Supreme Court Nominee

So ... are you saying it wasn't childish game playing for the Senate Majority Leader to announce within a few hours of Scalia's death ... that the Senate would not grant a hearing for a possible replacement ... until after a new President takes office (almost a year later).

it seems to me ... the first to childishly draw a line in the sand ... (so to speak) ... was the Senate Majority Leader ... not Obama!

Just sayin' Originally Posted by bigtex

This is just Kabookie theater. Originally Posted by bambino

Once again, I will stand behind my original claim that McConnell, not POTUS, began the childish and partisan gamesmanship. In fact, McConnell did so a few short hours after Justice Scalia drew his final breath (RIP). I can only imagine what Scalia's family must have thought when Mc quickly fired the first "childish" volley across the bow of the POTUS ship. And to make matters worse, Mc did so, with Scalia's body temperature still close to 98.6.

Heartless Bastard!

Bottom line: Mc couldn't even wait for the funeral before he began the childish political gamesmanship! In my humble opinion, POTUS gave Senator McConnell exactly what he deserved.

I can only hope that McConnell will soon be forced to eat his words in much the same way that he had to swallow the following bitter pill:

Mc's "number-one goal was to make sure that Barack Obama was a one-term president.”

Bamby, how did those "childish" words of questionable wisdom work out for Senator Mc & Cheese?

Was Mc able to fulfill his "#1 goal" to make POTUS Obama a one termer?

Or did Mc fail to attain his "#1 goal" and POTUS won re-election in 2012?

" IS " this another poll/ thread started by ECCIE'S " Triple Crown " WINNER, Lil Cotex ?

Is this another COUGARS "LOOSES" thread?

Yep, UH WON - GAY REY - "LOOSES"

The one in need of higher learning, GAY REY is the real "LOOSER", not the UH.

GAY REY, how many games did the Coogs "LOOSES" this past football season? The answer is 1 and the Coogs ended up the #8 ranked NCAA team in the entire country. (Not bad for a High School!)

Gay Rey ... is the one who started this ... shitstorm ... of a thread ... so he ... (and only he) ... should be held ... accountable.

All things considered ... this thread backfired on him ... plain and simple!

Absolutely ... Nothing ... had been said by me ... in this forum ... during this entire ... football season .. about the U of H's outstanding ... football team ...

That is ... until Gay Rey ... stuck his Gay foot ... into his Gay Mouth ... and started ... this thread ...

Now Gay Rey ... is forced to ... live with ... the fact ... that the UH COUGARS had an outstanding 13-1 season ... that included ... a very impressive ... New Years Eve ... Peach Bowl victory ... against the ... #9 Florida State Semonoles.

Gay Rey ... you started ... this shitstorm ... of a thread ... LIVE WITH IT!:

COUGAR RED ... and GAY REY PINK emphasis ... added ... for special effects purposes only!

Eat 'em Up, Coogs!!!!!

Obama’s Supreme Politics

How GOP Senators should handle Merrick Garland’s nomination.

March 16, 2016 7:19 p.m. ET


President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court is meant to put Senate Republicans on the spot by elevating a well-qualified 63-year-old judge not known as a progressive firebrand. Republicans aren’t likely to fall into this trap, and Judge Garland’s jurisprudence suggests they’re right—with a caveat we’ll get to later.

The common wisdom is that Judge Garland’s nomination presents Republicans with the most moderate option they’ll get from a Democratic President. Maybe, maybe not. But we can’t think of a single issue that has divided the Court on which Mr. Garland would reliably vote differently from the four liberal Justices already on the bench.

Judge Garland’s 19-year tenure on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals demonstrates a reliable vote for progressive causes, with the arguable exception of criminal law. Two issues in particular make the point: the Second Amendment and deference to the growing power of the administrative state.

In 2007 Judge Garland voted for a rehearing en banc after a three-judge panel invalidated Washington D.C’s handgun ban. In 2000 Judge Garland was part of a three-judge panel that allowed the FBI to temporarily keep files with information from gun purchase background checks. In his dissent, Judge David Sentelle wrote that the Attorney General was not only making “an unauthorized power grab, but is taking action expressly forbidden by Congress.”

Judge Garland has also shown a pattern of over-deference to administrative agencies including the EPA. Scotusblog’s Tom Goldstein points out that Mr. Garland has strong views on agency deference and “in a dozen close cases in which the court divided, he sided with the agency every time.”

In an especially notable case, Judge Garland dissented when the D.C. Circuit struck down the EPA’s egregious regional haze rules (American Corn Growers v. EPA, 2002). Excessive judicial deference to regulators is especially dangerous now given the Obama Administration’s unrestrained use of executive power to rewrite statutes and dare Congress to stop it.

In his remarks Wednesday, Mr. Obama praised Judge Garland for “building consensus” among colleagues and showing an ability to “assemble unlikely coalitions, persuade colleagues with wide-ranging judicial philosophies to sign onto his opinions.”

But that’s also what President Bill Clinton said when nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993. Mr. Clinton said then Judge Ginsburg was a “moderate” who was “balanced and fair in her opinions” and would be “a force for consensus-building on the Supreme Court, just as she has been on the Court of Appeals.” Today, Justice Ginsburg is the most liberal member of the Court and uses her consensus-building skills to keep fellow liberals in lockstep.

Justice Stephen Breyer is often considered the most moderate liberal on the current Court. But it doesn’t show much in his opinions. According to Scotusblog, between 2011 and 2014 Justice Breyer voted with the three other liberals in about 80% of 5-4 cases.

Those percentages are even higher in the most politically freighted cases. In the past few years, the four liberals voted together on same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), ObamaCare (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby), unionization of home workers (Harris v. Quinn), free speech on license plates (Walker v. Texas Division), the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County v. Holder) and campaign restrictions in judicial elections (Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar), among many others. Judge Garland would be a reliable fifth vote on all of these legal issues.

Merrick Garland’s nomination is nonetheless intended to make the Senate’s opposition seem unreasonable and make the battle about the Senate instead of the judge. His age is also meant to present a political riddle for Republicans who increasingly fear that their presidential nominee may lose. Is it better to have an older judge whose tenure might be shorter than that of other, potentially more radical nominees who Hillary Clinton might nominate?

Even a 63-year-old can stay on the bench for a generation these days, but no matter. Senate Republicans have staked out the principle that voters should have a say in the next Supreme Court nomination via their presidential choice. The Senate should spare Judge Garland from personal attack by refusing to hold hearings.

But if GOP Senators up for re-election want to be more conciliatory, they could say they regard Judge Garland as a suitable choice for a Democratic President and would be happy to vote for him in a lame-duck session—if Mrs. Clinton wins the election. That would be standing on principle and calling Mr. Obama’s bluff.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-s...ics-1458170388 Originally Posted by lustylad

+1

Keep peddling, chicken dick. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Your perverse selfies win you no friends in this forum, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

It MUST be another thread/poll if Lil Cotex , The " TRIPLE CROWN " WINNER " IS " here spewing his BS !

+1



Your perverse selfies win you no friends in this forum, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Only from his fellow reach around klan errr clan members and DOTY candidates, assup and Lil Cotex ! Cotex prolly advises him on his " beach " fashion wear !

It MUST be another thread Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Is this another COUGARS "LOOSES" thread?

Yep, UH WON - GAY REY - "LOOSES"

The one in need of higher learning, GAY REY is the real "LOOSER", not the UH.

GAY REY, how many games did the Coogs "LOOSES" this past football season? The answer is 1 and the Coogs ended up the #8 ranked NCAA team in the entire country. (Not bad for a High School!)

Gay Rey ... is the one who started this ... shitstorm ... of a thread ... so he ... (and only he) ... should be held ... accountable.

All things considered ... this thread backfired on him ... plain and simple!

Absolutely ... Nothing ... had been said by me ... in this forum ... during this entire ... football season .. about the U of H's outstanding ... football team ...

That is ... until Gay Rey ... stuck his Gay foot ... into his Gay Mouth ... and started ... this thread ...

Now Gay Rey ... is forced to ... live with ... the fact ... that the UH COUGARS had an outstanding 13-1 season ... that included ... a very impressive ... New Years Eve ... Peach Bowl victory ... against the ... #9 Florida State Semonoles.

Gay Rey ... you started ... this shitstorm ... of a thread ... LIVE WITH IT!:

COUGAR RED ... and GAY REY PINK emphasis ... added ... for special effects purposes only!

Eat 'em Up, Coogs!!!!!

Lil Cotex's reach around klan, errr clan salutes his historic " Triple Crown " VICTORY as HE prefers : :rm _moon::rm_mo on:

Bamby, it appears that one of your own disagrees with you. Imagine that?

From ThinkProgress:

"Even George Will Thinks The GOP’s Wall of Opposition To Merrick Garland Is Nuts"

============================== ==================

“Do Republicans really think Donald Trump will make a good Supreme Court choice?” It’s a pretty good question. It’s also the title of a column by one of the Republican Party’s most venerated thinkers, Washington Post columnist George Will.

Senate Republicans’ explanations for “their refusal to even consider Merrick B. Garland radiates insincerity,” according to Will. His party’s actions also risk holding the open seat on the Supreme Court vacant until “a stupendously uninformed dilettante” gains the power to make nominations. “If Republicans really think that either their front-runner or the Democrats’ would nominate someone superior to Garland, it would be amusing to hear them try to explain why they do,” Will rather archly concludes.

Will’s disagreement with the GOP’s just-say-no approach to Garland is especially significant because Will’s own view of the Constitution places him well to the right of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who Garland hopes to replace. Indeed, it probably places him well to the right of every single sitting member of the Supreme Court.

Among other things, Will praised the Supreme Court’s anti-canonical decision in Lochner v. New York, a decision frequently taught to law students as an example of how judges should never behave, in a 2015 column. Lochner struck down a New York law preventing bakeries from overworking their employees, and its reasoning formed the basis for later decisions striking down minimum wage laws and virtually eliminating the right to unionize. It was overruled in 1937.

The Lochner opinion that Will hopes to bring back is considered to be so far outside the acceptable range of legal opinions that conservative Chief Justice John Roberts labeled it “discredited” in a recent judicial opinion that attacked Lochner at length. The even more conservative Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas both joined Roberts’ opinion.

So Will would take the law in a radically different direction than Judge Garland, a moderate liberal well to Scalia’s left. Yet even Mr. Will appears to concede that it is time for Republicans to give up their opposition to Garland and take the offer that is on the table.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...rland-is-nuts/

+1



Your perverse selfies win you no friends in this forum, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Looks like woomby thinks you look hot on your bike, chicken dick.

Only from his fellow reach around klan errr clan members and DOTY candidates, assup and Lil Cotex ! Cotex prolly advises him on his " beach " fashion wear ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Only friend you have chicken dick is a fellow faggot. why would I want a friend like that?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...rland-is-nuts/

Only from his fellow reach around klan errr clan members and DOTY candidates, assup and Lil Cotex ! Cotex prolly advises him on his " beach " fashion wear ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

+1

Looks like woomby thinks you look hot on your bike, chicken dick.

Only friend you have chicken dick is a fellow faggot. why would I want a friend like that? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

It was your selfie, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

It MUST be another thread/poll if Lil Cotex , The " TRIPLE CROWN " WINNER " IS " here spewing his BS ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

He is a pathetic loser that BigTex...

pathetic loser Originally Posted by DSK

JLIdiot, if I am such a "pathetic loser" ... please tell us how I kicked your worthless ass on the friendly wager.

JLIdiot must be a "pathetic loser" +1!

And this is what I've been saying all along. This isn't about Obama getting a justice but fucking with the Senate republicans keeping the Senate. So Obama is playing Garland like a pawn. Which is childish. While Garland might not be another Ginsberg, he's certainly not another Scalia. He has no chance at confirmation by a Republican Senate. If Hillary wins the general, you can bet Obama would withdraw Garland. Hillary would want to appoint a 43 yr old Ginsberg. If Trump or Cruz wins, they would want a 43 yr old Scalia. This is just Kabookie theater. Originally Posted by bambino

Actually I'm not sure Obama would withdraw Garland's nomination if Hillary wins the general. Garland is no fool. I suspect he may have made that a precondition for allowing his name to go forward. Otherwise, what's in it for him? He has no chance of being confirmed prior to the election, but a lame-duck Senate might confirm him. And if Obama were to withdraw Garland's name to let Hillary nominate someone younger and more radical, he would be validating the Republican argument that "the people should decide" after insisting it was his prerogative.

If Garland is withdrawn, it is more likely to happen prior to the election. Eight months is a long time for the guy to wait around. But again, I have to think Garland has figured this out in advance and isn't just allowing himself to be played as a political pawn.