mr6666

SCOTUS battles

457 posts in this topic

There are already 8 Justices and Obama didn't go to the Funeral of Scalia, so it must not be very important.

 

I agree. Scalia's funeral was of no importance whatsoever.

 

The main thing is that he died - now that was important and an absolute blessing to America.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all there is virtually no way that any law would  ever be passed that would try to "take away guns"

 

Tell that to the chicken littles who keep running to the gun shops and buying them out every time a "left-wing" politician talks or runs for office.

 

I don't think they believe you, dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S.C. is in process of passing a new bankruptcy law.  A bankrupt person would have the right to keep three guns and 1,000 rounds of ammunition.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S.C. is in process of passing a new bankruptcy law.  A bankrupt person would have the right to keep three guns and 1,000 rounds of ammunition.  

 

Why? One gun and a bullet is enough for a suicide. One gun and a dozen bullets should take care of the whole family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Familial Ties That Bind The Anti-Garland Judicial Crisis Network To Its Dark Money Funder...

 

"Media Matters investigation of the discredited right-wing group Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), the main source of baseless smears against, and false characterizations of, Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, reveals a familial web of self-dealing between the organization, a major dark money funder of JCN called the Wellspring Committee, and a third nonprofit that also receives funding from Wellspring...."

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/04/04/the-familial-ties-that-bind-the-anti-garland-ju/209716

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the midst of President Obama's live discussion about the need to break the Republican obstruction of his Supreme Court nominee, MSNBC cut off the President to go to a report about Donald Trump hiring new campaign operatives as if it were breaking news.

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/07/msnbc-drops-live-coverage-obamas-supreme-court-speech-talk-trump.html

 

:wacko:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the midst of President Obama's live discussion about the need to break the Republican obstruction of his Supreme Court nominee, MSNBC cut off the President to go to a report about Donald Trump hiring new campaign operatives as if it were breaking news.

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/07/msnbc-drops-live-coverage-obamas-supreme-court-speech-talk-trump.html

 

:wacko:

 

 

LOL. Trump always trumps. The media cater to his needs. So sick of his face.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Washington Post points out this morning that by not voting on Garland the Senate may be forgoing its right for advise and consent which will simply clear the way for Obama to appoint his choice.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_wemost-draw5

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Washington Post points out this morning that by not voting on Garland the Senate may be forgoing its right for advise and consent which will simply clear the way for Obama to appoint his choice.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_wemost-draw5

Still think the Administration has grounds for a lawsuit against Senate for failure to perform its Constitutional duties.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still think the Administration has grounds for a lawsuit against Senate for failure to perform its Constitutional duties.

 

I'd rather see the Senate bring a lawsuit against the Administration for making an appointment in accordance with this article's legal opinion. Throw it right into the Supreme Court and settle it once and for all whether the Senate can retain its right to Advise and Consent while refusing to Advise and Consent at the same time it's insisting it's supposed to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama should just appoint him with the reasons given and let them bring the lawsuit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, the GOPers have mis-interpreted Harry Reid's "Nuclear Option" ruling when he was majority leader.  Reid had a procedural change implemented whereby judicial and administrative appointments could be approved with a vote of 51, rather than 60.  It was not done during the last year of Bush's administration.  The Democratic controlled Judiciary Committee did "hold" nominations from G.W. Bush at the end of his term, but the Republicans did the same thing at end of Clinton's term.

Regardless, wrong is wrong.  And we have a very long time before next President takes office.

Apparently there are no opportunities for recess appointments anymore as the GOPers have decided that the Senate never "recesses" anymore.  They always leave a contingent of senators hanging around so they are technically still in session.

The issue pointed out in the WP article is one that Obama should do.  Appoint Garland and let the GOPers sue him.  Then SCOTUS can rule on what the Constitution means.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama combines fundraising, golf in whirlwind trip to SF

After a wet and foggy round of golf at the Olympic Club on Saturday morning, President Obama departed San Francisco en route to the White House after a quick, two-day fundraising sweep through California.

 

At San Francisco International Airport, the president jogged up the stairs to Air Force One and was airborne and heading home by 2:40 p.m.

 

The president, who was joined by his 17-year-old daughter, Malia, on the trip, spent less than 48 hours in the state, where he was the featured guest at Democratic fundraisers.

 

*******************************************************************

Obama should have to pay the millions of dollars this cost us to play golf and fundraise for Democrats. Notice how there is no concern over global warming either for the plane flight, once again proving it has all been a scam since day one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Obama first--the first president to ever go on a

fundraising trip using Air Force One. And by doing so

he proves that global warming is a scam. Wingnuts, too

funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama combines fundraising, golf in whirlwind trip to SF

After a wet and foggy round of golf at the Olympic Club on Saturday morning, President Obama departed San Francisco en route to the White House after a quick, two-day fundraising sweep through California.

 

At San Francisco International Airport, the president jogged up the stairs to Air Force One and was airborne and heading home by 2:40 p.m.

 

The president, who was joined by his 17-year-old daughter, Malia, on the trip, spent less than 48 hours in the state, where he was the featured guest at Democratic fundraisers.

 

*******************************************************************

Obama should have to pay the millions of dollars this cost us to play golf and fundraise for Democrats. Notice how there is no concern over global warming either for the plane flight, once again proving it has all been a scam since day one.

 

He will pay when G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Ronald Reagan's estate pays for their far more numerous trips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Could Be The Beginning Of The End Of The Supreme Court As We Know It

 

Conservatives lay the groundwork for blocking all of Hillary Clinton’s nominees.

 

 

 

"The Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally."

 

...Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-hillary-clinton-nominees_us_580fed9ae4b08582f88cb00c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Could Be The Beginning Of The End Of The Supreme Court As We Know It

 

Conservatives lay the groundwork for blocking all of Hillary Clinton’s nominees.

 

 

 

"The Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally."

 

...Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute

 

 

 

 

I assume these far right nuts are just bluffing but one never really knows.    What would be interesting is for the Supreme Court to hear a case related to the Senate not approving any new members until all existing members were dead.    Would Roberts really support such an idea?       I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume these far right nuts are just bluffing but one never really knows.    What would be interesting is for the Supreme Court to hear a case related to the Senate not approving any new members until all existing members were dead.    Would Roberts really support such an idea?       I doubt it.

A couple of weeks ago, Sen John McCain stated bluntly that the Senate would not consider any of Clinton's nominees to the court. He then backtracked when somebody reminded him he is running for reelection.

If McCain says it, the others are thinking it.

Takes 60 senators to call for a vote on a nominee.  Assuming the Dems have a majority.  If GOPers have majority, will never get out of committee nor would Mitch McConnell let it come to the floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of weeks ago, Sen John McCain stated bluntly that the Senate would not consider any of Clinton's nominees to the court. He then backtracked when somebody reminded him he is running for reelection.

If McCain says it, the others are thinking it.

Takes 60 senators to call for a vote on a nominee.  Assuming the Dems have a majority.  If GOPers have majority, will never get out of committee nor would Harry Reed let it come to the floor.

 

Isn't Harry on his way out? I wonder who will be the Senate Democrat leader next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Harry on his way out? I wonder who will be the Senate Democrat leader next?

Sorry meant to type Mitch McConnell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of weeks ago, Sen John McCain stated bluntly that the Senate would not consider any of Clinton's nominees to the court. He then backtracked when somebody reminded him he is running for reelection.

If McCain says it, the others are thinking it.

Takes 60 senators to call for a vote on a nominee.  Assuming the Dems have a majority.  If GOPers have majority, will never get out of committee nor would Harry Reed let it come to the floor.

 

Of course others GOP Senators are thinking it (they are called wingnuts for a reason,  ha ha),  but actually doing something no Senator body has ever done is something else.     

 

I don't understand your last few sentence and the Harry Reed (I assume Reid) comment;   He will be out of the Senate after this session and why would the Senate minority leader (since you say GOPers have the majority) not 'let it come to the floor'?    Not let WHAT come to the floor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course others GOP Senators are thinking it (they are called wingnuts for a reason,  ha ha),  but actually doing something no Senator body has ever done is something else.     

 

I don't understand your last few sentence and the Harry Reed (I assume Reid) comment;   He will be out of the Senate after this session and why would the Senate minority leader (since you say GOPers have the majority) not 'let it come to the floor'?    Not let WHAT come to the floor?

Sorry I corrected it later, I meant Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader if GOP holds senate.

Currently, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Mitch McConnel are refusing to consider Merrick Garland's appointment to Supreme Court, an action that has never been taken before in history of US government.

Under current rules, unless 60 senators agree to override, any one senator can block hearings and floor votes by saying he/she is fillibustering.  They don't actually have to do it, just say they are.

If the Dems take Senate, the new Majority Leader can change that rule by getting 51 votes (I think).  However, it is referred to as the "nuclear option" and may cause problems later when the other party is in control.  Reid did do it for S.C. nominees only, but took a long time to decide to do it.  However, the GOP took over the senate.

Historically the senate, being the more deliberative and intelligent body, has tried to avoid deciding issues by a simple majority.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume these far right nuts are just bluffing but one never really knows.    What would be interesting is for the Supreme Court to hear a case related to the Senate not approving any new members until all existing members were dead.    Would Roberts really support such an idea?       I doubt it.

the scotus invalidated itself imo with the dreaded dred scott decision of 1857 actually ruling that negro slaves were property, chattel.

 

the scotus failed to recognize the very personhood (which is patently self-evident to anyone with sight) of negro men and women and such a monumental misjudgment should inform any sensible person that the scotus should not have the responsibility of making rulings about such fundamental realities relating to the human condition.

 

it's like ruling that gravity is largely a matter of opinion and such a bad call imo is forever invalidating.

 

the scotus should be abolished for the sake of human sanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Harry on his way out? I wonder who will be the Senate Democrat leader next?

 

 

Schumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schumer.

Chucky is getting some flak for not using some of his $20

million war chest to help other candidates, especially in

the Senate race in Florida, which is relatively close. Schumer

is ahead in his own race by about 40 points.

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