IDBillzFan Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Countered by the hypocrisy of the GOP Hey...they're just doing what Reid, Biden, Clinton and Schumer told them to do. You should embrace it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 24, 2016 Author Share Posted March 24, 2016 Hey...they're just doing what Reid, Biden, Clinton and Schumer told them to do. You should embrace it. Dems never allowed a GOP pick a hearing? You are a tool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Dems never allowed a GOP pick a hearing? You are a tool You really are unable to comprehend even the most simplest of statements. Turn off the computer and take a nap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Is Sonia Sotomayor hearing cases or arguing them herself? Last summer we were already watching the debate over Puerto Rico’s failing finances boil over as their governor threatened US lawmakers with electoral consequences if their municipalities and state run utility companies weren’t allowed to declare bankruptcy. That’s a tall order to fulfill because current law treats the territory differently from the fifty states, forbidding them from doing so to escape their debts. Amending those laws to create a special allowance for them is currently under debate in Congress, but it’s unclear if there is sufficient support for the measure. The bankruptcy question reached the Supreme Court this week, with Puerto Rico’s chief creditors for their utilities arguing that they shouldn’t be stiffed on the money owed. Given the straight forward wording of the law, this one appeared to be a no brainer until, as Noah Feldman of Yahoo Finance News describes it, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor stepped in and basically argued Puerto Rico’s case for them. Before Tuesday, I’d have said that Puerto Rico had no chance to win its legal fight to let its municipalities and utilities declare bankruptcy. That’s how the island hopes to resolve its overwhelming debt problems, but the federal bankruptcy code says that it can’t… Then Sonia Sotomayor stepped in. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court rarely change the outcome of a case, yet Tuesday’s session may turn out to be the exception. In a fascinating and unusual argument, Justice Sotomayor, who is herself of Puerto Rican descent, spoke by my count an astonishing 45 times. Sotomayor left no doubt that she was speaking as an advocate… First, Sotomayor walked Puerto Rico’s attorney, Christopher Landau, through his own argument with a precision that exceeded his own. She answered other justices’ hostile questions for him, better than he did. Then she dominated Matthew McGill, the lawyer for the creditors of Puerto Rico’s electrical utility, who are fighting the bankruptcy bid. In the second half of the argument, the other justices mostly stood by and let her go at him. Last summer, when we first began covering this story, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit delivered a unanimous ruling saying that the law simply doesn’t allow for this to happen. For their part, Puerto Rico is arguing that they should be able to craft their own bankruptcy laws outside of the federal system. Sotomayor not only bought the argument, but apparently argued it on behalf of the the defendants better than their own attorney did. What’s really strange here is that the other liberal justices, originally skeptical of the premise, seemed to allow Sotomayor to sway them, bringing them around to her position. Justice Elena Kagan did something that’s rare in an oral argument: She announced that Landau (speaking under Sotomayor’s tutelage) had clarified her view. “I think I get what you’re saying now, which I didn’t when I started,” Kagan told Landau. Initially, Kagan had seemed skeptical that Puerto Rico’s argument could be made to fit the statutory text. Now she was claiming to see the light… Justice Stephen Breyer, who had seemed skeptical of Landau’s position, also appeared to change sides, or at least to be considering doing so. There’s another wrinkle to this case because this time the court will be deciding the case with only seven justices voting. (Samuel Alito is recused.) As an aside, this is yet another example of how the lack of a replacement for Antonin Scalia doesn’t stop the court from performing its duties, this time to the advantage of the liberal justices. The real question here, however, is how much the justices are supposed to be hearing cases as opposed to arguing for one side or the other themselves. The fact that Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican heritage herself shouldn’t really be a factor here so much as asking if it’s appropriate for her to be essentially acting as the advocate for one of the parties seeking a decision. Challenging the arguments of the two sides is normal, but Sotomayor seems to be contradicting everyone in a robe who has heard the case before her, claiming that Puerto Rico can essentially rewrite the laws to suit their own needs. And people still worry that we’ve politicized the Supreme Court to the point where it no longer serves its designated purpose. Amazing, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Then she dominated Matthew McGill, Any relation to Slippin' Jimmy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 27, 2016 Author Share Posted March 27, 2016 Oh dear, someone is not following the party line and the rulers are not happy http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jerry-moran-merrick-garland-tea-party-221233 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Harry Reid throws in the towel on Garland confirmation before November Not that I expect the liberal army in political media to stop flogging this dead horse the election is over, but the actual fight in Congress over the nomination of Merrick Garland seems to be at an end. The clearest signal yet for such a conclusion came when Harry Reid took a few gaggle questions and changed his stance to one of saying that Garland would be confirmed after Hillary Clinton is elected Text of his statement at the link........................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 27, 2016 Author Share Posted March 27, 2016 Harry Reid throws in the towel on Garland confirmation before November Not that I expect the liberal army in political media to stop flogging this dead horse the election is over, but the actual fight in Congress over the nomination of Merrick Garland seems to be at an end. The clearest signal yet for such a conclusion came when Harry Reid took a few gaggle questions and changed his stance to one of saying that Garland would be confirmed after Hillary Clinton is elected Text of his statement at the link........................................... Whatever. Only an idiot would say this settles it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 30, 2016 Author Share Posted March 30, 2016 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/white-house-merrick-garland-supreme-court-221357 That’s why the White House thinks the slight movement over the past two weeks has an outsize importance. "When the president nominated him, it was not clear that Republicans would meet with him, it was not clear that Republicans would take his phone call,” the White House aide said. White House aides have been obsessing over polls showing substantial support among independents for moving forward. And they eagerly pointed to Tuesday’s 4-4 decision in a California union dues case as more proof that the court needs a ninth justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 The Non-Existent Garland Momentum by Rich Lowrey The Left is desperate to create a sense of momentum for the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland and hypes every sign of supposed Republican wavering. But the truth is that there is no momentum. The two Republican senators who favored a hearing and a vote from the beginning — Susan Collins and Mark Kirk — still favor a hearing and a vote. A third, Jerry Moran, had said the same thing, but he has now had a conversation with Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and accepts that a hearing and vote aren’t going to happen. So every indication continues to be that this nomination isn’t going anywhere, no matter how hard the Left tries to spin it otherwise.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Senator Chuck Grassley had breakfast with President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, Tuesday morning. After the meeting, Grassley announced there would be no change with regard to moving forward with confirmation hearings this year. The AP reports: Democrats can continue to hyperventilate about it in the media but unless they can change Sen. Grassley’s mind none of that is going to matter. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley has the final say on whether or not any hearings take place. For the moment, he is sticking to a polite but firm no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 12, 2016 Author Share Posted April 12, 2016 Senator Chuck Grassley had breakfast with President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, Tuesday morning. After the meeting, Grassley announced there would be no change with regard to moving forward with confirmation hearings this year. The AP reports: Democrats can continue to hyperventilate about it in the media but unless they can change Sen. Grassley’s mind none of that is going to matter. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley has the final say on whether or not any hearings take place. For the moment, he is sticking to a polite but firm no. I thought this was a republic, why should we wait for the people to pick a new press? Whatever. We are rolling towards total dis-function Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Waffle Summit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 I thought this was a republic, why should we wait for the people to pick a new press? Whatever. We are rolling towards total dis-function They're just doing what Obama, Reid and Biden told them to do. It's bipartisan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 12, 2016 Author Share Posted April 12, 2016 They're just doing what Obama, Reid and Biden told them to do. It's bipartisan. If Hillary wins should Senate still not vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 If Hillary wins should Senate still not vote? If HIllary wins, the Senate should do precisely what it is doing: advise and, ultimately, consent. Or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 If Hillary wins should Senate still not vote? If Hillary wins the nomination should be withdrawn and her own be submitted. And what's this "should" crap? The Senate should abide by its constitutional responsibilities, period. That doesn't include a straight up-or-down vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 13, 2016 Author Share Posted April 13, 2016 If HIllary wins, the Senate should do precisely what it is doing: advise and, ultimately, consent. Or not. Or not. Really, why would Trump's party ever allow a nominee to go forward. It wouldn't be constitutional to just never hold a vote. They can advise forever. Their voters wouldn't care. They might even demand it. And heck when Ginsberg dies the Conservatives can have the majority again! Nothing unconstitutional about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 It wouldn't be constitutional to just never hold a vote. Yes it would. The Senate can sit on a nomination, and refuse to vote. If they do, the nomination is returned to the President at the end of the Congressional session or beginning of an adjournment for more than a month. So theoretically, Garland's nomination could be returned to the President on July 16th (the start of the Senate's next long recess) and the matter would be closed (though Obama would be free to resubmit.) As a practical matter, the usual practice is for enough senators to stay in town to convene the Senate occasionally and keep it nominally in session, in which case the nomination expires with the end of Obama's term. Really...get yourself a !@#$ing education before you start spewing ridiculous ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Or not. Really, why would Trump's party ever allow a nominee to go forward.Says the card-carrying member of the Anthony Weiner party. Yeah, that's how freaking stupid you sound. Dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts