Scalia Dead

Bob wrote:I nominate Alexander Shunnarah to be Supreme Court Justice.



p.s.  you have to live in the area for this to make any sense

Wordslinger wrote:Good riddance. Thank you Jesus.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Here is what Rafael Eduardo Cruz had to say about it at tonight's GOP debate:

ppaca wrote:Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said. ....

PkrBum wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:Good riddance.  Thank you Jesus.

What an ass. I wish you could experience the ideology you adore.

ppaca wrote:That's exactly what I wondered, natural causes? How do they know this without autopsy?

Was he sick?

Was he involved in a scandal that has come to light in his inner circle and time to take his own life?

Or did he just have a massive heart attack?

Salinsky wrote:If there's any justice in this world, the Repukes' refusal to consider Obama's replacement nominee will burn them badly.

Elections have consequences.

This invention that a President's last year isn't valid is nonsensical bullshit.

RealLindaL wrote:

Salinsky wrote:If there's any justice in this world, the Repukes' refusal to consider Obama's replacement nominee will burn them badly.

Elections have consequences.

This invention that a President's last year isn't valid is nonsensical bullshit.

Hope you're right about the election consequences of yet another bull-headed stall, Sal, but, aside from the presidential race, nothing seems to move the voters toward sweeping changes in their Congressional representation, as much as they complain about it, even to the point of apparently adulating outsiders in the presidential candidacy race (as though that would fix things).  Would that it could be different this year!

Totally agree with your last statement.   I keep hearing the phraseology that "the people have a right to speak" via a presidential election before Scalia's seat is filled.   Excuse me??  "The people" spoke in 2008 and again in 2012, and they didn't say anything about Obama's second term's coming to an effective end before it ends.   He's still the president the PEOPLE elected, and will be until he officially leaves office.    

What's operative here is the Republicans' and conservatives' apparently rather blind conviction that what "the people" want is something entirely different from what popularity polls indicate, based, I suppose, on overwhelming evidence such as the party-line-spouting folks who typically call into conservative talk radio shows.   Or something.  Can't figure that one out myself.

But when the recent national Gallup poll showed Obama as the most respected man in America (and Hillary as the most respected woman), I recall Glenn Beck's asking on air, completely mystified: "Are we that out of touch??"

YES!!!!!!!

But how to convince "the people" to get to the voting booth and completely change the face of our dysfunctional Congress??  

If Obama nominates a moderate such as Sri Srinivasan and McConnell et al refuse to even allow a confirmation vote, it could (it SHOULD) be disastrous for the Republican Party.   From Politico:

"D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan is perhaps the most attractive potential Supreme Court nominee for Obama if the goal is to put pressure on McConnell to allow a Senate confirmation vote. Nominated by Obama in June 2012, Srinivasan was confirmed in May 2013 by a unanimous, 97-0 vote.

"Democrats believe that unambiguous verdict on Srinivasan could make it awkward for McConnell to block a vote on his nomination."

Yet just this morning I saw Rubio on TV stating that, even though he himself had previously supported Srinivasan for the DC Circuit, there would be no vote on ANY candidate for SCOTUS until after the presidential election.  Now come on, people, that is just about as childish as it gets.

And what are they going to do if a Dem is elected president?  Try to "delay delay delay" a Scalia replacement confirmation until the 2020 election??  GET REAL.

ppaca wrote:No doubt he will ignore this:

The Constitution of the United States is at stake.  Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges.  The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.  But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules.  They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.  In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."
"[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote.  I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.'"

Take it from Sen. Mitch McConnell: for the Senate to block a sitting president from nominating a Supreme Court nominee—not just a specific nominee, mind you, but any nominee at all, would put the Constitution of the United States itself at stake. And he's a patriot, so he would never even consider such a thing.