Merrick Garland to be nominated by Obama for Scalia's SCOTUS seat

[rushmc 18]

jakee

***I knew someone would miss the point, never would have thought you guys would be 3/3.

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they missed the point.

Having said that, I think you've missed the point. The thing that is wrong with waiting until the next President is that the post is open now. The Supreme Court does actually do stuff, and it works better when they have the number of judges they're supposed to have. Stopping the Supreme Court from working as well as it should because you're playing politics and waiting for what might be a better environment to get the type of judge you want is just petulant - and dressing it up as 'concern for the voters' is downright dishonest.


Ah

Elections matter.
Obama lost the Senate.
Now he has to live with that.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,150]

So, what about those other judges. Are the 2nd amendment nuts as well?

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

So, what about those other judges. Are the 2nd amendment nuts as well?

No, the 2nd are amendment nuts despite, as if, yes.

Are you speaking n Rush Speak?

Cuz - I just did.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,150]

turtlespeed

***So, what about those other judges. Are the 2nd amendment nuts as well?

No, the 2nd are amendment nuts despite, as if, yes.

Are you speaking n Rush Speak?

Cuz - I just did.

I forgot a y, never forget a y.

[gowlerk 1,952]

The real problem here is that the Senate holds the power and has the duty to advise and consent. But they are using that power to vet, not the nominee, but the President. It is a clear abuse of power. But they do hold that power, and they will answer for how they use it.

If they abuse their power they will in turn be judged.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,463]

>Elections matter.

They do indeed. And Republicans lost to Obama. Twice. Live with it.

[Southsidedvr 0]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

You show me what part of the Constitution requires any timeline to confirm or deny and appointment!

You show me just one post by John Kallend where he is wrong on the facts.

You simply cannot.

Jerry Baumchen

Want to put money on it or rephrase your above statement? There are not many but there are a handful.

[JerryBaumchen 1,075]

Hi South,

Quote

Want to . . .

Neither. Would you like to show us one? And I am writing about that which is factual; not that what you might disagree with John Kallend on.

Jerry Baumchen

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Elections matter.

They do indeed. And Republicans lost to Obama. Twice. Live with it.

And Obama lost the Senate
Live with it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,365]

jakee

Heck, just out of interest how many times in the last 50 years (that was the time period being thrown around before, right?) has the issue of a Supreme court nomination even arisen in the last year of a President's term?

I already responded to this, but something popped up that gives a direct answer.

In the last (approx) 100 years, six were nominated and confirmed. This doesn't include two nominations by LBJ when Warren announced his retirement (he hadn't retired yet, so technically there wasn't a vacancy).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/17/mike-honda/mike-honda-shares-accurate-graphic-about-past-supr/

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[SkyDekker 1,150]

rushmc

***>Elections matter.

They do indeed. And Republicans lost to Obama. Twice. Live with it.

And Obama lost the Senate
Live with it

Obama lost the senate? How does that makes sense? He ran for US Senate and won that election, with I believe 52% of the vote.

[billvon 2,463]

>And Obama lost the Senate

Obama didn't run for "Senate" - he ran for President.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>And Obama lost the Senate

Obama didn't run for "Senate" - he ran for President.

Yep
and his policies drove mid-term elections

I am far from the first to say he lost the Senate
He did
But either way
To you it seems only the President election means something
Well I am here to tell you, so do senate elections

Live with it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 212]

rushmc

***>And Obama lost the Senate

Obama didn't run for "Senate" - he ran for President.

Yep
and his policies drove mid-term elections

I am far from the first to say he lost the Senate
He did
But either way
To you it seems only the President election means something
Well I am here to tell you, so do senate elections

Live with it

I hope people realize just how important the house and senate is going to be in the up coming years - no matter who is elected as president.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

So the problem isn't that we're in the last year of Obama's presidency? The problem is that we're in the last half of the current Congress? You think Congress should only do its job for a year after elections, and then wait a year until the next Congress gets elected?

- Dan G

[wolfriverjoe 1,365]

DanG

...You think Congress should only do its job for a year after elections, and then wait a year until the next Congress gets elected?

Well, that would be one more year of actual work than they do now, wouldn't it?

I am going to try (admittedly, not very hard) to go to an event for my Senator (Ron Johnson, R-WI).
I want to ask him if he is against giving government money and benefits to people who refuse to work.

Pretty sure he'll say "yes", at which point I'm going to ask him if he's still collecting his pay.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[ryoder 1,406]

wolfriverjoe

I am going to try (admittedly, not very hard) to go to an event for my Senator (Ron Johnson, R-WI).
I want to ask him if he is against giving government money and benefits to people who refuse to work.

Pretty sure he'll say "yes", at which point I'm going to ask him if he's still collecting his pay.

I like it!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,406]

Uh, oh!
A GOP senator didn't get the memo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/susan-collins-scotus-nomination_us_56fabd2ce4b0a372181b1498

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[tonyhays 86]

She clearly forgot she's part of the party of "no"

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[kallend 1,672]

ryoder

Uh, oh!
A GOP senator didn't get the memo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/susan-collins-scotus-nomination_us_56fabd2ce4b0a372181b1498

And another.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[funjumper101 15]

gowlerk

The real problem here is that the Senate holds the power and has the duty to advise and consent. But they are using that power to vet, not the nominee, but the President. It is a clear abuse of power. But they do hold that power, and they will answer for how they use it.

If they abuse their power they will in turn be judged.

Silence is consent, on this matter.

Yertl and his minions are going to have a very interesting time of it. See the new thread I just started. Take some time to wade through the Yale Law Review essay linked.

[PhreeZone 15]

Anyone think that hearings on him might start in mid November at the rate the election is going to heed off other choices that would be proposed in January?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[headoverheels 292]

PhreeZone

Anyone think that hearings on him might start in mid November at the rate the election is going to heed off other choices that would be proposed in January?

I think it is at least as likely that Obama will suspend the nomination, to allow Clinton to select the next justice, especially if the Senate control flips sides in the election.

[ryoder 1,406]

PhreeZone

Anyone think that hearings on him might start in mid November at the rate the election is going to heed off other choices that would be proposed in January?

Like #6?
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/12/robert-reich-in-a-perfect-world-this-will-be-the-first-100-days-after-nov-8_partner/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.