Key GOP Senators Emerge From Meeting: No Hearing For Obama SCOTUS Nom

6ohMax

6ohMax

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
Definitely a low life. You've hit all the checks for being one, even your rhetoric is full of shit. Also the "keyboard warrior curl up if confronted with your BS" just reeks of Internet-Thug/fake tough guy.


All that aside... The GOP admitted that blocking a nominee is just petty political obstructionism.
Click to expand...

ok.
 
CrocodileStunter

CrocodileStunter

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
Why did you post a picture of Ethiopians? Ancient Israelites probably looked like the people in the area; Semitic/Arabic.
Click to expand...
Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Biden in 1992.

Obama's filibuster of Alito.

Robert Bork's nomination.

FDR's attempt/threat to pack SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
but wasn't Bork a throwback from the 1860's though?..didn't believe in vaccinations..women's rights.

wow so many attempts in the last 100 years or so..from Bork to FDR that's a pretty big gap of obstruction by the Dems.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
but wasn't Bork a throwback from the 1860's though?..didn't believe in vaccinations..women's rights.

wow so many attempts in the last 100 years or so..from Bork to FDR that's a pretty big gap of obstruction by the Dems.
Click to expand...
Ha. Bork was a brilliant judge. Not particularly likable though.

How about Harry Reid and the "nuclear option" to pack the federal bench below SCOTUS. Democrats acted like assholes then, and whiny little bitches now.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Ha. Bork was a brilliant judge.
Click to expand...
really?


he defended the idea that states should be free to enforce Jim Crow laws, and opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that using federal law to dismantle the apartheid legal code of the post-Reconstruction South was both unconstitutional and morally wrong.

Unfortunately for him, by 1987 the idea that it was OK to use state violence to remove black people from segregated lunch counters wasn’t the kind of idea that was still acceptable in polite company.

Similarly, Bork’s view that a state ought to be free to criminalize the purchase of contraception by married couples was by that point in American history considered, to use a legal term of art, kind of wacky.



brilliant compared to the other white supremacists like you that we have on this forum?
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Andy, here is something for you to read while you wait on your disability claim:

"Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?"[20] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after a contentious confirmation hearing.

24 years after Bork's nomination was rejected, in 2011, New York Times columnist Joe Nocera claimed that "[t]he Bork fight, in some ways, was the beginning of the end of civil discourse in politics... The anger between Democrats and Republicans, the unwillingness to work together, the profound mistrust--the line from Bork to today’s ugly politics is a straight one." Nocera cited Democratic activist Ann Lewis who acknowledged that if Bork's nomination "were carried out as an internal Senate debate we would have deep and thoughtful discussions about the Constitution, and then we would lose."[21]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Ha. Bork was a brilliant judge.
Click to expand...
he defended the idea that states should be free to enforce Jim Crow laws, and opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that using federal law to dismantle the apartheid legal code of the post-Reconstruction South was both unconstitutional and morally wrong.

Unfortunately for him, by 1987 the idea that it was OK to use state violence to remove black people from segregated lunch counters wasn’t the kind of idea that was still acceptable in polite company.

Similarly, Bork’s view that a state ought to be free to criminalize the purchase of contraception by married couples was by that point in American history considered, to use a legal term of art, kind of wacky.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
he defended the idea that states should be free to enforce Jim Crow laws, and opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that using federal law to dismantle the apartheid legal code of the post-Reconstruction South was both unconstitutional and morally wrong.

Unfortunately for him, by 1987 the idea that it was OK to use state violence to remove black people from segregated lunch counters wasn’t the kind of idea that was still acceptable in polite company.

Similarly, Bork’s view that a state ought to be free to criminalize the purchase of contraception by married couples was by that point in American history considered, to use a legal term of art, kind of wacky.
Click to expand...
Is it okay to use State violence to force people to buy something they don't want and don't use?

On second thought...isn't a "state" which gains its members thru involuntary measures really just the threat of violence writ legal?

(nice pink crayon by the way...I missed it)
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
These senators just gave democratic voters another reason to get out & vote in the election....the Supreme Court....as if the republicans haven't given enough reason already
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
bearkat42 said:
Key Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee emerged from a closed door meeting in Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office Tuesday united in their determination not to consider any nominee to replace Antonin Scalia until the next president takes office.

Tuesday was the first full day the Senate was back in session since Scalia's death Feb. 13.

"We believe the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame duck president," said Majority Whip John Cornyn.

When asked if they would start the process after the new president took office or if they would consider doing it in the lame duck session, Cornyn replied "No, after the next president is selected. That way the American people have a voice in the process."

Sen. Lindsey Graham said that "there's no use starting a process that's not going to go anywhere and we are going to let the next president decide," when asked why there would be no hearings.

When TPM asked if he had political concerns about the decision not to move forward with a nominee, Graham responded."I have zero concerns politically."

"I think this is what they would do," Graham said referring to Senate Democrats. "For them to say they wouldn't do this is a lie."



Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) demurred saying that Republicans were "still talking."


The meeting in McConnell's office came not long after he made a speech on the Senate floorvowing to block any Obama nominee.

"Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent. In this case, the Senate will withhold it," McConnell said. "The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November the decision they've already started making today."
Click to expand...

Now this is a reason to do one of those marching protests. The Senate has no Constitutional Right to provide or withhold consent. Congress can only dictate the size of the Court, not the replacement of another after death.

This is Obama deal and he alone must make it.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
I love how the GOP thinks they're above the Constitution. This "American people need a voice in the next Justice," is so threadbare and loosely based on logic.



Show me exactly where in the US Constitution it says that the American populace gets to choose a Supreme Court Justice. I won't be holding my breath.
Click to expand...

Can a person delegate a right they do not possess?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top