mr6666

SCOTUS battles

457 posts in this topic

"President Obama nominated Chief Judge Garland to fill the vacancy created by Justice Scalia’s death on the Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the man who President Obama has nominated to be the next Supreme Court justice....."

 

-Garland received overwhelming bipartisan praise from Senators, lawyers, and commentators

-Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time of Garland’s confirmation, has said Garland would be a “consensus nominee” for the Supreme Court who “would be very well supported by all sides.”

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/16/meet-obama-supreme-court-nominee-chief-judge-merrick-garland.html

 

Myths And Facts On The Nomination Of Judge Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/16/myths-and-facts-on-the-nomination-of-judge-merr/209286

 

& here we go.... :wacko:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"President Obama nominated Chief Judge Garland to fill the vacancy created by Justice Scalia’s death on the Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the man who President Obama has nominated to be the next Supreme Court justice....."

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/16/meet-obama-supreme-court-nominee-chief-judge-merrick-garland.html

 

& here we go.... :wacko:

not until next year...if ever.

 

is merrick a patient man? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"While speaking about President Obama's nomination Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) showed respect for the Constitution that is clearly missing among Senate Republicans...."

 

"The confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is one of the most solemn tasks that our government performs. President Obama has done his job – selecting a nominee and sending that nominee to the Senate – and it’s time for the Senate to do its job."

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/16/elizabeth-warren-shows-democrats-respect-constitution-republicans.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"..the first Senate Republican (IL. Sen. Mark Kirk) has already realized he would prefer to avoid the Obama trap. He would very much like to be re-elected, you see."

 

"...things are worse for Republican Senators now, with Donald Trump their front-runner and Mitch McConnell’s indefensible Obstruct Obama’s Supreme Court nominee no matter what strategy. After all, a majority of the country voted for President Obama, and they want him to pick the next Supreme Court nominee. There is no legitimate reason for Senate Republicans to refuse to do their jobs, and even less justification for their wild power grab.

Senator Kirk saying that he will assess Judge Garland on his qualifications is like saying yes, because Garland couldn’t be more qualified. Garland is a centrist whose first loyalty is to the law. Garland is the kind of person who should be charged with interpreting the law."

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/16/republicans-breaking-leaderships-refusal-hold-hearings-scotus-nominee.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below are the questions I am sending to my US senators (Republicans).

Would you rather vote on a Supreme Court nominee presented by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

More likely, would you rather vote on a nominee presented by Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as that is the more likely choice after Jan. 2017?

Your sworn duty under the Constituion is to advise and consent on nominations presented by the President when they are presented.

There is NO Consitutional provision for not considering nominations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why Obama Nominated MerrickGarland for the Supreme Court....

 

 

In the face of Republican opposition to a Supreme
Court nomination, President Obama needed a candidate
who had support from Republicans in the past but who
would still move the court in a progressive direction.

Merrick B. Garland, who was on President Obama’s shortlist for previous Supreme Court nominations, was confirmed 76 to 23 as a judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1997. .."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/us/politics/garland-supreme-court-nomination.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vice President Biden said no Supreme Court nominations should be confirmed in an election year so that is all the Senate is doing, it is called the Biden rule. So they will not be holding hearings on this, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vice President Biden said no Supreme Court nominations should be confirmed in an election year so that is all the Senate is doing, it is called the Biden rule. So they will not be holding hearings on this, sorry.

No such "rule."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No such "rule."

 

Yes there is, Biden made it. Look up his speech announcing it, he makes it clear there should not be a Justice confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is, Biden made it. Look up his speech announcing it, he makes it clear there should not be a Justice confirmed.

 

They are just being cute with that term.  It never became a rule.  Do your homework.  Oh, forget it.  I'm talking to a guy who doesn't believe in climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"..the first Senate Republican (IL. Sen. Mark Kirk) has already realized he would prefer to avoid the Obama trap. He would very much like to be re-elected, you see."

 

"...things are worse for Republican Senators now, with Donald Trump their front-runner and Mitch McConnell’s indefensible Obstruct Obama’s Supreme Court nominee no matter what strategy. After all, a majority of the country voted for President Obama, and they want him to pick the next Supreme Court nominee. There is no legitimate reason for Senate Republicans to refuse to do their jobs, and even less justification for their wild power grab.

Senator Kirk saying that he will assess Judge Garland on his qualifications is like saying yes, because Garland couldn’t be more qualified. Garland is a centrist whose first loyalty is to the law. Garland is the kind of person who should be charged with interpreting the law."

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/16/republicans-breaking-leaderships-refusal-hold-hearings-scotus-nominee.html

in a reverse situation a senate democratic majority would just meekly resign themselves to a conservative slant to the scotus for many decades, right, mr666? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No such "rule."

 

Of course, you're correct that it isn't a rule.   There are many practices both parties tend to follow that are not actual rules.  They just follow these "gentleman agreements"  because they don't wish to have the same thing happen to them (against them) when they don't have majority power.  

 

But Obama called the GOP's bluff and his choice for the court was brilliant.   If the majority in the GOP refuse to confirm the choice I believe it will hurt them in November.     (similar to how shutting down the government has hurt them). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can bet future President Trump has spoken to McConnell and Trump's desire is to have a Protestant white male nominated. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are going to forget about this nomination pretty quickly because there are still 8 Justices on the Court and nothing stops over this. Biden said not to approve a Justice on an election year and he is Vice-President so that is what the Senate will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The clips and quotes Republicans seized on, however, ignored a passage buried deep in the transcript (1992) where Biden called for a "compromise" pick, much as he's done in the past week.

 

"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," Biden also said at the time.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-supreme-court-nominee-1992-219635

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can bet future President Trump has spoken to McConnell and Trump's desire is to have a Protestant white male nominated. 

 

I guess that would suit you fine too judging how you liked your own comment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the nut case Republicans (including Sir Trump) like to freely throw around law suits over non issues, President Obama and the Senate  Democrats should file a law suit against leader McConnell and his coconspirators forcing them to go through the constitutional process of reviewing the nomination and then calling for the full Senate to have a vote. It would be very interesting to see how the 8 existing members of the Supreme Court would vote on such a matter. ( My bet would be they would vote unanimously to force the process to proceed.)  Of course every individual Senator has the right to vote Yea or Nay. The Republicans who vote Nay can then go on record exactly why the nominee is being rejected, then the public can vote yea or nay on the incumbent Republicans running for reelection this fall.  That  would truly be democracy in action.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the nut case Republicans (including Sir Trump) like to freely throw around law suits over non issues, President Obama and the Senate  Democrats should file a law suit against leader McConnell and his coconspirators forcing them to go through the constitutional process of reviewing the nomination and then calling for the full Senate to have a vote. It would be very interesting to see how the 8 existing members of the Supreme Court would vote on such a matter. ( My bet would be they would vote unanimously to force the process to proceed.) 

 

Not Thomas. That guy's a doosch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the nut case Republicans (including Sir Trump) like to freely throw around law suits over non issues, President Obama and the Senate  Democrats should file a law suit against leader McConnell and his coconspirators forcing them to go through the constitutional process of reviewing the nomination and then calling for the full Senate to have a vote. It would be very interesting to see how the 8 existing members of the Supreme Court would vote on such a matter. ( My bet would be they would vote unanimously to force the process to proceed.)  Of course every individual Senator has the right to vote Yea or Nay. The Republicans who vote Nay can then go on record exactly why the nominee is being rejected, then the public can vote yea or nay on the incumbent Republicans running for reelection this fall.  That  would truly be democracy in action.

I suggested that weeks ago as I think it is valid.  The basis is that the Republican leadership has stated they refuse to do their Constitutionally mandated duty.

Some GOPers are already backtracking as they consider a Clintion nominee would be much further to the left.  In addition, a Clinton victory over Trump would probably bring several new Democratic senators into the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Reagan (in 1988) called on all Americans to “join together in a bipartisan effort to fulfill our constitutional obligation of restoring the United States Supreme Court to full strength.” He also asked the Senate for “prompt hearings conducted in the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship.”

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ronald-reagan-supreme-court_us_56c3de8be4b0c3c550532357

 

:)

why should they?

 

garland is weak on the 2nd amendment.

 

you'd urge the same kind of bipartisan reasonableness for a gop appointment who wasn't exactly a fan of roe v. wade, wouldn't you? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why should they?

 

garland is weak on the 2nd amendment.

 

Yeah, wouldn't want a drop in weapons profiteering just to save the lives of a few school kids.  

You really believe in God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, wouldn't want a drop in weapons profiteering just to save the lives of a few school kids.  

You really believe in God?

oh come on, Bogie46.

 

weakening the 2nd amendment would save no one because criminals do not obey the law.

 

that's why they're criminals. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us