Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819 LastLast
Results 426 to 450 of 456
  1. #426
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    100,825
    wow, u posted comics. kudos

  2. #427
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    White House Is Said to Be Vetting Iowa Judge for Supreme Court Seat

    President Obama is vetting Jane L. Kelly, a federal appellate judge in Iowa, as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court, weighing a selection that could pose an awkward dilemma for her home-state senator Charles E. Grassley, who has pledged to block the president from filling the vacancy.

    In a Senate floor speech in 2013, Mr. Grassley effusively praised Judge Kelly, a longtime public defender, just before she won unanimous confirmation to her current position on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

    The senator read from a handwritten recommendation letter he had received from a retired judge, David R. Hansen, a Republican appointee he counted as an old friend. Mr. Hansen called Judge Kelly a “forthright woman of high integrity and honest character” and a person of “exceptionally keen intellect.”

    “I congratulate Ms. Kelly on her accomplishments and wish her well in her duties,” Mr. Grassley said at the time. “I am pleased to support her confirmation and urge my colleagues to join me.”


    Democrats have privately said that selecting Judge Kelly might force Mr. Grassley to change his stance and hold hearings, out of a sense of obligation to a respected jurist from his home state and concern about tarnishing his reputation in Iowa months before he faces re-election.

    The six-term senator is facing pressure from voters to consider any nominee on the merits, but he said in an interview Wednesday that he would not change his position even for a fellow Iowan.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us...ushpmg00000003

    With Hillary as the next Pres, Obama's chance to screw the Repugs on SCOTUS is vastly more important, and will be, for decades.



  3. #428
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    wow, u posted comics. kudos
    Why, thank you.

    A picture is worth a thousand words?

  4. #429
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    White House Is Said to Be Vetting Iowa Judge for Supreme Court Seat

    President Obama is vetting Jane L. Kelly, a federal appellate judge in Iowa, as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court, weighing a selection that could pose an awkward dilemma for her home-state senator Charles E. Grassley, who has pledged to block the president from filling the vacancy.

    In a Senate floor speech in 2013, Mr. Grassley effusively praised Judge Kelly, a longtime public defender, just before she won unanimous confirmation to her current position on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

    The senator read from a handwritten recommendation letter he had received from a retired judge, David R. Hansen, a Republican appointee he counted as an old friend. Mr. Hansen called Judge Kelly a “forthright woman of high integrity and honest character” and a person of “exceptionally keen intellect.”

    “I congratulate Ms. Kelly on her accomplishments and wish her well in her duties,” Mr. Grassley said at the time. “I am pleased to support her confirmation and urge my colleagues to join me.”


    Democrats have privately said that selecting Judge Kelly might force Mr. Grassley to change his stance and hold hearings, out of a sense of obligation to a respected jurist from his home state and concern about tarnishing his reputation in Iowa months before he faces re-election.

    The six-term senator is facing pressure from voters to consider any nominee on the merits, but he said in an interview Wednesday that he would not change his position even for a fellow Iowan.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us...ushpmg00000003

    With Hillary as the next Pres, Obama's chance to screw the Repugs on SCOTUS is vastly more important, and will be, for decades.


    Hardball politics.

    GOP is shooting itself in the foot here, and the reposte from Obama will be for them to lose in some way, and I will not feel any sympathy for the asshats.

  5. #430
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Hardball politics.

    GOP is shooting itself in the foot here, and the reposte from Obama will be for them to lose in some way, and I will not feel any sympathy for the asshats.
    It's still Obama playing slow-pitch softball.

    His overhand 90 MPH hardball "crazy pissed off n!gga" strike would be to appoint her or an even more progressive equivalent during a Congressional recess, of which there are many remaining.

    Or,

    His first nominee, the sooner the better (time flies), gives the Repugs the chance to refuse to "advise and consent".

    Then Barry whacks them with a "strict Cons utionalist" tactic and appoints her or other during Congressional recess, to fulfill his Cons utional duty.

  6. #431
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Pressure takes its toll on Chuck Grassley

    How you know the Supreme Court fight is getting intense:

    The Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee threw a bit of a tantrum yesterday -- and reporters caught it on tape.

    It was probably the most consequential “gaffe” of 2014. Iowa’s Bruce Braley, a Democratic Senate hopeful running for an open seat, took a very specific shot at the state’s longtime senator, Republican Chuck Grassley. If the GOP took the Senate majority,

    Braley said in March 2014,

    you might have a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school,

    never practiced law,

    serving as the next chair of the Senate Judiciary.”


    Braley later apologized, but the media pounced and wouldn’t let go. The Democrat’s lead evaporated, and he lost the election by nearly 10 points.

    His point, however, was that Grassley probably isn’t qualified to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee – the panel that, among other things, is responsible for considering Supreme Court nominees – and two years later, it’s starting to look like Braley was onto something.

    The Iowa Republican rejected calls for restoring the Voting Rights Act by saying,

    “If you want to fix more minorities voting, more minorities are already voting.”

    His handling of Loretta Lynch’s Attorney General nomination was unfortunate.

    At one point,
    Grassley boasted that his panel had cleared the way for confirmation of 11 judicial nominees – and he was off by 11.

    But the GOP senator’s support for an unprecedented blockade against any Supreme Court nominee, sight unseen, has cast Grassley in an even less flattering light.

    The Iowa Republican, unable to defend his ridiculous antics, has become so embarrassed that last week he “raised a binder to cover his face before hurriedly retreating” from reporters on Capitol Hill with questions about his behavior.


    Yesterday, it sounded like the pressure was getting to him.

    A day after a meeting at the White House with President Obama that he characterized as “cordial,” Sen. Charles Grassley had a fiery exchange with some reporters on his stand on the US Senate taking up Obama’s expected Supreme Court nomination.

    It’s worse than it sounds.


    Take a listen to the audio clip posted here. The Des Moines Register’s Kathie Obradovich asked Grassley about his approach, which

    the senator defended by pointing to the 2014 midterm elections, as if the results somehow invalidated the cons utional process and the authority of President Obama’s office.


    Around the 2:15 mark, however,

    Grassley starts coming unglued,

    raising his voice and shouting bizarre arguments about the EPA,

    court “packing” (the poor guy still doesn’t know what that means), and

    his general contempt for the president.


    The recorded tantrum raised questions anew about what in the world Grassley is doing as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

    There’s no reason to believe the pressure is going to ease in the coming weeks and months, especially if the president nominates an Iowan who used to enjoy Grassley’s enthusiastic praise.

    Making matters even worse is the review of Grassley’s record on the issue of judicial nominees. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest noted yesterday, for example, that as recently as

    2006, Grassley declared on the Senate floor, “A Supreme Court nomination is not a forum to fight any election. It is the time to perform one of our most important cons utional duties and decide whether a nominee is qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court.”


    He did not add at the time, “Unless I really hate the president in office at the time.”


    As recently as 2009, Grassley signed onto a letter to President Obama saying he should re-nominate President Bush’s leftover judicial nominees from 2008, just a gesture of goodwill. Seven years later, this same senator refuses to even consider a qualified Supreme Court nominee?

    I’m sure Chuck Grassley wants the public to take his partisan antics seriously. I’m not at all sure why anyone would do so.

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

    Thanks, Repugs. All y'all MISgovern with extreme skill and talent.



  7. #432
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Senate Republicans swat away Obama’s outstretched hand

    “The president … gave everyone in the room, Democrats and Republicans, the opportunity to put forward their own suggestions for potential Supreme Court nominees. The president didn’t guarantee that he would choose that person, but the president did indicate that he would take seriously any recommendations that either Democrats or Republicans had to put forward.”

    It all sounds quite routine – or what would be routine under normal American cir stances. But as it turns out, this Oval Office meeting was actually a reminder about just how abnormal the times really are. The New York Times, quoting one of the gathering’s participants, said today’s discussion was “very short.”

    Leaving the meeting, [Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid] suggested that the Republicans appear to be waiting for Donald Trump to be in the White House. “There wasn’t much said at the meeting,” Mr. Reid said.

    The Hill
    also quoted Reid saying in reference to the GOP senators, “They were adamant. They said, ‘No, we’re not going to do this at all.’”

    Referring to Democrats, Reid added, “All we want them to do is to fulfill their cons utional duty, and at this stage, they are deciding not to do that.”

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

    Unprecedent from these Repug bags, and their billionaire owners.



  8. #433
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Senate Republicans will ignore Court nominee, but RNC won’t

    The Associated Press reported this morning:

    The Republican Party is launching a campaign to try to derail President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, teaming up with a conservative opposition research group to target vulnerable Democrats and impugn whomever Obama picks.


    A task force housed within the Republican National Committee will orchestrate attack ads, pe ions and media outreach…. The RNC will contract with America Rising Squared, an outside group targeting Democrats that’s run by a longtime aide to GOP Sen. John McCain.

    RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said his attack operation would “make sure Democrats have to answer to the American people for why they don’t want voters to have a say in this process.” Priebus addedthat the White House is poised to “break with decades of precedent.”


    Republicans, the RNC chair went on to say, are “going to vet that person and put their real record on display.”

    At face value, most the RNC’s rhetoric is plainly laughable. Obviously, no one is trying to deny voters a role in the process – voters are the ones who elected President Obama (twice), giving him the authority to act. It’s equally obvious that the “decades of precedent” talking point is brazenly untrue, as even some Senate Republicans have been willing to acknowledge.

    But just below the surface, there’s something even more ridiculous going on.

    For example, the RNC is going to have a tough time pitching their opposition to the unnamed nominee as sincere and principled if the party launches its partisan war against him or her before knowing who the nominee is.

    There’s an important difference between, “This is a horrible choice,” and “We have no idea who the choice will be, but we’re sure it’ll be horrible.”

    It’s the sort of posture that leads more to eye-rolling than meaningful debate.

    Perhaps more importantly, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent raised an overlooked detail.

    Ideally, of course, [the vetting of the nominee] is what would happen if the Senate were to hold hearings on that person. But that might afford the nominee a chance to directly respond to his or her Republican cross-examiners in a high profile setting (as opposed to only having Democratic groups mounting all the pushback, which of course they will also do, once there is a nominee).

    Direct exchanges between the nominee and Republican Senators, alas, might reflect well on that person.

    And so the only “vetting” and examination of the nominee’s “real record” will be undertaken through the RNC and associated GOP-aligned groups.


    That’s not meant as sarcasm. It’s the actual Republican party-wide position right now.

    Quite right. Under the American political process, the Senate is supposed to oversee the formal vetting of a Supreme Court nominee. In 2016, however, Senate Republicans don’t want to – so they’re outsourcing the vetting to the Republican National Committee.


    What should be done by senators and officials – people who are ultimately accountable to the public – will instead be done by partisan operatives.

    There is no precedent for anything like this in the American tradition. Senate Republicans and the RNC evidently don’t care.

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow




  9. #434
    俺はまんこが大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    97,881
    Here is a fun idea...

    Let President Hillary and the Democratic Senate consider this nominee:

    Barack Obama


    BOOM. Elections have consequences.

    If Clinton is president with a Dem senate I'd rather she nominated a liberal to the court though.

  10. #435
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    If Clinton is president with a Dem senate I'd rather she nominated a liberal to the court though.
    she would nominate a centrist who would vote with the 4 Repugs more often than not, because she's "pragmantic", "get things done", but always for the establishment she defines.

  11. #436
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    These mofos are truly crazy, with logic from Alice In Wonderland

    Hatch: Court blockade will limit ‘mistreatment’ of nominee

    Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) last week told reporters that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, no matter who he or she might be, “will bear some resemblance to a pinata” during the confirmation process. This didn’t sit right with Democrats, who interpreted Cornyn’s comments as something akin to a threat.

    Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) went to the chamber floor yesterday to argue the “pinata” comments were simply misunderstood – because Senate Republicans are really just looking out for the unnamed nominee’s best interests. From the Congressional Record:

    “After all, the whole point of deferring the nomination and confirmation process [until 2017] is to limit the mistreatment of any nominee,



    as Senator Cornyn suggested in his remarks. This unfounded accusation is also deeply ironic, coming from the party that stooped to the character assassination of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.

    “If there is anyone who has been treated like a pinata in this debate, it has been Senator Grassley.”

    I’m not sure which is more alarming: the ridiculousness of Hatch’s argument or the fact that he was able to deliver these remarks with a straight face.


    Just a week after some GOP senators were willing to acknowledge the party’s nakedly partisan tactics, Orrin Hatch would have the public believe Senate Republicans really just want to “limit the mistreatment” of Obama’s court nominee.

    Is this about politics? Heaven forbid! Hatch and his colleagues aren’t focused on the future of the court, so much as they’re deeply concerned with the eventual nominee’s feelings.


    Because if there’s one thing Senate Republicans are proven throughout the Obama era, it’s their capacity for empathy towards high-profile White House nominees.

    Republicans are just so darned polite and big-hearted, they can’t bear to think about a judge facing months of attacks … from other Republicans.

    As for Hatch’s reference to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, it’s worth remembering, in case the senator has forgotten, that both Bork and Thomas were given confirmation hearings and floor votes, which are precisely the steps Hatch and his cohorts refuse to even consider as part of their unprecedented blockade. (Thomas was even confirmed, which hardly represents mistreatment.)

    And if Hatch sees Grassley as some kind of victim, he’s clearly not paying close enough attention.

    Senate Republicans have had more than a month to come up with coherent arguments to justify the first-ever Senate blockade against any Supreme Court nominee. If the best they can come up with is “we’re just being nice to the president’s choice,” it’s a reminder of the underlying bankruptcy of their entire gambit.
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow



  12. #437
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    If Clinton is president with a Dem senate I'd rather she nominated a liberal to the court though.
    Oh... snap. Good one.

  13. #438
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    These mofos are truly crazy, with logic from Alice In Wonderland

    Hatch: Court blockade will limit ‘mistreatment’ of nominee

    Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) last week told reporters that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, no matter who he or she might be, “will bear some resemblance to a pinata” during the confirmation process. This didn’t sit right with Democrats, who interpreted Cornyn’s comments as something akin to a threat.

    Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) went to the chamber floor yesterday to argue the “pinata” comments were simply misunderstood – because Senate Republicans are really just looking out for the unnamed nominee’s best interests. From the Congressional Record:

    “After all, the whole point of deferring the nomination and confirmation process [until 2017] is to limit the mistreatment of any nominee,



    as Senator Cornyn suggested in his remarks. This unfounded accusation is also deeply ironic, coming from the party that stooped to the character assassination of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.

    “If there is anyone who has been treated like a pinata in this debate, it has been Senator Grassley.”

    I’m not sure which is more alarming: the ridiculousness of Hatch’s argument or the fact that he was able to deliver these remarks with a straight face.


    Just a week after some GOP senators were willing to acknowledge the party’s nakedly partisan tactics, Orrin Hatch would have the public believe Senate Republicans really just want to “limit the mistreatment” of Obama’s court nominee.

    Is this about politics? Heaven forbid! Hatch and his colleagues aren’t focused on the future of the court, so much as they’re deeply concerned with the eventual nominee’s feelings.


    Because if there’s one thing Senate Republicans are proven throughout the Obama era, it’s their capacity for empathy towards high-profile White House nominees.

    Republicans are just so darned polite and big-hearted, they can’t bear to think about a judge facing months of attacks … from other Republicans.

    As for Hatch’s reference to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, it’s worth remembering, in case the senator has forgotten, that both Bork and Thomas were given confirmation hearings and floor votes, which are precisely the steps Hatch and his cohorts refuse to even consider as part of their unprecedented blockade. (Thomas was even confirmed, which hardly represents mistreatment.)

    And if Hatch sees Grassley as some kind of victim, he’s clearly not paying close enough attention.

    Senate Republicans have had more than a month to come up with coherent arguments to justify the first-ever Senate blockade against any Supreme Court nominee. If the best they can come up with is “we’re just being nice to the president’s choice,” it’s a reminder of the underlying bankruptcy of their entire gambit.
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow


    jeezus. That really is ed up.

    The GOP really has lost its mind.

    I would be laughing if it didn't have such dire consequences.

  14. #439
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    It's not about governing, it's about power. The two aren't the same.

  15. #440
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    It's not about governing, it's about power. The two aren't the same.
    the anti-government Repugs purely ideologically refuse to govern.

    power? It's about influence money to legislators to buy policies that protect/enrich/enable the paymasters, while enriching the s. The system is 100% corrupt to the core.

  16. #441
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Obama Nominates Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court

    He's by far the least controversial -- and most confirmable -- candidate from the president's short list.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...Alert-politics

  17. #442
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Lies, Distortions, And Smears: How Right-Wing Media React To Obama's Nominees And Appointments

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ng-medi/209051

  18. #443
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Obama makes his choice for the Supreme Court

    Merrick Garland is an eminently qualified and respected jurist. He’s the chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, a former federal prosecutor, and a former Supreme Court clerk with an impeccable background.

    If there were a dictionary entry for “Generic, Mainstream Supreme Court Nominee for a Democratic President,” Garland’s picture would be on the page.


    Under normal political cir stances, Garland is the kind of jurist who’d be confirmed easily with overwhelming Senate support. Given the radicalization of the Republican Party, however, these are not normal political cir stances.

    I tend to see Garland as more than just a high court nominee – he’s also represents a presidential dare.

    “You’ll refuse to consider any nominee?” Obama seems to be effectively telling the Senate Republican majority.

    “Fine. I’m sending a moderate, 63-year-old white guy. How committed are you, exactly, to this blockade?”

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow



  19. #444
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536

  20. #445
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    20,699
    Yes. But I wanted to be sure you yourself fully comprehended what you were saying. But I don't think tying the current presidents hands is worthwhile. I would think so even if there were a Republican in office.

    A year plus is far too long to have one branch of the federal government impaired.
    I completely agree with you RG

  21. #446
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    20,699
    Just goes to show that with time and open communication the left and the right can come to completely agree with each other.

    #civilitywins

  22. #447
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    20,699
    Here is a fun idea...

    Let President Hillary and the Democratic Senate consider this nominee:

    Barack Obama


    BOOM. Elections have consequences.

    Almost forgot










































































































    BOOM

  23. #448
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    I completely agree with you RG
    Trump party has had its say. They denied Obama's choice, on the off-bet that Trump would be able to pick.

    SO now we have a new standard, don't we?

    At this point shameless hypocrisy is required to be a conservative, sort of in the ideological DNA so to speak. Conservatives in general appear to have abandoned any pretense at principles. Good to have that clear.

    I will have my horses back in the condition I left them in.

  24. #449
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    #zzzzz

  25. #450
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    As a reference to all the "thoughts and prayers" hypocrites.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •