New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

About that Obama Supreme Court Nominee

reason10

reason10

Governor
Let's see.

Constitution says the Senate can reject him.

So here's the guy, Merrick Garland, originally a Clinton appointee, coming from one of the most extremist left wing appeals circuits in America, nominated by a guy who gave us those left wing idiots Sotomayor and Elena Kagen. (In a logical world, neither of those idiots would be allowed to judge a traffic court).

This left wing hack, who by the way is very anti-Second Amendment is supposed to be the replacement for one of the few CONSTITUTIONALISTS on the Supreme Court? (Scalia)

The Senate said NO.

President Trump will be picking Scalia's replacement, not the KENYAN SHOESHINE BOY.

FINALLY Mitch McConnell is doing his effing job.

Argument over.
 
Seems many Lefties have suffered from acute Hypocrititus on this subject...

10382817_1153013301389344_3672491447615845962_n.jpg
 
reason10 said:
Let's see.

Constitution says the Senate can reject him.

So here's the guy, Merrick Garland, originally a Clinton appointee, coming from one of the most extremist left wing appeals circuits in America, nominated by a guy who gave us those left wing idiots Sotomayor and Elena Kagen. (In a logical world, neither of those idiots would be allowed to judge a traffic court).

This left wing hack, who by the way is very anti-Second Amendment is supposed to be the replacement for one of the few CONSTITUTIONALISTS on the Supreme Court? (Scalia)

The Senate said NO.

President Trump will be picking Scalia's replacement, not the KENYAN SHOESHINE BOY.

FINALLY Mitch McConnell is doing his effing job.

Argument over.
Click to expand...
Technically nobody but a strict constructionist should sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. Everybody else is breaking their oath and should be impeached.
 
reason10 said:
Let's see.

Constitution says the Senate can reject him.

So here's the guy, Merrick Garland, originally a Clinton appointee, coming from one of the most extremist left wing appeals circuits in America, nominated by a guy who gave us those left wing idiots Sotomayor and Elena Kagen. (In a logical world, neither of those idiots would be allowed to judge a traffic court).

This left wing hack, who by the way is very anti-Second Amendment is supposed to be the replacement for one of the few CONSTITUTIONALISTS on the Supreme Court? (Scalia)

The Senate said NO.

President Trump will be picking Scalia's replacement, not the KENYAN SHOESHINE BOY.

FINALLY Mitch McConnell is doing his effing job.

Argument over.
Click to expand...
I hope McConnell sticks to his guns there. I don't have a lot of trust in Mitch right now. Garland should not ever be a SCOTUS Justice.
 
They should man up and vote according to this republican senator...

Republican Senator Says Colleagues Should ‘Man Up’ And Vote On Merrick Garland
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), one of just two Senate Republicans who have indicated an openness to even having a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, had a message for his GOP colleagues on Friday: give Garland a vote.
“We should go through the process the Constitution has already laid out. The president has already laid out a nominee who is from Chicagoland and for me, I’m open to see him, to talk to him, and ask him his views on the Constitution,” Kirk explained in a radio interview on WLS-AM’s Big John Howell Show.
Noting that his own constitutional views are “a lot like Justice Scalia, who he’d be replacing,” Kirk urged colleagues to “just man up and cast a vote. The tough thing about these senatorial jobs is you get ‘yes’ or ‘no’ votes. Your whole job is to either say ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ and explain why.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/18/3761743/mark-kirk-man-up-vote-merrick-garland/
 
Addy said:
They should man up and vote according to this republican senator...

Republican Senator Says Colleagues Should ‘Man Up’ And Vote On Merrick Garland
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), one of just two Senate Republicans who have indicated an openness to even having a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, had a message for his GOP colleagues on Friday: give Garland a vote.
“We should go through the process the Constitution has already laid out. The president has already laid out a nominee who is from Chicagoland and for me, I’m open to see him, to talk to him, and ask him his views on the Constitution,” Kirk explained in a radio interview on WLS-AM’s Big John Howell Show.
Noting that his own constitutional views are “a lot like Justice Scalia, who he’d be replacing,” Kirk urged colleagues to “just man up and cast a vote. The tough thing about these senatorial jobs is you get ‘yes’ or ‘no’ votes. Your whole job is to either say ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ and explain why.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/18/3761743/mark-kirk-man-up-vote-merrick-garland/
Click to expand...

Man up and vote?
Hmmmmmmmmm............ I wonder why that never applied to Harry Reid when he acted as Obama's personal veto machine by not allowing up or down votes on things.
 
Jen said:
Man up and vote?
Hmmmmmmmmm............ I wonder why that never applied to Harry Reid when he acted as Obama's personal veto machine by not allowing up or down votes on things.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was b/c of all the add ons... repubs tacked on bills (riders and provisions).
 
Let them hold hearings and vote. They can vote no. Why make it a battle to even have hearings? It's silly.
 
What great insight... imo

Progressives Should Applaud President Obama’s Nomination of Merrick Gardland To The Supreme Court

I’m among those perpetually frustrated by President Obama’s propensity for centrism and compromise – but his centrist, compromise nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court may actually be brilliant political jujitsu.
The first thing for progressives like myself to know is that, by most accounts, Garland is not an offensive choice. Sure, he doesn’t check every left wing box — he’s a former prosecutor who tends to vote more conservatively on criminal justice cases – but experts and advocates largely agree he’s more liberal than not. And sure, picking him does little to expand the racial or gender diversity of a Supreme Court that was comprised entirely of white men for almost two centuries.

And then there’s this: Republicans have got to be looking at the polling that shows 63% of Americans think the Senate should do its job and hold hearings to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. And that was before there was even an actual nominee to put a human face on Republican obstructionism. Meanwhile, Republicans must also be aware of polling that shows Hillary Clinton soundly beating the now-likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, and Sanders also beating him.

Alliance for Justice president and liberal court watcher Nan Aron often says, “the left sees the courts as a path to justice; the right sees the courts as a path to power.” With his Garland nomination, President Obama is — wisely — trying to achieve both.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...of-merrick-gardland-to-the-supreme-court.html
 
They can vote either, yes or no...agree, Emily
Both parties think a lame duck president's nomination is unfair.:oops:
 
resident_evil said:
Only a Democrat would buy into the argument that because someone is good enough for a lower court that someone is also good enough for SCOTUS. It is the intellectual equal of a chimp who believes that.
Click to expand...

So you think that's the same rationale, the republicans are using by withholding a hearing and vote? :rolleyes:
 
bdtex said:
Yep. They can hold the confirmation hearings,schedule a vote and reject him. With a 54-46 Senate Majority, they could do that.
Click to expand...

Or they can just say screw the hearing, also within the confines of the Constitution. They can use the Biden rule and say no more nominees from this president. Refusing the hearing is the same as rejecting the nominee. Perfectly constitutional, and poetic justice for a president who has spent the last seven years wiping his ass on the constitution.
 
Jen said:
Man up and vote?
Hmmmmmmmmm............ I wonder why that never applied to Harry Reid when he acted as Obama's personal veto machine by not allowing up or down votes on things.
Click to expand...

Gee....I don't know...Maybe, it's called...politics.

McConnell used to believe the opposite way. Why doesn't it apply to McConnell?
 
Addy said:
View attachment 30446
Click to expand...


In 1997 Obama was still wearing shorts and a tee shirt and smoking weed. Now that he's radicalized the Democratic Party things are different. Primarily because the Supreme Court is a whole bunch different than an appeals court, and McConnell wasn't the Senate Majority leader and we don't know how he voted in 1997 on Judge Garland's nomination.

I take it you don't care a whit about Harry Reid's statements....it's different huh? Things are always different with Democrats aren't they?
 
reason10 said:
Or they can just say screw the hearing, also within the confines of the Constitution. They can use the Biden rule and say no more nominees from this president. Refusing the hearing is the same as rejecting the nominee. Perfectly constitutional, and poetic justice for a president who has spent the last seven years wiping his ass on the constitution.
Click to expand...
Yeah. They can do anything as long as they are willing to accept the consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top