Scalia

[chuckjames]

Because it's not worth it

You're probably right. Altho it would be worth it for me personally just for the meltdown the right would have if he did it.

[slobber]

From my moderate position, it seems that the left is slightly more meltdowny at this point than the right. I can't figure out why. If I were left leaning, I'd save everything until after the right did something stupid. I think a few people on the right are just laying the groundwork now so when they do something stupid, it won't be a surprise.
Obama, pick a good nominee and let the chips fall where they may.


Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)

[chuckjames]

From my moderate position, it seems that the left is slightly more meltdowny at this point than the right. I can't figure out why. If I were left leaning, I'd save everything until after the right did something stupid. I think a few people on the right are just laying the groundwork now so when they do something stupid, it won't be a surprise.
Obama, pick a good nominee and let the chips fall where they may.


Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)

For sure, I know I kinda am a little meltdowny Bc I sense I chance to flip the SC, which I never thought would be possible.

[star seed 7]

From my moderate position, it seems that the left is slightly more meltdowny at this point than the right. I can't figure out why. If I were left leaning, I'd save everything until after the right did something stupid. I think a few people on the right are just laying the groundwork now so when they do something stupid, it won't be a surprise.
Obama, pick a good nominee and let the chips fall where they may.


Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)

Dunno if you pass the moderate test

[sonofdaxjones]

Mitch McConnell Double LOL!!

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I love it when idiots get a hold of stuff like this

https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272

For Dax.

That probably was true in the 1970(note the difference between Law Review and Law Journal, that being the former is a technical analysis of the law, and the latter being a piece on what the law "ought" to be). Then the left got all virulent and partisan against Nixon, and then off the rails ideological against Bork.

Per usual, the left has its own set of rules and will lie, mislead, obfuscate and generally throw a tantrum if anyone tries to use their rules against them. 

[star seed 7]

I think bork fits in ol' mitch's rejection framework

[renocat]

Boys this is war.  No mussy minded moderate crap.  Obama doesn't deserve to name a warthog let alone a supreme court legislator, oops judge.  If the nation chooses MG, let her picem.

[chuckjames]

I love it when idiots get a hold of stuff like this

https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272

For Dax.

That probably was true in the 1970(note the difference between Law Review and Law Journal, that being the former is a technical analysis of the law, and the latter being a piece on what the law "ought" to be). Then the left got all virulent and partisan against Nixon, and then off the rails ideological against Bork.

Per usual, the left has its own set of rules and will lie, mislead, obfuscate and generally throw a tantrum if anyone tries to use their rules against them.

My favorite part of this post is FSD making Nixon out to be innocent, and a victim of the vast left wing conspiracy.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

 

Rough day for chuck.

[ednksu]

I love it when idiots get a hold of stuff like this

https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272

For Dax.

That probably was true in the 1970(note the difference between Law Review and Law Journal, that being the former is a technical analysis of the law, and the latter being a piece on what the law "ought" to be). Then the left got all virulent and partisan against Nixon, and then off the rails ideological against Bork.

Per usual, the left has its own set of rules and will lie, mislead, obfuscate and generally throw a tantrum if anyone tries to use their rules against them.

My favorite part of this post is FSD making Nixon out to be innocent, and a victim of the vast left wing conspiracy.

those left wingers and their sedition charges.....what about all the good things Nixon did.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The naughty stuff Nixon did happened after his appointments were axed, fellas

[sys]

If I'm a conservative, I'm looking at worst case scenario.

Would I rather have a SCJ nominated by Obama, or by Bernie Sanders?

a 'pub congress looking out for its ideological interest would use their leverage to get obama to nominate a moderate and then approve him/her.  they won't do that, though, because 1/3 of them are coming up for reelection soon and no one wants to be the next eric cantor.

[DQ12]

I love it when idiots get a hold of stuff like this

https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272

For Dax.

That probably was true in the 1970(note the difference between Law Review and Law Journal, that being the former is a technical analysis of the law, and the latter being a piece on what the law "ought" to be). Then the left got all virulent and partisan against Nixon, and then off the rails ideological against Bork.

Per usual, the left has its own set of rules and will lie, mislead, obfuscate and generally throw a tantrum if anyone tries to use their rules against them.

My favorite part of this post is FSD making Nixon out to be innocent, and a victim of the vast left wing conspiracy.

Mine is the law review/law journal thing he just made up. 

[sys]

the bork argument really is fundamentally off track.  bork was opposition to a specific nominee.  the subsequent nominee was easily and overwhelmingly approved.  in the current situation, the 'pub senate leadership has stated that no nominee will be approved, regardless of who that nominee is.

[MakeItRain]

I love it when idiots get a hold of stuff like this

https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272

For Dax.

That probably was true in the 1970(note the difference between Law Review and Law Journal, that being the former is a technical analysis of the law, and the latter being a piece on what the law "ought" to be). Then the left got all virulent and partisan against Nixon, and then off the rails ideological against Bork.

Per usual, the left has its own set of rules and will lie, mislead, obfuscate and generally throw a tantrum if anyone tries to use their rules against them.

Someone help me, were these comments from Mitch from the 70a or no?
http://dailykos.com/story/2016/2/13/1484831/-Sen-Mitch-McConnell-in-2005-The-President-and-the-President-alone-nominates-judges

[MakeItRain]

Rough run of posts there for FSD, we should take it easy on him.

[Mrs. Gooch]

Which one of you was it that predicted the Obama-murdered-Scalia line?
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/alex-jones-obama-murdered-justice-scalia-and-donald-trump-next

[sonofdaxjones]

Wow Mitch really piled on the Captain Obvious bullet points on who nominates potential judges.   Straight out of the US Government 005 textbook.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Courtesy of Reno. UNPRECEDENTED

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-30/news/0601300193_1_filibuster-judge-alito-confirmation
Obama joins filibuster bid against Alito

But senator criticizes tactic, says it will fail

January 30, 2006|By Jeff Zeleny, Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama said he would vote Monday to filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, but he conceded the effort would be futile and criticized Democrats for failing to persuade Americans to take notice of the court's changing ideological face.

"The Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues," Obama (D-Ill.) said Sunday on ABC News' "This Week." "These last-minute efforts--using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway--I think has been the wrong way of going about it."

body{margin:0px;}google_ad_client=\"ca-pub-8415620659137418\";google_ad_slot=\"5872009880\";google_ad_width=\"300\";google_ad_height=\"160\";google_ad_channel=\"9405729081,1000001869,1000000040\";google_adtest=\"off\";google_safe=\"high\";google_hints=\"senators filibuster appeals court\";google_max_num_ads=\"2\";google_override_format=true;google_page_url=\"http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-30/news/0601300193_1_filibuster-judge-alito-confirmation\";");document.close();})();' frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="300" height="160" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Georgia; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px;">

Despite his criticism, Obama announced his intention to support the maneuver designed to block--or delay--Alito's confirmation this week. The movement, which was launched by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), appeared to lack the 41 senators needed to be successful.

Alito, a federal appeals court judge, is poised to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The Senate is scheduled to cast a final vote on Alito's confirmation Tuesday.

The threat of a filibuster emerged late last week after liberal activists accused Democratic senators of failing to vigorously oppose Alito's ascension to the Supreme Court. After Kerry began the effort, several liberal groups mounted a campaign by Internet, telephone and fax to persuade other senators to follow suit.

"I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values," Obama said. "When you look at his decisions--in particular, during times of war--we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch."

But in the next breath, Obama criticized the merits of a filibuster. The senator has worked to avoid being portrayed as walking in lock step with Democratic partisans, but at the same time he is seeking to be responsive to a core constituency.

"We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake," Obama said. "And frankly, I'm not sure that we've successfully done that."

Kerry, who worked through the weekend to get other Democratic senators to join the filibuster effort, welcomed Obama aboard and praised him for "taking a stand on principle."

"It's not easy, but it's important for our country," Kerry said in a statement.

In his television appearance, Obama did not reconcile his views over the filibuster. Spokesman Robert Gibbs denied a Tribune request Sunday to interview Obama but said the senator decided to join the filibuster effort because he believes Alito "would be a bad addition to the Supreme Court."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has argued against a filibuster. Other Democrats said the effort could allow Republicans to portray Democrats as obstructionist.

A filibuster, a procedural move to keep debate alive, could delay a final vote on Alito. If the filibuster attempt fails Monday, a vote on Alito's confirmation is scheduled for Tuesday, hours before President Bush delivers his State of the Union address. At least three Democrats and virtually all Republicans have pledged to support Alito, making his confirmation all but certain.

body{margin:0px;}google_ad_client=\"ca-pub-8415620659137418\";google_ad_slot=\"5872009880\";google_ad_width=\"300\";google_ad_height=\"110\";google_ad_channel=\"9405729081,1000001869,1000000040\";google_adtest=\"off\";google_safe=\"high\";google_hints=\"senators filibuster appeals court\";google_max_num_ads=\"2\";google_override_format=true;google_page_url=\"http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-30/news/0601300193_1_filibuster-judge-alito-confirmation\";");document.close();})();' frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="300" height="110" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Georgia; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px;">

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said he also would vote to keep debate open Monday, but he questioned the wisdom of a filibuster, predicting it would fail.

"I think a filibuster makes sense when you have a prospect of actually succeeding," Biden said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition."

----------


Related Articles

Confirm Judge Alito
January 15, 2006

Democrats split on Alito filibuster
January 28, 2006

Durbin says he'll vote no on Alito
January 20, 2006

Why the Senate should not confirm Alito
January 24, 2006

Sonia Sotomayor nomination: GOP carefully picking its...
May 28, 2009


www.chicagotribune.com

ConnectLike us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter

[Kat Kid]

the bork argument really is fundamentally off track.  bork was opposition to a specific nominee.  the subsequent nominee was easily and overwhelmingly approved.  in the current situation, the 'pub senate leadership has stated that no nominee will be approved, regardless of who that nominee is.

Yes but also because of the glaring non-ideological case that Bork was unqualified on ethical grounds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

the bork argument really is fundamentally off track.  bork was opposition to a specific nominee.  the subsequent nominee was easily and overwhelmingly approved.  in the current situation, the 'pub senate leadership has stated that no nominee will be approved, regardless of who that nominee is.

I suppose if you thouhht it possible b.o. would nominates a conservative, you have a point. The name is a nuance, nothing more.

To ad to the conjecture, if Trump wins the election he could FDR style stack the court and undermine whoever is appointed and then some.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Speaking of ethics, wasn't there a recent appointee who refused to recuse their self from the obamacare matter(s)

[sonofdaxjones]

This is like Satan lecturing on the perils of evil.

#thanksproglibs

[SkinnyBenny]

Speaking of ethics, wasn't there a recent appointee who refused to recuse their self from the obamacare matter(s)