You mean like a Justice Souter?

Or a politician from Reid's state?

Obama is going to pick a nominee based on politics, i.e., the best person the Republicans can reject that will get hillary the maximum votes.

Watch them crash and burn...

well, somebody got to Nevada Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval...



Sandoval bows out of Supreme Court consideration (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiLnYOU-pPLAhVBGGMKHSaDBz0Qu4gBCB4oATAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fpowerpost%2Fwp%2F2016%2F02%2F25%2Fsandoval-bows-out-of-supreme-court-consideration%2F&usg=AFQjCNE9qhK8ba8a3cakFE0viXXF_qp8KQ&sig2=nRJ_2eD_TWwPRAp2iSkzqg)

So why isn't it considered a coup on the right forcing Obama to nominate a conservative?

actually, President Obama is demonstrating that Republicans will obstruct even a conservative nominated to SCOTUS.


leading to the question...why?

If I was Mitch McConnell...I would tell dictator obama...the only way he gets a new justice is...I pick him...you nominate him and we confirm him. Sound like a plan jw?

because its not fascism when democrats do it.

actually, President Obama is demonstrating that Republicans will obstruct even a conservative nominated to SCOTUS.

leading to the question...why?
 
"Conservative" based on liberal principles..ROFLMFAO..
 
Accept the fact that we are now in the "tit for tat" mode, Beside Granny is gonna win in a landslide you'll get your liberal racist judge if you get them past the Republican controlled Senate, the difference here, the Senate isn't afraid of a white woman

I will support any nominee who will give the hag the maximum sentence.

the United States Constitution is quite clear.

it's the obligation of the President to nominate justices for open positions in the court system.


intellectually dishonest conservatives will eventually lose.

It will be a lot easier to get a nominee appointed when Hillary is President and she has the benefit of a Democratic Senate.

When Biden and Obama did it (did they) they had a hearing and voted.  Even some Republicans voted against Bork.  Obama sure didn't.  Two Democrats did. 
The lady Bush nominated with drew her name before she was nominated, some Republicans were happy about that.
Who are you thinking of?

There is a good possibility that there will be another Democrat elected.  I base that on what the RNC debate.  Several Republican senators are up for reelection, from states that voted for Obama. 
mean while Republican Senators should be doing their job, out front and above board.

It is late in this administration to expect Republicans to start doing their job. I agree a shift in the Senate majority is very likely, and with a Hillary Presidency a fair constitutionalist is likely to be nominated and appointed.

The administration and Congressional Republicans were not amused by the Democratic tactic, with the White House noting that 190 nominations were pending in the Senate. “Unfortunately, Congress has once again failed to complete important work that will help the American people,” said Emily A. Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman.

Mr. Reid said he would be willing to consider some of the president’s more contentious nominees as long as the White House moved forward with Democratic choices...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/washington/21recess.html?_r=0

Obama outfoxed himself he married Mossechell thinking she was a woman and could cover his being a homosexual!

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/upload/2ka61ce81694.jpg) THE MAN THE WOMAN THE MOOSECHELL

Obama, Biden and Schumer all called for obstruction, the left is a joke!

Yup, and they want to ignore that even Obama filibustered against Bush replacing a USSC justice while a junior senator in training. 


Obama: "Well, I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly."

 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/11/jon-kyl/obama-criticized-supreme-court-filibuster-alito-ev/

Gonna be kinda hard for Convict Clinton to appoint anyone...from a cell in Alderson, WV.

Dream on son.

Will President Obama Outfox the Republican Senate?

He already has. Our President, Barack H. Obama, has all but assured a Democratic Senate majority, and a Democratic President just by encouraging Republicans to be Republicans, and letting the electorate see what crybaby obstructionists they really are.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/22/3752298/no-joe-biden-didnt-say-that-the-senate-should-block-supreme-court-nominees-during-an-election-year/ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/22/3752298/no-joe-biden-didnt-say-that-the-senate-should-block-supreme-court-nominees-during-an-election-year/)

On Monday, C-SPAN posted (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/22/in-1992-joe-biden-called-for-an-election-year-blockade-of-supreme-court-nominations/?postshare=9171456170351060&tid=ss_tw) a two-minute clip of then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) urging President George H.W. Bush not to nominate a Supreme Court Justice during the 1992 election, should a seat on the court become vacant. Biden, then the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urged Bush “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” noting that if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
Conservatives quickly pounced (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI9J4a8IcAo&feature=youtube.com/v) on the clip and used it as evidence to argue that Congressional Republicans are following long-standing precedent in refusing to consider President Obama’s nomination to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia until a new president takes the oath in January of 2017.
But Biden’s full speech undermines their claim. Rather than urging his colleagues to deny Bush’s potential nominee a hearing, Biden was bemoaning the politicization of the confirmation process — hence his suggestion of not holding a hearing in the heat of a presidential election — and what he saw as Bush’s refusal to properly consult with the Senate in selecting a nominee. In fact, just 10 minutes after calling for temporary inaction on Bush’s candidate, Biden actually promised to consider a moderate Supreme Court nominee.
“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,” he said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

Biden made his remarks in the context of reforming the entire judicial confirmation process (http://www.c-span.org/video/?26768-1/senate-session), which, he claimed, had been marred by Justice Clarence Thomas’ contentious confirmation hearings.
As Chairman, Biden repeatedly confirmed Bush’s judicial nominees (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34615.pdf) during the 1992 election season. In the second session of the 102nd Congress, “the Senate confirmed more nominees, 11, to the courts of appeals that year than in any other presidential election year in United States history,” holding hearings “on district court nominees every month from January to September; court of appeals nominees received hearings in every month from February to September.”

Update Feb. 22, 2016:
Biden's office has released the following statement: "Nearly a quarter century ago, in June 1992, I gave a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about a hypothetical vacancy on the Supreme Court. Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject. Indeed, as I conclude in the same statement critics are pointing to today, urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended. That remains my position today."

Obama filibustered against Bush replacing a USSC justice while a junior senator in training. 


Oops...

Link?

wmd,
link to what...obama fillibustering a Bush Supreme Court nominee?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oss4niVEyVw

https://www.youtube.com/v/0BazcDd-yG8

do any of the aesopsretreat conservatives, right-wingers, tea party, republicans remember:



George W. Bush actually nominated Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court?



Can you tell us how well that was received?

jw,

She is not sitting on the Court...so obviously not well. But She would not have been the guaranteed predictable votes on major cases the two totally unqualified gals, dictator obama placed on the Court.

Unqualified in your opinion.

Unqualified by all parameters

In your opinion.

Posted by: wmdn_bs                  

Link?




Take your choice...


https://www.bing.com/search?q=obama+filibustered+against+alito&form=EDGHPC&qs=PF&cvid=3f2c6abe35154a038721fb4b17305c79&pq=obama%20filibustered%20against%20alito

Sandoval says he's not interested.

I know... I looked it up.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regrets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee

Obama filibustered against Bush replacing a USSC justice while a junior senator in training. 

So did many other Democrats.

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/smileys/YahooIM/24.gif)  junior senator in training

You can only filibuster if there is a vote on the floor.  You know whom you are filibustering against and it has already left committee hearing. 
They sure did know who they were filibustering against and the reason why.
Can you name the USSC justice that Obama did this to?   

That is far different than not allowing any action on any nominee. 

don,
How about this article?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/17/obama-now-regrets-his-2006-alito-filibuster-white-house-says/80514152/

I noticed that Alito was voted in by a majority Democrat Senate.  After same speeches on the floor objecting to him or say why they didn't support him.
You really believe that is the same as not doing your job at all, with out know who Obama will nominate.
  Leaving the seat empty.
 Very different than not holding any hearings, or flooring any vote, which the Senate has the Constitutional duty to do.
There is no guarantee that a Republican will be President in 2017, or the Republicans will still be a majority in the Senate. 
I did post where DOW did settle a class action against them, because they couldn't win in court and might lose.

.
Tell Obama don't nominate a republican for Supreme Court to please the republicans. Let Hillary nominate a real liberal next year.






.

I doubt he will nominate a tea partiers. He will nominate a constitutionalist, as he should, and as Democratic Presidents have in the past.

WASHINGTON — President Obama has come to regret his decade-old filibuster of Justice Samuel Alito, the White House said Wednesday.

The Alito nomination has become one of many historical footnotes that have taken on new relevance.  At the time, Obama told ABC News that the court needed to "provide some check on the executive branch, and he [Alito] has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly."

The issue of Obama's 2006 opposition to Bush's last Supreme Court nominee has re-emerged in the wake of Obama's intent to nominate a justice to replace the conservative Scalia.

The White House would not rule in or out any candidate for the nomination, except one: Obama himself.

"He envisions something different for himself once he leaves the presidency," Earnest said. "So I haven't asked him that direct question, but I think all the available evidence indicates that that option is highly unlikely."





With the tables turned, Obama now 'regrets' his 2006 Alito filibuster

(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/dd8b1baf67130a1edc52e1868cb7f1ece5f42a54/r=26&c=26x26/local/-/media/USATODAY/staff/images/writer_congress-Korte_Greggory.png) Gregory Korte, USA TODAY

Let’s look at Barack Obama’s response when a reporter actually did his job, and questioned him on his filibuster of Justice Alito:

https://youtube.com/v/CEHdSMxlec0


Here’s the text, now read it carefully. Some of you will get it, the slower kids won’t:

“This has become one more extension of politics. And, there are times where folks are in the senate and they’re thinking as I just described, primarily about is this going to cause me problems in a primary, is it going to cause me problems with uh, supporters of mine, so people take strategic positions.”


This is precisely the reason why we do not nominate, hold hearings and have confirmation votes for a supreme court justice in an election year. Obama explained it perfectly.

Obama has nothing but contempt for the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the American people!

A person expressing such contempt should ever be allowed to appoint any judge!

(http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/PastedGraphic-24-1024x853.jpg)

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/05/cartoon-land-of-the-free/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=saturday&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonu63Id%2B%2FhmjTEU5z16u8rWK%2Bwh4kz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcdjM7DYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D

Only contempt for the constitution here is from those that support, people not allowing the Constitution to functions. 

As for your cartoon, Congress has as much responsibility as the President for debt.
Congress has been too busy making America fail, so Obama will fail to do much debt paying.

It seems to me that the R's can BORK any nominee from Obama. All they have to do is stay united.

Obama made it clear he will veto any legislation that makes any cuts to government other than gutting the military!

The Republicans didn't offer any spending cuts, they tried to increase defense spending, without paying for it.
The government pays for things with taxes, even the debt is paid with tax money.


None of which was contempt of the Constitution..

Wrong, Republicans routinely passed spending cuts in the House but Harry Reid when he was majority leader refused to allow a vote!

Now Obama refuses to pass any cuts in spending!

The government pays its bills via taxes and printing money otherwise known as inflating the money supply!

That is why our debt has grown astronomically under Obama!

Obama has had lower deficit budgets than Bush ever had. 
With no help at all from the Republicans.

That is because he hides his spending via inflating the currency!

Oh lord!

So you're Saying Republicans insisted on spending more than Obama wanted?  Obama wanted to cut government spending?  Not the Republicans?
It was really Obama who wanted to defund PlannedParenthood?

Are you for real?  Why didn't Obama veto the budget if he thought it spent too much?

What budget? 
He didn't get a budget, he got extensions of the Bush budget.  Even TARP was a Bush requested law, the Democrats did say no because Bush said it.  Biggest deficit budget was 2009.  Bush signed it, budget year is from  Oct to Oct. 
Defunding PP will cost the government money.  All those services would go to ERs, often too late to help the women.  They spent no government money on abortions. 
Hell Trump even said that the other night in the debate.  Then said he'd defund them anyway.
Defunding PP would not make a dent in the deficit.
 
We are never going to have a balanced budget or reduce the debt with out raising taxes.  The reason we got in so deep was tax cuts with out spending cuts.

I find it amusing that Obama regrets doing the filibuster against Alito because  now the R's want to do the same so he cannot lecture us on the evil R's doing the same.

$1.3 Trillion - 2011               
The second biggest budget deficit in U.S. history was $1,295,600,000,000 and occurred during Obama's presidency.                     

$1.3 Trillion - 2010               
The third largest budget deficit is $1,293,500,000,000 and came during Obama's presidency.

$1.1 Trillion - 2012

The fourth biggest budget deficit was $1,089,400,000,000 and occurred during Obama's presidency.

...

WASHINGTON -- The federal budget deficit tripled to a record $1.4 trillion for the 2009 fiscal year that ended last week, congressional analysts said Wednesday.

The Congressional Budget Office estimate, while expected, is bad news for the White House and its allies in Congress as they press ahead with health care overhaul legislation that could cost $900 billion over the next decade.

The unprecedented flood of red ink flows from several factors, including a big drop in tax revenues due to the recession, $245 billion in emergency spending on the Wall Street bailout and the takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then there is almost $200 billion in costs from President Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as increases in programs such as unemployment benefits and food stamps.

The previous record deficit was $459 billion and was set just last year.

The Obama health plan would be "paid for" with new revenues and curbs in spending. But the overhaul effort would eat up tax increases and spending cuts that could be used to bring the deficit down.

Published October 07, 2009

Don, are you saying Obama didn't vote for TARP?  Are you saying Bush was president in February 2009 when the democrat confess and democrat president passed the Stimulus bill?  Are you saying Obama wants to spend LESS than what the Republicans want?  Seriously?

Don, what emergency medical services does planned parenthood perform?  Are you saying the government subsidizes abortion?

I would order a full gyno exam for Daniel...from the wealth of his many posts, it's clear anchoragedan is a big slang term for vagina.

Maybe you're just going through menopause, johniel ... (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

Yes he most likely did voted for TARP.  Democrats tried to work with the President. They voted for most of the things he ask for.  Only spending bill Bush vetoed was the increase in Medicaid for children, and that veto was overridden, Democrats didn't have 2/3 majority in either house.

They do lots of screening that if ignored might lead to an emergency room visit.
The biggest emergency thing they do is testing and treating sexual transmuted disease.  With out that it would spread and if untreated it sure could end up in the ER. 
I'll bet they also do a much better job at interviewing the patient and finding out who her sex partners are or have been.
They do much more prenatal care and advice than you're going to get in the ER too.
I know a MD that did his internship in Fresno General, delivering babies.  He sure wished the women the came to the ER had had some prenatal care. 

He did in fact vote for TARP.


We're talking about Obama, not Bush.

That's fine.  But it's the ABORTION funding most folks have a problem with.  If Planned Parenthood eliminated their abortion services, most people would support it's funding.

Government funding is not applied to abortions, but then you already knew that.

 Not true!

As government funding is fungible and any such funding enables Planned Parenthood to divert more funds from other sources to abortion!

Liberals love engaging subterfuge!

Seems they cannot be honest with anyone including themselves!

I understand that anchoragedaniel is a competitive athlete (who regularly gets whipped by his spouse)and is an example of health...and since he's childless, I have to suspect that his spouse either doesn't engage in sex with anchoragedaniel, that anchoragedaniel is impotent, or they use some form of birth control.


wondering which one applies.  suspecting the obvious.

Government funding is not applied to abortions, but then you already knew that.

Not true!

As government funding is fungible and any such funding enables Planned Parenthood to divert more funds from other sources to abortion!

Liberals love engaging subterfuge!

Seems they cannot be honest with anyone including themselves!

the fungible argument is a false conveyance.    fact.


anchoragedaniel being childless for some reason...is a fact.

Not true!

As government funding is fungible and any such funding enables Planned Parenthood to divert more funds from other sources to abortion!

Liberals love engaging subterfuge!

Seems they cannot be honest with anyone including themselves!

I was pointing out the difference in how the Democrats supported Bush on many things, to illustrate the Republican attitude towards Obama.

PP is an nonprofit and has lots of money donated to it.  Even some from other nonprofits.  Much of the non abortion work is paid for out of PP's money.
Abortion is a very small part of what they do.
What they do in the way of providing birth control and education prevents a lot of abortions. 
It will cost the local, state and federal governments more money in the long run if PP is killed. 
Woman that want an abortion will find another way to get it, or go back to using coat hangers, etc. 

Don, there are lots of other health clinics people can go to.  PP is not the only option.  People will get along oust tine without it.

And D2D is correct.  Money is fungible.  Money they get in one hand means they don't need to raise as much money in the other hand.

I understand johniel is a convicted child rapist.  That would explain his warped mind.

Don, the democrats bated Bush.  Even when he gave them everything they wanted (massive government spending), they still bated him.

Dan,

If Democrats wanted Bush to fail they would have opposed him in every way.  They didn't.
Repeating that hate crap doesn't make it so. 
I've been posting here or on Excite for years, I never called Bush anything , but his, name initials, or title.  Fact is I kinda of blame the people around him for more things than I blame him.

Go check the historical record an see which Presidents increases spending the most.  It is just another thin ghat has been repeated to you adnasum and you whose to believe it.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

Take a look at which Presidents spent the most.
Obama also cut taxes,  the payroll tax "holiday" was a stupid thing to do.  But it was a economis stimulus directed at the working poor. 


If Democrats wanted Bush to fail they would have opposed him in every way.  They didn't. Repeating that hate crap doesn't make it so. 
I've been posting here or on Excite for years, I never called Bush anything , but his, name initials, or title.  Fact is I kinda of blame the people around him for more things than I blame him.

Don, the dems did hate Bush despite his liberal policies.  I expressed my frustration many times about that.

Which "Dems" are you referring to.  Some fringe people?
Some posters on the interned hiding behind a made up name? 
I've never call Bush anything but his name, initials, or title. 
What liberal policies?

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer.  Those were leaders in the democrat party.  The fringe is in control of the democrat party.


Massive increase in education spending
Expansion of Medicare (prescription drug benefit)
Affirmative Action
McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform
AIDS funding in Africa
Transportation bill
Energy bill
Amnesty for illegal aliens

I would say I agreed with only about a third of Bush's policies.

 Are you serious?

Democrats opposed Bush from day one and wouldn't even bring nominations to a vote!

There was only one time democrats "sided" with Bush and that was only after public opinion shamed them into doing so!

Democrats hated Bush so much they sabotaged the war on terror!

JW is in reality a liberal coward, he is willing to run rather than fight for this nation, therefore he may talk a good game, but it is all talk.

He and Obama love wealth redistribution.  But want to take it from those who earned it, to give it to those who have done nothing but hold out their empty hands,

A good question may be:  Why are their hands always empty?

calling someone a coward from anonymity is the very essence of cowardice

I call him a coward from his statements.  he said " he would leave the country BEFORE he would ever allow one of his children to wear the uniform of our country."

Now as a WWII vet, you must understand WHY I call him a coward.

This country will not last long if those who are part of it are NOT WILLIMG TO DEFEND IT. 

conscientious objecters were a great asset during ww2

many of them died on the battlefield as medics

YEAH... but they were WILLING to enlist or serve.  JW WILL RUN.

Dan, at no time did any of those people "HATE Bush.
The first thing he did was cut taxes, and many stupid Democrats signed on to that. 

You need to explain to me how the were shamed into voting for Bush's ideas.
You also need to explain to me how the voted for "war" in Iraq.  Lots of your side of the spectrum posting here have made that claim for years.

You idea of what is "liberal" is very far from mine. Medicare part D for instance.  That big donut hole, and no one could negotiate with drug companies for lower prices.  It did a lot to make drug companies wealthier and drug prices higher.  It didn't work well until ACA cleaned it up.  My Health insurance provider told me not to sign up for it, and if I did I would lose their coverage and much better proscription med program  I am now signed up for it and they pay my costs, thanks Obamacare!

Some of those things didn't happen.  Bush cut aids funding.  He even stopped supplying condoms to nations and Americans, that were giving they away free.  Which was the most effective thing going at the time.  Just a little concession his anti birth control supporters.

Their rhetoric sure as hell indicated it.


And the second thing he did was push Ted Kennedy's massive increase in education spending.


They weren't.  Other than the tax cut, they happily voted for Bush's liberal agenda.  And for the tax cut, Bush had to compromise by reducing the tax cut, and he had to offer the Child tax credit in order to get the dems to support it.


How the voted for war ... what?


What claim?


That's the problem with liberal ideas.  They never do what they are advertised to do.  And in most cases, they have unintended consequences.  Massive expansion of a government program is certainly NOT a conservative idea.


Ummm, the OCA is a disaster.  It didn't clean anything up.  It made everything worse.


You mean thanks to the taxpayers.  We are the ones subsidizing you.  How is your deductible?  How is the quality of your health care?  How is the availability of your care?


Bush INCREASD AIDS funding by $1 billion.


Sorry, the facts are what they are.  Bush increased AIDS funding.  Bush increased STEM CELL research.  Bush increased spending on Medicare, Social Security, Education, Energy, and Transportation.

Bush was the liberals' dream come true on domestic spending.  But he got no credit from them.  I thought that was shameful and dishonest of them.

Daniel is an anti-government secessionist.

Democrats opposed Bush from day one and wouldn't even bring nominations to a vote!

There was only one time democrats "sided" with Bush and that was only after public opinion shamed them into doing so!

Democrats hated Bush so much they sabotaged the war on terror!

President Obama's short list for his replacement

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/obama-shortlist-new-supreme-court-justice-article-1.2530851 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/obama-shortlist-new-supreme-court-justice-article-1.2530851)

Trump will end up replacing Scalia on the Bench not that many conservatives are happy about that but Obama is out.

Democrats have worked long and hard to sow the seeds of division we are experiencing today!

They deserve all the misery they get!

Democrats have no honor and speak nothing but lies!

Obama must realize he has no GAYS on the court.  Perhaps he will nominate Scott Free.

Bahahahahahahahahahh

Obama`s nominee will not be a 12 year old so that leaves out kensa and byte....and most of the people here.

gays?  you mean kenyan and anchordan should be considered for SCOTUS?

I HAVE NO DESIRE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE COURT, I am dedicated to my life's work of exposing liberals as idiots.

That hasn't been working out very well for you Kensan. Maybe you should seek another avenue for your life's work.

Who ever Obama nominates it will be a person of the far left with very radical views!

Three More Judges Said to Be Vetted for Supreme Court

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/05/us/politics/three-more-judges-said-to-be-vetted-for-supreme-court.html?_r=0

(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/03/05/us/05COURT2/05COURT2-master675.jpg)

See what I mean?

Johniel is a homosexual.  That's why he doesn't have any children.

Actually, I do not know if he is queer or not... But he is definitely a cowardly no class ass.

youse two protest too much.  a sure sign one is hiding homosexuality.

Jw2 will say anything to distract from the issue at hand!

Johniel reaffirms his homosexuality.

.
Obama will nominate his new Supreme Court Justice by "EXCUTIVE ORDER".





.

Obama Supreme Court candidate finalists: Paul Watford, Sri Sriniva, Merrick Garland (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKiOGKqcDLAhWhsIMKHci_BLwQqQIIHSgAMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2016%2Fmar%2F13%2Fobama-supreme-court-candidates-paul-watford-sri-sr%2F&usg=AFQjCNFlvBbDaNanJ7AKfflrXn0thgd7Bg&sig2=FO698VxxYxsaC_qS3J7kMQ)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/13/obama-supreme-court-candidates-paul-watford-sri-sr/


expecting announcement later today.


Republicans already got their pink panties tied up in a knot.

Nobody cares!

Democrats arrogantly made their bed and now they must lay in it!

Jim, is'nt it time for this thread to go By-By?

Senator Grassley is the R in charge of the Supreme Court senate committee that decides if they will bring a candidate up for a vote in the senate.... As it currently stands they make the decision as to whom will emerge as the official nominee if they CHOOSE to bring it before the senate for a vote.

They do not have to bring it before the whole senate to vote at this time.  Obama has picked choices that were confirmed by the whole senate on a 93-0 for their current positions.

Of course he will put pressure on some senators (who are up for re-election) and attempt to get them to urge that the senate take these nominees up for a vote.

The selected Judge can tilt the court into a leftist position if he is appointed....And no one with a brain wishes to see that happen to this great nation.

Obama's Nuclear Option

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/06/obama-s-nuclear-option-for-the-supreme-court-order-the-senate-back-into-session.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/06/obama-s-nuclear-option-for-the-supreme-court-order-the-senate-back-into-session.html)

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the president “may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.”Based on past cases, what counts as an ‘extraordinary Occasion’ is almost entirely up to the president.

“It appears that it is within the president’s unchecked discretion,” According to the redoubtable Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/judge-garland-and-the-senate-if-not-now-maybe-later/), Given that broad leeway, it’s easy to see how a prolonged period of an eight-person Supreme Court could count as “extraordinary.”

Grassley is violating his constitutional responsibility as is the entire republican caucus in that matter.

The Constitution states:
He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

It says that the PRESIDENT shall nominate candidates.  It is the presidents constitutional duty to do so.

It also says that the SENATE SHALL give Advice and Consent and APPOINT the nominee to the office.  It doesn't say that the senate can not bother to act, or can ignore it and hope it goes away, or to table the nominations until upcoming election cycles.  It is their JOB to provide Advice and Consent, which they are clearly not doing.  Once again the GOP demonstrates that they don't care about the Constitution except perhaps for a part of the second amendment!

Keep left, As most liberals are... you have a tendency to forget truth and facts if it is NOT in your favor. It wasn't all that long ago that R's were in the WH and a nominee was needed.

 You D's were against the idea of appointing anyone in the last year of a presidential term.

I know R's are basically more honest than libs... So they will attempt to be as honorable as the D's have been.

Don't expect this guy to get a hearing or a vote anytime soon.  He is a sacrificial goat anyhow, Obama knows the R's will never endorse this guy. And Obama believes that Hillary is going to win and it will be just like Obama serving another 4 year term, so he is waiting for Hillary to appoint someone a lot further to the left.

Uncle Joe Biden is the guy who made that statement about Bush nominating a justice in his last year as POTUS. 

Now Uncle Joe said it was a HYPOTHETICAL speech. 

Imagine that, a Democrat lying. 

Hillary will win, and she will nominate someone, possibly further to the left. But if you guys want to wait for that, it's fine with me. With a Democratic Senate, which is all but assured, there will be no problem with confirmation.

Factually bs... Your statement is unfortunately acceptable as true.  That certainly DOES NOT mean it is true or factual; but that it currently  the best info available.

I (AS OTHERS AGREE) believe that we have to accept the other info available as the best we have to submit.
 

PLEASE OPEN yOUR MINDS AS WELL AS YOUR INTELLIGENCE LEVEL AND TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AT YOUR STAND.   iT CANNOT HOLD WATER OR SUBSTANCE FOR FURTHER DEBATE/