@natureboy:

McConnell has. He keeps crowing that he's rolling with "Biden's Rule."

But I think it is backfiring on him. People are getting wise.

I think people in this country realize McConnell doesn't have enough control of the Senate to hear and reject this asshole Garland on an up and down vote. That would be the best way to stick it to Obama, and McConnell is too afraid to try it.

One more reason to vote for Trump in November. (I'm losing count.)

 

Why doesn't Obumo nominee himself for the job. He'll be unemployed soon. Just like rest of us.

 

Hillary has already offered to nominate him when she is president. (No doubt a ploy to try to stave off being indicted before he leaves.)

 

It's not our fault you're unskilled. Have you tried the local waffle house?

 

Too right! <inhales>

 

This is ridiculous they wouldnt be doing this if a republican was president when all of this happend and he picked a nomanie they would he calling for hearing in short this is all BS in my opoion obama has done a great job despite this do nothing congress and im a moderate democrat

 

Obama should take the Senate's lack of action on the matter as a sign of consent and just appoint him to the court. Then the supreme court can decide whether his action is constitutional or not.

It'd be quote easy for the Senate to explicitly not consent, they have to have hearings and a vote.

 

Shooter has just returned from a trip ............. forward. He cannot disclose all, but he can disclose this;

Two possibilities; A Republican wins the white house in 2016 (Shooter does not want anyone to draw any conclusions to the fact that he did not say Trump wins the Whitehouse, but rather used the more generic "Republican". It does not mean Trump will not be the Republican candidate) or Hilary wins the white house.
1) If a Republican wins, the Senate will reject Obama's nomination for the supreme court and put their man (woman) in.
2) If Hilary wins, the Republican senate will trip over itself confirming Garland.

Either way, the Publicans gain nothing taking up this question before the election.

 

Ya gotta read the fine print.

 

Yeah, the Supreme Court has only overturned his actions about 25 times now (about a dozen of them unanimously). What's one more time for his "legacy"?

 

The Waffle House has standards

 

Joe Biden, unlike Mitch"Do nothing now that can be put off until later" McConnell was never Senate Majority Leader and did not have the power to set the Senate's agenda.

 

OK, let's forget about Biden and talk about Obama.


Poetic Justice? Obama Was 1st US President To Vote To Filibuster A Supreme Court Nominee

Randy DeSoto February 15, 2016 at 12:21pm

Barack Obama and top senate Democrat Chuck Schumer are already engaging in hypocrisy of the highest order by calling on senate Republicans to move quickly to replace the vacancy left by the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

The GOP needs no further justification in choosing not to move forward on any nominee than Obama’s and his fellow Democrats’ own past words and actions.

In his remarks on Saturday concerning Scalia’s death, the president said: “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They’re bigger than any one party. They are about our democracy.”

In 2006, while no doubt starting to lay his eyes on a presidential run, then-Sen. Obama had no problem throwing a wrench in the works of democracy by voting to filibuster George Bush’s nominee to the high court, Samuel Alito.

Obama told George Stephanopoulos on ABC News This Week that he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. 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, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly.”

In other words, because Alito did not share his judicial philosophy and he felt the judge’s ascension to the Supreme Court would not allow an independent check on the excessive use of executive branch power, Obama, in fact, voted to block the appointment.

Then-Sen. John Kerry led the effort to filibuster Alito, which ultimately came up short, and the judge was approved.

If Obama, as a senator, felt justified in seeking to block a presidential nominee to the court because he feared Bush’s use of executive authority, how much more true is that concern now, with multiple court rulings that the president has exceeded his authority in high-profile instances such as executive amnesty, EPA regulations regarding climate change, and portions of Obamacare.

 

Again, Obama (like Biden) was never Senate Majority Leader. And Obama, unlike Mediocre Mitch, has carried out his Constitutional duties by nominating Scalia's replacement. NOw all we have to do is get Mitch to do his job.

 

So would you be happy if Obama's pick gets a hearing and then is rejected????

 

Yes I would as long as it was as close to fair as possible.

 

You mean fair like Harry Reid’s nuclear option hypocrisy??? Yeah, the Democrats are a real fair and honest bunch huh???

Play be the rules huh???? The Republicans should do what the Democrats did and use some parliamentary stunt to change fundamental Senate rules.....

Just like Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats did when they controlled congress....

 

You are so full of shit. The moment they reject him you'd find something new to bitch about.

 

Exactly! And if any of them ever knew how many pieces of legislation that was sent from the Republican House that Harry Reid wouldn't even let his members vote on. At one point, even Senate Democrats were complaining that good legislation was being ignored, just so Dirty Harry Reid could keep up his ruse about he "Do nothing House".

 

Like I said earlier, Obama has had about 25 Executive actions overturned by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional. He chose to ignore his Oath of Office,

when he chose to stop deporting illegal immigrants, along with other laws he chose to ignore.