Justice Scalia passes away

calfoxwc

it isn't the system out of hand - it's the political climate because of individuals with no principles

nor honor.

I include all dems in that, and I also include reps like trump, and now, cruz, and christie,

and pat leahy, mitch mcconnel on a cowardly day, and all sorts of others...

Lindsey Graham... etc.

They are afraid of the vicious left, and the left sees the last chance they have of permanently

getting the upper hand.

It used to be "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"...

now it's, "make the country give us a free ride, and we don't care if the entire middle class falls into

poverty"

bad moon rising. And that moon has corrupt dem president all over it.

calfoxwc

Oh, sorry, Bob, I was referring to woodpecker who started smarting off about me again,

because he is buttmolded to cleve, referring to the 'will you ever answer a question".....

The trouble with someone "center"... is that Ginsburg, Kagan, etc... will always

vote politically left, disregarding our Constitution.

Roberts is "center", but he made a vote based on his gay sister, not our Constitution, as I see it.

If Obamao will nominate a nominee that will decide BY WHAT IS IN the CONSTITUTION, regardless

of personal choice or politics, we will all be seeing a happier time with decisions by the Court.

Just follow our Constitution. That's all.

For example, Ginsburg and co. seem to "believe"...that the Founding Fathers put our 2nd Amendment in there,

to assure that the British troops were allowed to keep their weapons with them all the time. But they

manufacture how they vote, out of leftwing politics. I don't remember about Ginsburg, but Kagan seems to

have lied out her wazoo to get on the Court.

And the left tried to lie about Justice Thomas to keep him off it. Whatever the left wants... the ends justify the means.

There is too much riding on this choice, and the idea that ObaMao will nominate a conservative, originalist judge..

surely has to make anybody choke.

OldBrownsFan

Of course the republicans should roll over and let Obama have his way...just give in to the democrat hypocrites like Chucky Schumer who vowed to not let Bush supreme court nominations be confirmed in the senate 19 months out from the presidential election.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

On Sunday, Schumer ripped Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as an "obstructionist" for vowing to block any Obama nominee to replace Scalia on the high court from receiving a Senate confirmation vote.

Bob806

It's ok Cal, no apology needed.

This political stuff is making us all angry. Maybe that's why these so-called "political outsiders" are atop or close to the top of the presidential polls now.

Combine that with a bunch of 3-13, 4-12 seasons from our Browns, damn it's depressing.

MLD Woody

@bob806 said:

It's ok Cal, no apology needed.

This political stuff is making us all angry. Maybe that's why these so-called "political outsiders" are atop or close to the top of the presidential polls now.

Combine that with a bunch of 3-13, 4-12 seasons from our Browns, damn it's depressing.

Ya but you've had the Buckeyes through all of that

jbluhm86

I believe that the American people would much more likely have a modicum of respect for politicians if they cut the bullshit and just say what they wanted to do and why. Mitch McConnell's comment, "The American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice" is absurd. The Appointments Clause in Article 2 of the Constitution states that the President has the Constitutional duty to nominate a person for the Supreme Court, just like the Senate is constitutionally obligated to put those candidates through the vetting process and to confirm the one who would do the best job. The process remains the same, regardless of who is the President, and as the Constitution currently stands, no Supreme Court Justice will be directly elected by the American people. A new president--no matter the party affiliation--would give the American people no more voice in the selection of a Supreme Court justice than we have right now. McConnell knows that, yet he wants us to believe otherwise.

Do these politicians really think the public is so stupid that they don't know why some members of the G.O.P. want to defer the appointment? Or, is it more likely that the reason these G.O.P Congressmen want to wait until after the election is that they hope that the new President is a Republican, and that they want their own views, positions and principles to be defining factors in the selection of the nominee? Are they so afraid they'll lose the presidency this fall, that they've turned to these tactics? .

I would say to Mr. McConnell that the voice of the American people was already heard in 2012 when President Obama was reelected, and in 2014, when members of Congress were elected; those voices are telling all branches of government to do their fucking job. Say what you want about the man, but at least President Obama is fulfilling his constitutional obligations by beginning the nomination process, yet, Mitch McConnell and the other obstructionist elements of the G.O.P caucus in the Senate have made it clear, yet again, they have no intention of doing the duties for which they were elected, and being paid to do.

The fact that they would want to stop the workings of the Supreme Court --and, by extension, the government-- for their own agenda is extremely selfish. It is one thing to hold off on confirming a nominee while the process of vetting them is taking place; that is responsible governance. It is something entirely different, however, to imply that they would flat out refuse to even attempt to vet potential nominees before the President has even mentioned any particular candidate is both shameful and irresponsible. Mitch McConnell and the rest of the G.O.P's mantra is that theirs is the party of following the Constitution; they have crucified Obama in the past for supposedly "circumventing" the Constitution. What do they think their tactics are doing now? Circumventing the Constitution, purely for political gains. They couldn't give two fucks about their constituency.

If I was Obama, I would continue to do my job and continue to nominate candidates for the SCOTUS vacancy, and continue to send nominees to the Senate. The onus is on the Senate to do their job.

Westside Steve

Of course the voice of the American people was also heard when they elected a party other than the one the president represents to Voice their opinions in Washington.

So there's that. We didn't elect a dictator.

And the Senate is doing its job by protecting the Constitution.

WSS

jbluhm86

@westside-steve said:

Of course the voice of the American people was also heard when they elected a party other than the one the president represents to Voice their opinions in Washington.

So there's that. We didn't elect a dictator.

And the Senate is doing its job by protecting the Constitution.

WSS

I said as much above in my post, when I referenced the 2014 elections. First and foremost, the people elected members of the Senate to do a job, which in this situation, they are failing.

As for a dictatorship, Obama is nowhere near that. If you are referring to his use of Executive Orders, that was within his purview as President to do so, and when those orders exceeded his authority, the Supreme Court shut him down. If his use of executive orders was considered by you and others to be circumventing the Constitution, I fail to see how you can rationalize away what's going on with this SCOTUS debacle as not also circumventing the Constitution for political gain, with the difference being that the power play is on the other side of the isle.

So, I'm afraid we're going to have to just disagree on this one, Steve. The G.O.P Senators are not protecting the Constitution by being obstructionists. They are shitting on their duties and the People that they supposedly represent in hopes of securing more power for their party, and they are trying to use the Constitution to veil their true intentions.

jbluhm86

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/gop-cynicism-on-the-supreme-court-reaches-a-new-low.html

"A spokesman for Mitch McConnell said that the Senate should confirm judicial appointees through at least the summer. The cutoff for confirming judges in an election year, known as the ‘Thurmond Rule,’ “doesn’t need to be June, especially because we’re so far behind on the legislative calendar,” he said. http://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/nominations-staredown-in-the-senate-008839#ixzz409d7eWf3

Similarly, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, “Let me say this about the Thurmond Rule. It is a myth. It does not exist. There is no reason for stopping the confirmation of judicial nominees in the second half of a year in which there is a Presidential election.” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34615.pdf

Even a Bush spokesperson said that the “only thing clear about the so-called ‘Thurmond Rule’ is that there is no such defined rule.”

Of course, all that was in 2008, when George W. Bush was the lame-duck president and Democrats controlled the Senate.

Now that it’s 2016, and the tables are turned, McConnell has said he’d be shocked, shocked if President Obama nominated a Supreme Court justice as late as February of his final year in office."

OldBrownsFan

@jbluhm86 said:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/gop-cynicism-on-the-supreme-court-reaches-a-new-low.html

"A spokesman for Mitch McConnell said that the Senate should confirm judicial appointees through at least the summer. The cutoff for confirming judges in an election year, known as the ‘Thurmond Rule,’ “doesn’t need to be June, especially because we’re so far behind on the legislative calendar,” he said. http://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/nominations-staredown-in-the-senate-008839#ixzz409d7eWf3

Similarly, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, “Let me say this about the Thurmond Rule. It is a myth. It does not exist. There is no reason for stopping the confirmation of judicial nominees in the second half of a year in which there is a Presidential election.” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34615.pdf

Even a Bush spokesperson said that the “only thing clear about the so-called ‘Thurmond Rule’ is that there is no such defined rule.”

Of course, all that was in 2008, when George W. Bush was the lame-duck president and Democrats controlled the Senate.

Now that it’s 2016, and the tables are turned, McConnell has said he’d be shocked, shocked if President Obama nominated a Supreme Court justice as late as February of his final year in office."

You and I both know what is going on here. If the situation was reversed the republicans would be using the same arguments the democrats are. It is like a president using executive powers, both parties are against them when the president is not of their party. We all know how Harry Reid would handle this if he was in McConnells shoes and that is just like McConnell is handling it now. Harry Reid was a total obstructionist when he was the majority leader in the senate.

It is all about the "shoe being on the other foot"...or as Obama would say as he rammed legislation through "elections have consequences" . The republicans have the power to stop Obama on getting another liberal justice on the court so I see no reason for them to play nice with Obama now (or Harry Reid).

DieHardBrownsFan

I say make Bill Clinton a Supreme Court Justice.

OldBrownsFan

@diehardbrownsfan said:
I say make Bill Clinton a Supreme Court Justice.

I think Bill lost his law license over lying to the grand jury?

Bob806

@mld-woody said:

Ya but you've had the Buckeyes through all of that

True, but the Browns are far and away my #1, always will be.

When the Buckeyes lose, it doesn't sting as bad for some reason. Only the Tim Biakabatuka 300+ rushing game, and a couple of Rose Bowl losses in the 70s bummed me out real bad. I think it's more of my anger at the rankings system over the years that cools me on College Football.

Westside Steve

JB, they are upholding the Constitution every bit as much as anyone you Support even if by obstruction. Reason being? That obstruction is guaranteed under the Constitution.

But my statement about upholding the Constitution really didn't have much to do with the executive orders which can be rescinded as soon as the fucker is out of office.

Personally I think constantly rewriting the Constitution and watering down and or eliminating whatever rights we laughing thought we were due, makes that document useless. I assume, based on his actions of the last 7 years, the empty suit in chief doesn't care and furthermore wishes to make the document a dunsail.

So if by using whatever means necessary if he is stopped from overturning the balance of power of the Politburo, (sorry, the Supreme Court, the Politburo actually has more members) I'm personally ok with it. Even if the strict interpretation of the Constitution me and some decisions that I wouldn't emotionally agree with.

WSS

OldBrownsFan

There is a lot of precedence of lame duck presidents not nominating supreme court justices in the final year of their terms. Obama has every right to send up his nomination for confirmation and the republicans have every right as the party in power of the senate to hold up that confirmation until the next president is elected.

The mainstream media who are water carriers for the democratic party will go crazy about it and I hope the republicans stand strong. You can see already the mainstream media coverage in September of this year being something like "day 210 in the republicans obstruction of the supreme court".

Obama has already had more than his share of influencing the supreme court, he is not a popular president and the people who decide the next presidential election also will know what is at stake with the supreme court.

gftChris

I don't like the republicans just flat out saying "we'll reject anyone!" but on the other hand, I'd rather wait and see the outcome of the election and let the next president nominate, once the will of the people is known.

MLD Woody

I don't want anyone treating the constitution like its written in stone Cal

Tour2ma

@oldbrownsfan said:

There is a lot of precedence of lame duck presidents not nominating supreme court justices in the final year of their terms. Obama has every right to send up his nomination for confirmation and the republicans have every right as the party in power of the senate to hold up that confirmation until the next president is elected.

No, there's not. Yes, he does. Yes, they do... but they will pay for it in November... plus in 2016 there's SCOTUS nominee, Barrack Hussein Obama. Warning #2...

The mainstream media who are water carriers for the democratic party will go crazy about it and I hope the republicans stand strong. You can see already the mainstream media coverage in September of this year being something like "day 210 in the republicans obstruction of the supreme court".

Maybe a clock?

Obama has already had more than his share of influencing the supreme court, he is not a popular president and the people who decide the next presidential election also will know what is at stake with the supreme court.

Luck of the draw.

58% approval is "not popular"?

@oldbrownsfan said:

You and I both know what is going on here. If the situation was reversed the republicans would be using the same arguments the democrats are. It is like a president using executive powers, both parties are against them when the president is not of their party. We all know how Harry Reid would handle this if he was in McConnells shoes and that is just like McConnell is handling it now. Harry Reid was a total obstructionist when he was the majority leader in the senate.

It is all about the "shoe being on the other foot"...or as Obama would say as he rammed legislation through "elections have consequences" . The republicans have the power to stop Obama on getting another liberal justice on the court so I see no reason for them to play nice with Obama now (or Harry Reid).

There's hypocrisy in Politics? I'm shocked... shocked I tell you...

Delaying started as a lame duck tradition, i.e., after a President-Elect is decided... good idea...

Then morphed into the so-called Thurmond rule of 6-months... an idea...

Now want to stretch it out to nearly a year... a worse idea

Next? The day after the mid-terms... a really bad idea, but justifiable if the process is delayed this time.

Tour2ma

Meanwhile...

Am I the only one wondering when it will come out whose dime this hunting trip was on?

A week?

OldBrownsFan

58 percent approval for Obama. Where do you see that poll?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Will the republicans pay in November? Sure the democrats will use this to help fire up their base but in 2012 it was reported that up to 4 million evangelicals sat out the election so this issue will work both ways and fire up those on the republican side as well.

Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

Update: Don't forget Chuck Schumer

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz40GZFbNlj
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook