Printable View
With the exception of ACA, Roberts and his "open mind" has voted lock-step with his extremist right wing pro-business colleagues (the views of whom are the only ones he considers) which is exactly why he got the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
I have no doubt that each of the 4 rightwing pro-business justices support the Senate Repugs blocking any nominee by the knitter.
So with Trump getting the nomination, do the Republicans now confirm this nigga for fear of getting a left wing justice from a Clinton presidency instead?
Right fears Hillary, she will appoint the most liberal judges she can find. Garland isn't too bad for right wingers, except for his anti-gun stances.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch
The Senate risks pissing off the NRA by confirming Garland, but they have to be scared shitless of losing their majority with Trump getting the nomination, and then Clinton or Obama get free reign January 3rd. This is a perfect storm for the Republicans losing the Senate. The hardcore right might not show up to vote for Trump, and thus not for their senators either, while the Democrats should be able to drive a large minority turnout based on Trump's racist rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch
He voted extreme hard right, fuck stare decisis, hard for pro-business, hard for anti-citizens, except for ACA, which he half-gutted by allowing the states to opt out of Medicaid expansion, placing him as chairman of the Repug death panels.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
GOP senator shreds his own party’s Supreme Court ‘principles’
For months, Senate Republicans have said their deeply held principles require them to impose the first-ever blockade on any Supreme Court nominee. To hear GOP senators tell it, there are some core beliefs that they feel compelled to honor: (1) no nominated justice should be considered in a presidential election year; and (2) if there’s a vacancy in a presidential election year, it must be filled by the next, yet-to-be-elected president.
Even after President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, a compromise choice, Republicans said it didn’t matter since their guiding principles overlook every other consideration, including Garland’s qualifications.
But on “Meet the Press” yesterday, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) was surprisingly candid about the shallowness of his party’s talking points. In fact, after Chuck Todd asked the Arizona Republican about his party’s strategy, Flake made the case for an entirely different set of principles.
“I think Republicans are more than justified in waiting. That is following both principle and precedent. But the principle is to have the most conservative, qualified jurists that we can have on the Supreme Court, not that the people ought to decide before the next election. I’ve never held that position.
“If we come to a point, I’ve said all along, where we’re going to lose the election, or we lose the election in November, then we ought to approve him quickly. Because I’m certain that he’ll be more conservative than a Hillary Clinton nomination comes January.”
As the Washington Post’s Dave Weigel noted yesterday, Flake was effectively “just straight giving the game away” with comments like these. For all the talk about “principles,” here was a Republican senator – a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee – saying on national television that the only “principle” he cares about is his partisan and ideological goal.
Every other consideration – the constitutional process, the Senate’s responsibilities, the merits of the pending nomination, every claim made by Senate Republicans for the last three months, etc. – is unimportant compared to the GOP’s desire to have “the most conservative” justices possible.
If that means rigging the confirmation process to advance a brazenly ideological agenda, so be it.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
GOP senator: Confirming judges unrelated to ‘doing our jobs’
the fight took an unintentionally funny twist yesterday when Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said that when it comes to confirming judicial nominees, it’s not part of senators’ job. The Huffington Postreported:
Democrats including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) made repeated requests Wednesday to confirm a batch of Obama’s judicial nominees who are ready for votes. Each time they tried, Tillis objected and suggested the Senate shouldn’t be spending time on judges.
“What we get are things that have nothing to do with doing our jobs,” he said. “I’m doing my job today and objecting to these measures so we can actually get back to pressing matters.”
I realize that Tillis, a far-right freshman, hasn’t quite learned how to be an effective senator yet – the North Carolinian just took office last year – but to say that confirming judicial nominees has “nothing to do with doing our jobs” is baffling.
The Constitution isn’t explicit on much when it comes to lawmakers’ responsibilities, but the text is rather literal when it comes to this part of the governmental process: it is absolutely senators’ job to vote on judicial nominees.
“I’m not sure what version of the Constitution you’re reading that doesn’t say confirming judges is part of your job in the United States Senate,” Warren said in response to her colleague’s ridiculous comment.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Ignorant Repugs, Congressional and supporters, esp from red and slave states, fucking up America with their ideological "strict obstructionism".
Supreme Court vacancy watch Day 199: The real incentive for the Republican Supreme Court blockade
It's Wednesday, August 31, and Day 199 since Justice Antonin Scalia died and Mitch McConnell decided no nominee would get any Senate attention: No meetings, no hearings, no votes. It's also Day 168 since Merrick Garland was nominated by President Obama to fill that vacancy. So what's the Senate up to?
They're still on recess, which would give them plenty of time to read this new reportfrom the Wesleyan Media Project and the Center for Responsive Politics, on what the courts—and particularly the Supreme Court—have done to flood our electoral system with dark money.
In the 2000 election, dark money nonprofits aired more than 34,000 advertisements, according to the report.
This number dropped by half to slightly above 15,000 for both the 2004 and 2006 elections before skyrocketing to over 158,000 in 2008.
By the next presidential election in 2012, dark money groups ran over 383,000 ads. […]
Previous examinations of the surge in dark money looked at this disclosed spending [post-McCain-Feingold].
The new report’s look at actual advertisement airings adds a new wrinkle to this by providing a measure that goes back before the McCain-Feingold disclosure requirements were put in place.
Or as Robert Maguire, political nonprofit investigator for the Center for Responsive Politics, says,
"This shows more conclusively than any study done in the past that there really is a change in quantity that goes along with court decisions and the lack of oversight of these groups that has allowed nonprofit groups to be a much more tantalizing vehicle for people who want to hide their political spending."
Translation: the 2010 Citizens United decision and the listing of disclosure rules made all the difference, as the graphic below demonstrates.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/0...28Daily+Kos%29
The VRWC/Repug whores on SCOTUS have greatly corrupted America in favor of the oligarchy, BigCorp, 1%.
Thanks, Repugs. Fucking up America at every chance.
U can move to Europe any time u want that is what Bernie wants the USA to be
I, for one, will fucking laugh my ass off when Obama/Hillary withdraws the nomination. GOP could have confirmed the guy who is actually pretty acceptable to most conservatives, but didn't because they wanted to gamble that they would win the white house.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
When they lose the Senate, and lose the presidency, we as Democrats will get to nominate a liberal to replace Scalia.
Elections have consequences.
.
Meh. I don't think the Republicans lose the senate but it will be so close it will be gridlocked. 2018 historically should see the republicans do well as that election usually favors the counter party to the sitting President.
Assuming she wins, Hillary will probably nominate an economic conservative who will let transgenders choose which bathroom to shit in.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Looks close.
All we have to do as Democrats is keep shoving a microphone in front of Donald J.
Keep it up DJ!!!!
Regardless of what happens in the senate, it looks like HRC will be nominating replacements for at least two SCOTUS justices. The best conservatives can do is filibuster to try and get someone they find acceptable, but there's no getting around the court leaning more liberal for the next few decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Wasn't Uncle Thomas talking about quitting? That would be great to replace that fuckhead. Ginsburg probably won't be there too much longer. Too bad it's not Obama doing the appointments, Clinton's will surely be center-right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
slave-state Repugs just gotta fuck over, "strictly obstruct" the knitter one more time
U.S. senator: 'Unlikely' Cuba ambassador will be approved this year
The chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which oversees the confirmation of foreign service nominees, said on Wednesday it was "highly unlikely" that an ambassador to Cuba would be approved this year.
President Barack Obama on Tuesday nominated career diplomat Jeffrey DeLaurentis to be the first U.S. ambassador to Cuba in more than five decades.
"The committee was notified of the nomination yesterday but has not yet received the appropriate paperwork to begin its work," Republican Senator Bob Corker said in a statement emailed to Reuters.
"However, it is highly unlikely that an ambassador to Cuba would be approved in the lame-duck."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cu...litics+News%29
lame-duck? Rather, fucking lame Repug Congress.
John McCain’s Grand Obstructionist Party: His comments reveal the GOP’s tired gameplan for a Hillary Clinton administration — obstruct at all costs
McCain said "we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee" of Clinton's and revealed his party's true colors
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up. I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered.
the American people should get a say by electing the president they want to see pick the next justice for the nation’s highest court.
Among the senators making this argument, of course, was John McCain.
It lies with senators like McCain who have
spent years promising voters rollbacks of Obama programs that they could never, ever deliver, and that
they knew they could not deliver but promised anyway to keep the base voting for them.
McCain has been in the Senate for 30 years. He is more than aware of both the written and unwritten norms that allow the chamber to function. Or allowed it to function, back before Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008.
McCain still spent the last eight years gleefully participating in Republican efforts to block each and every legislative initiative or executive and judicial appointment by President Obama. He is now promising to do the same for the next president.
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/18/gran...-at-all-costs/
So the Repugs made promises to their base of assholes, never delivered them, so now the base has revolted and is supporting Trash (who can't, won't deliver his shit, either)
http://www.motherjones.com/files/blo...ck_garland.jpg
Judge Garland gets confirmed in lame duck IF Democrats take Senate.
First, Obama will be loyal to Garland and not withdraw nomination and Garland won't withdraw unless Clinton asks.
Clinton won't ask despite pressure from the left to withdraw Garland for younger and more liberal candidate.
Getting Garland out of way during lame duck clears her first 100-day agenda without a nasty Supreme Court fight that eats other things. RBG has signaled she and/or Breyer will leave the court while Dems still control Senate (before 2017).
This means she can get 1 or 2 more liberal Justices on Court and/or make it a big issue in the midterms, in the hopes of turning about Dem turnout problem in the midterms. With Garland done in [lame duck], Clinton has very good chance of 1, and some chance of 2, liberal appts before 2018 elections.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...cover-his-fate
looks like he is toast
sure, Repugs have plenty of Scalia, Thomas types of VRWC extremists to pack the court with.Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
The VRWC SCOTUS will fuck Trash's conned, deluded voters real hard.
so scalia will get replaced by another conservative... the roberts court was still doing some good things with social rights. the question is if ginsburg can wait out 4 years
and we now have precedent in place to hold off judicial confirmations for about a year. nice
Thomas can retire now.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
:lol yeah, denying equal rights to minorities that the Christian Taliban hate in the name of "religious freedom"Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21