SC Justice Scalia Has Died

[prideandfall]

It doesn't apply to the people who will vote R or D no matter what, but that's not everybody.

no it's not everybody but it's about 90% of the voting public.

I'm not talking about them. You're wrong that everyone has made up their mind or that voter turnout is immovable.

voter TURNOUT isn't immovable, but everyone HAS made up their minds - the myth of the "undecided" voter is a fantasy with no basis in reality.
the only variable in a US presidential election is which side gets the bigger percentage to bother voting.

 

[RavenSky]

So if Obama nominates someone who's considered a moderate, and the Senate delays a vote on the nomination until after the election, if Clinton or Sanders wins, is there a race between the Senate taking a vote to approve the nomination and Obama withdrawing it?

 

[RavenSky]

you're operating under the misguided presumption that a lot of people seem to have, which is to think that the problem in this country is just that the people who vote R are unaware of what shit-heels the GOP is, and if something big enough and prominent enough were to happen then by golly it will shake these yokels out of their stupor and the GOP will just be a distant memory.
but you're wrong, and this sort of idiocy is exactly what the inbred sister-fuckers who vote republican in the first place want to see from their elected officials.*

*not all people who vote republican are necessarily sister-fucking hillbillies, i was only referring to the sister-fucking hillbillies who vote republican in this particular instance

I might have argued with you on this point a year ago, but now I think Trump's poll ratings confirm what you are saying

 

[prideandfall]

I might have argued with you on this point a year ago, but now I think Trump's poll ratings confirm what you are saying

because 8 years of bush and the unwavering partisan support of his presidency didn't do it for you?
because the senate during the clinton years and the unwavering support of their actions during that time didn't do it for you?
because 8 years of reagan and his anointed sainthood since then didn't do it for you?
i'll hand it to you then, you are a tough nut to crack.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.zazzle.com/republicans+eat+kittens+gifts

Republican eat Kittens T-shirts and mugs. You know you want one.

 

[Playball40]

It was the Bush years that did it for me. I was pretty young during the Reagan years and didn't pay attention much to politics during the Clinton years.

I might have argued with you on this point a year ago, but now I think Trump's poll ratings confirm what you are saying

because 8 years of bush and the unwavering partisan support of his presidency didn't do it for you?
because the senate during the clinton years and the unwavering support of their actions during that time didn't do it for you?
because 8 years of reagan and his anointed sainthood since then didn't do it for you?
i'll hand it to you then, you are a tough nut to crack.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes I heard what Schumer actually said. Its a litany of political excuses and pre-texts to to support a pre-emptive rejection of all Bush supreme court nominees for 18 months (rather than 11) - except in most (undefined) extraordinary of circumstances should they entertain a nominee. Even so, a new standard of proof is incumbent on nominations to PROVE they can't possibly be right of center.

“should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.” C. Schumer

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, no matter how many special pleadings the goose gives.

So holding up Schuner as a precedent for GOP obstructionism is not what the right is touting this as being. Pure obstructionism. But it was rather a complaint as to what the choice of Bush appointees did when seated as SC justices.
Judicial activism.

So let's see if this sells as Schumer's call for principled ethics:

- In 2007, Schumer says that no Bush nominee should be confirmed (barring "the most extraordinary of circumstances").

- In 2016 Schumer says that a threat to not confirm any Obama nominee is “obstructionism” and an abnegation of duty.

This is comedy gold.

You seem to be missing the fact that his statement was in regard to Bush using stealth nominees.

 

[beero1000]

It makes me wonder if refusal to perform their duties is grounds for impeachment...

Can you impeach a legislator?

ETA - it appears that in the United States members of the House and Senate are not subject to impeachment. Wiki William Blount.

I don't think it has ever been tested.

But in theory, why not?

From Article II:

The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Are Legislators "civil Officers"?

I don't think that has been answered.

You may have missed my update to my original post.

William Blount, a Senator, was impeached by the House in 1797 but the Senate eventually dismissed the charges, concluding that impeachment did not extend to Senators. (The Senate did vote to expel Blount.)

No legislator has been impeached since.

A Senate vote to determine if Senators can be impeached? Why should such an obvious conflict of interest be allowed?

 

[jonatha]

How many people can name the justices on the Supreme Court now? How many people can name even one?

I'm betting better than half can name Scalia now, although I suppose he doesn't actually count anymore.

 

[jonatha]

Well ya, it is. It is preventing a vote on consent by filibustering - which many conservative Senators have promised to do should it be necessary no matter who the nominee is.

FTFY

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A Senate vote to determine if Senators can be impeached? Why should such an obvious conflict of interest be allowed?

For the same reason that it was decided that paying millions of dollars in exchange for political favours doesn't count as bribery. Laws are meant to keep poor people in line - they've never been intended to apply to the elites.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Tomorrow, Scalia will lie in state in the great rotunda of the Supreme Court building. Bring stakes and hammers.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Tomorrow, Scalia will lie in state in the great rotunda of the Supreme Court building. Bring stakes and hammers.

What about torches? You can't have a decent mob without torches.

Also, somebody should bring a woodchipper. IIRC, nobody's exactly sure what kind of undead monster he is, but the most basic rule of monster hunting is that a woodchipper beats everything, so we'll need to have one there just in case.

 

[funinspace]

Oh, Dukakis isn't dead...anywho I thought this was funny:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/he...ly-2016-02-18?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

Here’s how Michael Dukakis remembers his old law-school classmate Antonin Scalia: “He was to the right of Marie Antoinette, for Christ’s sake.”

Somehow I doubt they went out for a beer after class together...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tomorrow, Scalia will lie in state in the great rotunda of the Supreme Court building. Bring stakes and hammers.

What about torches? You can't have a decent mob without torches.

Also, somebody should bring a woodchipper. IIRC, nobody's exactly sure what kind of undead monster he is, but the most basic rule of monster hunting is that a woodchipper beats everything, so we'll need to have one there just in case.

We are talking about Scalia, not Cheney.

Stakes should be sufficient.