And the SCOTUS Nomination Goes to ......

Gomezz Adddams wrote:er sacrificial lamb, Merrick Garland, an old white guy. WTF? No first gay, Babylonian cross-eyed woman?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/16/3760727/who-is-merrick-garland/

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:er sacrificial lamb, Merrick Garland, an old white guy. WTF? No first gay, Babylonian cross-eyed woman?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/16/3760727/who-is-merrick-garland/

Let the obstructionism begin.

It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.

You gotta love him when Joe Biden goes full tilt krazy.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.

You gotta love him when Joe Biden goes full tilt krazy.

Biden said that in late June.  Court was within days of being out of session, if not already.  A replacement would not have been nearly as crucial during court recess.  There are some extremely important decisions to be ruled on yet this spring and early summer.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.

You gotta love him when Joe Biden goes full tilt krazy.

Biden said that in late June.  Court was within days of being out of session, if not already.  A replacement would not have been nearly as crucial during court recess.  There are some extremely important decisions to be ruled on yet this spring and early summer.

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.

You gotta love him when Joe Biden goes full tilt krazy.

Biden said that in late June.  Court was within days of being out of session, if not already.  A replacement would not have been nearly as crucial during court recess.  There are some extremely important decisions to be ruled on yet this spring and early summer.

You truly are a moron.  The Supreme Court does not hear any NEW cases in May and June.  Those months are reserved for conferences and the rendering of opinions on cases that were heard earlier in the year.  Therefore a newly confirmed Justice would not be able to participate in any sessions in May and June.  The Supreme Court is in recess during the months of July, August and September with the new session beginning in October.  

That means even if a new Justice was confirmed in a reasonable amount of time, they would not be able to sit on their first case until October.  Toss in the heavy holiday schedule for the months of November and December and a newly confirmed Justice would only hear a very few cases before a new President is sworn in.  It makes no sense not to wait until we have a new President.

As for missing a few cases, that is no big deal.  I forget the exact number but Justice Kagan had to recuse herself from something like 20 cases because of her prior position as Solicitor General and her work in preparing the government’s side of those cases.  Whatever the number, it was almost half the cases during her first session.  You Google nerds can go and look for the exact numbers and while you are at it please find all the liberal outrage over Kagan missing that many cases.

But once again thank you for proving that liberalism is a mental illness and the liberals infected by it are complete morons.  You have once again clearly demonstrated that we must eradicate liberalism from the world if the human race is to survive.

Jackoff Jones wrote: Biden said that in late June.  Court was within days of being out of session, if not already.  A replacement would not have been nearly as crucial during court recess.  There are some extremely important decisions to be ruled on yet this spring and early summer.  

And then Jackoff Jones wrote: How is the court session different from what I said?

And then the moron wrote: As far as participation, what sense does it make to not have the court at full force?  

Jammer wrote:

Jackoff Jones wrote: Biden said that in late June.  Court was within days of being out of session, if not already.  A replacement would not have been nearly as crucial during court recess.  There are some extremely important decisions to be ruled on yet this spring and early summer.  

And then Jackoff Jones wrote: How is the court session different from what I said?

Why do people even get into a discussion with this lying sack of dogshit?  He deflects, distorts, misrepresents and outright lies in every comment he makes.  Just why does a good person have a dialog with an evil person like this?

And then the moron wrote: As far as participation, what sense does it make to not have the court at full force?  

Just what is full force you piece of dogshit?  The number of Justices has varied over the years.  It has at various times been 6, 7, 9 and 10.  After the Civil War it was reduced from 10 to 9.  So does that mean we have been operating at less than a full force for the last 150 years?  Liberals are morons.

Darth Cheney wrote:I thought the Mooch was going to get nominated...
Can you imagine how big that robe would have to be to cover that sasquatch!

Jammer wrote:Over 200 years of history shows that the Supreme Court works with between 6 - 10 Supreme Court Justices.  And what are there today?  8 - right in the MIDDLE of that range.  One would think that should not be too big of a problem.  It certainly should not be an issue to wait a mere few months to give the new President a chance to nominate their choice.  Who knows, it just might be the same person as Obama nominated.

Regardless, there are not many companies or organizations that would go out and hire a new CEO and then have the outgoing CEO designate the people to man the highest levels of office in the organization.  And when the action results in a LIFETIME appointment at such a critical job, no sane organization would let a lame duck CEO make such a high level decision as he is packing his bags.

Only a political hack like Jackoff Jones would suggest that is a reasonable course of action.  But then again, we have seen what this moron thinks is reasonable.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:Over 200 years of history shows that the Supreme Court works with between 6 - 10 Supreme Court Justices.  And what are there today?  8 - right in the MIDDLE of that range.  One would think that should not be too big of a problem.  It certainly should not be an issue to wait a mere few months to give the new President a chance to nominate their choice.  Who knows, it just might be the same person as Obama nominated.

Regardless, there are not many companies or organizations that would go out and hire a new CEO and then have the outgoing CEO designate the people to man the highest levels of office in the organization.  And when the action results in a LIFETIME appointment at such a critical job, no sane organization would let a lame duck CEO make such a high level decision as he is packing his bags.

Only a political hack like Jackoff Jones would suggest that is a reasonable course of action.  But then again, we have seen what this moron thinks is reasonable.

No new "CEO" has been named yet,  and won't be for quite some time.

Regardless, do you think it's a good idea to put all your eggs in Trump's basket?  Are you willing to risk Clinton appointing possibly 3 liberal justices?  Sanders??    It'd be kind of funny to see you screw the pooch from both ends though....obstruct away.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:Over 200 years of history shows that the Supreme Court works with between 6 - 10 Supreme Court Justices.  And what are there today?  8 - right in the MIDDLE of that range.  One would think that should not be too big of a problem.  It certainly should not be an issue to wait a mere few months to give the new President a chance to nominate their choice.  Who knows, it just might be the same person as Obama nominated.

Regardless, there are not many companies or organizations that would go out and hire a new CEO and then have the outgoing CEO designate the people to man the highest levels of office in the organization.  And when the action results in a LIFETIME appointment at such a critical job, no sane organization would let a lame duck CEO make such a high level decision as he is packing his bags.

Only a political hack like Jackoff Jones would suggest that is a reasonable course of action.  But then again, we have seen what this moron thinks is reasonable.

No new "CEO" has been named yet,  and won't be for quite some time.

Regardless, do you think it's a good idea to put all your eggs in Trump's basket?  Are you willing to risk Clinton appointing possibly 3 liberal justices?  Sanders??    It'd be kind of funny to see you screw the pooch from both ends though....obstruct away.

Hay Zeus! Sanders? He's freakin' older than dirt. Why would any President appoint a 75 year old person to that position? Even Garland is considered old for the nomination and he is only 63.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:Over 200 years of history shows that the Supreme Court works with between 6 - 10 Supreme Court Justices.  And what are there today?  8 - right in the MIDDLE of that range.  One would think that should not be too big of a problem.  It certainly should not be an issue to wait a mere few months to give the new President a chance to nominate their choice.  Who knows, it just might be the same person as Obama nominated.

Regardless, there are not many companies or organizations that would go out and hire a new CEO and then have the outgoing CEO designate the people to man the highest levels of office in the organization.  And when the action results in a LIFETIME appointment at such a critical job, no sane organization would let a lame duck CEO make such a high level decision as he is packing his bags.

Only a political hack like Jackoff Jones would suggest that is a reasonable course of action.  But then again, we have seen what this moron thinks is reasonable.

No new "CEO" has been named yet,  and won't be for quite some time.

Regardless, do you think it's a good idea to put all your eggs in Trump's basket?  Are you willing to risk Clinton appointing possibly 3 liberal justices?  Sanders??    It'd be kind of funny to see you screw the pooch from both ends though....obstruct away.

Hay Zeus! Sanders? He's freakin' older than dirt. Why would any President appoint a 75 year old person to that position? Even Garland is considered old for the nomination and he is only 63.

I was actually referring to the fact that Sanders may have an opportunity to appoint a Justice.  Of whom would likely be so far to the left they would make whoever Clinton choose seem like a Tea Party wing nut.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Bolstering "Krazy" Uncle Joe's argument blather about the Senate not acting on a President's SCOTUS nominations is another leading Democrat's view:

“Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances” - Senator Chuck "Chuckles" Schumer

They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream, rather than we have to prove that they are not.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Bolstering "Krazy" Uncle Joe's argument blather about the Senate not acting on a President's SCOTUS nominations is another leading Democrat's view:

“Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances” - Senator Chuck "Chuckles" Schumer

I would like to say that I'm surprised to see that you cherry picked his quote, but that would be a lie.  What were these 'extraordinary circumstances' he was referring to?  


The part you conveniently left out:

They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream, rather than we have to prove that they are not.

Schumer felt that Bush's first two appointments were not properly vetted.  Or more so,  that their ideology drastically changed once they were confirmed and seated.  His point was not that new appointments shouldn't be considered, but that appointees had to prove by their actions that they were mainstream rather than taking their word for it. 


Again,  this is a far cry from the type of flat out obstructionism being dealt by House Republicans today.

Shortie's Ex wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Bolstering "Krazy" Uncle Joe's argument blather about the Senate not acting on a President's SCOTUS nominations is another leading Democrat's view:

“Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances” - Senator Chuck "Chuckles" Schumer

I would like to say that I'm surprised to see that you cherry picked his quote, but that would be a lie.  What were these 'extraordinary circumstances' he was referring to?  


The part you conveniently left out:

They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream, rather than we have to prove that they are not.

Schumer felt that Bush's first two appointments were not properly vetted.  Or more so,  that their ideology drastically changed once they were confirmed and seated.  His point was not that new appointments shouldn't be considered, but that appointees had to prove by their actions that they were mainstream rather than taking their word for it. 


Again,  this is a far cry from the type of flat out obstructionism being dealt by House Republicans today.

About this Schumer was correct ... at least about John Roberts.  Kinda' worked out OK for Sen Schumer in the end.

Dr. Jones wrote:I love how McConnell refrences the NRA like their opinion actually means something. 

McConnell: No lame duck confirmation
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/20/politics/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-donald-trump/index.html

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I love how McConnell refrences the NRA like their opinion actually means something. 

McConnell: No lame duck confirmation
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/20/politics/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-donald-trump/index.html

Your lack of intellect and ability to make connections is worrysome. The NRA represents tens of millions of Americans that fully support the Second Amendment. The commie your boy ,Hussein, nominated has expressed his disdain many time for the Second Amendment. You really are an idiot and I grow tiresome trying to educate you. Maybe you could just post on a liberal website where thought isn't required or even appreciated.