Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?postshare=8791460323985282&tid=ss_fb-bottom

Sorry, reconciliation has no merit here. You can't "Obamacare" us a new SCOTUS member. Eat it with a spoon.

You folks are for anything the Stalinist in Chief wants, aren't you? Do you have enough ammo and food stored for what could be coming with one more of Obama's powergrabs that were akin to his Obamacare fiasco? When it had to be voted on and passed to read it after the fact? That in itself was the worst piece of politics ever in the history of the nation.

People are for Trump because they are fed up. They are tired of the lies, tired of the Constitutional tango and circumvention of the laws, and the haughtiness of the Stalinist in Chief who spends more money on a vacation than some people make in a lifetime of work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/on-election-year-supreme-court-vacancies/

The last time a justice was nominated to the Court in a presidential election year and confirmed by a Senate controlled by the opposing party was 1888, when President Grover Cleveland nominated Justice Melville Fuller to be Chief Justice. Fuller was nominated April 30 and confirmed on July 20 by a vote of 41-20. President Cleveland was a Democrat, and the Senate had a slim 39-37 Republican majority.

What? wrote:Sorry, reconciliation has no merit here. You can't "Obamacare" us a new SCOTUS member. Eat it with a spoon.

100% true but be careful, the Progressives here are going to accuse you of lying and damaging the forum.

It is impossible for a president to appoint someone to the Supreme Court without the approval of the Senate.

Even a recess appointment would expire by the end of this year so would be virtually worthless.

What? wrote:You folks are for anything the Stalinist in Chief wants, aren't you? Do you have enough ammo and food stored for what could be coming with one more of Obama's powergrabs that were akin to his Obamacare fiasco? When it had to be voted on and passed to read it after the fact? That in itself was the worst piece of politics ever in the history of the nation.

People are for Trump because they are fed up. They are tired of the lies, tired of the Constitutional tango and circumvention of the laws, and the haughtiness of the Stalinist in Chief who spends more money on a vacation than some people make in a lifetime of work.

This is one of the great lies of Obamacare. The repubs had every opportunity to read Obamacare. The fact that they say they didn't now only goes to show they were not interested in providing any type of healthcare reform in this country. The people who are for Trump are the people who have been bamboozled by the republican propaganda. They're not smart enough to see the forest for the trees and believe the lies that have been thrown at them.

I would be kind to say the dems have selective memory... when it's obvious that they either have none or it's revision.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/25/lets-recall-why-the-affordable-care-act-is-so-messed-up/

The Democratic leadership, fearful that momentum for Obamacare was fading as it continued to poll poorly, decided to rush a bill through the Senate before Christmas 2009. On November 18, Majority Leader Harry Reid merged two separate pending bills into a bill to be voted on by the Senate…. To meet the self-imposed Christmas deadline, Reid provided only six days for debate [on the final version of the bill]. The Senate bill passed on a strict party line vote, 60-39.

Few people, including Senators and their staffs, had time to read the whole 2,700 page bill, much less note any possible weaknesses, flaws, or ambiguities. Reid and other Senate Democrats weren’t terribly worried about this. The bill was set to go to the House, then back to the Senate, then to “reconciliation” between the House and the Senate versions, and then to the president for his signature. Everyone thought there would be plenty of opportunities to make changes.

But a major impediment arose soon after the Senate bill passed. Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy had died that past summer, and the January special election to replace him was won by Republican Scott Brown, who ran as a strong opponent of Obamacare. This deprived the Democrats of their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and meant that the Senate would not be able to pass a revised bill. The only way to pass Obamacare at this point was to have the House vote on identical legislation to the Senate bill, while engaging in legally dubious procedural maneuvering. And that’s what the Democrats did.

The House passed the Senate bill as is, and then also passed a separate reconciliation bill with minor changes, eliminating some of the law’s most egregious flaws but leaving the rest intact….

Congress ultimately passed a Senate bill that nobody wanted, and, indeed, that likely no one had read in its entirety when the Senate passed it, and that certainly no one fully understood. Senator Max Baucus, one of Obamacare’s chief architects, not only acknowledged not reading the bill, but opined that it would have been a “waste of time” to do so, because only experts could understand it….

Obama and the Democrats, however, believed that two things would happen that would justify their actions. First, Obamacare would become increasingly popular, and, second, that the Democrats would continue to control both houses of Congress. Obama and Congressional Democrats therefore assumed that any snafus that arose because Obamacare consisted of a hastily-drafted Senate bill never meant to become law could be easily fixed by Congress.

Of course, it didn’t work out that way. The ACA has never polled well, and the Republicans took over the House and then the Senate, in part due to dissatisfaction with Obamacare. Since the Republicans have no stake in fixing a law they unanimously opposed, and the Obama Administration has no intention of reopening the legislation to major changes, the Administration has been left with using and abusing executive discretion to delay, ignore, and modify statutory provisions to get the law to work, or just to avoid the negative political consequences of it working as planned.

King v. Burwell represented the best hope that the Supreme Court would take the appropriate posture on all this, which is that those who rush through a law they haven’t even read or understood and with no political support from the other side have to live with the consequences when inevitable mistakes arise. Instead, the majority took the position that its job is to help out the other branches when it turns out that such a law is unworkable as written.

It really does not matter.....the Supreme Court is not going to rule against either side, and their may be a protest soon from the folks in robes, but until then......the reactionary sway of the Supreme Court has come to an end.

Vikingwoman wrote:

What? wrote:You folks are for anything the Stalinist in Chief wants, aren't you? Do you have enough ammo and food stored for what could be coming with one more of Obama's powergrabs that were akin to his Obamacare fiasco? When it had to be voted on and passed to read it after the fact? That in itself was the worst piece of politics ever in the history of the nation.

People are for Trump because they are fed up. They are tired of the lies, tired of the Constitutional tango and circumvention of the laws, and the haughtiness of the Stalinist in Chief who spends more money on a vacation than some people make in a lifetime of work.

This is one of the great lies of Obamacare. The repubs had every opportunity to read Obamacare. The fact that they say they didn't now only goes to show they were not interested in providing any type of healthcare reform in this country. The people who are for Trump are the people who have been bamboozled by the republican propaganda. They're not smart enough to see the forest for the trees and believe the lies that have been thrown at them.

What difference would it make if they read the bill?  No Republican voted for the law and the Democrats had no clue what was in it as was told to us by Nancy Pelosi.

As you know, this is how it was passed....

A CBS poll taken several days AFTER its passage; 62% of voters SUPPORT THE GOP continuing their fight.  Only 33% are opposed to the fight.

One reason is the outrageous tactics used to cram this up our throats.

Here is a partial list of EXACTLY how it was signed into law against the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.  With bribes, payoffs, back room deals, probably blackmail and ALL ON THE TAXPAYERS DOLLAR.

President  Obama, Pelosi and Reid have actually had the audacity to call this the most ETHICAL ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY.  WOW.

Louisiana:  $300 Million in Medicare Subsidies

NV, MT, WY, MD, UT; $2 BILLION in Medicare Subsidies

VT $600 MILLION in Medicaid Subsidies and for MA almost as much

Connecticut $100 MILLION to build a Hospital

11 States: $8.5 BILLION in Medicaid Payments

Michigan, Bart Stupak $726,409 for airports

ALL TAX PAYER MONEY!

All this for a THREE VOTE MARGIN!


By the way...what does this have to do with the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice?