Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Robert Bork was 30 years ago and you are probably correct, anyone in the interim or is that going to be the excuse. Many justices with both liberal and conservative views have been approved, let's not go back decades looking for an excuse.
Similar to the POTUS, the ability to be deemed qualified for the SCOTUS is a pretty low bar. However Ginsburg was qualified, this despite being an ACLU lawyer and on the BOD. She was a known activist (like the "wise Latina") yet she was approved by a 96-3 vote.
As to your desire to bury your head in the sand and not want to address the Judge Bork example because it is "decades old", remember not too many opportunities to be nominated have occurred since he was despicably attacked by the (D's). Ginsburg's nomination was almost 30 years ago as well.
The point being that he was more qualified than most judges nominated, yet instead of the (D's) approving of him like the (R's) did of Ginsburg and other liberals, his nomination was scuttled 42-58. Of course the more moderate, but less qualified Kennedy was approved 97-0
Funny how the ACLU was also involved in opposing not only Bork, but also the former Chief Justice Rehnquist and current AJ Alito.
See a pattern from a supposedly neutral group that vets nominees based on qualifications?
It is the (D's), not the (R's), who seem incapable of not injecting politics into what is suppose to be a straight forward process for approving qualified nominees for the SCOTUS.
So for the current Senate (controlled by R's) not to want to have another ultra liberal appointed by an outgoing president is certainly understandable.
Do you really think if the shoe were on the other foot, a (D) controlled Senate wouldn't do the same thing?
They have obviously proved capable of doing much worse.
Obama is citing his Constitutional responsibility to nominate a new Justice.
I guess the Constitution does have some merit for him when he wants to use it.
The Dems are all behind him on this. The word "Constitution" has been uttered by almost any Dem that has spoken to the press.
The Repubs though are saying "Wait until after elections" in hopes that a Republican will get into the Oval Office.
Typical partisan politics at play. If a Republican were in the Oval Office the you'd be reading the exact opposite..the Repubs citing the "Constitution" and the Dems saying "Wait until after elections".
It's not about the Supreme Court. It's about which team (D or R) can get their guy nominated.
Obama is citing his Constitutional responsibility to nominate a new Justice.
I guess the Constitution does have some merit for him when he wants to use it.
The Dems are all behind him on this. The word "Constitution" has been uttered by almost any Dem that has spoken to the press.
The Repubs though are saying "Wait until after elections" in hopes that a Republican will get into the Oval Office.
Typical partisan politics at play. If a Republican were in the Oval Office the you'd be reading the exact opposite..the Repubs citing the "Constitution" and the Dems saying "Wait until after elections".
It's not about the Supreme Court. It's about which team (D or R) can get their guy nominated.
This may be the first time any Democrat has said the word "Constitution" since Obama was elected.
Similar to the POTUS, the ability to be deemed qualified for the SCOTUS is a pretty low bar. However Ginsburg was qualified, this despite being an ACLU lawyer and on the BOD. She was a known activist (like the "wise Latina") yet she was approved by a 96-3 vote.
As to your desire to bury your head in the sand and not want to address the Judge Bork example because it is "decades old", remember not too many opportunities to be nominated have occurred since he was despicably attacked by the (D's). Ginsburg's nomination was almost 30 years ago as well.
The point being that he was more qualified than most judges nominated, yet instead of the (D's) approving of him like the (R's) did of Ginsburg and other liberals, his nomination was scuttled 42-58. Of course the more moderate, but less qualified Kennedy was approved 97-0
Funny how the ACLU was also involved in opposing not only Bork, but also the former Chief Justice Rehnquist and current AJ Alito.
See a pattern from a supposedly neutral group that vets nominees based on qualifications?
It is the (D's), not the (R's), who seem incapable of not injecting politics into what is suppose to be a straight forward process for approving qualified nominees for the SCOTUS.
So for the current Senate (controlled by R's) not to want to have another ultra liberal appointed by an outgoing president is certainly understandable.
Do you really think if the shoe were on the other foot, a (D) controlled Senate wouldn't do the same thing?
They have obviously proved capable of doing much worse.
`
It's supposed to be a straight forward process in every nomination including cabinet members, I guess you missed the Loretta Lynch hearings in January.
That sounds so made up you should feel silly for posting that. 2K/month, for 3 people with a 12K (plus!!!) deductible. I call BS.
Let me guess, you're one of those getting Obamacare subsidies.
Last year, from the left-leaning NY Times:
Quote:
“Our deductible is so high, we practically pay for all of our medical expenses out of pocket,” said Wendy Kaplan, 50, of Evanston, Ill. “So our policy is really there for emergencies only, and basic wellness appointments.”
Her family of four pays premiums of $1,200 a month for coverage with an annual deductible of $12,700.
How many more off topic posts are you going to make?
I'm responding to other posters in the thread. They're going off topic. /shrug
Also, Obamacare is relevant to the discussion as SCOTUS has ruled on it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
