Hannity Gets It - Warns Rs against caving on Sup Ct. Justice

jem · Feb 16, 2016

it did work out well. just like with the sequester we saw how much of the govt was not needed. the Rs worked with Obama and Reid to try and make it as overtly oppressive as possible. spending extra to close parks and monuments... Then they created an NBC news poll to act like it was a problem and then immediately cave.

It was a big joke.

by the way did you see that Boehner tried to get Scalia off the court years ago by trying to get him to run for VP with dole.

Ricter said:
No harm in trying, the government shutdown worked out well for you.

gwb-trading · Feb 16, 2016

Spike Trader · Feb 16, 2016

Ricter said:
No harm in trying, the government shutdown worked out well for you.

Johnson is folding already.

Johnson was a bit more defensive about his comments during a radio interview Tuesday on "The Jerry Bader Show," trying to justify blocking a nominee and saying he'd be open to voting on someone.

"Maybe I haven't quite heard exactly what Leader McConnell or Sen. Grassley has said, but ... from what I've heard and what I've also said is, our advice is that ... when the American people are going to be deciding the direction of the country, we should let them decide the direction of the Supreme Court as well," he said.

"I've never said that I wouldn't vote, or that we shouldn't vote. ... I have no idea how the process plays out, I'm not in control of it. I'm not the majority leader, I'm not chairman of the Judiciary. By the time I would actually take the vote, if it comes to that, I'll take a vote," he added.

piezoe · Feb 16, 2016

Why is this even an issue? The constitution is clear . It's Obama duty to nominate a successor. It is the Senate's duty to approve or disapprove. If the Senate refuses to consider the President's nominee, the democrats will make the establishment Republicans look like jerks. All the Republicans have to do is vote the nominee down after giving the appearance of a fair hearing. But if the President nominates someone who is obviously very well qualified, a "moderate", and someone Senate Republicans could live with if they had to, they'd be taking a big chance not to confirm. The way things are going for them right now it looks as though they could easily lose both the White House and control of the Senate.

Snarkhund · Feb 16, 2016

piezoe said:
Why is this even an issue? The constitution is clear . It's Obama duty to nominate a successor. It is the Senate's duty to approve or disapprove. If the Senate refuses to consider the President's nominee, the democrats will make the establishment Republicans look like jerks. All the Republicans have to do is vote the nominee down after giving the appearance of a fair hearing. But if the President nominates someone who is obviously very well qualified, a "moderate", and someone Senate Republicans could live with if they had to, they'd be taking a big chance not to confirm. The way things are going for them right now it looks as though they could easily lose both the White House and control of the Senate.

It could tee up the replacement nomination for Hillary Clinton to make but anything is better than an appointment by Barrack Obama.

I think the Republicans could certainly lose the Senate. It is completely fair to say that Republican leadership of the House and Senate has been a miserable failure and a freakshow of limp-wristed weakness. As I've said, its something I've never seen before and I find it impossible to envisage a circumstance where I would ever vote for an establishment republican again.

Its Trump... or its Bernie... and either one of them will tear down this corrupt edifice called the federal government and lay waste to their own party for opposing them. If you voted for Obama you own what is about to occur. You built that.

wjk · Feb 16, 2016

piezoe said:
But if the President nominates someone who is obviously very well qualified, a "moderate", and someone Senate Republicans could live with if they had to, they'd be taking a big chance not to confirm.

O: "I have a pen and a phone." "If congress won't act, I will"...and so on.

Fuck any republican who want's to even give this guy's choice a chance.

Listen to O's comments about Alito in 05 or 06 regarding SCOTUS.

CaptainObvious · Feb 17, 2016

piezoe said:
Why is this even an issue? The constitution is clear . It's Obama duty to nominate a successor. It is the Senate's duty to approve or disapprove. If the Senate refuses to consider the President's nominee, the democrats will make the establishment Republicans look like jerks. All the Republicans have to do is vote the nominee down after giving the appearance of a fair hearing. But if the President nominates someone who is obviously very well qualified, a "moderate", and someone Senate Republicans could live with if they had to, they'd be taking a big chance not to confirm. The way things are going for them right now it looks as though they could easily lose both the White House and control of the Senate.

I agree, with moderate being the operative word of course. Qualified isn't that high of a hurdle to jump. Someone who doesn't have a political axe to grind will be the challenge. The issue does need to be addressed and a vote taken. Let them, republicans, make their argument publicly. If it's sound, the people will respond accordingly. If it's not...

Arnie · Feb 17, 2016

Obama has at least 2 cases pending before the SCOTUS. His nomination will undoubtedly affect those decisisions. That's not even up for debate. Should he really be allowed to nominate someone that will be deciding these cases? Did Reagan have pending cases when he made his nomination the final year of his presidency? I don't think this is as clear cut as either side is trying to make it.

Scataphagos · Feb 17, 2016

wjk said:
O: "I have a pen and a phone." "If congress won't act, I will"...and so on.

Fuck any republican who want's to even give this guy's choice a chance.

Listen to O's comments about Alito in 05 or 06 regarding SCOTUS.

Seems Odumbo might want to nominate Loretta Lynch... the current AJ.

That would be tragic, as she HATES The 1st Amendment. (Once the 1st falls, everything else will soon be coming behind.)

wjk · Feb 17, 2016

CaptainObvious said:
The issue does need to be addressed and a vote taken. Let them, republicans, make their argument publicly. If it's sound, the people will respond accordingly. If it's not...

Obama has had a political axe to grind since day one. He has gone around congress on too many occasions to count. He has placed two left wingers on the court already. Are they considered moderate? By whom? How do you think they will vote when the 2nd comes before a 5/4 left wing SCOTUS, and it will. Certainly Obama will not nominate a pro 2nd individual.

I agree with you regarding allowing the people to respond accordingly, but let the people decide if they want a left wing court by their choice of prez. They can elect a dem and toss out the current majority if that's what they want. The importance of this vacancy can't be overstated. The only moderates on the court now aren't from the liberal side. I don't believe it would be any different with a replacement for Scalia, regardless of the words of the nominee. And quite honestly, republicans can't be trusted. They will follow the money, and lie accordingly to do so, or in many of their sorry cases, go along just to get along.

Regardless, Grassley has already said that he will consider it depending on the nominee.