Boomerdog

Then it's kind of obvious you've not been paying attention either.

OK...let's play out the hypothetical converse. Do you think Senate Democrats in majority would allow a conservative Republican President in less than a year of their presidency to nominate a conservative jurist to replace a sudden vacancy of Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagan? Not very likely and given the current Senator Democratic leadership, I think it's a, "Hell no!" And further, everyone in this forum of liberal/progressive persuasion would be writing stuff in favor of holding off the nomination for the next President if the polls indicated a high probability of electing a Democrat. Extremist fringe?!??!? Oh puhleaze...

So was I Depends who writes the history, which historian, historical interpretation, what as on the tapes in the Oval Office. err...Nixon wasn't the only one with a tape recorder. You might be right. But then you cite ethics as being PART of the issue. Wikipedia? A fairly good source but remember that "wikis" take in a lot of information as it is a forum anyone can contribute to. Thus, while Wikipedia strives for accuracy, it may not have the QC mechanisms that would prevent inaccuracies either.

Lyndon Johnson tried to nominate Associate Justice Abe Fortas as Chief Justice and name a new Justice to replace him in 1968, his final year in office. The nominations came as a result of Chief Justice Earl Warren’s retirement from the Court. Johnson’s push failed, however, even though the Senate was controlled by Democrats. The next Chief Justice appointment did not occur until the Nixon administration with Nixon nominating Warren Burger to be Chief Justice. This is not to say that history is a precedent to be respected in the present.

Well...the sad part of this is that THERE ARE two distinct visions of what this country ought to look like in the future and what we ought to be working to in order to secure that futureneither side is giving an inch. We are that polarized.

Hmmm...am I correct in remembering that you are either atheist or agnostic and yet you invoke God here?

Oh so it was OK when Sen Patrick Leahy held up Bush 43 nominations to some of the Federal Circuit Courts and the D.C. Court of Appeals back in 2001 - 2003? It's zero to do with what you might want...then why did you make the post in the first place...don't insult us with you think is higher minded intellect when it really boils down to partisan bullshit. I'll tell you up front I'm a conservative partisan. Sure would be amazing if we could work together as a nation. Of that we can agree but right now each side sees themselves as the children of light and the other as the children of darkness. When will that end I don't know but for now, that's the way it is. As if your particular brand of politics is harmonious and unifying? Oh gawd...spare me.

The saving grace in all of this is that you can hope but have absolutely NO power what "H" someone is consigned to. P.S. Way above your pay grade...and mine too!

QuoteI cannot understand the insistence of the GOP to NOT do their jobs. I can only wish that meant something to their supporters, but it won't. Most people get fired for not doing their job. Oh if only. No...it's the job YOU want him to do. McConnell is UNDER no Constitutional (which also means LEGAL) obligation to bring any Obama nominee to SCOTUS for a vote. So he's doing his job...it's just that YOU (and of course a few others around here) just don't like it.

But of course! What happens here in both press reports and the American lexicon is that the House of Representatives is often written of, spoken of, or reported as The Congress when in all actuality the Congress is as you've aptly pointed out the House of Representatives AND the Senate. And as I'm sure you are aware, the Constitution ascribes to them different enumerated powers that one has and the other does not. The House of Representatives does not confirm through the advise and consent clause, Presidential appointees, that (to include Supreme Court nominations) belongs exclusively to the Senate.

And you know this how? Because...? "I know that it's true because I made it up myself." Yep..you sure as hell did make it up all by yourself.

I'm going to enjoy the Left go apoplectic is McConnell refuses to give any Obama SCOTUS appointee a confirmation vote on the Senate Floor. Time a few lib justices got "Borked" as well. Payback can be a real bitch can't it?!?!?!?

First...it won't be the Congress, it will be the Senate and only the Senate that has the Constitutional authority to confirm the next SCOTUS Justice. If McConnell and the rest of the Republican majority have any spine, they "Bork" every nominee Obama sends up and OBTW, they can. It's real easy. Senate Judiciary Committee does not even have to have hearings, just vote out an unfavorable, send it to the floor and vote against confirmation on every Obama nominee and wait for the next President. Even if it is Hillary or Bernie, cross that bridge in the future. Any SCOTUS rulings ending in a 4-4 tie from a case sent up from a Federal Circuit Court reverts to the Circuit Court's decision.

Sorry you did not get the memos: "It's your cat's life, your only purpose is to be there to open the cans." and... "Stomach first, friends later."

Phish and Dietrich (Steve Landesberg), never could stop laughing when those two got into it on Barney Miller.

ZHills not my home DZ but spent the better part of the first week in last November there and I met the DZO TKHayes, the Manifest Staff and talked to a good number of the instructors and was impressed. It's a class operation and the landing areas for students and noob jumpers is outstanding. Don't let the bottom line drive your decision; assuming of course the bottom line is an issue (but DZO's can work this out with you). Just up the road is Bev Suits and you can get a very good jump suit there and the Bev Suits Staff is first rate (IMHO). Just to be up front. I'm not affiliated or have any financial interest in ZHills or Bev Suits.

Not to worry, it ain't my game.

Rambo IS a movie character and the rest of it is a simple caricature representative of abject ignorance. Once again, caricature and abject ignorance. Here's one for you Sparky: "Drop the puck!"

Now...with respect to your comments.... I stated in a previous forum that what is going on in Oregon is wrong headed, misguided and a fool's parade or words to that effect. With respect to the "US being the greatest country ever." That's your inference not mine but I won't encourage or discourage your viewpoint. Rambo? Surely you jest. It doesn't work that way down here in spite of what movies you've been watching up there. But you, me, everyone else here has unknown factors and quantities in their life none of us is aware of. So after 22 years of military service, I could have been anything from a paper pushing admin officer in a personnel shop to spec ops and anything in between, you'll never know will you and quite frankly I'm not telling. Suffice it to say that I've been sufficiently well trained in the field and in the classroom and in real world ops and more than one superior officer writing my fitness reports over the years identified my decisiveness and resolve to carry out orders, act, say what I mean and mean what I say. That is all.

Not to worry. "T" is directly catty corner to "H" on the keyboard and sometimes auto correct just doesn't. I'm sure our right honorable friend from up North has had his kicks and I've corrected the typo.

There's certainly been a vigorous and sometimes successful attempt. The numbers, however are not on the side of gun grabbers. There are over 300 million firearms in the hands of over 80 million Americans. And the figures I just cited are probably low (and hence in error) since Obama took office. So the same folks that think they can confiscate all these weapons (and jail or shoot the millions who resist) think its impossible to deport the smaller millions of those here illegally. IMHO, there's an inconsistency in logic. Memo to gun grabbers...you can "go in" armed or unarmed, just be prepared to take fire and just understand that those of us who will keep our guns have already come to the understanding of the risks and the possible outcomes. It is highly recommended they do the same. The majority of gun owners are not going to take too kindly to government edicts of confiscation and I have the strange suspicion many in the government understand this clearly. Thus three fundamental principles are at work here. 1. Quantity has a quality all of its own. 2. Deterence works. 3. Those who wish to screw with the bull better be prepared to deal with the horns.

My intent was to put forth the bill as it is and its status without further comment. I've stated in another subject thread, this forum that the ultimate goal of gun control interests is confiscation.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text Interesting debate going on here. The URL above provides the language of the bill and it's current status. Therefore, anyone who reads the bill can settle once and for all whether or not there's any buy back program. I don't know beacause I've not read the entire text. But to repeat myself from a previous post. The bill is under consideration in the House Judiciary Committee. There is no record of the Chairman's actions to bring it to committee for a hearing much less a vote on the House Floor. And even before it gets to the floor, the Rules Committee has to approve it then send it to the Speaker for it to finally get approval for a floor vote. And OBTW, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee is Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA6) The Sixth Congressional District of Virginia covers the Shenandoah Valley from Winchester all the way down to Roanoke. It's "gun country" folks! This bill IS DOA.

Bill was introduced to the House on 12/16/2105 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee on the same date. So far, records indicate no further action has been take by the Committee. Chance are this bill will not make it out of Committee for a vote on the Floor.

Here are the requirements. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Funerals/Scheduling-a-Funeral/Establishing-Eligibility/Ground-Burial