Terrible news...Justice Scalia found dead

[Acebb]

Where were John Oliver and guesser when all this was happening?

Soon after the inauguration of Bush as president in January 2001, many liberal academics became worried that he would begin packing the federal judiciary with conservative jurists. Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman wrote an article in the February 2001 edition of the liberal magazine The American Prospect that encouraged the use of the filibuster to stop Bush from placing any nominee on the Supreme Court during his first term. In addition, law professors Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago) and Laurence Tribe (Harvard), along with Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center, counseled Senate Democrats in April 2001 "to scrutinize judicial nominees more closely than ever." Specifically, they said, "there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly or erudite."

On May 9, 2001, President Bush announced his first eleven court of appeals nominees in a special White House ceremony. There was immediate concern expressed by Senate Democrats and liberal groups like the Alliance for Justice. Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said that the White House was "trying to create the most ideological bench in the history of the nation."

From June 2001 to January 2003, when the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, the most conservative appellate nominees were stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and never given hearings or committee votes. However, after the 2002 mid-term elections in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, these same nominees began to be moved through the now Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee

With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.

====
Oh, giggling and clapping.

Never mind.

 

[JDeuce]

We don't elect a POTUS for 3 years, we elect them for 4, or in this case 8. It's disgusting that the R's will just continue to do what they've done for 7 years, obstruct and blame. It is Obama's duty to submit a replacement ASAP. If Obama submits one of the Judges that the Senate approved Unanimously, and this time the Obstructionist R's vote him or her down, they will have to answer to the people in November. I said Months ago, the Supreme Court will ultimately be the biggest topic in the election, and this will just make it even bigger.

When your side implements ideas that don't work, then not only do you deserve 100% the blame...but the other side isn't doing their job if they don't obstruct. The ACA, for example, is a disaster...and it was passed with absolutely zero support from R's. Who the fuck would you suggest deserves the blame in that situation when things go wrong? It isn't complicated to figure out, which is of course why you can't figure it out.

I love how dimocraps act like their entire platform is some untouchable civic treasure that we would be insane to even question.

So now the Supreme Court is going to be a big factor in the upcoming election? Do you honestly believe the majority of the dimocrap voting base even knows what the hell the Supreme Court is/does, let alone could cite even one of its members?

 

[JDeuce]

We actually care about it, unlike you liars and hypocrites who use it every 3 words, but really only care about it when it suits you, and even then misinterpret it to suit whatever meaning you want, like ISIS and the Quran. Just stay down Gassy.

Oh, that's good to know.

I missed the part of the Constitution that gave the POTUS the authority to run an end around past Congress on the Iran deal.

I missed the part of the Constitution which grants the POTUS the unilateral authority to bypass Congress and implement his own immigration policy.

I missed the part of the Constitution which grants the POTUS the power to use the IRS as a political profiling tool to target and deter opposition.

If you could cite for me where any of those reside in the Constitution, I'd appreciate it a great deal.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Oh, that's good to know.

I missed the part of the Constitution that gave the POTUS the authority to run an end around past Congress on the Iran deal.

I missed the part of the Constitution which grants the POTUS the unilateral authority to bypass Congress and implement his own immigration policy.

I missed the part of the Constitution which grants the POTUS the power to use the IRS as a political profiling tool to target and deter opposition.

If you could cite for me where any of those reside in the Constitution, I'd appreciate it a great deal.

 

[SheriffJoe]

After reading a few replies that’s exactly what came to my mind.


All of a sudden the constitution means something when for the last 7 years it was nothing more than 227 year old outdated roll of toilet paper.

7 years? 80 years of 'progressivism' has pretty much rendered the Constitution worthless. That's how we ended up with "President Obama" for the last 7 years.

There is only one appropriate response when a libtard invokes the Constitution and Justice Scalia would agree with me:

 

[SheriffJoe]

Oh, that's good to know.

I missed the part of the Constitution that gave the POTUS the authority to run an end around past Congress on the Iran deal.

I missed the part of the Constitution which grants the POTUS the unilateral authority to bypass Congress and implement his own immigration policy.

I missed the part of the Constitution which grants the POTUS the power to use the IRS as a political profiling tool to target and deter opposition.

If you could cite for me where any of those reside in the Constitution, I'd appreciate it a great deal.

All of this illegal shit and more (Obamacare, Planned Parenthood etc.) funded by a Republican Congress.

The people are in open rebellion, and Donald Trump is the latest example.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

7 years? 80 years of 'progressivism' has pretty much rendered the Constitution worthless. That's how we ended up with "President Obama" for the last 7 years.

There is only one appropriate response when a libtard invokes the Constitution and Justice Scalia would agree with me:

C’mon man, that was 12 years before I was born.


:Carcajada:

 

[JDeuce]

All of this illegal shit and more (Obamacare, Planned Parenthood etc.) funded by a Republican Congress.

The people are in open rebellion, and Donald Trump is the latest example.

Yep. Trump has taken some positions I don't agree with, and it has given me a moment of pause about how much I'd support him. But the people who have been voting R are fed up with the bullshit excuses and stalling from the right. First, the establishment didn't have the House...so we gave them that. Then they whined they didn't have the Senate...we gave them that. Is the whine du jour that they don't have the presidency? Doesn't really matter IMO...they will continue to act like a minority party even after an R wins the WH this November. Hardly any of them have done a single God damned thing to stop this miserable POS POTUS' agenda.

If Trump turns out to be a lying bastard, oh well...he fooled me for the most part. But I'd place the blame squarely on the R party for that if it happens. They created this situation by being too fucking scared to do their jobs.

Btw, as for Dave...it's too bad he wasn't around for the full 80 years of progressivism. He's an ass kicker who would have taken a few of them out.

 

[GasMan]

Oliver is great......very easy to see hypocrisy in republicans. It's the way they live their lives. It's who they are as people. That's why they don't even know it's hypocrisy at the highest level......it's because that's who they are their entire life.

You mean like the living breathing document called the Constitution is suddenly something to be revered by all Republican or Democrat?

Oh the fucking irony of you losers.

pssstttt.....your mouthpiece is over there - :uzi:

 

[GasMan]

Oh, that's good to know.

I missed the part of the Constitution that gave the POTUS the authority to run an end around past Congress on the Iran deal.

I missed the part of the Constitution which grants the POTUS the unilateral authority to bypass Congress and implement his own immigration policy.

I missed the part of the Constitution which grants the POTUS the power to use the IRS as a political profiling tool to target and deter opposition.

If you could cite for me where any of those reside in the Constitution, I'd appreciate it a great deal.

KA FKIN BLAMMO....and the Guesser laying in the corner next to vitterd.

Too fuckin funny, pussy 1 and pussy 2 both sucking canvas.

 

[The Guesser]

Oh, that's good to know.

I missed the part of the Constitution that gave the POTUS the authority to run an end around past Congress on the Iran deal.

I missed the part of the Constitution which grants the POTUS the unilateral authority to bypass Congress and implement his own immigration policy.

I missed the part of the Constitution which grants the POTUS the power to use the IRS as a political profiling tool to target and deter opposition.

If you could cite for me where any of those reside in the Constitution, I'd appreciate it a great deal.

1)He didn't.
2)He hasn't.
3)He didn't.
Could you please cite where inn the Constitution it says a POTUS in his last year can't nominate a Supreme Court Justice to replace one who is gone? I'd appreciate it a great deal.

 

[Dafinch]

Yep. Trump has taken some positions I don't agree with, and it has given me a moment of pause about how much I'd support him. But the people who have been voting R are fed up with the bullshit excuses and stalling from the right. First, the establishment didn't have the House...so we gave them that. Then they whined they didn't have the Senate...we gave them that. Is the whine du jour that they don't have the presidency? Doesn't really matter IMO...they will continue to act like a minority party even after an R wins the WH this November. Hardly any of them have done a single God damned thing to stop this miserable POS POTUS' agenda.

If Trump turns out to be a lying bastard, oh well...he fooled me for the most part. But I'd place the blame squarely on the R party for that if it happens. They created this situation by being too fucking scared to do their jobs.

Btw, as for Dave...it's too bad he wasn't around for the full 80 years of progressivism. He's an ass kicker who would have taken a few of them out.

See post # 91, you brain dead cocksucker. Something tells me we'll be waiting a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time for an answer.

 

[neverbend]

If it was Ruth Ginsberg instead of Scalia I would think that the Republican majority would have
an up or down vote on Obama's selection as it would have no effect on the balance of the court,
but to suggest that the Republicans would even contemplate the absurd notion that they
could possibly accept another Obama prize like Kagan or Sotomayor is silly. They will wait & have
every right to wait until they next president is in place. Look if the next POTUS is a Democrat
what can they do nothing but now their play is the right play.

The first Supreme court only had 6 members, eight can certainly hold the fort until the dust clears.
My hope is that Trump gets the nod & it wouldn't be a bad idea to start getting some protestants
back on the court they've vanished this century. Of the first 10 members of the court 5 were my
denomination the church of England, 4 were of Trump's Presbyterian faith & Cushing was a Unitarian.
The further we get away from the path the founders put this country on the worse off we seem to be.

 

[superbeets]

Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2005: 'The President, and the President alone, nominates judges'

By Hunter
Saturday Feb 13, 2016 · 8:01 PM EST

​

Sen. Mitch McConnell, in 2005, defending the absolute right of a sitting president to nominate judges.

"The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."​

"[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.'"
​

Take it from Sen. Mitch McConnell: for the Senate to block a sitting president from nominating a Supreme Court nominee—not just a specific nominee, mind you, but any nominee at all, would put the Constitution of the United States itself at stake. And he's a patriot, so he would never even consider such a thing.

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations
During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.


But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.


Almost immediately after Scalia’s death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.



“You know, the kind of obstructionism that [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell ‘s talking about, he’s hearkening back to his old days,” Schumer said, according to The Hill. “In 2010, right after the election or right during the election, he said, ‘My number-one job is to defeat Barack Obama,’ without even knowing what Barack Obama was going to propose. Here, he doesn’t even know who the president’s going to propose and he said, ‘No, we’re not having hearings; we’re not going to go forward to leave the Supreme Court vacant at 300 days in a divided time.'”

“When you go right off the bat and say, ‘I don’t care who he nominates, I am going to oppose him,’ that’s not going to fly,” Schumer added.



When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”


“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.


Much like Republicans today, Schumer’s sentiment was clearly based on a fear that another Bush appointment would radically shift the overall makeup of the Court’s ideology.

Of course, Schumer’s attitude back then provoked a response from Republicans very similar to the one Democrats are making now. Bush’s Press Secretary Dana Perino argued at the time that Schumer’s statements showed “a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution” and amounted to “blind obstructionism.”


As it happened, Schumer’s suggested obstruction never came to pass, as no more vacancies opened during Bush’s presidency.

 

[superbeets]

 

[SheriffJoe]

1)He didn't.
2)He hasn't.
3)He didn't.
Could you please cite where inn the Constitution it says a POTUS in his last year can't nominate a Supreme Court Justice to replace one who is gone? I'd appreciate it a great deal.

The Kenyan nominate till the cows come home.

There's nothing in the Constitution which says the Senate has to confirm or even vote for any nominee.

The Senate's role is to "advise and consent"

Well, as Ted Cruz says, the Senate is advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be allowed to tip the balance of the Supreme Court.

Now you can go back to jerking off to John Oliver.

Loser!@#0

 

[The Guesser]

The Kenyan nominate till the cows come home.

There's nothing in the Constitution which says the Senate has to confirm or even vote for any nominee.

The Senate's role is to "advise and consent"

Well, as Ted Cruz says, the Senate is advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be allowed to tip the balance of the Supreme Court.

Now you can go back to jerking off to John Oliver.

Loser!@#0

Hope it plays out that way. That should ensure a Veto Proof D Majority in the Senate, even if Cruz isn't the nominee. If he is, it may get as high as 2/3 D.
It's funny to see the Hypocrites point to something Schumer said in 2007. First off, it never happened, so whatever Schumer said was partisan political hack nonsense, and meaningless, as is most of what Chuckle ever says. If someone does wish to put any import on what he said, he gave the exception "except in extraordinary circumstances" The death of a Justice fits that criteria.
The R's can't win this one. The only question is how much they lose. Confirming a moderate that may lean right, like that Indian guy, if Obama submits him, may be the best they can do. If they obstruct him, obstruct a couple of others, when they are faced with POTUS Hillary and a Veto Proof Majority Senate, they are gonna get a candidate that makes Ruthie look like Scalia.
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-scalia-nominee-indian-american-idUSKCN0VO03V

 

[Willie99]

Oh, that's good to know.

I missed the part of the Constitution that gave the POTUS the authority to run an end around past Congress on the Iran deal.

I missed the part of the Constitution which grants the POTUS the unilateral authority to bypass Congress and implement his own immigration policy.

I missed the part of the Constitution which grants the POTUS the power to use the IRS as a political profiling tool to target and deter opposition.

If you could cite for me where any of those reside in the Constitution, I'd appreciate it a great deal.

right to bear arms?

states' rights?

all powers NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHALE VEST WITH THE STATES


libtardism has bastardized the Constitution, it's a fucking joke when the fucking idiots try to cite it






PS: Obama has a right to make the appointment, the Senate should consider and approve a qualified candidate. I believe in the rule of law, I'm not them, I'll never be one of them, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I were to think and live like they do

and I wouldn't be surprised if "the least prepared man in the room" and his intellectually challenged minions think he can circumvent Congress on this matter too

 

[Acebb]

H
It's funny to see the Hypocrites point to something Schumer said in 2007. First off, it never happened, so whatever Schumer said was partisan political hack nonsense, and meaningless, as is most of what Chuckle ever says. If someone does wish to put any import on what he said, he gave the exception "except in extraordinary circumstances" The death of a Justice fits that criteria.

You are a special, special kind of stupid.

Note: you did not care that Schumer said that. Not 1 bit. Why? Because you're a silly lying hypocrite.

What is even funnier, is you actually believe you have uncovered hypocrisy when all you have demonstrated is that you are a goofy liar and hypocrite yourself.

Remember:

I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values," Obama said

And you said not 1 word, you pathetic dumb fuck. Not 1 word.

 

[Acebb]

1)
Could you please cite where inn the Constitution it says a POTUS in his last year can't nominate a Supreme Court Justice to replace one who is gone? I'd appreciate it a great deal.

Could you please point to just a single post of yours at any point during the Bush presidency where you were critical of Democrats blocking Bush judicial nominees?

Could you please point to where in the Constitution it says that President shouldn't be able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice except in "extraordinary circumstances"?

I'd appreciate it a great deal.