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.
Now I see why they can't bring this to the floor, no current experience. It's been over 100 years since a democratic president nomination was approved by a republican senate.
Inexperience?
Quote:
Justice Peckham does have one distinguishing characteristic and, as today’s political fight over the Supreme Court rages, it is rescuing him from obscurity. He was the last Supreme Court justice nominated by a Democratic president — Grover Cleveland — and approved by a Republican-controlled Senate, a step taken in 1895, and on a voice vote, no less.
Obama never wanted to work with Republicans, so now he wants them to nominate his appointee? You can't make this stuff up.
Don't worry: the RINOs will probably cave as usual.
They wanted to work with him, that is laughable. Mitch McConnel stated from the outset that he wanted to do everything he could to make Obama fail, and he's not even the craziest.
Pretty interesting statistic though regardless, maybe the republicans forgot the process in the last century.
They wanted to work with him, that is laughable. Mitch McConnel stated from the outset that he wanted to do everything he could to make Obama fail, and he's not even the craziest.
Pretty interesting statistic though regardless, maybe the republicans forgot the process in the last century.
Agree it's an interesting statistic, although maybe they remember their pick was the author of the Lochner v. New York decision?
They wanted to work with him, that is laughable. Mitch McConnel stated from the outset that he wanted to do everything he could to make Obama fail, and he's not even the craziest.
Pretty interesting statistic though regardless, maybe the republicans forgot the process in the last century.
" Mitch McConnel stated from the outset that he wanted to do everything he could to make Obama fail, and he's not even the craziest."
Meh, this is a consequence of the supreme court voting their own politics instead of the rule of law.
Does anyone believe that anyone except for Kennedy is legitimately trying to uphold the law for the sake of the law rather than using it to justify legislating from the bench? Given that these are effectively life-long political appointments with tremendous power rather than proper judicial appointments, I'm fine with the Republicans completely stonewalling the replacement of one of the conservatives with a liberal. The court was 4-1-4 and is 3-1-4, they can/should give in and replace with one conservative and one liberal or better yet 2 judges that want to actually serve the rule of law when one of the liberal justices kicks it as well -- until then, frankly the Republicans should block any Democratic appointees, and I'm sure the loudest, most outraged Democrats would have the same point of view if the tables were turned.
Conservatives often sight they support the constitution. The constitution says that congress must hold a hearing to determine if the candidate selected by the sitting president is a good fit. The refusal to even hold a hearing is unconstitutional. Thus, anyone who is actually a conservative should want Mitch McConnell thrown out of congress, as well as all the other Republican leaders refusing to even do their jobs.
They can shoot down whomever they please. Even if it's for petty reasons, they are completely able to do this. But to refuse to even sit down and do that is pathetic and childish. I'll just go right ahead and say that I think Mitch McConnell should be removed from office.
Meh, this is a consequence of the supreme court voting their own politics instead of the rule of law.
Does anyone believe that anyone except for Kennedy is legitimately trying to uphold the law for the sake of the law rather than using it to justify legislating from the bench? Given that these are effectively life-long political appointments with tremendous power rather than proper judicial appointments, I'm fine with the Republicans completely stonewalling the replacement of one of the conservatives with a liberal. The court was 4-1-4 and is 3-1-4, they can/should give in and replace with one conservative and one liberal or better yet 2 judges that want to actually serve the rule of law when one of the liberal justices kicks it as well -- until then, frankly the Republicans should block any Democratic appointees, and I'm sure the loudest, most outraged Democrats would have the same point of view if the tables were turned.
It's only legislating from the bench when they disagree with your opinion.
Garland is fairly old and moderate that should have made the GOP happy, there will not be another justice like Scalia much as they hope and pray, in the mean time dysfunction.
What justice do they want to see appointed, does that person exist, I would love to hear 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.
