Pfffff....Dem freeloaders don't care about the SCOTUS or basic civics. Most of the sheep you are banking on in Nov probably couldn't name a single justice if you held a pillow to their face.
GALLUP: 32% 'NEVER HEARD OF' SCALIA...
Frankly, it's time for the American people and the individual states to stop listening to the left wing oligarchy in Washington and simply live their lives. I think this is exactly what will happen if Trump doesn't win and/or he goes to Washington and "makes deals" with the tyrannical ruling class.
People are fed up and no longer trust a corrupt dysfunctional system which insists on running their lives. It's about time they did something about it.
Guesser saying this will cause the Democrats to win the Senate should warm your heart.
After all, the same poster said that the Redskins were stupid for benching RGIII and the Redskins promptly went to the playoffs.
After all, the same poster said the Broncos will get beaten in SuperBowl 50 like they did 2 years ago. The Broncos dominated the Panthers.
After all, the same poster said that the Redskins were stupid for benching RGIII and the Redskins promptly went to the playoffs.
After all, the same poster said the Broncos will get beaten in SuperBowl 50 like they did 2 years ago. The Broncos dominated the Panthers.
Democrats may well win the Senate but not because the left wing punditry will be huffing and puffing for the next 10 months because Republicans won't confirm another radical "living consitutionalist" who shares the left's vision of "social justice".
It comes down to basic math: the GOP has 24 seats to defend, the Dems only 10.
Probably 50/50 odds at this point.
"Veto-proof D majority in the Senate!"
"Bibi is gonna lose!"
"Iran deal means no nukes!"
Loser!@#0
It comes down to basic math: the GOP has 24 seats to defend, the Dems only 10.
Probably 50/50 odds at this point.
"Veto-proof D majority in the Senate!"
"Bibi is gonna lose!"
"Iran deal means no nukes!"
Loser!@#0
Lying WELCHING Ace doing what he do, and the idiot Brit Twit and Casper affirming it. All we need is Wrong Way to affirm, and it's a lock I'm right. Idiot is comparing Football selections, which I sucked in(But not as bad as his ofer), to Political predictions, in which I'm rarely wrong.
Of course I never said Bibi was gonna lose.Democrats may well win the Senate but not because the left wing punditry will be huffing and puffing for the next 10 months because Republicans won't confirm another radical "living consitutionalist" who shares the left's vision of "social justice".
It comes down to basic math: the GOP has 24 seats to defend, the Dems only 10.
Probably 50/50 odds at this point.
"Veto-proof D majority in the Senate!"
"Bibi is gonna lose!"
"Iran deal means no nukes!"
Loser!@#0
Of course, the Iran deal means no nukes.
If The R's nominate Cruz(PLEASE!!!!)and/or Fuck around with the Supreme Court, the D's will have a veto Proof Majority, and that's actually a Prediction you'll be able to Bump, like your Fred Thompson prediction, Duncan Hunter Prediction, and all the other things you are always wrong about that keeps us entertained.
McConnell: "perfectly legitimate" for POTUS to alter ideological direction of SCOTUS
By VTGenie
Sunday Feb 14, 2016 · 2:40 PM PST
After reading Hunter’s excellent-as-ever story, Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2005: 'The President, and the President alone, nominates judges', I wondered if McConnell has made any other public statements regarding Senate confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. What did I find? Paydirt!
In 1970, McConnell published an article in the Kentucky Law Journal in which he laments the politicization of the Senate confirmation process and makes recommendations for “standards” to be used in the future.
Some excerpts follow.
By VTGenie
Sunday Feb 14, 2016 · 2:40 PM PST
After reading Hunter’s excellent-as-ever story, Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2005: 'The President, and the President alone, nominates judges', I wondered if McConnell has made any other public statements regarding Senate confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. What did I find? Paydirt!
In 1970, McConnell published an article in the Kentucky Law Journal in which he laments the politicization of the Senate confirmation process and makes recommendations for “standards” to be used in the future.
Some excerpts follow.
The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives to him the power to nominate.
Even though the Senate has at various times made purely political decisions in its consideration of Supreme Court nominees, certainly it could not be successfully argued that this is an acceptable practice.
… if the power to nominate had been given to the Senate, as was considered [and rejected] during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, then it would be proper for the Senate to consider political philosophy… The proper role of the Senate is to advise and consent to the particular nomination, and thus, as the Constitution puts it, "to appoint." This taken within the context of modern times should mean an examination only into the qualifications of the President's nominee.
What standard then can be drawn for the Senate from the experiences of the past year in advising and consenting to Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court? … At the outset, the Senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee.
The other “standards” he proposes are competence, achievement/distinction, temperament, ethical behavior, and no criminal record.
Respect for law and the administration of justice has, at various times in our history, been the only buffer between chaos and order. And this past year this pillar of our society [SCOTUS] has been buffeted once again by the winds of both justified and unconscionable attacks. It is time the President and the Congress helped to put an end to the turmoil.
The President gets to nominate whoever s/he damn well pleases, and the Senate gets to stop playing politics.
Does McConnell really believe in these principles? If so, he’s been pretty quiet about them lately.
Hypocritical cock sucking Republicans...
… the true measure of a statesman may well be the ability to rise above partisan political considerations to objectively pass upon another aspiring human being.
In short:
The President gets to nominate whoever s/he damn well pleases, and the Senate gets to stop playing politics.
Does McConnell really believe in these principles? If so, he’s been pretty quiet about them lately.
Hypocritical cock sucking Republicans...
The Day the Republican Party Came Apart
By Greg Dworkin
Monday Feb 15, 2016 · 5:26 AM PST
(Didn't know Trump said W was responsible for 9/11, SWEET!!!!)
Donald Trump with a solid 17 point lead in SC five days before voting. They vote in SC while the Ds caucus in NV.
A truly remarkable thing happened Saturday night at the Republican debate in South Carolina. Donald Trump told Marco Rubio that George W Bush was responsible for 9/11 and didn’t keep us safe. Oh, and by the way, he told Jeb! that W lied about getting us into Iraq. And if people decide to impeach him, that’s okay with the Donald.
Watch the tape at 25:57 with Jeb!, 30:44 with Rubio:
All this in conservative military-friendly South Carolina with a Bush-friendly (establishment tickets) audience.
Wow. This has implications.
Here’s the full 9/11 exchange with Rubio:
Here’s Olivia Nuzzi making a point that cannot be overemphasized:
Olivia Nuzzi @Olivianuzzi
They largely do not care about his various policy positions to the degree that he even has policy positions. That's not what it's about.
Follow
Olivia Nuzzi @Olivianuzzi
They care about him. They trust him as a leader who won't allow them to be fucked over, because he himself has never been fucked over.
Trump’s candidacy is about strength, and his attacks on Jeb! (and by implication the entire Bush clan) are about weakness. W. failed on 9/11, he’s weak and so is his brother, goes the message. Trump is strong and no one messes with him. Not Bush, not Bin Laden.
That is a message that resonates with a yuuge chunk of the Republican base, especially if Trump applies it to the economy. That‘s why he can defend Social Security and be an apostate on taxes and get away with all of it.
Think of the implications to the Laffer curve crowd.
David Frum sums up:
By Greg Dworkin
Monday Feb 15, 2016 · 5:26 AM PST
(Didn't know Trump said W was responsible for 9/11, SWEET!!!!)
Donald Trump with a solid 17 point lead in SC five days before voting. They vote in SC while the Ds caucus in NV.
A truly remarkable thing happened Saturday night at the Republican debate in South Carolina. Donald Trump told Marco Rubio that George W Bush was responsible for 9/11 and didn’t keep us safe. Oh, and by the way, he told Jeb! that W lied about getting us into Iraq. And if people decide to impeach him, that’s okay with the Donald.
MR. DONALD TRUMP: You do whatever you want. You call it whatever you want. I wanna tell you. They lied.
JOHN DICKERSON: Okay.
Mr. Donald Trump: They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
(BOOING)
That was Donald Trump speaking on network television to a Republican audience.JOHN DICKERSON: Okay.
Mr. Donald Trump: They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
(BOOING)
Watch the tape at 25:57 with Jeb!, 30:44 with Rubio:
All this in conservative military-friendly South Carolina with a Bush-friendly (establishment tickets) audience.
Wow. This has implications.
Here’s the full 9/11 exchange with Rubio:
SEN. MARCO RUBIO:
09:35:50:00 I just wanna say, at least on behalf of me and my family, I thank God all the time that it was George W. Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore. (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE) And you can– I think you can look back in hindsight and say a couple things, but he kept us safe. And not only did he keep us safe, but he– no matter what you wanna say about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was in violation of U.N. resolutions, in open violation, and the world wouldn’t do anything about it. And George W. Bush, enforced what the international community, refused to do, and again he kept us safe. And I am forever grateful to what he did for this–
09:36:29:00 (OVERTALK)
MR. DONALD TRUMP:
09:36:29:00 How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center (UNINTEL)? (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE) The World– I lost hundreds of friends. The World Trade Center came down (BOOING) during the reign. He kept us safe? That’s not safe. That is not safe (UNINTEL).
You cannot put that toothpaste back in the tube. Libertarian populism may be dead, but authoritarian populism is alive and well. 09:35:50:00 I just wanna say, at least on behalf of me and my family, I thank God all the time that it was George W. Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore. (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE) And you can– I think you can look back in hindsight and say a couple things, but he kept us safe. And not only did he keep us safe, but he– no matter what you wanna say about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was in violation of U.N. resolutions, in open violation, and the world wouldn’t do anything about it. And George W. Bush, enforced what the international community, refused to do, and again he kept us safe. And I am forever grateful to what he did for this–
09:36:29:00 (OVERTALK)
MR. DONALD TRUMP:
09:36:29:00 How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center (UNINTEL)? (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE) The World– I lost hundreds of friends. The World Trade Center came down (BOOING) during the reign. He kept us safe? That’s not safe. That is not safe (UNINTEL).
Here’s Olivia Nuzzi making a point that cannot be overemphasized:
Olivia Nuzzi @Olivianuzzi They largely do not care about his various policy positions to the degree that he even has policy positions. That's not what it's about.
Follow
Olivia Nuzzi @Olivianuzzi They care about him. They trust him as a leader who won't allow them to be fucked over, because he himself has never been fucked over.
Trump’s candidacy is about strength, and his attacks on Jeb! (and by implication the entire Bush clan) are about weakness. W. failed on 9/11, he’s weak and so is his brother, goes the message. Trump is strong and no one messes with him. Not Bush, not Bin Laden.
That is a message that resonates with a yuuge chunk of the Republican base, especially if Trump applies it to the economy. That‘s why he can defend Social Security and be an apostate on taxes and get away with all of it.
Think of the implications to the Laffer curve crowd.
David Frum sums up:
For a decade and a half, Republicans have stifled internal debates about the George W. Bush presidency. They have preserved a more or less common front, by the more or less agreed upon device of not looking backward, not talking candidly, and focusing all their accumulated anger on the figure of Obama. The Trump candidacy has smashed all those coping mechanisms. Everything that was suppressed has been exposed, everything that went unsaid is being shouted aloud—and all before a jeering live audience, as angry itself as any of the angry men on the platform. Is this a functional political party? Is this an organization readying itself to govern? Or is it one more—most spectacular—show of self-evisceration by a party that has been bleeding on the inside for a decade and longer?
We have known for some time there’s major battle lines in the GOP, but winning Congress has kept that under the blanket. It’s out in the open now, and the Republican Party, if Trump wins South Carolina despite what he said on stage Saturday night, will never be the same again.
[h=1]'The Constitution is pretty clear': Obama reminds Republicans that he HAS to nominate new SCOTUS justice and that whoever it is will be 'indisputably qualified'[/h]
PUBLISHED: 22:27, 16 February 2016 | UPDATED: 01:59, 17 February 2016
President Barack Obama said today that he won't back down from a Supreme Court nomination battle brewing between his White House and Senate Republicans.
'The Constitution is pretty clear about what's supposed to happen now,' Obama said at a press conference as he outlined his role as the executive to put forth a name to replace deceased Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and U.S. senators' responsibility to confirm or deny that choice.
The president said, 'Historically this has not been viewed as a question. There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years. That's not in the Constitutional text.'
Obama wouldn't promise to nominate a 'moderate,' consensus candidate, telling a reporter not to 'assume anything about the qualifications' of the person he'll pick 'other than they're gonna be well-qualified.'
.
+5
President Barack Obama said today that he won't back down from a Supreme Court nomination fight brewing between his White House and Senate Republicans
.
Senator Ted Cruz says there's no chance Obama will be able to fill the Supreme Court vacancy opened up by the untimely death of Scalia.
Cruz on Sunday told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that he 'absolutely' plans to filibuster an Obama nominee.
'This should be a decision for the people, George,' Cruz said. 'We've got an election. And, you know Democrats – I cannot wait to stand on that stage with Hillary Clinton or with Bernie Sanders and take the case to the people, what vision of the Supreme Court do you want?'
Cruz, like a majority of his Republican peers in both the Senate and the race for the White House, want the Senate to drag out any sort of nomination vote in case Republicans win the presidency and can replace the conservative Scalia with another conservative.
'Let the election decide it,' Cruz, a constitutional scholar who attended the same law school as Obama, said Sunday on This Week. 'If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.'
Obama indirectly referenced Cruz today as he addressed questions about the fight with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republicans generally in the upper chamber.
'I'm amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,' he said.
Continuing, he said, 'There's more than enough time for the Senate to consider, in a thoughtful way, the record of a nominee that I present and to make a decision.'
.
+5
Ted Cruz said he'd 'absolutely' filibuster anyone President Obama nominated for the Supreme Court because the next president should get to pick who takes over for the late Antonin Scalia
+5
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos said Sunday that voters would expect President Obama to get to pick the next associate justice, but Ted Cruz said that Republicans taking over the Senate in 2014 would suggest otherwise
+5
RIP: Associate Justice Antonin Scalias Bench Chair and the Bench in front of his seat are seen here today draped in black following his Saturday death. The sudden death of Scalia, a towering conservative icon on the US Supreme Court, has set off an epic election-year battle over his successor
Obama was also asked as part of a question what factors he'd consider when making a decision such as race and political positions.
CNN said in a report today that the president's team has already begun the vetting process and is working off a lists is began when he filled two other positions on the court and replaced Eric Holder in the attorney general's office.
The president is currently in Rancho Mirage, California, hosting the Association of Southeast Asian Nations at Sunnylands resort and golf course. He returns to Washington tonight.
By week's end his team will have nevertheless narrowed down its list of options to three or four names, CNN's source said.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who has held the role of top cop for less than a year after spending five as a U.S. Attorney's in New York, is considered a leading contender.
Obama had little to say today about the candidates he's considering.
'We're gonna find somebody who is an outstanding legal mind, somebody who cares deeply about our democracy and cares about rule of law,' he said. 'There's not gonna be any particular position on a particular isue that determines whether or not I nominate them.'
But he added, 'I am going to present somebody who indisputably is qualified for the seat and any fair-minded person, even somebody who disagreed with my politics, would say would serve with honor and integrity on the court.'
A reporter then asked if that means Obama is likely to select a moderate.
'No,' Obama interrupted him to say. 'I don't know where you found that.'
The president denied the possibility of a recess appointment and said of the Republican-controlled Senate, 'I expect them to hold hearings. I expect there to be a vote. Full stop.'
+5
The president is currently in Rancho Mirage, California, hosting the Association of Southeast Asian Nations at Sunnylands resort and golf course. He returns to Washington tonight. He took questions on his Supreme Court pick at a press conference today before his flight home
On Sunday ABC's Stephanopoulos pushed back on Cruz's claim the American people want the next president to pick a Supreme Court justice, not the current one, by bringing up Obama's re-election in 2012.
'That was three years ago,' Cruz, who clerked for the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in the mid-90s, countered. 'The people also gave us a Republican Senate this last election because they were fed up with Barack Obama's lawlessness.'
The Republican presidential candidate also suggested that Scalia's passing changed 'the entire contours of this race.'
'The time for the circus and reality show is over,' Cruz said. 'This is a serious choice and we are talking about losing our basic liberty if we get this wrong.'
.
- Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is among the many Republican who are saying that the next president should get to fill Antonin Scalia's seat
- Cruz suggested that the 2014 midterm results giving the GOP the Senate are proof enough that people don't want Obama's pick
- Obama said he found the GOP's position 'amusing' today and 'the Constitution is pretty clear about what's supposed to happen now'
PUBLISHED: 22:27, 16 February 2016 | UPDATED: 01:59, 17 February 2016
President Barack Obama said today that he won't back down from a Supreme Court nomination battle brewing between his White House and Senate Republicans.
'The Constitution is pretty clear about what's supposed to happen now,' Obama said at a press conference as he outlined his role as the executive to put forth a name to replace deceased Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and U.S. senators' responsibility to confirm or deny that choice.
The president said, 'Historically this has not been viewed as a question. There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years. That's not in the Constitutional text.'
Obama wouldn't promise to nominate a 'moderate,' consensus candidate, telling a reporter not to 'assume anything about the qualifications' of the person he'll pick 'other than they're gonna be well-qualified.'
.
+5
President Barack Obama said today that he won't back down from a Supreme Court nomination fight brewing between his White House and Senate Republicans
.
Senator Ted Cruz says there's no chance Obama will be able to fill the Supreme Court vacancy opened up by the untimely death of Scalia.
Cruz on Sunday told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that he 'absolutely' plans to filibuster an Obama nominee.
'This should be a decision for the people, George,' Cruz said. 'We've got an election. And, you know Democrats – I cannot wait to stand on that stage with Hillary Clinton or with Bernie Sanders and take the case to the people, what vision of the Supreme Court do you want?'
Cruz, like a majority of his Republican peers in both the Senate and the race for the White House, want the Senate to drag out any sort of nomination vote in case Republicans win the presidency and can replace the conservative Scalia with another conservative.
'Let the election decide it,' Cruz, a constitutional scholar who attended the same law school as Obama, said Sunday on This Week. 'If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.'
Obama indirectly referenced Cruz today as he addressed questions about the fight with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republicans generally in the upper chamber.
'I'm amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,' he said.
Continuing, he said, 'There's more than enough time for the Senate to consider, in a thoughtful way, the record of a nominee that I present and to make a decision.'
.
+5
Ted Cruz said he'd 'absolutely' filibuster anyone President Obama nominated for the Supreme Court because the next president should get to pick who takes over for the late Antonin Scalia
+5
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos said Sunday that voters would expect President Obama to get to pick the next associate justice, but Ted Cruz said that Republicans taking over the Senate in 2014 would suggest otherwise
+5
RIP: Associate Justice Antonin Scalias Bench Chair and the Bench in front of his seat are seen here today draped in black following his Saturday death. The sudden death of Scalia, a towering conservative icon on the US Supreme Court, has set off an epic election-year battle over his successor
Obama was also asked as part of a question what factors he'd consider when making a decision such as race and political positions.
CNN said in a report today that the president's team has already begun the vetting process and is working off a lists is began when he filled two other positions on the court and replaced Eric Holder in the attorney general's office.
The president is currently in Rancho Mirage, California, hosting the Association of Southeast Asian Nations at Sunnylands resort and golf course. He returns to Washington tonight.
By week's end his team will have nevertheless narrowed down its list of options to three or four names, CNN's source said.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who has held the role of top cop for less than a year after spending five as a U.S. Attorney's in New York, is considered a leading contender.
Obama had little to say today about the candidates he's considering.
'We're gonna find somebody who is an outstanding legal mind, somebody who cares deeply about our democracy and cares about rule of law,' he said. 'There's not gonna be any particular position on a particular isue that determines whether or not I nominate them.'
But he added, 'I am going to present somebody who indisputably is qualified for the seat and any fair-minded person, even somebody who disagreed with my politics, would say would serve with honor and integrity on the court.'
A reporter then asked if that means Obama is likely to select a moderate.
'No,' Obama interrupted him to say. 'I don't know where you found that.'
The president denied the possibility of a recess appointment and said of the Republican-controlled Senate, 'I expect them to hold hearings. I expect there to be a vote. Full stop.'
+5
The president is currently in Rancho Mirage, California, hosting the Association of Southeast Asian Nations at Sunnylands resort and golf course. He returns to Washington tonight. He took questions on his Supreme Court pick at a press conference today before his flight home
On Sunday ABC's Stephanopoulos pushed back on Cruz's claim the American people want the next president to pick a Supreme Court justice, not the current one, by bringing up Obama's re-election in 2012.
'That was three years ago,' Cruz, who clerked for the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in the mid-90s, countered. 'The people also gave us a Republican Senate this last election because they were fed up with Barack Obama's lawlessness.'
The Republican presidential candidate also suggested that Scalia's passing changed 'the entire contours of this race.'
'The time for the circus and reality show is over,' Cruz said. 'This is a serious choice and we are talking about losing our basic liberty if we get this wrong.'
.
[h=1]Could Obama ram through his own Supreme Court choice in the dying days of his presidency? Ex-aide says he could move in January 2017 if Dems take Senate[/h]
PUBLISHED: 19:59, 16 February 2016 | UPDATED: 01:44, 17 February 2016
If the parties switch places, with the Republicans winning the White House and the Democrats taking back the Senate, President Barack Obama may still get his Supreme Court pick.
That's because the Constitution mandates that a new Congress start its work on Jan. 3, while a new president won't be sworn in until Jan. 20, giving Obama 17 days to shove someone through the Senate and onto the bench, NBC News pointed out.
'If a Democratic Senate comes in on January third, President Obama could send in his Supreme Court nomination,' a former Obama administration lawyer told the network's Ari Melber.
'Then Democrats could apply the 'nuclear option' to Supreme Court nominations, and vote in Obama's nominee by a simple majority,' the source added.
President Obama (left) could still get a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia (right) if the Senate swings back to Democratic control in November
+5
The flag is flying at half-staff in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington to honor the late Justice Antonin Scalia, while a political battle for his replacement has just commenced
+5
Drapery adorns the seat of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's most gregarious conservative whose seat could go to a liberal justice if President Obama gets his way
The nuclear option refers to a rules rewrite that would allow a simple majority vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice, ridding the process of the filibuster, which takes 60 votes to overcome.
Senate Democrats already eliminated the filibuster from applying to lower court judicial nominees in 2013.
On Saturday, 79-year-old Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Court's stalwart conservatives, was found dead in bed at a West Texas ranch.
The loss quickly turned political with President Obama saying he would announce a nominee to fill Scalia's position shortly and asked the Senate for a 'timely' vote.
But Republican Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, already said nope.
'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,' McConnell said in a statement issued just hours after Scalia's death was reported. 'Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.'
The Republican presidential candidates, gathered in South Carolina for a GOP debate, all seemed to agree.
.
+5
A former Obama administration lawyer laid out a plan suggesting that if the Democrats win the Senate, but lose the White House, they push through a SCOTUS nominee in the 17 days between the new Congress' start and the inauguration of a new president
'It's called 'Delay! Delay! Delay!'' frontrunner Donald Trump said of Republicans' ideal strategy.
Republicans' initial thinking was that the open seat, which could tilt the balance of the Supreme Court to liberal if Democrats have their way, would be a voter motivator and help the party win back the White House after eight years.
But voters, fed up with Washington's antics, could also be motivated to bump some Republican Senators off of Capitol Hill, especially in purple states like Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, where Senate races are expected to be tight.
Democrats need to only pick up four seats to win back a simple majority.
'The possibility shows Republicans could over play their hand,' said the former Obama official to NBC.
'If Republicans act in a way that jeopardizes Senate seats, then it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election,' the source said.
As for whether Obama and Senate Democrats would test such an unprecedented maneuver one Republican former Senate aide thought definitely so.
'I have no doubt about the fact that Democrats would complete the "nuke,"' the source said.
.
- Even if Democrats lose the White House, if they take back the Senate, President Obama could get his Supreme Court pick
- In this scenario, President Obama would have 17 days in 2017 to push a nominee through the Senate and onto the bench
- Senate Republican leadership has already said that as long as the GOP has a majority, President Obama's pick won't go through
PUBLISHED: 19:59, 16 February 2016 | UPDATED: 01:44, 17 February 2016
If the parties switch places, with the Republicans winning the White House and the Democrats taking back the Senate, President Barack Obama may still get his Supreme Court pick.
That's because the Constitution mandates that a new Congress start its work on Jan. 3, while a new president won't be sworn in until Jan. 20, giving Obama 17 days to shove someone through the Senate and onto the bench, NBC News pointed out.
'If a Democratic Senate comes in on January third, President Obama could send in his Supreme Court nomination,' a former Obama administration lawyer told the network's Ari Melber.
'Then Democrats could apply the 'nuclear option' to Supreme Court nominations, and vote in Obama's nominee by a simple majority,' the source added.
President Obama (left) could still get a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia (right) if the Senate swings back to Democratic control in November
+5
The flag is flying at half-staff in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington to honor the late Justice Antonin Scalia, while a political battle for his replacement has just commenced
+5
Drapery adorns the seat of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's most gregarious conservative whose seat could go to a liberal justice if President Obama gets his way
The nuclear option refers to a rules rewrite that would allow a simple majority vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice, ridding the process of the filibuster, which takes 60 votes to overcome.
Senate Democrats already eliminated the filibuster from applying to lower court judicial nominees in 2013.
On Saturday, 79-year-old Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Court's stalwart conservatives, was found dead in bed at a West Texas ranch.
The loss quickly turned political with President Obama saying he would announce a nominee to fill Scalia's position shortly and asked the Senate for a 'timely' vote.
But Republican Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, already said nope.
'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,' McConnell said in a statement issued just hours after Scalia's death was reported. 'Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.'
The Republican presidential candidates, gathered in South Carolina for a GOP debate, all seemed to agree.
.
+5
A former Obama administration lawyer laid out a plan suggesting that if the Democrats win the Senate, but lose the White House, they push through a SCOTUS nominee in the 17 days between the new Congress' start and the inauguration of a new president
'It's called 'Delay! Delay! Delay!'' frontrunner Donald Trump said of Republicans' ideal strategy.
Republicans' initial thinking was that the open seat, which could tilt the balance of the Supreme Court to liberal if Democrats have their way, would be a voter motivator and help the party win back the White House after eight years.
But voters, fed up with Washington's antics, could also be motivated to bump some Republican Senators off of Capitol Hill, especially in purple states like Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, where Senate races are expected to be tight.
Democrats need to only pick up four seats to win back a simple majority.
'The possibility shows Republicans could over play their hand,' said the former Obama official to NBC.
'If Republicans act in a way that jeopardizes Senate seats, then it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election,' the source said.
As for whether Obama and Senate Democrats would test such an unprecedented maneuver one Republican former Senate aide thought definitely so.
'I have no doubt about the fact that Democrats would complete the "nuke,"' the source said.
.
"For the life of me, I just can't understand why someone is so hellbent on destroying our once great country.........pos, worst ever........same goes for Cankles and the Aardvark........"
.
" Obama, the death of democracy ! By the way Obumble, keep your nose out of the British EU referendum, we don't want to listen to your lectures about giving away our nation state sovereignty to the EU, you might hate democracy, but we are actually rather fond of it, so, be gone ! All the best my American cousins, please don't vote in somebody who hates democracy !"
.
"Obama is anxious to push his immigration, environmental and women's reproductive rights agenda that is now sitting in the Supreme Court waiting for an answer. The immigration bill would give thousands, perhaps millions of young illegals access to citizenship. This bill was blocked by state of Texas and several other states that backed Texas up."
.
"Obama has NO shame and Hillary Clinton wants to carry on with his Terrible Legacy leaving the world in a very dangerous situation"
.
"Yep and Pigs will be flying as well.. Sorry Dems, you are not going to win anything for awhile, we the people, are really fed up with your Crap......."
.
"Even if the Democrats won the Senate the Republicans still have the right to Filibuster. Obama should know this, since he was part of the Democrat minority that used the process of filibuster to prevent Bush's nomination from being accepted in 2004."
"The one thing President Obama is, is consistent. If its unpopular and can weaken America, it has his immediate support. Get ready for a parade of left wing jurists."
.
"DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!! IDIOT LIBS!!!!!!!! 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.¿"
.
Yeah, he actually did...you fucking liar. For all three and plenty more violations of the Constitution. You are literally inventing your own reality and living in that. Exhibit A for how dimocraps lie to themselves, your honor...
Who the fuck is saying the POTUS can't nominate someone to the SC? He can nominate Teddy Ruxpin if he wants. The Senate, however, has no obligation to approve the selection or even nominate another member. They could leave it at eight seats indefinitely if they wanted. This is what the forefathers had in mind with co-equal branches of government. It isn't the dictatorship you're dying to see take place in this country.
No, he didn't, and that's why you're a fucking lying hunk of shit. The Iran deal was submitted to both the house and Senate.
No he hasn't. His Immigration Policy is tied up in the courts and it's one of the cases on the Supreme Court docket. He did what he was legally allowed to do, and the court will settle if he overstepped his bounds pr not.
No he didn't. Total BS. There's no proof linking Obama to whatever went down at the IRS except in your insane extreme right Wing fantasies.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 89,636
- Reaction score
- 4,096
In 2006, while no doubt starting to lay his eyes on a presidential run, then-Sen. Obama had no problem throwing a wrench in the works of democracy by voting to filibuster George Bush’s nominee to the high court, Samuel Alito.
Obama told George Stephanopoulos on ABC News This Week that he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly.”
In other words, because Alito did not share his judicial philosophy and he felt the judge’s ascension to the Supreme Court would not allow an independent check on the excessive use of executive branch power, Obama, in fact, voted to block the appointment.
-------------------------------------------------
this how pure scum rolls, I'd spit in this idiots face if given the opportunity
he has diminished the integrity of the White House, just like libtard nation has diminished the standing of the USA (freeloading is not something to be proud of)
idiots to the very core
Obama told George Stephanopoulos on ABC News This Week that he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly.”
In other words, because Alito did not share his judicial philosophy and he felt the judge’s ascension to the Supreme Court would not allow an independent check on the excessive use of executive branch power, Obama, in fact, voted to block the appointment.
-------------------------------------------------
this how pure scum rolls, I'd spit in this idiots face if given the opportunity
he has diminished the integrity of the White House, just like libtard nation has diminished the standing of the USA (freeloading is not something to be proud of)
idiots to the very core
Justice What Republicans Said About Supreme Court Nominations During George W. Bush’s Last Year
by Judd Legum
Feb 16, 2016 9:30 am
CREDIT: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak
Share 5,892
Tweet
Moments after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia was reported, Republicans in the Senate coalesced around a single message: the next president, not Barack Obama, should nominate Scalia’s successor.
When Republicans argue that Barack Obama should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice to replace Antonin Scalia, they are embracing a modified version of the “Thurmond Rule,” a concept invented by one of the Senate’s most notorious racists.
The first thing to know about the Thurmond Rule is that it is not a rule but a pronouncement by late Senator Strom Thurmond that judicial nominees should not be confirmed in the six months leading up to an election. Thurmond used his “rule” to justify blocking the nomination of Abe Fortas, who was already on the court, to Chief Justice.
Thurmond, an ardent segregationalist, was upset that Fortas and Johnson supported civil rights for African Americans. The Republicans are now seeking to extend Thurmond’s “rule” in 2015.
Since it is more than six months before the next election, even if the Thurmond rule was a rule, it wouldn’t apply in the case of the vacancy created by Scalia’s passing. What Republicans like Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley are arguing for is the expansion of the concept to encompass the entire final year of Obama’s presidency.
These same leaders, however, had a much different perspective in July 2008, the final year of George W. Bush’s presidency, when they convened a meeting entitled “Protecting American Justice: Ensuring Confirmation of Qualified Judicial Nominees.” The hearing focused on the circuit court nominees at issue at the time, but featured lots of commentary on the Thurmond Rule.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
For his part, Barack Obama intends to nominate a Scalia’s replacement. “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote,” he said in a statement on Saturday.
THE REPUBLICUNTS COCKSUCKERS OBSTRUCTIONISTS AT WORK!!!:fckmad::godown:^^
by Judd Legum
Feb 16, 2016 9:30 am
Share 5,892
Tweet
Moments after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia was reported, Republicans in the Senate coalesced around a single message: the next president, not Barack Obama, should nominate Scalia’s successor.
When Republicans argue that Barack Obama should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice to replace Antonin Scalia, they are embracing a modified version of the “Thurmond Rule,” a concept invented by one of the Senate’s most notorious racists.
The first thing to know about the Thurmond Rule is that it is not a rule but a pronouncement by late Senator Strom Thurmond that judicial nominees should not be confirmed in the six months leading up to an election. Thurmond used his “rule” to justify blocking the nomination of Abe Fortas, who was already on the court, to Chief Justice.
Thurmond, an ardent segregationalist, was upset that Fortas and Johnson supported civil rights for African Americans. The Republicans are now seeking to extend Thurmond’s “rule” in 2015.
Since it is more than six months before the next election, even if the Thurmond rule was a rule, it wouldn’t apply in the case of the vacancy created by Scalia’s passing. What Republicans like Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley are arguing for is the expansion of the concept to encompass the entire final year of Obama’s presidency.
These same leaders, however, had a much different perspective in July 2008, the final year of George W. Bush’s presidency, when they convened a meeting entitled “Protecting American Justice: Ensuring Confirmation of Qualified Judicial Nominees.” The hearing focused on the circuit court nominees at issue at the time, but featured lots of commentary on the Thurmond Rule.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
“[The idea that July 2008 would trigger the] Thurmond Rule **– that’s just plain bunk. The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president’s term.”
Today, Grassley says that “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year… it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
“There’s no excuse for not considering and voting upon a well* qualified judicial nominee in the United States of America today… [J]ust because it’s a presidential election year is no excuse for us to take a vacation. And we’re here. We’re ready to go to work.”
Today, Alexander says that “it is reasonable to give the American people a voice by allowing the next president to fill this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
“[N]ow is the perfect time for a new politics of judicial confirmation to arise where Republicans and Democrats work together to confirm qualified men and women to the federal bench. Now is the perfect time because, of course, we’re in a presidential election year and no one yet knows who the next president will be. What a unique opportunity to establish that regardless of the next president’s party, the nominees will be treated fairly and on the basis of their qualifications, and not on the basis of ancient political squabbles.”
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
“I think it’s clear that there is no Thurmond Rule. And I think the facts demonstrate that.”
Today, McConnell is leading the charge for an expanded Thurmond Rule. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” he said, immediately after Scalia’s passing.
For his part, Barack Obama intends to nominate a Scalia’s replacement. “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote,” he said in a statement on Saturday.
THE REPUBLICUNTS COCKSUCKERS OBSTRUCTIONISTS AT WORK!!!:fckmad::godown:^^
Justice What Republicans Said About Supreme Court Nominations During George W. Bush’s Last Year
by Judd Legum
CREDIT: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak
Share 5,892
Tweet
Moments after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia was reported, Republicans in the Senate coalesced around a single message: the next president, not Barack Obama, should nominate Scalia’s successor.
When Republicans argue that Barack Obama should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice to replace Antonin Scalia, they are embracing a modified version of the “Thurmond Rule,” a concept invented by one of the Senate’s most notorious racists.
The first thing to know about the Thurmond Rule is that it is not a rule but a pronouncement by late Senator Strom Thurmond that judicial nominees should not be confirmed in the six months leading up to an election. Thurmond used his “rule” to justify blocking the nomination of Abe Fortas, who was already on the court, to Chief Justice.
Thurmond, an ardent segregationalist, was upset that Fortas and Johnson supported civil rights for African Americans. The Republicans are now seeking to extend Thurmond’s “rule” in 2015.
Since it is more than six months before the next election, even if the Thurmond rule was a rule, it wouldn’t apply in the case of the vacancy created by Scalia’s passing. What Republicans like Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley are arguing for is the expansion of the concept to encompass the entire final year of Obama’s presidency.
These same leaders, however, had a much different perspective in July 2008, the final year of George W. Bush’s presidency, when they convened a meeting entitled “Protecting American Justice: Ensuring Confirmation of Qualified Judicial Nominees.” The hearing focused on the circuit court nominees at issue at the time, but featured lots of commentary on the Thurmond Rule.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
“[The idea that July 2008 would trigger the] Thurmond Rule **– that’s just plain bunk. The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president’s term.”Today, Grassley says that “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year… it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
“There’s no excuse for not considering and voting upon a well* qualified judicial nominee in the United States of America today… [J]ust because it’s a presidential election year is no excuse for us to take a vacation. And we’re here. We’re ready to go to work.”Today, Alexander says that “it is reasonable to give the American people a voice by allowing the next president to fill this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
“[N]ow is the perfect time for a new politics of judicial confirmation to arise where Republicans and Democrats work together to confirm qualified men and women to the federal bench. Now is the perfect time because, of course, we’re in a presidential election year and no one yet knows who the next president will be. What a unique opportunity to establish that regardless of the next president’s party, the nominees will be treated fairly and on the basis of their qualifications, and not on the basis of ancient political squabbles.”Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
“I think it’s clear that there is no Thurmond Rule. And I think the facts demonstrate that.”Today, McConnell is leading the charge for an expanded Thurmond Rule. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” he said, immediately after Scalia’s passing.
For his part, Barack Obama intends to nominate a Scalia’s replacement. “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote,” he said in a statement on Saturday.
THE REPUBLICUNTS COCKSUCKERS OBSTRUCTIONISTS AT WORK!!!:fckmad::godown:^^
