement on Garland but the choice or selection could not have garnered all possible vetting, background, and understanding of his positions or capability. The fact the person at 1600 didn't do a thorough job in this selection nor show any respect for the person being replaced. If they do bring this up for a vote, which they shouldn't and there is nothing in the constitution to say they must, then the whole vetting of this candidate must be done by the Senate when it really should have been done before they even heard of this selection.

a day after the primaries? of course it is what Obama wants. those not paying attention will never notice. and those paying attention and for at least 5 minutes today he gets his name put up every hour and gets all the attention that attention whore idiot wants.

 

 

 

So we allow the people to elect the politicians who agree with what they want in a Scalia replacement in November.

 

See the Solution ?

 

 

.

1. hillary clinton will win

2. the solution is already in the constitution by our elected officials. they don't have to do anythign they don't want to do because we voted for the ones we wanted.

 

God Mitch McConnell is a dipshit- "Give the people a voice in nominating the next justice"

 

Was Obama re-elected by a coin flip, or decree, or some other alternate process? What a douche bag.

mcconnell was elected. and i think 99% of those in DC were elected because i am sure i am forgetting someone appointed because someone died or something ridiculous.

 

so, i guess that makes you a douche bag. a b-douche-large?

 

A person on the left would be happy with a slightly left of center nominee replacing a conservative.

 

I will not compromise on the 2nd ammendment or abortion. I don't care what else a nominee thinks if I don't like their views on those 2 issues.

i am pro gun. and pro abortion. i simply want more abortions. i want them retro active in some cases.

 

seriously, though... i am pro gun, pro abortion. i'm not making the decision for someone else with what they must do or must not. frankly, i don't care.

 

Before becoming a judge, Garland occupied top posts in the Justice Department, where he oversaw some of the biggest investigations of the Clinton era, including the Oklahoma City bombing, the Unabomber case, and the Atlanta Olympics bombing.

 

Obama made particular mention of the Oklahoma City case this morning, noting the diligence with which Garland pursued the case, as well as the care and consideration he showed to victims of that attack and their families including carrying the program from a memorial service for the fallen as he worked on the case.

 

The president quoted Garland saying that the case was "the most important thing I have ever done in my life."

 

 

Guess the anti-government won't be happy with this guy. Prosecuting right wing terrorists.

the retro-active can start with you.

 

also, would you expect anythign else from anyone else? you're only going to sing the guys praises and come close to fellating anyone you nominate. did you expect obama to trash the guy?

 

The right hates the pick because Garland is too left.

 

The left hates the pick because Garland is too right.

 

Seems like a solid choice then

or maybe both are right, and he's a bad choice?

 

logic is hard for some.

 

The people elected the politicians now in office who have a Constitutional duty right now.

 

See the law?

 

Under your system, the Senate only has to have hearings when it wants to. 6 years, 10 years, 45 years from nomination if it wants. And the President doesn't even have to nominate because there's no timeline given to do it.

 

The Senate is playing a dumb game. Put him up in a hearing. Beat him up over stupid 2nd Amendment stuff. Reject him. Bring on Sri. Reject him too even though he was approved unanimously. But at least that's the process.

 

Yeah, that's showing 'em.

 

And when Hillary nominates Obama, you get to reap what you sowed.

 

Way to put America first Doc. No one will mistake you for a patriot but you'll feel good.

you're mocking checks and balances - a principle in the fabric of this country and its system. no one will mistake you for being a patriot. observe more. say less.

[Observer]

No respect for the longest serving Justice. Names a replacement the day after they remove the black cloth from his seat. So little respect for the position, the man being replaced, the family, and our country. I am not passing judgement on Garland but the choice or selection could not have garnered all possible vetting, background, and understanding of his positions or capability. The fact the person at 1600 didn't do a thorough job in this selection nor show any respect for the person being replaced. If they do bring this up for a vote, which they shouldn't and there is nothing in the constitution to say they must, then the whole vetting of this candidate must be done by the Senate when it really should have been done before they even heard of this selection.

He's been vetted since before Scalia died. All presidents have a list and once he died, Garland got vetted more.

 

The day after the black cloth day is sacred? You're a strange warping of the left's PC police.

 

How is confirming who Barry's choice "putting America first"? And Barry would never get confirmed either, unless the Senate flips.

Never said they must confirm him, though they probably should. They just need to do their job.

 

That's the checks and balances Boyst.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Observer

[IDBillzFan]

Hey America...you know who is pushing for the Senate to consider Barry's SCOTUS pick?

The president of America's taxypayer-funded Baby Parts Super Store!!!

 

Barry sure knows how to prod the bear. I genuinely can't wait until we one day have a leader who isn't so intent on dividing the country with moronic decisions.

[FireChan]

 

Compromise is how politics works out problems. If I say, "I want all firearms toe be illegal except for police/military" and you say "I want everyone to have access to any gun he wants," our politicians try to work towards a middle ground and we have to try not to lose our %$^& over it.

 

Abortion: "You must carry rapists pregnancies to term and risk you health pregnancies" vs. "I want to about my baby at 8 months."

 

Etc.

 

No one loves it but right now, there's little appetite for the art of compromise that makes the world go around. So what happens is extremes: Trump with the rise of Cruz vs. Clinton with the rise of Sanders. Setting aside Trump's "Art of the Deal" mantra, there's not a smart deal maker in the bunch.

[Observer]

 

You and I can dislike the compromise but in a two party system, it's the reality of getting things done. I'm a Libertarian to the core but if I walk through life like an Ayn Randian zombie, I'm the a-whole at the party who won't shut up about Rush. No friends. No sex. But lovin' Tom Sawyer because my mind is not for rent.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Observer

[FireChan]

 

You and I can dislike the compromise but in a two party system, it's the reality of getting things done. I'm a Libertarian to the core but if I walk through life like an Ayn Randian zombie, I'm the a-whole at the party who won't shut up about Rush. No friends. No sex. But lovin' Tom Sawyer because my mind is not for rent.

This is a bogus fallacy. If I believe that our country was built on the foundation of no gun control, and that's something I support, compromising is not an option. Sorry.

 

Like my previous post implied, there's enough compromises already. Sacrificing freedoms bit by bit until they're all gone is ludicrous.

[B-Man]

The Senate Should Do Its Job

by Kevin D Williamson

As a purely political question, I do not see how the president, or Mrs. Clinton, gets around the simple facts of the case.

If it is morally permissible for President Obama to employ a maximalist interpretation of his powers in an explicit attempt to act legislatively in place of Congress — for instance, by attempting to impose through executive order an amnesty for illegal immigrants that Congress has rejected — then it is equally permissible for Congress to employ a maximalist interpretation of its own powers and stymie the executive branch.

Obama may have technically been within his powers all this time (though I very much doubt that even that is true) but he unquestionably has done violence with malice aforethought to the constitutional order, attempting to arrogate to himself legislative powers. It bears repeating that he has been absolutely explicit about this, his argument (“argument”) being that if Congress will not act as he wishes it to, he will act in its place.

The predictable, and predictably stupid, rhetorical line from the Democrats now goes: “The Senate should do its job (and give the president whatever he wants).”

In truth, the Senate is doing its job by stopping him. The Senate exists to provide a check on the democratic passions of the House and on the imperial pretensions of the presidency. Mitch McConnell is absolutely right to make use of the procedural powers granted him to check the White House in this matter.

He should have begun doing it years ago, in fact.

But give the president credit for his gracious timing: He could have acted yesterday, forcing the Senate to take a stand against the would-be imperator on the Ides of March, which might have been uncomfortable.

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

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

This is a bogus fallacy. If I believe that our country was built on the foundation of no gun control, and that's something I support, compromising is not an option. Sorry.

 

Like my previous post implied, there's enough compromises already. Sacrificing freedoms bit by bit until they're all gone is ludicrous.

I'm ok with compromise, so long as that follows what's established in the constitution. Gun control is a non starter for me. The constitution specifically states how it should be handled. There is no compromise. Period.

[DC Tom]

I'm ok with compromise, so long as that follows what's established in the constitution. Gun control is a non starter for me. The constitution specifically states how it should be handled. There is no compromise. Period.

 

But we should compromise on the Constitution. "Because it's a living document!"

 

Which, the more I hear it, sounds like "The Constitution is a living document...so let's !@#$ing kill it!"

[FireChan]

 

But we should compromise on the Constitution. "Because it's a living document!"

 

Which, the more I hear it, sounds like "The Constitution is a living document...so let's !@#$ing kill it!"

But we need to get **** done, Tom! Compromise is the only way to make that happen. How else will we destroy the fundamental beliefs this country was founded on without the idea of progress?

[Observer]

 

But we should compromise on the Constitution. "Because it's a living document!"

 

Which, the more I hear it, sounds like "The Constitution is a living document...so let's !@#$ing kill it!"

 

People compromise on issues, including the Constitutional ones, every day. That's why we have a bevy of case law, statutory law, and state laws. The Constitution is often in need of clarification. Unreasonable search and seizure is hardly the clearest mandate and will always be open to change because that's how it's written. Arms don't include a sawed-off shotgun according to the Supreme Court, a decision acknowledged even by the late Justice Scalia.

 

I am all for people's rights to bear arms by the way, including and well past sawed off shotguns. I'm also for a nice solid bit of background checking. But that's just me.

But we need to get **** done, Tom! Compromise is the only way to make that happen. How else will we destroy the fundamental beliefs this country was founded on without the idea of progress?

Good work Chan. You and Bernie can dig in and stare at each other while the rest of us try to get things done.

[B-Man]

Fact Checker

Does the Senate have a constitutional responsibility to consider a Supreme Court nomination?

by Glenn Kessler

 

The upcoming battle over President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has both parties digging in their heels, with Republicans citing a vague precedent that nominations are not considered in an election year and Democrats claiming that Republicans have a “constitutional responsibility” to at least hold hearings and a vote on a nominee.

 

{snip} - multiple historical examples given

 

 

 

As you can see, there is no recent parallel to the current situation: a president filling a sudden vacancy on the court in an election year when the Senate is controlled by the opposition party, particularly when the vacancy occurred with nearly a year left in the presidential term.

But it is also clear that politics has always played a role — and the Senate has set the rules to act as it wants. Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered. Indeed, the patterns don’t suggest the Senate used procedures out of constitutional duty, out of deference for what the Constitution says or what previous Senates have done. Instead they used procedures based on the political circumstances of each confirmation.

It’s matter of opinion whether a refusal to consider a nominee is a dereliction of constitutional duty or walking away from a constitutional responsibility. But the Senate majority can in effect do what it wants – unless it becomes politically uncomfortable. Democrats who suggest otherwise are simply telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale.

 

 

 

Three Pinocchios

 

Edited March 16, 2016 by B-Man

[FireChan]

 

People compromise on issues, including the Constitutional ones, every day. That's why we have a bevy of case law, statutory law, and state laws. The Constitution is often in need of clarification. Unreasonable search and seizure is hardly the clearest mandate and will always be open to change because that's how it's written. Arms don't include a sawed-off shotgun according to the Supreme Court, a decision acknowledged even by the late Justice Scalia.

 

I am all for people's rights to bear arms by the way, including and well past sawed off shotguns. I'm also for a nice solid bit of background checking. But that's just me.

Good work Chan. You and Bernie can dig in and stare at each other while the rest of us try to get things done.

I want religious freedom revoked.

 

Compromise with me and we'll only ban certain religions, sound good? Gotta get "something" done, no matter what.

Edited March 16, 2016 by FireChan

[Buftex]

So, essentially, McConnell is crying foul, saying that Obama is politicizing the Supreme Court nomination, and it isn't right, because Republicans said they were going to politicize this situation first...

Edited March 17, 2016 by Buftex

[IDBillzFan]

 

You and I can dislike the compromise but in a two party system, it's the reality of getting things done.

 

His point, which you insist on missing, is that things have already BEEN DONE in the name of compromise.

 

They are clearly not to your liking, but that's too bad. Compromise with yourself. My side is done compromising with people who insist they always need more.