No Vote on Obama Court Nominee

[jimnyc]

As it should be!

-----

Some senior U.S. Senate Republicans on Tuesday moved to slam the door shut on any Supreme Court nomination President Barack Obama will make as they voiced opposition to even committee hearings on a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

"That's the consensus view. ... No hearing, no vote," Senate Judiciary Committee member Lindsey Graham told reporters after leaving a private meeting of the panel's Republicans with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Separately, Senator John Cornyn, the second-ranking Republican behind McConnell, said, "Correct," when asked by Reuters whether the path forward on any Obama nominee would be to deny that person a committee hearing.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley had previously left open the possibility of convening hearings once Obama nominates a justice. He was not immediately available for comment.

Earlier on Tuesday, in remarks on the Senate floor, McConnell said: "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."

Instead, McConnell said the Senate will await the outcome of November's presidential and congressional elections before considering any replacement for Scalia, who died on Feb. 13.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/senate-no-scotus-nominee/2016/02/23/id/715709/

[Black Diamond]

Are you actually telling me the Senate has balls? Are we in an alternative universe, Jim?

[jimnyc]

McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told a group of staunch House conservatives there isn't "a snowball's chance in hell" that he will back down from his opposition to confirming a Supreme Court justice before a new president is elected.

The Kentucky Republican received a friendly reception from the board members of the House Freedom Caucus Tuesday evening. During a 45-minute meeting, the lawmakers expressed broad support for McConnell's position on the high court vacancy.

Senators and House members frequently address the board of the Freedom Caucus but this meeting, requested by McConnell, was the first chance he's had to do so.

Lawmakers focused almost solely on the Supreme Court nomination during the meeting, sources said.

McConnell's comments came after Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, urged him to stay the course and not back down from a fight with the White House and Senate Democrats.

"There's not a snowball's chance in hell that's gonna happen," McConnell said, according to lawmakers in the meeting.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings-219698

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told a group of staunch House conservatives there isn't "a snowball's chance in hell" that he will back down from his opposition to confirming a Supreme Court justice before a new president is elected.

The Kentucky Republican received a friendly reception from the board members of the House Freedom Caucus Tuesday evening. During a 45-minute meeting, the lawmakers expressed broad support for McConnell's position on the high court vacancy.

Senators and House members frequently address the board of the Freedom Caucus but this meeting, requested by McConnell, was the first chance he's had to do so.

Lawmakers focused almost solely on the Supreme Court nomination during the meeting, sources said.

McConnell's comments came after Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, urged him to stay the course and not back down from a fight with the White House and Senate Democrats.

"There's not a snowball's chance in hell that's gonna happen," McConnell said, according to lawmakers in the meeting.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings-219698


McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS

I hope he hires the best bodyguards available because they(globalists-obama true masters) murdered Scalia to get that spot open to put in their man and if he refuses he becomes the next target for removal--if not by bribe or blackmail then by an arranged death.-Tyr

[darin]

The minute congress goes into recess what The Messiah dictate and appoint a piece of crap to the court.

[Black Diamond]

The minute congress goes into recess what The Messiah dictate and appoint a piece of crap to the court.

Pretty sure he can't do that

[Kathianne]

Pretty sure he can't do that

He can if they go more than 10 days, but I don't think they will. He could have done this immediately, but I think he worried about 'legacy.'

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He can if they go more than 10 days, but I don't think they will. He could have done this immediately, but I think he worried about 'legacy.'

If this nation had justice anymore his legacy would be of the first American President tried and convicted of treason!
It does not, for if it exists not in the ruling body of any nation, then it exists not in that nation at all.
ALMOST ALWAYS A VERY, VERY BAD SIGN OF THINGS TO COME.. Sad to say..-Tyr

[Russ]

The minute congress goes into recess what The Messiah dictate and appoint a piece of crap to the court.

He can "appoint" someone when Congress is not in session, but that's not the same as a nomination and confirmation. An appointee is temporary, until a nominee is approved and takes their place. At least, that's my understanding.

[Kathianne]

He can "appoint" someone when Congress is not in session, but that's not the same as a nomination and confirmation. An appointee is temporary, until a nominee is approved and takes their place. At least, that's my understanding.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/

[Russ]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/

Thanks, that link explained it well. It also made it fairly clear that Obama may have a tough time even appointing anyone temporarily. :thumb:

[Gunny]

McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told a group of staunch House conservatives there isn't "a snowball's chance in hell" that he will back down from his opposition to confirming a Supreme Court justice before a new president is elected.

The Kentucky Republican received a friendly reception from the board members of the House Freedom Caucus Tuesday evening. During a 45-minute meeting, the lawmakers expressed broad support for McConnell's position on the high court vacancy.

Senators and House members frequently address the board of the Freedom Caucus but this meeting, requested by McConnell, was the first chance he's had to do so.

Lawmakers focused almost solely on the Supreme Court nomination during the meeting, sources said.

McConnell's comments came after Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, urged him to stay the course and not back down from a fight with the White House and Senate Democrats.

"There's not a snowball's chance in hell that's gonna happen," McConnell said, according to lawmakers in the meeting.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings-219698

Now let's see them stick to it. They're doing exactly what they should be. Now we'll find out who the sell-outs are.

[Abbey Marie]

Perhaps this is an indication that Trump and Sanders have shown our dear Congressmen what a fed up electorate will do. I'm telling you, politics in our country is changed forever.

[Kathianne]

Perhaps this is an indication that Trump and Sanders have shown our dear Congressmen what a fed up electorate will do. I'm telling you, politics in our country is changed forever.

Yep, if only some others would pick up the positive, without all the negatives. Sigh.

[Gunny]

Perhaps this is an indication that Trump and Sanders have shown our dear Congressmen what a fed up electorate will do. I'm telling you, politics in our country is changed forever.

It's been coming awhile. Obama being elected pushed it over the brink. He had and has yet to show he has any substance. We all want a big mouth rock star, not a President. They ARE typical of our society in general... ALL talk. The best leaders in the GOP are gone. The best showmen are all that remain.

So I'm voting for the "Fonz".:laugh:

[Black Diamond]

It's been coming awhile. Obama being elected pushed it over the brink. He had and has yet to show he has any substance. We all want a big mouth rock star, not a President. They ARE typical of our society in general... ALL talk. The best leaders in the GOP are gone. The best showmen are all that remain.

So I'm voting for the "Fonz".:laugh:
He could start the f-ing jukebox.

[pete311]

And this is democracy? More like a chess game played by spoiled kids. What a joke. You all praise the constitution, democracy, founding fathers etc and then support these idiotic games. Amazing.

[jimnyc]

And this is democracy? More like a chess game played by spoiled kids. What a joke. You all praise the constitution, democracy, founding fathers etc and then support these idiotic games. Amazing.

Where have your complaints been for the past 8 years about executive orders and other crap Obama has pulled? Do you not praise the constitution and democracy? Where are your non-stop complaints about the person running on your side who is a criminal and lesser folks jailed for the same crimes?

Hopefully the right will nominate someone who will keep the SC on the right for the next 40 years. Deal with it.

[pete311]

Where have your complaints been for the past 8 years about executive orders and other crap Obama has pulled? Do you not praise the constitution and democracy? Where are your non-stop complaints about the person running on your side who is a criminal and lesser folks jailed for the same crimes?

Hopefully the right will nominate someone who will keep the SC on the right for the next 40 years. Deal with it.

How are my lack of complaints relevant to my point? I again want to remind you I did not vote for Obama this term. Deal with it.

[jimnyc]

How are my lack of complaints relevant to my point? I again want to remind you I did not vote for Obama this term. Deal with it.

Because you want to complain about things on the right, but ignore almost everything the left does. I think that's VERY relevant - goes to character. :)

And I will in fact deal with it. As soon as I saw that the republicans were going to be tough on this one, stand their ground, and replace a right leaning judge with another right leaning judge - even though Obama is still in office - I have dealt with it just fine! :)

[Little-Acorn]

As it should be!

Some senior U.S. Senate Republicans on Tuesday moved to slam the door shut on any Supreme Court nomination President Barack Obama will make as they voiced opposition to even committee hearings on a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
"That's the consensus view. ... No hearing, no vote," Senate Judiciary Committee member Lindsey Graham told reporters after leaving a private meeting of the panel's Republicans with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

I differ from the plan to put a blanket ban on any Obama nominee.

If Obama were to nominate, say, Janice Rogers Brown, I would like to see the Senate discuss her nomination and then vote on it.

Of course, Obama is more likely to nominate El Chapo or Al Sharpton than JRB. Which is no doubt what the Senate Republicans said what they said.

[NightTrain]

And this is democracy? More like a chess game played by spoiled kids. What a joke. You all praise the constitution, democracy, founding fathers etc and then support these idiotic games. Amazing.


How is this scenario unconstitutional? Seems to me that it's working as intended.

The Senate, representing the majority, doesn't want an unpopular President's picks, so, will block any move by him.

Where's the illegality?

[jimnyc]

How is this scenario unconstitutional? Seems to me that it's working as intended.

The Senate, representing the majority, doesn't want an unpopular President's picks, so, will block any move by him.

Where's the illegality?

ding ding ding!!

[pete311]

Because you want to complain about things on the right, but ignore almost everything the left does. I think that's VERY relevant - goes to character. :)

And I will in fact deal with it. As soon as I saw that the republicans were going to be tough on this one, stand their ground, and replace a right leaning judge with another right leaning judge - even though Obama is still in office - I have dealt with it just fine! :)

Maybe because this community should be renamed to extremerightdebate.com. There is absolutely no balance here. Someone has to challenge you otherwise this place is one big circle jerk.

[pete311]

How is this scenario unconstitutional? Seems to me that it's working as intended.

The Senate, representing the majority, doesn't want an unpopular President's picks, so, will block any move by him.

Where's the illegality?

When did I say it was illegal or unconstitutional? Democracy works when the senate acts, not sits playing childish games.

[jimnyc]

Maybe because this community should be renamed to extremerightdebate.com. There is absolutely no balance here. Someone has to challenge you otherwise this place is one big circle jerk.

No lefties are being banned or having their words shut down at all. If anything, call me guilty of shitty advertising and recruitment. :) Secondly, considering the amount of in-fighting going on here with a shitload of subjects, your "circle jerk" comment is off base too.

I can link folks to a few places that have a ton of lefties - but those places are the boards that are out of control and nothing more than flame fests and fighting - every thread, every post. While we have our moments, at least we DO debate and discuss the issues here, unlike the majority lefty places.

But seriously, challenge us then!

So back to the topic - what is wrong at all with the republicans forcing the nomination until after the next president is sworn in? Other than you not liking it, of course.

[NightTrain]

When did I say it was illegal or unconstitutional? Democracy works when the senate acts, not sits playing childish games.

Right here :


And this is democracy? More like a chess game played by spoiled kids. What a joke. You all praise the constitution, democracy, founding fathers etc and then support these idiotic games. Amazing.

[jimnyc]

Right here :




[/COLOR]

bu bu bu bu bu but that's not what I implied!! :lol:

[pete311]

what is wrong at all with the republicans forcing the nomination until after the next president is sworn in? Other than you not liking it, of course.

I think it's wrong in principle. I'm not paying them to sit. Their job is to create legislation and vote. I'd feel the same if democrats were doing this.

[pete311]

Right here :


If this all was the other way around you guys would be screaming your heads off. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. It's your team so it's ok.

[glockmail]

Perhaps this is an indication that Trump and Sanders have shown our dear Congressmen what a fed up electorate will do. I'm telling you, politics in our country is changed forever.

Nah. The electorate has a short memory. Two years at the most.

[glockmail]

If this all was the other way around you guys would be screaming your heads off. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Give me a break. There are several videos out there pointing out the hypocrisy of the left when a similar situation occurred not in their favor.

[NightTrain]

If this all was the other way around you guys would be screaming your heads off. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. It's your team so it's ok.


And if your Aunt had nuts, she'd be your Uncle.

[pete311]

Give me a break. There are several videos out there pointing out the hypocrisy of the left when a similar situation occurred not in their favor.

I wouldn't be surprised. I may not be on your team, but I'm also not on theirs.

[Gunny]

And if your Aunt had nuts, she'd be your Uncle.

WTF? :laugh2:

[pete311]

WTF? :laugh2:

he's just arguing against my use of a hypothetical

[NightTrain]

I wouldn't be surprised. I may not be on your team, but I'm also not on theirs.


You may want to look up Obama's actions in 2007 as a Senator when there was an opening in SCOTUS.

Then take a look at what Biden did back in '92 for 90 minutes : No SCOTUS picks during an election year!


Oh, Petey... this game isn't new.

I just think it's funny that you're running around outraged when this political game has been played dozens of times by both sides of the aisle. And the top two bozos that you cheer on so much were leading the charge back when they were Senators and the GOP lame duck was considering nominees.

[pete311]

Oh, Petey... this game isn't new.

I just think it's funny that you're running around outraged when this political game has been played dozens of times by both sides of the aisle. And the top two bozos that you cheer on so much were leading the charge back when they were Senators and the GOP lame duck was considering nominees.

Isn't this the reason people are voting for Trump? They are sick of the game? Unfortunately he's just the boss of a different but equally sinister game.

[NightTrain]

Isn't this the reason people are voting for Trump? They are sick of the game? Unfortunately he's just the boss of a different but equally sinister game.


Now it's Trump's fault that the Senate won't allow Obama's pick? :eek:

[pete311]

Now it's Trump's fault that the Senate won't allow Obama's pick? :eek:

Not sure how you read that from my comment

[Gunny]

Isn't this the reason people are voting for Trump? They are sick of the game? Unfortunately he's just the boss of a different but equally sinister game.

Unfortunately, as a stand alone comment, I can't disagree with this.

[jimnyc]

If this all was the other way around you guys would be screaming your heads off. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. It's your team so it's ok.


Isn't this the reason people are voting for Trump? They are sick of the game? Unfortunately he's just the boss of a different but equally sinister game.

This would be the senate holding things up, not Trump. The president can only nominate.

And yes, I'll GLADLY admit that my hypocrisy is big on this one. In addition to knowing that a right leaning judge will be nominated, it's also awesome to watch the lefties going apeshit over this! :laugh: I would bet both of my testicles that Obama and the loony left would do the EXACT same thing if they could. But the timing is not on their side, tough shit on them.

[pete311]

This would be the senate holding things up, not Trump. The president can only nominate.

Just talking in general

[Gunny]

Y'all can shoot me whenever, but you know who the last President that actually wanted to do the right thing was? Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately, he didn't and still doesn't live in the real world. His Utopian ideals have nothing to do with reality.

The rest are just politicians. Trump panders to the emotions of those that are sick of Obamanomics; yet, don't think clearly enough to put someone with a brain in office. That too is unfortunate considering we don't have any candidates with a brain. The Right, GOP, conservatives ... whatever ... have made this too easy for the left who is holding a losing hand to a pair of deuces. They shouldn't even have a hope.

Trump's not the answer. He's the remedy for a situation -- getting Obama's admin out of DC. He's a product of Chicago politics and most of their mayors and governors are in prison. Go figure. His cronyism needs to go and if that means putting Mr Big Mouth in office, so be it. He's the lesser of the evils.

[jimnyc]

Unfortunately, as a stand alone comment, I can't disagree with this.

I honestly see them as 2 totally different ends of the political field. Yes, folks want change and they're tired of a lot of the crap. But the senate doing what they are allowed to do when it comes to nominating/approving someone - I don't think that was part of the type of things that people are pissed off at.

Now, if the right went in line and gave up within a week, and went against what the constituents wanted - then that would be the type of crap that people are pissed off at.

Let's face the truth, the overwhelming majority of those on the right are going to want a right leaning judge to replace Scalia. It's the senate's job to do whatever is within their means to make that happen, IMO.

[NightTrain]

Not sure how you read that from my comment

People are angry that the GOP hasn't done squat to counter the madness that the progressives are steering us toward at a high rate of speed. We gave them the House. Nothing happened.

We gave them the Senate. Nothing happened.

We've got a horrible President that's running amok, and the checks & balances aren't working and he's pretty much doing anything he damn well pleases. This country is in a much darker place than it was 7 years ago in every category I can think of.

A SCOTUS pick from Obama would be disastrous - and if that were to happen, and the now-runaway SCOTUS began systematically removing every institution we hold dear, starting with the 2nd Amendment, there will be a civil war. Scoff at it if you will, but people are extremely angry and this would spark the uprising.

The system has let us down. There is real anger at the GOP and this is the result.

[Gunny]

This would be the senate holding things up, not Trump. The president can only nominate.

And yes, I'll GLADLY admit that my hypocrisy is big on this one. In addition to knowing that a right leaning judge will be nominated, it's also awesome to watch the lefties going apeshit over this! :laugh: I would bet both of my testicles that Obama and the loony left would do the EXACT same thing if they could. But the timing is not on their side, tough shit on them.

I don't see why it matters, and I don't see Trump as the reason. If the GOP allows Obama to choose another of his loser lefties to the Supreme Court, those Republicans can look for that job at McDonald's come next election. I don't think the GOP has quite got it yet how fed up conservatives are with their BS.

[Kathianne]

People are angry that the GOP hasn't done squat to counter the madness that the progressives are steering us toward at a high rate of speed. We gave them the House. Nothing happened.

We gave them the Senate. Nothing happened.

We've got a horrible President that's running amok, and the checks & balances aren't working and he's pretty much doing anything he damn well pleases. This country is in a much darker place than it was 7 years ago in every category I can think of.

A SCOTUS pick from Obama would be disastrous - and if that were to happen, and the now-runaway SCOTUS began systematically removing every institution we hold dear, starting with the 2nd Amendment, there will be a civil war. Scoff at it if you will, but people are extremely angry and this would spark the uprising.

The system has let us down. There is real anger at the GOP and this is the result.

Very true, Trump is the result, not necessarily the right prescription though.

Anyways on this particular topic whomever is elected Hillary, Trump, someone else...they will get to make the nomination. Then the Senate can Bork them or confirm them...

[pete311]

Now, if the right went in line and gave up within a week, and went against what the constituents wanted - then that would be the type of crap that people are pissed off at.

Let's face the truth, the overwhelming majority of those on the right are going to want a right leaning judge to replace Scalia. It's the senate's job to do whatever is within their means to make that happen, IMO.

True. It's why our gov is dysfunctional. We get the gov we deserve. One big tug of war game. Led by assholes at both ends. When does the rope snap?

[jimnyc]

True. It's why our gov is dysfunctional. We get the gov we deserve. One big tug of war game. Led by assholes at both ends. When does the rope snap?

I think it's snapping right now. Trump being the front runner doesn't mean anything for the long run, but I do think it's showing that folks ARE getting tired of the "usual 2" sticking us where the sun doesn't shine. I think when 2 parties go back and forth for so long, and don't deliver a whole lot to "the people", this is what you see coming out of it.

[pete311]

I think it's snapping right now. Trump being the front runner doesn't mean anything for the long run, but I do think it's showing that folks ARE getting tired of the "usual 2" sticking us where the sun doesn't shine. I think when 2 parties go back and forth for so long, and don't deliver a whole lot to "the people", this is what you see coming out of it.

I agree with you. I just think Trump is a wolf is sheep skin. An opportunist and not the savior.

[jimnyc]

I agree with you. I just think Trump is a wolf is sheep skin. An opportunist and not the savior.

Think as you will, but he's 50,000,000,000,000x better than the option of Hillary in the white house and further swirling us around the bowl.

[Gunny]

True. It's why our gov is dysfunctional. We get the gov we deserve. One big tug of war game. Led by assholes at both ends. When does the rope snap?

And when you refuse to vote because so-n-so ain't who you want? YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE. Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... those of us that DO vote aren't getting shit we deserve. We're getting a bunch of big mouths all full of themselves who won't go and keep the ones we don't want out of office.

[glockmail]

I wouldn't be surprised. I may not be on your team, but I'm also not on theirs. I'm on the team of least federal government. With this current field that means Cruz. Seems to me that you are afraid to state your position, except of course that all Republicans are evil...

[indago]

Ian Schwartz wrote for Real Clear Politics 28 February 2016:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) tells MSNBC's Al Sharpton President Obama needs to nominate an African-American to the Supreme Court to provide a black "voice" that is not there currently.

"...I think to have an African-American voice that has definitely not been there since Thurgood Marshall would really be an incredible contribution to our country."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/28/black_dem_rep_nominate_black_to_supreme_court_clar ence_thomas_does_not_provide_american-american_voice.html)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

When did I say it was illegal or unconstitutional? Democracy works when the senate acts, not sits playing childish games.
No inaction is itself actually acting , or did you miss that in your higher education, advanced liberalism classes?;)
Senate is not doing a damn thing unconstitutional by taking this stand.
Deal with it , without bellyaching.
Its not like the nation is in peril because of it..
You never cried about all those clearly unconstitutional power grabs the obamabastard did. --Tyr

[Kathianne]

No inaction is itself actually acting , or did you miss that in your higher education, advanced liberalism classes?;)
Senate is not doing a damn thing unconstitutional by taking this stand.
Deal with it , without bellyaching.
Its not like the nation is in peril because of it..
You never cried about all those clearly unconstitutional power grabs the obamabastard did. --Tyr
He has every right to bellyache, the rest is spot on. LOL!

[Gunny]

When did I say it was illegal or unconstitutional? Democracy works when the senate acts, not sits playing childish games.

I think I can easily point out where you foisted a line of crap and ridiculed those of us that support and defend the Constitution.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He has every right to bellyache, the rest is spot on. LOL!

lol, I know he does....
Just as we all do my friend. As the government has been shafting all of us, him included.
I am more against systemized government tyranny than I am anti-politician per say, with obama being the lone exception on that.. As I know all politicians are human thus inherently flawed.-Tyr

[glockmail]

Ian Schwartz wrote for Real Clear Politics 28 February 2016:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) tells MSNBC's Al Sharpton President Obama needs to nominate an African-American to the Supreme Court to provide a black "voice" that is not there currently.

"...I think to have an African-American voice that has definitely not been there since Thurgood Marshall would really be an incredible contribution to our country."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/28/black_dem_rep_nominate_black_to_supreme_court_clar ence_thomas_does_not_provide_american-american_voice.html)

Apparently Clarence Thomas isn't black enough.

[Perianne]

Apparently Clarence Thomas isn't black enough.

Race shouldn't matter. Shame on those racists who think so.

[glockmail]

Race shouldn't matter. Shame on those racists who think so. I agree, but it's worse than that. She wants a "black voice", but ignores the fact that Thomas is black.