President Trump Thread...

[jsmith6919]

Mitch McConnel actually had the balls to say that the president’s nominee for the Supreme Court should be treated fairly.

 

[Smitty]

Mitch McConnel actually had the balls to say that the president’s nominee for the Supreme Court should be treated fairly.

Try to block and see what happens.

Agreed that the Republicans pulled dirty tricks with Garland, but the trick was that they back pocketed him by not voting. In essence, they were saying, “If Hillary wins, we’ll confirm the moderate Garland. If Trump wins, we reject Garland and then Trump picks the new nominee.”

The timing was shitty. But everyone acting like they owed a confirmation to Garland needs a history lesson on Robert Bork. The Senate was completely within their right to simply reject Garland and every other nominee Obama made, until he either nominated a conservative or until the next President came along.

Like I said, the dirty part about it was that they actually wanted to confirm Garland if Hillary won the election. If she did, they would have voted him in ASAP before she came along to nominate someone more left than Garland.

 

[jsmith6919]

Try to block and see what happens.

Agreed that the Republicans pulled dirty tricks with Garland, but the trick was that they back pocketed him by not voting. In essence, they were saying, “If Hillary wins, we’ll confirm the moderate Garland. If Trump wins, we reject Garland and then Trump picks the new nominee.”

The timing was shitty. But everyone acting like they owed a confirmation to Garland needs a history lesson on Robert Bork. The Senate was completely within their right to simply reject Garland and every other nominee Obama made, until he either nominated a conservative or until the next President came along.

Like I said, the dirty part about it was that they actually wanted to confirm Garland if Hillary won the election. If she did, they would have voted him in ASAP before she came along to nominate someone more left than Garland.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/02/16/chuck-schumer-supreme-court-nomination-president-sot-erin.cnn/video/playlists/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dead/

 

[Smitty]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/02/16/chuck-schumer-supreme-court-nomination-president-sot-erin.cnn/video/playlists/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dead/

What’s your point?

 

[jsmith6919]

10 Times Democrats Vowed To Block Republican Court Nominees
FEBRUARY 16, 2016 By The Federalist Staff
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.) has vowed to block any of lame-duck President Obama’s Supreme Court nominations.

The media have taken to acting as if this move is unprecedented, and that a senator has never publicly stated he would intentionally block a presidential nomination. Not true. Not only have there been several lengthy Supreme Court vacancies, but there are plenty of past instances when senators refused to confirm a president’s nominations.

Here are 10 other times Democrats vowed to block Republican court nominees.

1. Sen Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in 2007 that President George W. Bush shouldn’t get to pick any more Supreme Court justices because Schumer was afraid the bench leaned too far Right. Schumer made this remark a whole 19 months before the next president was inaugurated.

“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said in a speech to the liberal American Constitution Society. “They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

2. His remarks in 2007 weren’t the only time Schumer vowed to stop a Republican nominee. In 2004, he said he would do everything in his power to stop Bush from elevating Charles Pickering to a federal appeals court in 2004.

“I’m prepared to do everything I can to stop the nomination of Justice Pickering,” Schumer said. “We can do a lot better.”

3. Schumer again promised to make the nomination process difficult for President Bush amid a confirmation battle over Carolyn Kuhl, who was nominated as a judge to the Ninth Circuit Court.

In 2004, his office released a statement saying Senate Democrats planned to “hold nominations until the White House commits to stop abusing the advise and consent process.”

The statement was part of Democratic coalition to stop Bush from using his recess appointing powers. The president eventually conceded and promised he would stop appointing judges while Congress was on vacation in exchange for them stopping filibustering.

4. Then-Senator Barack Obama said in 2006 that he supported the Democratic-led filibuster to stop Justice Samuel Alito from making it to the Supreme Court.

There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.

Obama wasn’t the only Democratic senator to oppose Alito’s nomination. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) led an opposition coalition, which attempted to filibuster to block the confirmation process. Kennedy was joined by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who publicly stated they opposed Alito’s confirmation.

“The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds,” Kennedy said.

5. In 1960, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a resolution to block President Eisenhower from being able to make any more recess appointments to the Supreme Court. The resolution stated:

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.

6. Kennedy led a gang of eight senators in 2003 to block Bush nominee Miguel Estrada from rising to the Court of Appeals.

“Instead of looking for candidates who are extreme ideologues, the president should work with the Senate in nominating individuals who have the highest qualifications,” Kennedy said, while taking a victory lap after the Bush administration withdrew Estrada’s nomination.

7. The AFL-CIO union vowed to block then-President Ronald Reagan’s nominee Robert Bork by soiling his public reputation so badly that any Democratic senator who voted in favor of confirming him would have to explain it to his constituents. Kennedy continued this line of rhetoric in a well-known floor speech. He infamously said:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government.

8. Joe Biden wrote the playbook for how to “bork” a Supreme Court nominee, a descriptive verb that now means to publicly pillory a nominee’s reputation to make it politically difficult for senators to vote for them. It’s named, of course, after what Democrats did to Robert Bork.

Then-Senator Biden was the chair of the judiciary committee, and he put together what’s now been deemed a “Biden report,” a document detailing Bork’s judicial history and personal background. The judiciary committee voted against Bork’s confirmation by a vote of 9-5.

9. Democratic groups vowed to “bork” Justice Clarence Thomas, George H.W. Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court. They failed, but the personal attacks on Thomas were brutal.

“We’re going to bork him,” said National Organization for Women’s Flo Kennedy. “We need to kill him politically.”

10. In 2008, Democrats banded together to filibuster Bush’s decision to nominate Priscilla Owen to a federal circuit court.

Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, urged Senate Democrats to “stand up and fight as they have been doing with Miguel Estrada.”

“At this time of global turmoil, we don’t need extremists in the courts willing to make a Dred Scott decision in the area of women’s fundamental rights,” she said.


http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

 

[jsmith6919]

What’s your point?

I'm agreeing with you...

 

[Rock Slamdance]

Whew. Thank goodness his Twitter intern was on top of things.

Yeah the punctuation isn’t all over the place. Definitely not trump.

 

[Cotton]

Of course. But to pretend there are criminals "flooding" across the borders is just not accurate.

There are ways to get tough on immigration and require more vetting without trying to imagine there are death squads marching across the Rio Grande coming to kill us.

It is akin to having a roach problem in the house and the solution is to burn the whole house down.

You either vet or you don't. Who gives a shit what you're imagining?

 

[Cotton]

Whew. Thank goodness his Twitter intern was on top of things.

Trump could cure cancer, and some people (likely you) would bitch because the world is overpopulated.

 

[jsmith6919]

 

[NoDak]

Let’s get another one next year. Or two!

 

[jsmith6919]

 

[fortsbest]

And Hillary lost. That still doesn't stop the right for obsessing about her, even to this day when she should be like every other Presidential candidate who lost.

This is backlash.

It is unlike anything we have ever seen before, but it exists.

See, she and the media just won't let her go away. Like they are praying she'll run and lose again.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-resistance_us_5908cb4de4b0bb2d0872763d

 

[jsmith6919]

"It was just an accidental meeting"

 

[L.T. Fan]

It’s a sad commentary when Supreme Court Justices and their appointments get everyone in a lather. The sad part is that they make laws moreso than Congress. The whole mantle of power and authority for the Republic of the USA has somehow come to rest with a few individuals and how the political persuasions of each can shape the entire countries future on virtually everything that is truly important to most people.

Funny but I grew up thinking that was the job of the President and Congress. The Supreme Court was the leveler for constitutional measures and social fairness via public policy as they reviewed the Congressional measures of law. It really isn’t that way any longer because the chief Justices have allowed themselves to be determined by a political persuasion of either conservative or liberal and they are now pawn pieces to be used in the Congressional and Presidental political agendas. Thus giving the balance of power to the court system rather than the majority of the presidential and congressional elements of the Republic. Silly me.

 

[BipolarFuk]

It is crazy that these people are appointed for life.

We need term limits in all three branches of government. Not just the executive.

 

[Cotton]

It is crazy that these people are appointed for life.

We need term limits in all three branches of government. Not just the executive.

I agree with this 100%.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

It is crazy that these people are appointed for life.

We need term limits in all three branches of government. Not just the executive.

I'm certain you'd say this exact same thing if Hillary had won and appointed a couple of her justices.

 

[bbgun]

If I were a dictator, I'd ban lobbyists/lobbying, but it's protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[bbgun]

I'm certain you'd say this exact same thing if Hillary had won and appointed a couple of her justices.