Printable View
They haven't tried to rewrite anything, that would be Obama who has sought to rewrite the Constitution and has been rebuked by SCOTUS for having done it. The Senate isn't preventing Obama from making a nomination, and there is no timeline for the Senate to take his nominations under consideration. I must also point out that it was Harry Reid that held up confirmation votes for numerous federal judges in the final years of GW Bush's tenure.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
Kennedy was nominated in November of 1987, following the Senate declining to approve Bork and Ginsberg, and only confirmed in 88. Pre-Schumer, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
BS, I would spell it out but citizen would get mad, your boy Obama the ultral left liberal nominated two for the Supreme Court, both go by easily. So don't give us that garbage that republicans block everything, it makes it sound like all you do is read what the democrats say and accept it as gospel They have given him way too much of what he wants which is one reason so many republicans are ticked at congress right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
And yes they have blocked some of his stuff as they should because they are bad for the economy and bad for the country. So what does ole king Obama often do, forget the constittuion and does executive orders.
But keep being the robot for the democrats you are, its fun to watch
McConnell talks tough, but carries a limp stick in his drawers. He's a coward, and he will fold like a pup tent in a tornado if it meets his needs. Whatever those needs may be.
I despise almost all of these people in D.C. They are there to divvy up what's left to steal. Anybody that doesn't see that has their eyes wide shut.
Thank you DebbieQuote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-cont...ultz_scott.jpg
Maybe if the democrats put forth something that wasn't so partisan that republicans might actually find it palatable then they might vote for it. You know like a health care bill that didn't include paying for birth control or a budget that funded planned parenthood? The inclusion of birth control in the ACA was there because the left knew they could FORCE it through. They had no intention of working with the GOP and their goal was to get it through despite the GOP so while the left loves to bitch about the right always fighting against the Presidents plans, perhaps they should take a glance in the mirror every now and then and ask if maybe they too are parcel to the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
Don't confuse him with fact. It will screw up his reality.
http://data.whicdn.com/images/99307733/original.gif
Suncat, tell us how you really feel. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by suncat05
If it were to go to a vote you would have to watch McCain, Graham. The lady from Maine...can't think of her name. There are a few that would give away the farm vs doing what's bestQuote:
Originally Posted by suncat05
Let's see who the President nominates and then decide to circle wagons or not.
The supreme court is just too much a political extension of the executive. Partisanship is on both sides. Republicans are louder and look angrier when they do it, but both are horrible.
Can we get jurists who know the law and apply it reasonably objectively?
If the President selects a reasonable judge (Citizen said moderate and I'd prefer that) the nomination should be approved. If the person is terrible (ala George W Bush nominating a person who was never a judge--which he can but most thought a poor decision) then vote down.
I am not for delay, delay, delay. Ted Cruz pushed to shut down the government and that was a problem. Holding the government hostage is not the answer.
And there is a possibility that a delay may allow Hillary or Bernie Sanders to make a nomination and believe me a newly elected liberal is going to make a much more liberal nomination over OBama.
Was at the barbershop this morning and I saw a crawl at the bottom of the screen that said congress would not take up the job of agreeing or disagreeing with the nominated candidate
Braggart!Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
With the number of Obama involved cases being heard by SCOTUS is seems to be a conflict of interest for him to have yet another appointee to decide those cases.
People do not even respect the office of President any more. And that started many many years ago.
I am in the" walking on the fighting side of me" camp. So more and more I try to stay away from partisan discussions...which is all there are.
The term bipartisan no longer applies to our government, or our people, except at times in our Supreme Court.
Our President, Mr. Obama is required to nominate a candidate. And Congress is required to fairly and diligently vote on the merits of that nominee regardless of their own political strategy. Any other view is anti American imo.
I argued against the policies of GWB and condemned many of his tactics, but there was always a line I refused to cross out of respect to the office. Sadly there are no longer such parameters and I feel just as many of you would have had I crossed that line.
The error in the SCOTUS argument comes in the "advise and consent" role of the Senate. Filling a seat on SCOTUS is part of the checks and balances system. Obama has no interest in the "advise" role of the Senate by seeking out Senatorial recommendations and just wants the Senate to be limited to the "consent" role by voting.
By the way, Obama shows his role is on of chief hypocrite by insisting the Senate vote on any nominee after endorsing a filibuster of Alito in 2006, midway through Bush 43's second term.
No conspiracy theory here either. But...........these circumstances surrounding Justice Scalia's death, in and of themselves alone, are ordinary circumstances surrounding an extraordinary man. But because he was who he was, his position in life and in our judicial system, and because it is an extemely rare situation where a sitting Justice dies while still on the Bench, and even though all witnessing accounts state that there were no suspicious activities noted, I still have to believe that just because of who he was that discretion is the better part of valor, and that an autopsy should have been ordered by the convening local authority to dispel any doubts of any foul play at all.
This investigation should be all encompassing too. To include the US Marshals involved, the county coroner and Sheriff, the owner of the hunting camp, and every single person involved in the hunt. Food preparation staff, hotel staff, vehicle driver's,..............anybody that had any contact with Justice Scalia prior to his death. Also, any people in D.C. that he had any contact with at all prior to leaving, anyone, going back at least 2 weeks prior to his death.
Leave no stone unturned.
The county coroner dropped the ball, in my estimation, and I say this because of my years of law enforcement experience, which tells me that in this particular situation, every possible conceivable angle is examined and eliminated towards any possible foul play.
Just my humble opinion.
Yes, November 1987, right in the middle of a presidential election. Don't try to act like the Republicans wouldn't say the same thing if this happened two months ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
The key here is that the process played out, not obstructionism. That's all that I ask. Republicans shouldn't talk about strict constructionism and then say that "lame duck" Presidents should do the "right thing" and let the next President decide. That is unconstitutional.
Scalia supported Kagan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
The notion that you think that Republicans have any interest in working with a Democratic President is completely laughable.
If that's the case, then vowing to obstruct as soon as Obama took office must just be a case of racism and/or bigotry.
2006 wasn't an election year and his rationale wasn't let the will of the people decide. There are several reason to filibuster(I myself hate the filibuster, so I'm not going to defend it's use), but the reasons for Obama's use in 2006 is completely different than the threat of its use today.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
Trying to rewrite the powers of the Presidency is unconstitutional. That's what the Republicans are trying to accomplish.
Wow!Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
A rational voice. I'm impressed. You've nailed it, though. Republicans going with this "all-in" strategy is something else. If it doesn't work(and I don't think it will), they will lose the Presidency, the Senate and will result in a stacked court for the next 30 years, which I assume will consume most of our lives.
The people that decide elections don't stand for the unprecedented tactics the Republicans are playing. Nothing has me more excited during this election season to watch it unfold.
The one thing that really is a head scratcher is that let's say that Obama can get his person nominated, and the Republicans take back the White House, the courts will swing back to the leanings of the last 30 years with at least 2 opportunities to replace.
Would the impact of a left leaning court be any greater over the next couple of years by letting the appellate court decisions stand?
Whatever our opinions are, it's just a really bizarre strategy that has a HUGE volatility of returns for the GOP. If it goes wrong, it could completely be the death of conservatism(doubt it), but it would definitely rewrite the book.
unprecedented????Have you paid any attention to the news the last few days or only read the DNC website.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
Reid would not allow any nominess to be voted on during Bush
Schumer said no nominees to be brought up for consideration during Bush last year
Democrats destroying not one but two nominees under Reagan and only got one thru near the election
History has been that in an election year, no new Supreme Court nominee is voted on by either party.
The democrats so easily influence minds.
WOW, once again you amaze me. Obama has been rewriting the powers of the Presidency since he has been in office. The republicans are not trying to accomplish what you claim. obama or any president has the right to nominate and that is as far as his power goes. The constitution does not give him the right to nominate and confirm his appointees. The Senate has the right to take under advisement any nominee and then only they can decide whether to vote them in or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
Did the republicans vote in Obamas two appointees or not? Plus they have given him almost everything he wants since they took control of both houses. Its why so many are mad at the establishment republicans, they cave.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
No one ever accused McConnell of being smart and he makes dumb statements. Next much like....
I gave zero faith in the US Senate and anything the current Senate leadership says. McConnell is another world class liar, just like Obama & Biden. The only difference in any of the three is their political affiliations, otherwise same-same.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck..........
It wasn't unconstitutional when the Dems were upholding Bush 43's nominees to Federal Circuit courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
It was Leahy and Schumer who invoked the "Thurmond Rule" (his words) in 2007 declaring any Bush judicial nominees would not be brought to a vote.
Upon Lewis Powell's retirement President Reagan nominated Robert Bork on July 1, 1987. Nearly 19 months before the term ended. Kennedy was the third nomination for the post when he was nominated on November 11, 1987.
SCOTUS has determined it is Obama who has attempted to circumvent the Constitution on multiple occasions, not the Senate. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to vote on a nominee as part of the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
It's no less laughable than the idea that the democrats had any interest in working with Republicans. When you have a president who basically tells republicans, the ones that people voted for to represent them, to just come along for the ride ( "We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." ). Yeah, sounds like he and the democrats were real interested in working WITH the GOP..... No, the democrats believe that the GOP should rubber stamp their agenda and anything less is obstructionism.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
The President "SHALL" nominate..not "may" or "can". And congress shall fulfill their oath and do their duty with due diligence. Vote up or down on the person's merits, that is American government.
Anything else is as anti-American as any accusations made toward either major party.
Hate is not all that can bring this country to its knees, and yet that's all I see anymore. We've allowed it to consume us.
Sad times. But soon our Lord will do away with the governments of mankind, and Him only will you serve. That's my bottom line. :)
suncat, I was really surprised they didn't do a autopsy. Because of his position I would have thought that would be automatic. If he was in good health which I guess he was, plus the pillow over his face which on the face of it would be suspicious. With terror in the world, with Obama's sentence winding down and the ability to maybe change the court for the next 20 years or so I would think an autopsy would be automatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by suncat05
It amazes me that under Bush, the left (led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) did every dirty low down tactic possible to hinder or slow down the process. Hell, they would even lie and then boast about lying as Harry did concerning Mitt Romney, or use the gov't agencies to target opponents as they did with the IRS or flat out use bribery to pass laws like the ACA, in order to further their causes. Now when the shoe is on the other foot suddenly its a problem. It would be funny if the hypocrisy of it didn't stink so much. Most on the right warned when the left was doing it that it would come back to haunt them, that such tactics were not how the gov't was meant to function but those two sniveling hack cronies did it anyway, and not a peep from their side. Now it's suddenly a problem. Sorry if I don't weep tears for your pathetic objections. Had the outcry come when it wasn't to your advantage then MAYBE I'd respect your complaint, but now its just sour grapes. So keep quoting the constitution. Too bad you didn't do it a few years back.
Me too. Who knows, maybe Hillary had a hand in it. Wouldn't shock me. Liars, cheats and criminals............Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
The only ones who understand that are the ones who are free thinkers, who look at both sides, investigate the news and then decide vs just believing what one side of the other tells them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
I always think it is funny to listen to critics of Limbaugh and call anyone that listens to his show mind dumbed robots. Which tells me they don't listen to him with an open mind. Whether you like him or not, he rips both sides. He criticizes republicans often.
There are two men..I think are one and the same..that write letters to the editor of the paper often. I play a game, I look at the headline, read part way thru and then try to decide if one of them wrote it, and I am corrrect about 99% of the time. Because they just repeat exactly the DNC agenda with no exception. PLus both are extreme racists which often gives them away. They are the robots, it is obvious they never look up facts and just repeat what the DNC tells them plus anything racist they can throw at whites, and or republicans. Its funny but sad at the same time.
Well, may of Hillary and Bills 'friends' or 'lovers' in her case ended up dead :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
I doubt anything suspicous happened but with the death of any Supreme Court Justice who appeared to be in good health who suddenly dies should be investigated regardless if they are a liberal, moderate or conservative. to me it just makes good sense to rid any doubt on anyone's mind.
I threw the pillow in as it just seems odd unless he always slept with a pillow over his face which is odd anyone. Maybe he suffacated himself in his sleep :)
I am ashamed McConell is from Kentucky. How in the world he, or Reid or Pelosi got elected to their positions is beyond me, none of the three are very bright. Maybe sex or BJ's.Quote:
Originally Posted by suncat05
Government in our country was never intended to work smoothly and without conflict.
History, there is no way Obama nominates a true moderate, won't happen. One thing he loves to do is try to punish or humiliate republicans in every way he can...he should just let them do it themselves as they are good at it...He will nominate a liberal to try to influence the election or a moderate in disguise to again try to influence the senate and the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
I have zero faith in Obama.
I don't think republicans are louder or angrier, not when I look back and see the dirty tricks and lies the democrats throw at nominees of republican presidents. They try to destroy the person and the character of the person. But the media gives them a free pass and most of Americans don't look into the truth of what is happening, they just believe what they are told.
Jurists who understand the constitution, I would think Scalia would be that person. Most think he was totally a conservative but there were issues he went against what republicans wanted, he understood the constitution and imo what the founders meant when they wrote the laws.
Roberts is one who has made many conservatives mad because of his writings. Not that he found Obama Care lawful, but he gave the democrats something they didn't ask for by calling it a tax, it never came up. So with that one word he turned the whole thing. He made law by himself. Whether I like him or not, Kennedy is one that you can't put in a bottle and say he is conservative or liberal.
imo, and remembe it is my opinion, liberal presidents want judges who make law, conservative presidents want for the most part judges who interpret the law as the founders intended.
Nominate away. Its his job. And then the Senate does theirs. They confirm or don't. As it is the Presidents job to nominate, its the Senates job to confirm.
That is a perception that is completely false in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
That's all that I'm asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
Obstruction is completely different than conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
The wonderful people of Kentucky keep electing McConnell, there's your problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd