Obama picks SCOTUS nominee
-
Remember that doing their job also means denying a rubber stamp to a candidate that does not meet their approval.
WSS
Remember that doing their job also means denying a rubber stamp to a candidate that does not meet their approval.
WSS
That's literally what I said.
-
Interesting tidbitSen. Orrin Hatch, R.-Utah, considered one of the U.S. Senate’s foremost scholars of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, told Newsmax Friday he felt President Obama would nominate a decidedly liberal candidate to succeed the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
"This [nomination process] is all about the election.""The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him," Hatch told us."[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," he told us, referring to the more centrist chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia who was considered and passed over for the two previous high court vacancies.Latest News UpdateBut, Hatch quickly added, "He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants." -
And that still true, so?
WSS
It was never true. He wasnt great though either. I think he'll be remembered fondly though for finally resetting with cuba.
-
Interesting tidbitSen. Orrin Hatch, R.-Utah, considered one of the U.S. Senate’s foremost scholars of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, told Newsmax Friday he felt President Obama would nominate a decidedly liberal candidate to succeed the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
"This [nomination process] is all about the election.""The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him," Hatch told us."[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," he told us, referring to the more centrist chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia who was considered and passed over for the two previous high court vacancies.Latest News UpdateBut, Hatch quickly added, "He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants." -
Hatch is a partisan hack no more no less
Sure, and he's saying "hey, he could nominate this guy and we'd love it, but because he's some uber liberal he'll probably appoint Al Sharpton, or maybe even himself" and now he's going to look like a colossal fuckwit if he votes against it.
-
Remember that doing their job also means denying a rubber stamp to a candidate that does not meet their approval.
WSS
That's literally what I said.
-
And I agree. Your point?
WSS
That you seemed to be trying to point something out I'd missed? Never mind. No point wasting energy on things we agree on
To the point, this is what I have an issue with:
Senator Pat Toomey@SenToomeyShould Merrick Garland be nominated again by the next president, I would be happy to carefully consider his nomination... #SCOTUS -
And I agree. Your point?
WSS
That you seemed to be trying to point something out I'd missed? Never mind. No point wasting energy on things we agree on
To the point, this is what I have an issue with:
Senator Pat Toomey@SenToomeyShould Merrick Garland be nominated again by the next president, I would be happy to carefully consider his nomination... #SCOTUSThat you seemed to be trying to point something out I'd missed? Never mind. No point wasting energy on things we agree on
To the point, this is what I have an issue with:
Senator Pat Toomey
@SenToomey
Should Merrick Garland be nominated again by the next president, I would be happy to carefully consider his nomination... #SCOTUS
I can't help you there, I think they might as well go for it. Then again many of the politicians, it should be on both sides but it isn't, have seen the danger in capitulating too quickly.
Example: conservatives think the budget is out of control. When it comes time to stop the spending they always bend over and vote to extend the debt limit. So how can you trust them?
Toomey is just playing Hardball to impress his base. If he doesn't he will soon have an opponent barking about how he bent over for Obama.
WSS
-
he's a nominee that looks the part of a good nominee ...but..
the truth is.. even according to "Thinkprogress"
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/16/3760727/who-is-merrick-garland/
"To be clear, Garland's record does not suggest that he would join the Court's right flank if confirmed to the Supreme Court. He would likely vote much more often than not with the Supreme Court's liberals, while occasionally casting a heterodox vote."
AND, Garland is an anti-gun TROJAN HORSE.
Garland, currently the Chief Judge of the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals, is viewed by some to be left-leaning on gun control. In a 2007 case, he voted to review a restrictive gun law that had previously been shot down. The law included a requirement for guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled, unless they were being kept at a place of business or were being used for legal recreational activities. Prohibiting people from having functioning guns for defense in their home was a critical issue. A U.S. District Court had ruled against the ban (and for the gun owner). The D.C. Circuit upheld that ruling, but Garland then voted, as part of a request to the court as a whole, for the D.C. Circuit to reconsider their own ruling, otherwise known as a request for en banc review. Garland lost, and the previous decision was upheld. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, eventually went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the ban unconstitutional. While Garland’s actual decision was only to review the law and not to enforce it outright, the fact that he didn’t just agree to kill the ban may not sit well with conservatives.
-
The National Review has called foul on the claim that Garland is a tried and true moderate justice, though. The claim is based off of Garland's record regarding gun control in which the judge voted to pave the way for stricter gun laws in D.C. Garland's decision marked a major turning point in restrictions that would prevent gun ownership for those seeking handguns as protective tools for self-defense.
Given the fact that Obama is looking to making sweeping changes when it comes to gun control, this point may count in Garland's favor.
-
If Hatch, the biggest idiot in the Senate, is okay with Garland, then I can't see why he would be blocked.
-
because hatch hasn't looked into Garland's pro-gun control stance.
It's a win-lose for obamao. Hell with Garland if he will ignore our 2nd Amendment
because of his own prejudices.
That makes him not qualified for the court. And, we don't know his views on gay marriage,
and abortion.
But you can bet obaMao does. Just vote NO. Garland is a trojan horse, to tilt
the Court into at least one glaring anti-Constitution position.
-
But wasnt it republicans who suggested garland to the white house months ago?
-
but did they know he was on obamao's side of the pro gun control, anti-2nd Amendment biz?
He may very well be pro abortion, too. and pro gay falsemarriage. we don't know.
The pro gun control crap is worrisome. Forget him - wait and get a pro-Constitutionalist
during the next rep president era. Let the people decide
what kind of Justice replaces Scalia.
That is exactly what obamao demanded back in the day.
-
Not only is he anti-2nd Amendment...
planned parenthood loves him.
They know he has been tested for being a liberal by Obamao.
No vote, hell with this obamao trojan horse nominee.
-
He's a generally moderate, neutral choice. Not sure about his record on gun issues I'd have to look into it.
-
he is not neutral. go look up ...no, just read the links I posted.
He's "neutral" only because you libs will have a libtard justice
to tip the balance against the 2nd Amendment, and be proabortion.
and don't give us the "well, even if he were totally against abortion,
planned parenthood would still love him".
-
So you'd basically only accept a very conservative judge.
Surprise there
If Republicans shoot this down, then Cliton wins, watch her just nominate super liberals
-
So you'd basically only accept a very conservative judge.
Surprise there
If Republicans shoot this down, then Cliton wins, watch her just nominate super liberals
Actually even though I could live with this guy I prefer a very conservative Justice. I think its to balance out the Supreme Court it's necessary. It's not like we're replacing Sotomayor or Kagan.So you'd basically only accept a very conservative judge.
Surprise there
If Republicans shoot this down, then Cliton wins, watch her just nominate super liberals
WSS
-
I do prefer a conservative justice, woody. A conservative reveres our Constitution, and our rights.
Like, our 2nd and 1st Amendment. And the right of born and unborn children to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. Freedom.
This leftwing nominee is a liberal trojan horse that would prefer to sneak and and help
obaMao ruin those rights.
You prefer that, from sckewl.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login