Reply With Quote
ah yes the ol' so-and-so-told-you stance. i'm sure everyone that states this weak offense is there on location covering every single facet of the topic they are talking about so that they get from-the-source confirmation...........
The 55 Republicans that unanimously approved his last appointment to State also had some influence as well.
Not specifically. What are you specifically saying he is going to do with what you perceive to be his influence on treaties?I already told you why. Try to read.
ah yes the ol' so-and-so-told-you stance. i'm sure everyone that states this weak offense is there on location covering every single facet of the topic they are talking about so that they get from-the-source confirmation...........
When was the first you heard of this guy?ah yes the ol' so-and-so-told-you stance. i'm sure everyone that states this weak offense is there on location covering every single facet of the topic they are talking about so that they get from-the-source confirmation...........
Fox News
The main problem with sources like that is if you never bother to check any further on the subject.
are you an on location reporter on everything you comment about?
No really, where did you first hear about this guy?
I heard his name first on Fox News. Somebody was spouting off about his wanting to apply sharia law to US cases. All it took was a couple of clicks to find out it was complete bull -- but I understand a lot of people don't bother.
Ah, the hubbub grows.
One time, the Supreme Court held that execution of minors was uncons utional as a matter of American law and then, after reaching that conclusion, noted in dicta that the conclusion found support in the way that the world views such things, too. Never afraid to misapprehend the methods of jurisprudence, conservative commentators -- bent on scaring up Red Scares and Widespread Fear of Liberals -- simplified the effort for their masses by incorrectly stating that the opinion had been based on international law (omitting that whole tricky part about the Court's preceding conclusion that under American law, the execution of minors was uncons utional)!!! As we've seen, the Nine Terrorists at Number One First Street want nothing more than to internationalize American law and, frankly, have just made it a common practice to decide every case without regard to American law or precedent. Conservative commentators have been there to ensure that their adherents "know" about the erosion of reliance upon American law and the grave threat that even considering what anyone else might think about an emerging question of law and public policy might will undoubtedly undermine the American way of life. After all, if those panty-waisted Austrians think that executing minors is untenable, it's all the more reason to think that we should probably be executing minors -- maybe even those who haven't been convicted of crimes!!!
Someone pull up that old Supreme Court Obama quote complaining how the Cons ution doesn't address Redistribution of Wealth and only gives the Government "Negative Rights", meaning it tells the government what they can't do but doesn't tell them what they can do waaaaaaaaaaa.
Alberto Gonzales for the win...Someone pull up that old Supreme Court Obama quote complaining how the Cons ution doesn't address Redistribution of Wealth and only gives the Government "Negative Rights", meaning it tells the government what they can't do but doesn't tell them what they can do waaaaaaaaaaa.
Arlen Specter is kicking himself in the ass about right now...He's gone from being able to prevent Obama's nominee from being stalled in the Judiciary Committee to be just another punk Democrat.
It takes the vote of at least one minority member for a nominee to be passed out of Committee.
Good Luck with that Mr. President...especially if your nominee is any further to the left than Souter.
You're expecting more obstructionism from Republicans?
Easy call.
Cool by me...I hope the seat goes unfilled.
Come to think of it, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Souter's decision to retire was cemented by Specter's defection. He knew Specter would lick Obama's balls on the new appointment and, so, when he realized the worst that could happen would be a nominee that could get by Llindsay Graham [i.e., someone of the same caliber as himself], he felt safe in chucking it to them and, as he says, "leaving the best job in the worst city."
Enjoy retirement Justice Souter.
Because you hate America.
Understood.
If that's the way you care to see it...then, everyone of the Democrats that attempted to block every appointment made by President Bush hate America.
You forget the how the Democrats behaved over Sam Alito and Justice Roberts, I guess.
What prevents Specter to switch to 'independent' for a month to fulfill the requirement, then switch back to democrat?
No dumbass -- and what did you and all the board Republicans say when Democrats did it?
They'd laugh him out of the chamber. But, aside from that, I'm not sure if it would qualify him as being in the minority or, if it did, if they still wouldn't require a vote from a Republican.
You have to remember, these are rules written by Democrats.
Well, that doesn't matter now, does it? I still hope the seat goes unfilled.
Well, Republicans really don't matter when it comes to the functioning of government now. If they try to stall a qualified candidate, it will only shine a spotlight on everything else they are trying to obstruct.
From HuffPost (yeah, I know...):
As a copy (PDF) of the Judiciary Committee's rules for the 111th Congress clearly shows, a member of the minority party does have to cast a vote in favor of a nominee in order to end committee debate over that nominee.
"The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be case by the minority."
Perhaps more nefariously, Republicans in the Judiciary Committee could hold up a hypothetical nominee simply by not showing up at all. "Six Members of the Committee, actually present, shall cons ute a quorum for the purpose of discussing business," read the rules. "Eight Members of the Committee, including at least two Members of the minority, shall cons ute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business."
It does seem clear that the GOP has a few maneuvers up its sleeve if they get hysterical about Obama's choice for the Court.
So how could Dorf be wrong? The Majority Leader in the Senate has the power, it seems, to go around the Judiciary Committee's process. A source familiar with the rules of the Senate notes that "a judicial nomination may be discharged from a committee by unanimous consent." However, since -- in this hypothetical scenario -- Republicans are already objecting to the nominee, it seems likely that unanimous consent would fail.
That said, the source adds, "A motion to discharge a nominee from committee is also in order, but if there is objection to that motion, it must lie over a day. On the next day, you move to executive session to the motion to discharge, the vote on proceeding to executive session is majority vote, however, once you are on the motion to discharge it can be filibustered, so you would need 60 votes on the motion to discharge and then presumably on the nomination too."
In short: There is a parliamentary path to getting a stalled Supreme Court nominee out of the Judiciary Committee and to the Senate floor. That process would, like the ultimate confirmation vote, involve getting the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster just to get the nomination to the Senate floor. But with a bigger pool of Republicans (including some of like mind) it would seem likely that the White House could get the 60 votes needed to cut off debate.
There's not much else they can obstruct...the rest of this fiasco completely belongs to Democrats for the next two years.
Well, Republicans really don't matter when it comes to the functioning of government now. If they try to stall a qualified candidate, it will only shine a spotlight on everything else they are trying to obstruct.
I'm betting if it gets that far, there are principled Democrats -- even if only a few -- that won't carry Obama's water.
But, we'll see.
Whatever it is, it's better than the fiasco that was the years Republicans controlled everything.
If you like the government controlling everything and doing a ty job of it, yeah, I'm betting you're pretty happy.
They aren't controlling everything.
What are they controlling in your life, right now, that they did not two years ago?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
