You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
The Stolen Supreme Court Seat
2016-12-25
SQUEAL Liberal Piggies!
[NYTimes] Soon after his inauguration next month, President-elect Donald Trump will nominate someone to the Supreme Court, which has been hamstrung by a vacancy since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February.
Not hamstrung at all. They've been hearing cases and issuing judgements ever since, though with the risk of an evenly divided court.
There will be public debates about the nominee's credentials, past record, judicial philosophy and temperament. There will be Senate hearings and a vote.

No matter how it plays out, Americans must remember one thing above all: The person who gets confirmed will sit in a stolen seat.

It was stolen from Barack Obama, a twice-elected president who fulfilled his constitutional duty more than nine months ago by nominating Merrick Garland, a highly qualified and widely respected federal appellate judge.
I didn't realize it was his personal possession. I thought playing by the rules (especially as warped under Obama, Reid, and Pelosi) was fair play. F&^k off and die,.... with all due respect
It was stolen by top Senate Republicans, who broke with longstanding tradition and refused to consider any nominee Mr. Obama might send them, because they wanted to preserve the court's conservative majority. The main perpetrators of the theft were Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, and Charles Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. But virtually all Republican senators were accomplices; only two supported holding hearings.
The Senate's duty is advice and consent. They advised President Obama that they would not consent to approving any candidates in the months leading up to the election, following a precedent set by some previous Senates. At the time the Democrats warned that the candidates proposed by President Clinton, and pushed through by the Democrat-dominated Senate, would be much more liberal. Everything that makes you unhappy over the next four to eight years, my dear Times editorialist, is due to Hillary blowing the election.
Posted by:Frank G

#13  #11 The Dems have been pleading with Ginsburg to retire so that Obola could name her successor for years. They failed and now DJT will, most likely, get to fill the slot.

And there is indeed, the irony: Madame Justice Ginsburg KNEW better, she like so many others KNEW Malificent Hilary was going to be President, and she would give the first woman President the opportunity to make her first SCOTUS nomination.

Schadenfreude: It's what's for dinner.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2016-12-25 21:00  

#12  Just how much self pity and whining can you cram into one story?

The demoncrats need to sit down and have a nice cup of shut the fuck up.
Posted by: DarthVader   2016-12-25 20:08  

#11  The Dems have been pleading with Ginsburg to retire so that Obola could name her successor for years. They failed and now DJT will, most likely, get to fill the slot.

We need a better word to describe the evil, arrogant, ironic, hypocritical attitude that is embodied in the current Demon party.
Posted by: AlanC   2016-12-25 19:49  

#10  Gloves are off assholes.
Posted by: Iblis   2016-12-25 17:56  

#9  Frank G,

You hit the nail right on the head. Scalia's seat is open, and Ginsburg's will be soon - I suspect she is more ill than we have been told, and she was holding on so Malificent Hilary could name her replacement. The Democrats must be literally in fear of the idea of a six to three Conservative (or at least nominally so) SCOTUS for years to come.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2016-12-25 16:58  

#8  How many of those Electoral votes were delivered by the same-sex marriage decree of the present SCOTUS? Maybe if the likes of the editorial board of the NYT wasn't for a more Peoples Democratic Republic means of coercing via SCOTUS the populous instead of their consent via the states, we may have seen a different outcome.
Posted by: Procopius2k    2016-12-25 16:19  

#7  "The Senate's duty is advice and consent. They advised President Obama that they would not consent to approving any candidates in the months leading up to the election, following a precedent set by some previous Senates. At the time the Democrats warned that the candidates proposed by President Clinton, and pushed through by the Democrat-dominated Senate, would be much more liberal. Everything that makes you unhappy over the next four to eight years, my dear Times editorialist, is due to Hillary blowing the election"

WHAT TW SAID!
Posted by: Barbara   2016-12-25 16:08  

#6  And here you have the mind of pseudo-homo sinister in all its glory.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2016-12-25 15:29  

#5  Trump has the chance to stack the SCOTUS with real Constitutionalists, not Affirmative Action Identity Group tokens. That's what this election meant. The NYT is cringing because they helped bring in DJT by their lies and partisanship
Posted by: Frank G   2016-12-25 15:20  

#4  Beginning to think the only reason the Donks will ever win again is so crap like this article/viewpoint will go away - for awhile.
Posted by: Blossom Unains5562   2016-12-25 14:27  

#3  Don't forget the Czars - a direct attack on the Advise and Consent duties of Congress. What will happen to them after January 20th?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2016-12-25 14:17  

#2  The genius of the founders, checks and balances. For a party whose president circumvented the Congress for years with executive order overreach, and had Harry Reid stymie budgets over and over to now protest, makes irony as a term seem so inadequate! Trump won and saved, at least for a time, the hopes for the Republic. You lost. Man up and own it!
Posted by: NoMoreBS   2016-12-25 13:51  

#1  OK, the senators broke tradition but not the law. So isn't it libel to accuse them of theft with malice and reckless disregard for the truth?
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2016-12-25 13:46  

00:00