Hillary: Doing What Obama Did To Alito To Obama's Nominee is Racist

They gon' put y'all back in chains.

By the way, Guy Benson found this in the NY Times' archives from 1987, urging the Senate to fillibuster the hell out of any Reagan nominee until after the 1988 presidential election:

The Presidentís supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Courtís direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.

Hm... gee who won the 2014 election, I wonder?

Posted by: Ace at 01:20 PM




Comments

(Jump to bottom of page)

1
Uno

Posted by: CSMBigBird at February 17, 2016 01:21 PM (jsWA8)

2 Yeah, but different!!!

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 17, 2016 01:22 PM (FkBIv)

3 That is some fine dem whine.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 17, 2016 01:22 PM (XtAzU)

4 Thy GOPe will fold like cheapo furniture.

Posted by: CSMBigBird at February 17, 2016 01:23 PM (jsWA8)

5 History is bunk.

Posted by: Henry Ford Teh Democrats at February 17, 2016 01:23 PM (HtLSE)

6 TRUMP!

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 17, 2016 01:23 PM (LXJ1e)

7 Every time the media ask's a GOPe member about this, they should say "Bork" and wlak away.

Posted by: CSMBigBird at February 17, 2016 01:24 PM (jsWA8)

8 Thy GOPe will fold like cheapo furniture.
Posted by: CSMBigBird


Grassley sounds like he is starting that process.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 17, 2016 01:24 PM (FkBIv)

9 Imagine 100 million amoral children with the right to vote...

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 17, 2016 01:24 PM (WLpmE)

10 Using history against them is ageist, ace. Duh.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at February 17, 2016 01:24 PM (4/i9Y)

11 I do not get how this is complicated. The President nominates. The Senate votes to confirm or not, or, hell, even whether or not to vote.

It's a legitimate use of power by Obama to appoint.

It's a legitimate use of power by the Senate to say hahahaha that's adorbs.

And, yes, I would say the same if the roles were reversed.

Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at February 17, 2016 01:24 PM (mf5HN)

12 I heard idiot libtards trot out a talking point that this is different because we are saying NO confirmations where Obama was railing against a specific nominee. BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Posted by: giftogab at February 17, 2016 01:25 PM (ysKvq)

13 "Posted by: CSMBigBird at February 17, 2016 01:24 PM (jsWA "

So we need to dress Turtle McConnell up as the Swedish Chef? I could go for that.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at February 17, 2016 01:25 PM (4/i9Y)

14 CO-EQUAL BRANCHES! His nomination is not a coronation! Wait....never mind...King Obama Speaks!

Posted by: giftogab at February 17, 2016 01:26 PM (ysKvq)

15 Why did she have another coughing fit? You know the brain controls coughing. Does she have a brain tumor? Another stroke? We have the right to know!

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 01:26 PM (iQIUe)

16 Meanwhile the Pope is on the border rolling out the welcome mat.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 17, 2016 01:27 PM (FkBIv)

17 giftogab at February 17, 2016 01:25 PM
That's when you trot out the 1960/Eisenhower resolution precedent. The Dems drafted a resolution that they were against the idea of voting on a nominee even in theory.

Posted by: Sporkatus at February 17, 2016 01:27 PM (HtLSE)

18 Repub's have to use this to demonstrate (for the 1000th time) the complete duplicity of the lying commie left.

Plus to point out we can't endure any more decisions based on "wise Latinas" rather than the constitution. Maybe they could manage to push that only Congress can change the constitution, not five leftists that feel the love, for communism.

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 17, 2016 01:27 PM (5Gpe2)

19
Hillary can bark all she wants. She's never getting a treat from me.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 01:27 PM (iQIUe)

20 Hillary calling anyone a racist is rich, that pandering beatch. This is the same woman who wanders around mimicking black speakers in public and trying to convince voters they are especially disadvantaged because they are black.

Posted by: MTF at February 17, 2016 01:27 PM (TxJGV)

21 It's not a tumah!

Posted by: Hillary Clinton at February 17, 2016 01:27 PM (FkBIv)

22 Sick of the weak GOP. I bet Cruz would shiv some Dems for this BS.

Posted by: Draki at February 17, 2016 01:28 PM (0eidE)

23 The right approach for the GOP is very simple: nothing

Say nothing.

Do nothing.

Ignore the issue completely.

Let Roberts deal with the court calendar, for better or worse. What matters isn't the next year, it's the next thirty.

Posted by: JEM at February 17, 2016 01:28 PM (o+SC1)

24 Fenelon's Law

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2016 01:28 PM (JO9+V)

25 She ain't in no ways tahrd.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 17, 2016 01:28 PM (FsuaD)

26


This shit would never happen in Alextopia.

Posted by: garrett at February 17, 2016 01:28 PM (91LL3)

27 It will be hard for the GOPe to resist if the pResident nominates Lynch.

Posted by: CSMBigBird at February 17, 2016 01:29 PM (jsWA8)

28 It's a legitimate use of power by Obama to appoint.



It's a legitimate use of power by the Senate to say hahahaha that's adorbs.
>>>

The President courageously nominated XXXX who will be a fair and impartial addition to the Supreme court. In respose the Republicans racictly oppressed Obama's right as President to pick the new SCOTUS.

With MSM spin.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 17, 2016 01:29 PM (XtAzU)

29 "Stewardess, I speak Jive!"

--- Hillary!

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 17, 2016 01:30 PM (FsuaD)

30
I am woman hear me roar!

Future POTUS?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkzbGcFpwRI

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 01:30 PM (iQIUe)

31 Do the GOP even understand?

Posted by: nip at February 17, 2016 01:30 PM (r73Jl)

32 What is Trump's stance on this issue?

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 17, 2016 01:31 PM (TJCSB)

33 It's not hard to resist, if SCOAMF nominates Lynch or even Biden. Just do it, loud and proud.

Has the GOP learned nothing at all from Donaldo?

Posted by: MTF at February 17, 2016 01:31 PM (TxJGV)

34 Sit, Hillary. Now, stay.

"Arf!"

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 17, 2016 01:31 PM (FsuaD)

35 OT: I know it's way too early to go OT. I'm sorry. I abase myself. I rend my garments and gnash my teeth.

I have never had a good thing to say about Rep. Peter King (Paranoid -- Long Island).

He just repudiated his support for Trump on Wolf. Said the Saturday debate was the last straw. I've been waiting for anything to actually be changed by that clown car fire.

He also said that tough guys don't have orange hair.

Posted by: Bandersnatch, Tough Love Version at February 17, 2016 01:32 PM (1xUj/)

36 I expect the Republican senators to wince, cringe, drop to their knees in a puddle of their own urine, and beg to be allowed to vote for Obama's nominee.

"Just don't call me a racist!"

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet has Glower Sticks and Other Emergency Supplies! at February 17, 2016 01:32 PM (hLRSq)

37 "With MSM spin.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 17, 2016 01:29 PM (XtAzU) "

But that's the spin no matter what the GOP does. Refusing to nominate anybody is a calculated risk. Nominating a lefty who will sit on the court for the next 30-40 years is party suicide.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at February 17, 2016 01:32 PM (4/i9Y)

38 Sorry, I'm just despairing over this. The GOP will sell us (and the country) out. It's what they do. The story of the Frog and the Scorpion has been told too many times here for us to forget how it ends.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 17, 2016 01:32 PM (B8JRQ)

39
33 It's not hard to resist, if SCOAMF nominates Lynch or even Biden. Just do it, loud and proud.

Hahaha, Jaun Mclame. for realz

Posted by: CSMBigBird at February 17, 2016 01:32 PM (jsWA8)

40 Hillary's new necklace :

http://preview.tinyurl.com/zhdvsvb

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 17, 2016 01:32 PM (FkBIv)

41 He also said that tough guys don't have orange hair.
Posted by: Bandersnatch, Tough Love Version at February 17, 2016 01:32 PM (1xUj/)



YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

Posted by: Heat Miser at February 17, 2016 01:32 PM (mf5HN)

42 Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at February 17, 2016 01:24 PM (mf5HN)

True - that is what the rule book says. But doing that is very different for the Stockholm Senators the GOP has.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet has Glower Sticks and Other Emergency Supplies! at February 17, 2016 01:33 PM (hLRSq)

43 Do the GOP even understand?

Posted by: nip


I think the GOPe believes their careers depend on not understanding.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 17, 2016 01:34 PM (WLpmE)

44 Right now it's our turn to point and laugh at the hypocrisy and corruption of the left.

In the coming weeks it will be their turn when McConnell and other Republicans completely cave to Obama's "sensible" nominee who thinks the 14th amendment guarantees slavery reparations.

Posted by: gwelf at February 17, 2016 01:34 PM (+7Usq)

45 The GOPe should give B+rry a list of approved candidates for him to pick from. Then when he picks one, deny the appointment. Wash rinse repeat.

It's like dealing with your ex but they don't get that.

We can be Dreamers too....

Posted by: torabora at February 17, 2016 01:34 PM (6GV/b)

46 If Bernie wins the Progressive/Communist nomination Trump wins north of 40 states, I'll bet.

Posted by: MTF at February 17, 2016 01:34 PM (TxJGV)

47 Is this a good time to mention that the Democrats rejected a Bush nominee specifically because he was hispanic?

Posted by: gwelf at February 17, 2016 01:35 PM (+7Usq)

48 This shit would never happen in Alextopia.

Posted by: garrett at February 17, 2016 01:28 PM (91LL3)

You'd get a high heel in the ear drum for this in Alextopia.

Posted by: Draki at February 17, 2016 01:35 PM (0eidE)

49 Hm... gee who won the 2014 election, I wonder?




The Vichy Republicans.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at February 17, 2016 01:36 PM (493sH)

50 >>Hm... gee who won the 2014 election, I wonder?

Dear Barry-

We won.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 17, 2016 01:36 PM (/tuJf)

51 What is Trump's stance on this issue?

Posted by: Dr Spank


Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 17, 2016 01:36 PM (WLpmE)

52 Some Democrat, please explain to me how doing to Obama's nominee what the Democrats did to MIGUEL ESTRADA isn't racist.

What, was Miguel Estrada some kinda White Hispanic or something? There's a damn lot of that going around, I guess.

Posted by: Qoheleth at February 17, 2016 01:36 PM (iIzG7)

53 Do the GOP even understand?

Posted by: nip

I think the GOPe believes their careers depend on not understanding.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 17, 2016 01:34 PM (WLpmE)

If they keep getting elected, they'll think they can continue being wussies.

Posted by: Draki at February 17, 2016 01:36 PM (0eidE)

54 Speaking in Harlem did Hillary lapse into her Sharpton voice while screeching about racist Republicans? Did she start barking after her rant?

I half expect her to show up at an event one day wearing pants around her thighs, gold chains and rappin' about da man.

Posted by: Cheri at February 17, 2016 01:36 PM (oiNtH)

55 If Bernie wins the Progressive/Communist nomination Trump wins north of 40 states, I'll bet.

That's interesting considering most of teh Bern's support is from the under 50 crowd.

Posted by: Hadoop at February 17, 2016 01:37 PM (2X7pN)

56 Obama should have considered this before he decided to circumvent congress with his pen and phone. You reap what you sow.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 17, 2016 01:37 PM (09f2I)

57 But, the 2014 election was so two years ago, old news, and HAS BEEN DEBUNKED!! at Kos.

Posted by: Ezra Klein at February 17, 2016 01:37 PM (MSOpC)

58 What is Trump's stance on this issue?

Posted by: Dr Spank

Three words, 'Delay, delay, delay'.

Posted by: ugg boots at February 17, 2016 01:37 PM (fbovC)

59 who won the 2014 election?
Iran?
The Climate Change Alarmists?
The Castro Brothers?

Anyway, this is just another one of those times when the Democrats will admit that they were wrong until they can do it again.

Posted by: Satan of Teufelheim VT at February 17, 2016 01:37 PM (qSIlh)

60 Alinsky Rule #4 : "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 17, 2016 01:37 PM (TJCSB)

61
Dont forget Judge Janice Rogers Brown. She was an ideal candidate: black, conservative, single mom, worked her way thru law school, father a share cropper, pop pop a slave, smart as a whip.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 01:38 PM (iQIUe)

62 The GOPe has every reason to allow a SC nomination. It will effectively remove the blame from them for every SC decision that the base will hate.

Think about it: if the SC decides in a couple of years that the second amendment doesn't mean what it says, the GOPe can then say - 'sorry, that was the supreme court, not us. Go ahead and turn in your guns."

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 17, 2016 01:38 PM (Qvgg/)

63 Our politicians should say:
"Of course we will fairly consider Obama's appointment of anyone who will fairly rule using the actual text of the constitution and the record of writings left behind by our founders."

Posted by: Global Warming made Hillary bark like a dog at February 17, 2016 01:38 PM (Z+7WE)

64 History is immaterial.

The ONLY question is... do Turtles have backbone?

or at least... one specific Turtle...

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 17, 2016 01:38 PM (f7rv6)

65 It's a legitimate use of power by the Senate to say hahahaha that's adorbs.

There's a whole meme's worth of replies available.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=NopeFORM=HDRSC2

Posted by: DaveA at February 17, 2016 01:38 PM (DL2i+)

66 Ooops, forgot the insect with way too many legs trigger warning.

Posted by: DaveA at February 17, 2016 01:39 PM (DL2i+)

67 Some Democrat, please explain to me how doing to Obama's nominee what the Democrats did to MIGUEL ESTRADA isn't racist.

What, was Miguel Estrada some kinda White Hispanic or something? There's a damn lot of that going around, I guess.
Posted by: Qoheleth at February 17, 2016 01:36 PM (iIzG7)

I hear we can just beat peruvian americans like estrada and zimmerman on the street.....

Posted by: Draki at February 17, 2016 01:39 PM (0eidE)

68 Or, as we heard during the passage of Obamacare, "elections have consequences."

As the great political philosopher Hunter Hearst Helmsley might say, "suck it."

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at February 17, 2016 01:39 PM (4/i9Y)

69 "Sorry, I'm just despairing over this. The GOP will sell us (and the country) out. It's what they do."

I hope not. McCain and Graham came out pretty strong against Barry, and they are usually the leaders of the squishes. The Dems are always hypocritical liars, but this time it is so blatant, so recent, and all on tape.

Maybe I am CHarlie Brown getting ready to kick the football....

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 17, 2016 01:40 PM (OD2ni)

70 If Bernie wins the Progressive/Communist nomination Trump wins north of 40 states, I'll bet.

That's interesting considering most of teh Bern's support is from the under 50 crowd.
Posted by: Hadoop at February 17, 2016 01:37 PM (2X7pN)

I'm with Drew on this that Bernie could be more electable than canklesaurus.

Posted by: Draki at February 17, 2016 01:40 PM (0eidE)

71 It's different, because the GOP is evil.

Posted by: Chupacabra at February 17, 2016 01:40 PM (V40IZ)

72 Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 17, 2016 01:24 PM (WLpmE)

I don't have to imagine it. Have you been on a college campus recently? They are amoral (they don't even know what the word "moral" means), and they vote.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 17, 2016 01:40 PM (Zu3d9)

73
That terrorist doc still has me spooked. Not only bc of the little shit families but how they families see themselves as victims bc they are muslims. They are nasty crazy or crazy nasty.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 01:40 PM (iQIUe)

74 "Or, as we heard during the passage of Obamacare, "elections have consequences."

As the great political philosopher Hunter Hearst Helmsley might say, "suck it."
Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean"


I still remember a smirking Nancy Pelosi saying "we won the election, we wrote the bill."

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 17, 2016 01:41 PM (OD2ni)

75 What is Trump's stance on this issue?

Posted by: Dr Spank


Who gives a shit. All you need to know is it's going to be really great and terrific. Not like that nasty liar Cruz.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 17, 2016 01:42 PM (UnJ7w)

76 When they wrote that obamacare bill I complained on another forum that they didnt make public the final copy so people could read. I was yelled at and banned. They didnt care that there were at least 4 drafts and that they had not read any of them.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 01:43 PM (iQIUe)

77 I certainly hope that the extremist Republican racist and sexists can put aside their vile and disgusting beliefs long enough to live up to the high ideals that his country was founded upon and the traditions of collegiality and comity that have made the US Senate the world's greatest deliberative body and confirm the nomination of the common-sense mainstream jurist that President Obama has selected to handle the nation's business in its highest court.

/sarc

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet has Glower Sticks and Other Emergency Supplies! at February 17, 2016 01:43 PM (hLRSq)

78 Harry Reid: "If they refuse an up-or-down vote to a Supreme Court nominee, then that's just the most partisan course of action this chamber will have ever seen."

Jeff Sessions: "Mr. Biden, I assume that Mr. Reid's comment was directed at you and your strategy in the Bork confirmation hearings. Would you like an opportunity to rebut Mr. Reid?"

Posted by: Qoheleth at February 17, 2016 01:43 PM (iIzG7)

79 Dem strategist on Fox last night said the Rep's will pay a heavy price if they block the nomination.

I guess she is just looking out for us.

Posted by: RWC-Team BOHICA at February 17, 2016 01:43 PM (Lixdp)

80 Obama to skip Scalia's funeral, will pay his respects at the Supreme Court while the justice lies in repose. -- Twitter

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 17, 2016 01:43 PM (TJCSB)

81 Posted by: Dr Spank at February 17, 2016 01:43 PM (TJCSB)

No really! That's rain....of course it isn't piss!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 17, 2016 01:45 PM (Zu3d9)

82 I don't trust any of the shitweasels in DC now.

Posted by: Soona at February 17, 2016 01:45 PM (Fmupd)

83 "Dont forget Judge Janice Rogers Brown. She was an ideal candidate: black, conservative, single mom, worked her way thru law school, father a share cropper, pop pop a slave, smart as a whip.
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang!"


Thomas was an ideal candidate, but look at what they did to that decent man. I know he got through, but that was brutal. For God's sake, we had Ted Kennedy giving lectures on sexual harassment. TED FUCKING KENNEDY!!!

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 17, 2016 01:45 PM (OD2ni)

84 The rino 'republicans' wons dat election in 2014, but dat don mean a thang. Do it? Cuz dat supremes cote gone get day firstest ever avowed comminess.

For a better understanding of the above, read 'Confederacy Of Dunces'

Posted by: Eromero at February 17, 2016 01:45 PM (zLDYs)

85 When is the last time the GOP did NOT cave to Obama?

That's a trick question. Since Obama has been in office they have never not caved.

And since, history always repeats itself, they will cave again.

GEICO should use this in an ad in their It's What You Do series. "Cave to Obama, it's what Republicans do. Want to save 15% on car insurance, call GEICO".

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 17, 2016 01:46 PM (aScxp)

86 we had Ted Kennedy giving lectures on sexual harassment.>>>

How to get away with it?

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 17, 2016 01:46 PM (XtAzU)

87 >>What is Trump's stance on this issue?


W i d e .

Posted by: Larry Craig at February 17, 2016 01:46 PM (91LL3)

88 so what kind of dirt do the dems have on Grassley and Tillis

Posted by: Feh at February 17, 2016 01:46 PM (Fx8O+)

89 "Obama to skip Scalia's funeral, will pay his respects at the Supreme Court while the justice lies in repose. -- Twitter"

Par for the course. No, seriously, he's really trying to make par that day.

Consistent with his record of behavior.

Posted by: Qoheleth at February 17, 2016 01:47 PM (iIzG7)

90 Grassley
Hatch
Sessions
Graham
Cornyn
Lee
Cruz
Flake
Vitter
Perdue
Tillis

Leahy
Feinstein
Schumer
Durbin
Whitehouse
Klobuchar
Franken
Coons
Blumenthal

Posted by: Feh at February 17, 2016 01:47 PM (Fx8O+)

91 When is the last time the GOP did NOT cave to Obama?
That's a trick question. Since Obama has been in office they have never not caved.


And yet, all I ever hear from Obama supporters is that the GOP has obstructed him at every turn.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 17, 2016 01:47 PM (FkBIv)

92 skipping a SCOTUS funeral

what a dick

Posted by: Feh at February 17, 2016 01:48 PM (Fx8O+)

93 " Obama to skip Scalia's funeral, will pay his respects at the Supreme Court while the justice lies in repose. -- Twitter

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 17, 2016 01:43 PM (TJCSB) "

The only way Obama would show up to Scalia's funeral is if you buried him under one of the holes on the Back 9. And even then he'd just hit his ball into a water hazard and skip the green.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at February 17, 2016 01:48 PM (4/i9Y)

94 Have you been on a college campus recently?

Yes, and anyone who cannot flush a toilet shouldn't be able to vote.

Posted by: Hadoop at February 17, 2016 01:48 PM (2X7pN)

95 It's a legitimate use of power by Obama to appoint.


It's a legitimate use of power by the Senate to say hahahaha that's adorbs.


And, yes, I would say the same if the roles were reversed.

Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at February 17, 2016 01:24 PM


I, for one, would love to see Senator AtC's "that's adorbs" read into the Congressional Record. Just before she whistled for the Ravage.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at February 17, 2016 01:49 PM (bzd8I)

96 "And yet, all I ever hear from Obama supporters is that the GOP has obstructed him at every turn. "

which is WHY the GOPe caves

hmm

I don't get it

Posted by: JEB 2016 at February 17, 2016 01:49 PM (Fx8O+)

97 And yet, all I ever hear from Obama supporters is that the GOP has obstructed him at every turn.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 17, 2016 01:47 PM (FkBIv)

____

Well they do obstruct for a while and then eventually cave. But the leftist retards only remember the obstructing part, not the eventual cave.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 17, 2016 01:49 PM (aScxp)

98 >>Obama to skip Scalia's funeral



Cut him some slack.

Forecast calls for rain and those umbrella are just so damned vexing.

Posted by: garrett at February 17, 2016 01:49 PM (91LL3)

99 Few things in life give me a greater sense of futility than seeing someone try to impose a logical argument on a leftist .... it just can't be done.
They have the worldview of a five year old; I want it because it's what I want, and if you won't give it to me you are the worst person in the world.

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at February 17, 2016 01:49 PM (Z8DIA)

100 skipping a SCOTUS funeral

what a dick
Posted by: Feh at February 17, 2016 01:48 PM (Fx8O+)

Maybe he'd get booed at the funeral. Might be a lose situation for him to show up.

Posted by: Draki at February 17, 2016 01:49 PM (0eidE)

101 If the Republiweasels allow an Obama SC confirmation, this will be me the next morning.

http://tinyurl.com/hg8hwyq

Posted by: The Great White Snark at February 17, 2016 01:49 PM (Nwg0u)

102 interesting Polish magazine cover today

Posted by: Feh at February 17, 2016 01:50 PM (Fx8O+)

103 "Doing What Obama Did To Alito To Obama's Nominee is Racist" I had to read that three times. Stacked prepositional phrases? I dare anybody to diagram that sentence.

Posted by: gp at February 17, 2016 01:50 PM (mk9aG)

104 "Hm... gee who won the 2014 election, I wonder?"

We did, silly rabbit!

And we'll make sure the President's nominee is waved right through. First, though, we'll have to put on a show for the rubes in flyover country. They'll fall for it. They always do. Then they'll keep voting us in. They always do.

Posted by: The Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party at February 17, 2016 01:50 PM (noWW6)

105 skipping a SCOTUS funeral

what a dick

It's for the best. Obama would make it all about him - the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Adopt a Hot Air Refugee, get free pack of Argue-Mints at the Outrage Outlet! at February 17, 2016 01:50 PM (hLRSq)

106 When they wrote that obamacare bill I complained on another forum that they didnt make public the final copy so people could read. I was yelled at and banned. They didnt care that there were at least 4 drafts and that they had not read any of them.
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 01:43 PM (iQIUe)



I cannot remember where I saw this and thus I may be remembering in an alternately correct fashion but I was sure I saw somewhere that the final version of the bill wasn't even finished being typed up when the vote was taken. As in there were entirely blank sections.

It's so stupid I believe it.

Posted by: alexthechick - love and despair bitches at February 17, 2016 01:50 PM (mf5HN)

107
The GOPe will fold like cheapo furniture.


Ditto. I've got twenty bucks in my pocket that says our stalwart solons will confirm the dog-eating crackhead's nominee before the month is out. Any takers?

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 17, 2016 01:50 PM (X6fMO)

108 "92 skipping a SCOTUS funeral

what a dick
Posted by: Feh a"


Just as well. The jerk would probably have presented himself for communion at the Basilica.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 17, 2016 01:50 PM (OD2ni)

109 booed?

SCOTUS types have more class

Posted by: Feh at February 17, 2016 01:50 PM (Fx8O+)

110 Well they do obstruct for a while and then eventually cave. But the leftist retards only remember the obstructing part, not the eventual cave.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 17, 2016 01:49 PM (aScxp)

Hah. Yep. Memories of a goldfish.

The tasty snack kind.

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 17, 2016 01:50 PM (xuouz)

111 "That's a trick question. Since Obama has been in office they have never not caved"

Precisely why the comprehensive immigration reform and common sense gun control Obama wanted has been passed into law.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 17, 2016 01:51 PM (09f2I)

112 re 35: re Peter King: "He also said that tough guys don't have orange hair."

did that LI idiot ever say that about Boehner? I mean, I know we all know Boehner was as tough as jello, the kind with the fruit salad and little marshmallows floating in suspended animation, but it's King's opinion I want to pretend to be interested in.

Posted by: Satan of Teufelheim VT at February 17, 2016 01:51 PM (qSIlh)

113 Seriously, Obama couldn't help but dance on Scalia's grave...

As inappropriate as it is for a President to act this way, I can take not seeing Barack and FLOTUS doing the Kid-n-Play.

Posted by: garrett at February 17, 2016 01:52 PM (91LL3)

114 Actually, a second way to get Obama to show up would be to let him read the eulogy. But I don't think his teleprompters would fit in the funeral home.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at February 17, 2016 01:52 PM (4/i9Y)

115 SCOTUS types have more class
Posted by: Feh at February 17, 2016 01:50 PM (Fx8O+)

Maybe, but I've got some kin in my family that would boo at Obama anytime they see him. Don't know about Scalia's.

Posted by: Draki at February 17, 2016 01:52 PM (0eidE)

116 "the dog-eating crackhead"

I was beginning to worry that calling the POTUS a "dick" was challenging to ye olde code of civilitie

Posted by: Feh at February 17, 2016 01:52 PM (Fx8O+)

117 David Milch is broke! Gambled away 100 mil.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 01:52 PM (iQIUe)

118 Hm... gee who won the 2014 election, I wonder?


Dear Barry-


We won.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 17, 2016 01:36 PM (/tuJf)
_________

All the handwringing from the GOPe about the so-called shutdown. Did they learn anything at all? No.

Cruz for the win.

Posted by: mustbequantum at February 17, 2016 01:52 PM (MIKMs)

119 Wasn't auto confirmed unanimously ? I must have missed the point

Posted by: Terry at February 17, 2016 01:52 PM (jAz6P)

120 Precisely why the comprehensive immigration reform and common sense gun control Obama wanted has been passed into law.
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 17, 2016 01:51 PM (09f2I)

_____

In the senate the amnesty bill passed with 62 votes dumbass. And it was a Republican - Pat Toomey - that initiated the gun control bill in the first place.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 17, 2016 01:53 PM (aScxp)

121 Here's the problem in a nutshell: as soon as the democrats et al mentioned "racism" the GOP all started wetting their pants. That is the thing they are most terrified of--being called "racist." It's why impeachment is off the table, why blocking Obama's agenda is impossible, etc etc etc.

The GOP will cave. Oh, they'll spin it in a way that they hope will fool enough people on November. Trust them to work their asses off to do that.

Spoiler alert: it won't fool anyone. The GOP will not be appearing in the sequel.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 17, 2016 01:53 PM (B8JRQ)

122 draki, oh, don't think I wouldn't boo him, personally

I have no class

Posted by: Feh at February 17, 2016 01:53 PM (Fx8O+)

123 Would anyone here want Obama at their funeral? I'd want him laughed out of mine.

Posted by: Draki at February 17, 2016 01:53 PM (0eidE)

124 There was some famous (?) lawyer - Martin Garbus - on Imus this morning that said he believes Scalia was 'evil'





Posted by: McCool at February 17, 2016 01:53 PM (nCSwS)

125 draki, oh, don't think I wouldn't boo him, personally

I have no class
Posted by: Feh at February 17, 2016 01:53 PM (Fx8O+)

Posted by: Draki at February 17, 2016 01:53 PM (0eidE)

126 Damn auto correct
Wasn't Alito confirmed unanimously?

Posted by: Terry at February 17, 2016 01:54 PM (jAz6P)

127 re 106: doesn't matter, they could have just as well put in legalese to say that the bureaucracy is delegated the authority to fill in the details. Did anyone at the time think that your insurance would need to cover pediatric dental care, whether or not you have chilluns?

Posted by: Satan of Teufelheim VT at February 17, 2016 01:55 PM (qSIlh)

128 "112 re 35: re Peter King: "He also said that tough guys don't have orange hair."

did that LI idiot ever say that about Boehner? I mean, I know we all know Boehner was as tough as jello, the kind with the fruit salad and little marshmallows floating in suspended animation, but it's King's opinion I want to pretend to be interested in."


Is King supporting Hillary now? It would not surprise me.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 17, 2016 01:55 PM (OD2ni)

129 One of the office girls brought in cake and ice cream.

There is no special occasion, no birthday in the building, or any retirements...

....this is a Suspicious Cake.

*shifty eyes*

Posted by: Bigby's Red Palm at February 17, 2016 01:55 PM (3ZtZW)

130 "Maybe he'd get booed at the funeral. Might be a lose situation for him to show up."

Maybe the SCOAMF's got a legitimate concern that God would let Scalia come back long enough to publicly call him out and remind him that judgment is coming for him, just like the Ghost of Samuel coming back to bitchslap King Saul.

Posted by: Qoheleth at February 17, 2016 01:55 PM (iIzG7)

131 100 skipping a SCOTUS funeral

what a dick
Posted by: Feh at February 17, 2016 01:48 PM (Fx8O+)


Can't step foot in a Catholic Church, or he'll burst into flame.
or
May not want to risk the priest throwing Holy Water on him, and melting.

Posted by: Iblis at February 17, 2016 01:55 PM (9221z)

132 Precisely why the comprehensive immigration reform and common sense gun control Obama wanted has been passed into law.
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 17, 2016 01:51 PM (09f2I)

___

No it was pretty much party line vote.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 17, 2016 01:55 PM (aScxp)

133 14
CO-EQUAL BRANCHES! His nomination is not a coronation! Wait....never mind...King Obama Speaks!

Posted by: giftogab at February 17, 2016 01:26 PM (ysKvq)

You misspelled Tyrant.

Posted by: kathysaysso at February 17, 2016 01:55 PM (43OZ6)

134 "I cannot remember where I saw this and thus I may be remembering in an
alternately correct fashion but I was sure I saw somewhere that the
final version of the bill wasn't even finished being typed up when the
vote was taken. As in there were entirely blank sections."

Anyone else remember the far-distant era of 2008? With candidate Obama pledging to rigorously observe a "public comment period" in between Congress sending him a bill, and his signing it into law, to allow the public an opportunity to read the bill and weigh in with their responses?

Good times.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 17, 2016 01:55 PM (noWW6)

135 16 Meanwhile the Pope is on the border rolling out the welcome mat.
___________________

To our country, not his.

The Vatican generously agreed to let one Syrian refugee family into its realm, for all of one year.

This pope is always extraordinarily generous with other peoples' (mainly Americans') resources, but never with his own.

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at February 17, 2016 01:56 PM (df5V4)

136 I bet Hillary loses bladder control every time she coughs or barks.

Just sayin'

Posted by: Northernlurker at February 17, 2016 01:56 PM (hJrjt)

137 Damn auto correct
Wasn't Alito confirmed unanimously?
Posted by: Terry



No, but Scalia was I believe.

But Democrats certainly have a history of torpedoing nominations, even for the most disgusting of reasons like what movies they rented

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 01:56 PM (74hKk)

138 Surely such an important nomination and consideration will take time.

In the interest of the American people and the middle class, the Senate should deeply and thoughtfully consider Obama's nomination.

Until Jan 21st, 2017.


Posted by: MJ at February 17, 2016 01:56 PM (2gYQK)

139 For Alito that is....it was party line votes with a few RINOs voting no, cuz you know, party unity and stuff.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 17, 2016 01:56 PM (aScxp)

140 I'M GOING TO SUE! THE POLLS PROVE THAT THE PEOPLE WANT ME TO SELECT THE NEXT JUSTICE! I'M DEMANDING THAT THE DECISION BE GIVEN TO ME IMMEDIATELY! I WILL HAVE A SPECIAL VERSION OF THE APPRENTICE TO DECIDE WHO GETS THE SEAT. JOAN RIVERS IS A WONDERFUL CANDIDATE BUT THERE WILL BE TOUGH COMPETITION!

MURICA!

Posted by: President Donald Herbert Mountain Dew Comancho Trump at February 17, 2016 01:57 PM (lHWU9)

141
Bark for the Hillster!

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot, 'Who Decides?' at February 17, 2016 01:57 PM (BK3ZS)

142 "Good times.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 17, 2016 01:55 PM (noWW6) "

But that was...the before time. The long long ago. Year BO -1, before glorious godkaiser Obama.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at February 17, 2016 01:57 PM (4/i9Y)

143 there's the visitation, then the funeral Mass, then the burial

the optics are best for Obama to go to the visitation: he'd be offended by the whole Christ thing and wouldn't want to be seen suppressing a smile when Scalia's body is lain into the ground

Posted by: Feh at February 17, 2016 01:58 PM (Fx8O+)

144 When Obama pulls off something whiny, or sneery or bullshitty at Scalia's memorial will David Brooks retract that statement about how gracious he is?

Posted by: Northernlurker at February 17, 2016 01:58 PM (hJrjt)

145 The small man in the tall tower talks so much that eventually something sensible comes out:

nyti.ms/1RNVh0x

Fucka you Paur Lyan

Fucka you Lomney

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 17, 2016 01:58 PM (xuouz)

146
Yeah, if Hills cant control her bladder, should she really be living in the WH with all those expensive carpets???

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 01:58 PM (iQIUe)

147 The Democrats weaponized the nomination process, from Borking, to Anita Hill to the removal of the filibuster.

They can go Bork themselves. Frankly, the high court(s) have begun to lose some serious legitimacy.

In fact, given that only lawyers are permitted in an entire branch of government, it seems to me that the entire Judiciary is now unconstitutional, after Obergefell.

Non-lawyers should not be second-class citizens.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 17, 2016 01:58 PM (Xd2w5)

148 "Can't step foot in a Catholic Church, or he'll burst into flame.
or
May not want to risk the priest throwing Holy Water on him, and melting."


Is Cardinal Wuerl presiding? I believe he is an Obama lover.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 17, 2016 01:59 PM (OD2ni)

149 "President Obama told a Bay Area fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee last week that he intends to stay "very active in the public life of this country" after leaving office."

___

Yay.

Posted by: SMFH at February 17, 2016 01:59 PM (rlfds)

150 >> What is Trump's stance on this issue?

Wide

Posted by: The Donald at February 17, 2016 01:59 PM (c7vUv)

151 At this stage if Obama entered a Church, he would explode.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 01:59 PM (iQIUe)

152
Is King supporting Hillary now? It would not surprise me.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 17, 2016 01:55 PM (OD2ni)


He is the sort of supporter I wish on my political foes.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Adopt a Hot Air Refugee, get free pack of Argue-Mints at the Outrage Outlet! at February 17, 2016 01:59 PM (hLRSq)

153 For Alito that is....it was party line votes with a few RINOs voting no, cuz you know, party unity and stuff.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo


Lincoln Chaffee was the only Republican to vote no, and 4 Democrats voted "yes"

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 01:59 PM (74hKk)

154 I would imagine Scalia's Family requested Obama not attend.

Lord knows my family would.

Posted by: garrett at February 17, 2016 02:00 PM (91LL3)

155
Q: Why is Shrillary like a barking dog?

A: I don't understand the question.

Q: Why is Shrillary like a barking dog?

A: Why is the word "like" in your question?

Q: Hmm. Good point...


Posted by: Krebs v Carnot, 'Who Decides?' at February 17, 2016 02:00 PM (BK3ZS)

156 Has Chuck Grassley ever taken a shit? Every time I see that guy's face I think "that's got to be the most constipated person in history."

Posted by: Emmett Milbarge at February 17, 2016 02:00 PM (nFdGS)

157 I do not get how this is complicated. The President
nominates. The Senate votes to confirm or not, or, hell, even whether
or not to vote.



It's a legitimate use of power by Obama to appoint.



It's a legitimate use of power by the Senate to say hahahaha that's adorbs.



And, yes, I would say the same if the roles were reversed.

Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at February 17, 2016 01:24 PM (mf5HN)

I did say the same thing during W's administration (even though I hated it). Remember Miguel Estrada?

Posted by: redbanzai at February 17, 2016 02:00 PM (OrI3J)

158 "144 When Obama pulls off something whiny, or sneery or bullshitty at Scalia's memorial will David Brooks retract that statement about how gracious he is?
Posted by: Northernlurker"


I will need to inspect his pants first.

Posted by: David Brooks at February 17, 2016 02:00 PM (OD2ni)

159 re 134:
Anyone else remember the far-distant era of 2008? With candidate Obama pledging to rigorously observe a "public comment period" in between Congress sending him a bill, and his signing it into law, to allow the public an opportunity to read the bill and weigh in with their responses?

that was the other universe Obama. The real Obama is the One that said you could keep your health plan if you liked it and save $2500 a year to boot.

and at least he was telling the truth about the boot, just not where it would end up,

Posted by: Satan of Teufelheim VT at February 17, 2016 02:00 PM (qSIlh)

160 Scalia was 98-0

Posted by: Feh at February 17, 2016 02:00 PM (Fx8O+)

161 When Obama pulls off something whiny, or sneery or bullshitty at Scalia's memorial will David Brooks retract that statement about how gracious he is?

Posted by: Northernlurker at February 17, 2016 01:58 PM (hJrjt)


Brooks will be too busy buffing Obama's wingtips with his tongue to notice anything amiss.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Adopt a Hot Air Refugee, get free pack of Argue-Mints at the Outrage Outlet! at February 17, 2016 02:01 PM (hLRSq)

162 It's different this time because...because fuck you,that's why.
The Democrats

Posted by: steevy at February 17, 2016 02:02 PM (B48dK)

163 I did say the same thing during W's administration (even though I hated it). Remember Miguel Estrada?
Posted by: redbanzai at February 17, 2016 02:00 PM (OrI3J)



Yup. Oh it was ridiculous and all the rest of it but it was completely legitimate.

Posted by: alexthechick - love and despair bitches at February 17, 2016 02:02 PM (mf5HN)

164 The Constitution sets this up as a political battle.

It is okay to resist.

It is okay to say one thing now and the opposite later.

It's a fight.

So fight.

Posted by: eman at February 17, 2016 02:02 PM (mR7Es)

165 "Brooks will be too busy buffing Obama's wingtips with his tongue to notice anything amiss."

I think you misspelled the word "sphincter" there.

Posted by: Qoheleth at February 17, 2016 02:02 PM (iIzG7)

166 >>The small man in the tall tower talks so much that eventually something sensible comes out:


Yes, apparently The Donald is the only person in America who doesn't realize SS and Medicare are circling the bowl.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 17, 2016 02:02 PM (/tuJf)

167 "160 Scalia was 98-0"


That was before Bork. Bork changed everything. Even that sniveling cock-weasel Kevin Drum admitted it yesterday.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 17, 2016 02:02 PM (OD2ni)

168 >>>> The Vatican generously agreed to let one Syrian refugee family into its realm, for all of one year.
This pope is always extraordinarily generous with other peoples' (mainly Americans') resources, but never with his own.
Posted by: TrivialPursuer at February 17, 2016 01:56 PM
-------
Plus, the Vatican has a wall. Nice for him.

Posted by: L, Elle at February 17, 2016 02:02 PM (2x3L+)

169 This pope is always extraordinarily generous with other peoples' (mainly Americans') resources, but never with his own.

===

It's OK. He's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Posted by: Bigby's Red Palm at February 17, 2016 02:03 PM (3ZtZW)

170 Go to the 538 "What Would It Take To Turn Blue States Red" tool. African American voters turned out in historical numbers for SCOAMF, and that isn't likely to be repeated. Trump might even cut into this most-Democrat demographic group a little and get a few votes.

But the big prize is white voters with less than a college education, Trumps target demo. If he can improve GOP performance there just a little, and turn them out at a small increase in numbers, then he wins and potentially wins big.

He might even win Pennsylvania, where there are plenty of those working class voters of both races, making a certain someone here finally happy.

Posted by: MTF at February 17, 2016 02:03 PM (TxJGV)

171 The Constitution sets this up as a political battle.

It is okay to resist.

It is okay to say one thing now and the opposite later.

It's a fight.

So fight.

--------

Here here. The Constitution sets up most things as a political battle. But its only a battle if one side actually fights. Otherwise, its a slaughter.

Posted by: SH at February 17, 2016 02:04 PM (gmeXX)

172 I think you misspelled the word "sphincter" there.


Posted by: Qoheleth at February 17, 2016 02:02 PM (iIzG7)


I'm trying to keep up the standards of this here classy joint.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Adopt a Hot Air Refugee, get free pack of Argue-Mints at the Outrage Outlet! at February 17, 2016 02:04 PM (hLRSq)

173 168 >>>> The Vatican generously agreed to let one Syrian refugee family into its realm, for all of one year.
This pope is always extraordinarily generous with other peoples' (mainly Americans') resources, but never with his own.
Posted by: TrivialPursuer at February 17, 2016 01:56 PM
-------
Plus, the Vatican has a wall. Nice for him.
Posted by: L, Elle at February 17, 2016 02:02 PM (2x3L+)

I would think there would be a shortage of rapable white women in Vatican City.

Posted by: Northernlurker at February 17, 2016 02:04 PM (hJrjt)

174 I would have attended the funeral but I lost my selfie stick.

Posted by: Barack Obama at February 17, 2016 02:04 PM (FkBIv)

175 "I cannot remember where I saw this and thus I may be remembering in an alternately correct fashion but I was sure I saw somewhere that the final version of the bill wasn't even finished being typed up when the vote was taken. As in there were entirely blank sections.
It's so stupid I believe it.
"
-Posted by: alexthechick - love and despair bitches at February 17, 2016 01:50 PM (mf5HN)

Much of the bill, (if I remember), was written out as "At the Direction of the HHS Director", which was Kathleen Sebilius.

It was open to all sorts of interpretation and "direction". That broad was too stupid for this administration.
...Which is saying a whole lot.

Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at February 17, 2016 02:04 PM (OQ9R7)

176 "It's OK. He's robbing Peter to pay Paul."

The Pope, of all people, ought to know that Peter has no money to steal for Paul. "Silver and gold have I none," the fisherman said.

Posted by: Qoheleth at February 17, 2016 02:05 PM (iIzG7)

177 I did say the same thing during W's administration (even though I hated it). Remember Miguel Estrada?
Posted by: redbanzai at February 17, 2016 02:00 PM (OrI3J)


Yup. Oh it was ridiculous and all the rest of it but it was completely legitimate.

Posted by: alexthechick



The difference there was the Democrats were basically saying ALL judicial nominations required 60 votes in the Senate and basically just stopped everything

I do think that is over the top obstructionist considering the Democrats didn't even have a majority

But for the Senate to vote down an Obama nominee though is exactly what the Constitution intended

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 02:05 PM (74hKk)

178 The President's supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court's direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist.

I agree completely with this analysis. And yeah, same thing in 2014: the people clearly aren't very happy with the direction of Obama's leadership and the lunacy in the Democrat congress, so its time for a change in direction. Like it or not, such as in 2006 and 2008.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 17, 2016 02:05 PM (39g3+)

179 Yup. Oh it was ridiculous and all the rest of it but it was completely legitimate.

Posted by: alexthechick - love and despair bitches at February 17, 2016 02:02 PM (mf5HN)

-------------

Also legitimate to complain and say that the Senate Dems should have confirmed. You don't have to believe it to say it. Say what you need to win.

Posted by: SH at February 17, 2016 02:05 PM (gmeXX)

180 Did the family think of inviting Hillery in the name of non-partisanship so she could bark out "Amazing Grace"?

Posted by: Satan of Teufelheim VT at February 17, 2016 02:05 PM (qSIlh)

181 GOP Sen. Thom Tillis fears party will be seen as obstructionist if it blocks Obama SCOTUS nominee sight unseen

===========
Yet he has no fear of the destruction allowing the court to go full leftard will have... Traitor.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 02:06 PM (iQIUe)

182 Oh it was ridiculous and all the rest of it but it was completely legitimate.

It wasn't really legitimate; they never actually filibustered or took votes on cloture, they just counted and said "well it won't work" and gave up.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 17, 2016 02:06 PM (39g3+)

183 "Here here. The Constitution sets up most things as a political battle. But its only a battle if one side actually fights. Otherwise, its a slaughter."
-Posted by: SH at February 17, 2016 02:04 PM (gmeXX)

The "R's" act all cute and roll over for a belly-rub. They never understand that the "D's" and the media only want to kick the damn dog.

Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at February 17, 2016 02:06 PM (OQ9R7)

184 Ch-ch-chain, Chain of Fools.

Posted by: Roy at February 17, 2016 02:06 PM (VndSC)

185 In fact, given that only lawyers are permitted in an entire branch of government, it seems to me that the entire Judiciary is now unconstitutional, after Obergefell.


*tap tap tap*

You OK in there, boy?

Nothing but nonsense coming out of the box.

Posted by: Bandersnatch, Tough Love Version at February 17, 2016 02:07 PM (1xUj/)

186 It's OK. He's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
_______________-

Pablo (and Raul and Maria and Jose' and all their assorted siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins . . . .)

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at February 17, 2016 02:07 PM (df5V4)

187 "180 Did the family think of inviting Hillery in the name of non-partisanship so she could bark out "Amazing Grace"?
Posted by: Satan of Teufelheim VT"


She can sing back-up vocals on Who Let the Dogs Out.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 17, 2016 02:07 PM (OD2ni)

188 I do think that is over the top obstructionist considering the Democrats didn't even have a majority

-------------

I really do not think there is anything that is over the top obstruction. Sure I might claim it is but that is only to persuade people to put pressure on the side that is obstructing what I want.

The problem with the GOP in the Estrada battle was they were unwilling to exercise the nuclear option which the Dems then subsequently did.

Posted by: SH at February 17, 2016 02:07 PM (gmeXX)

189 Ditto. I've got twenty bucks in my pocket that says
our stalwart solons will confirm the dog-eating crackhead's nominee
before the month is out. Any takers?

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 17, 2016 01:50 PM


Talk about a sucker bet....

The GOPe essentially has no choice, after stupidly telling Choom Boy they wouldn't play if he sent in a nomination. All they can do is appear Obstructionist/Racist, or whatever "ist" applies to the no-talent hack who suits the Traitor-in-Chief's fancy.

How hard would it be to simply go through the process and, after the various committee hearings, whip out the red-inked NOT QUALIFIED! rubber stamp? I know, I know: too hard for the Bitch and his winy Senatorial infants.

Posted by: MrScribbler at February 17, 2016 02:08 PM (JPmdJ)

190 If I ever see Hillary, I'm going to fight her.

Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at February 17, 2016 02:08 PM (OQ9R7)

191 Did the family think of inviting Hillery in the name of non-partisanship so she could bark out "Amazing Grace"?

Posted by: Satan of Teufelheim VT at February 17, 2016 02:05 PM (qSIlh)


I have her Jingle Bells album. She's quite fetching as a singer!

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2016 02:08 PM (JO9+V)

192 I keep getting a security certificate problem for this site. Very annoying.

Posted by: Ronster at February 17, 2016 02:09 PM (mUa7N)

193 190 If I ever see Hillary, I'm going to fight her.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at February 17, 2016 02:08 PM (OQ9R7)

Her cellulite feels no pain.

Posted by: Northernlurker at February 17, 2016 02:09 PM (hJrjt)

194 "She's quite fetching as a singer!"

ISWYDT. Nicely played.

Posted by: Qoheleth at February 17, 2016 02:09 PM (iIzG7)

195 The Democrats are using asymmetric warfare. This includes non-transitive one-way logic. Akin to how blacks can never be racist, nor women sexist.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 17, 2016 02:09 PM (r1fLd)

196 Let's be clear. If the Dems win the presidency and win a slim majority in the Senate - they will exercise the nuclear option on supreme court justices. Then Ginsberg will retire and they will have changed the balance of the court for a generation.

Posted by: SH at February 17, 2016 02:09 PM (gmeXX)

197 Hey Northerurker! How did the mission go?
(That was you, right? Or am I mixing you up with another Moron?)

Posted by: L, Elle at February 17, 2016 02:10 PM (2x3L+)

198 >> Has the GOP learned nothing at all from Donaldo?

Short answer: Bwwaaaahahahahahahahahah!

Laconic answer: Yes.

(They have learned nothing at all.)

Posted by: Duncanthrax the Bellicose at February 17, 2016 02:10 PM (ml1PM)

199 Also legitimate to complain and say that the Senate Dems should have confirmed. You don't have to believe it to say it. Say what you need to win.
Posted by: SH at February 17, 2016 02:05 PM (gmeXX)



Difference in kind. Arguing hey this guy is qualified and should be confirmed is utterly different than saying it is illegitimate to object in any way to the person that the President nominates.

Two completely different objections that must not be conflated.

Posted by: alexthechick - love and despair bitches at February 17, 2016 02:10 PM (mf5HN)

200 Fredo has every Constitutional right to name a nominee. The senate has every Constitutional right to say, fuck you.

We are the ones that need to remind the senate of this. Not that it'll do any good at the end. The senate is going to cave. Fredo will get his nominee confirmed.

Posted by: Soona at February 17, 2016 02:10 PM (Fmupd)

201 Also legitimate to complain and say that the Senate Dems should have confirmed. You don't have to believe it to say it. Say what you need to win.

Posted by: SH at February 17, 2016 02:05 PM (gmeXX)



"The truth of the allegation is in the uttering of it." - Senator Harry Reid


(I may have fabricated that last quote.)

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Adopt a Hot Air Refugee, get free pack of Argue-Mints at the Outrage Outlet! at February 17, 2016 02:10 PM (hLRSq)

202 Nikki Haley endorsing Rubio.

Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at February 17, 2016 02:10 PM (RD7QR)

203 Again: no matter what they do, Republicans are called racist, so that charge should be utterly ignored. Who cares if people will say its racist? They say it all day long. What you do is irrelevant to the charge. That threat loses all meaning to any objective thinker.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 17, 2016 02:10 PM (39g3+)

204 Just thought you guys might like to see that Hillary is losing to pretty much everyone in the most recent head to head matchup polls, even Trump: http://hill.cm/AVnA39F

Let's hope she becomes the nominee!

Posted by: Doomberg at February 17, 2016 02:11 PM (LRuoq)

205 "Her cellulite feels no pain."
-Posted by: Northernlurker at February 17, 2016 02:09 PM (hJrjt)

There will be be a certain resonance that eventually shakes her to pieces, I'd imagine.

Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at February 17, 2016 02:11 PM (OQ9R7)

206
The GOP estabs will give Ofascist his way. Just like always, with just enough of the senators not up for election allowing it to go through.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 17, 2016 02:11 PM (ODxAs)

207 I see the security certificate issue too.

Posted by: MTF at February 17, 2016 02:11 PM (TxJGV)

208 "Two completely different objections that must not be conflated."

Conflated? You mean, like Joe Biden's blow-up date?

Posted by: Qoheleth at February 17, 2016 02:11 PM (iIzG7)

209 Difference in kind. Arguing hey this guy is qualified and should be confirmed is utterly different than saying it is illegitimate to object in any way to the person that the President nominates.

Two completely different objections that must not be conflated.

----------------

Just saying you use whatever argument that gets you the result you need. Who cares if you are consistent?

Posted by: SH at February 17, 2016 02:11 PM (gmeXX)

210 I really do not think there is anything that is over the top obstruction. Sure I might claim it is but that is only to persuade people to put pressure on the side that is obstructing what I want.

The problem with the GOP in the Estrada battle was they were unwilling to exercise the nuclear option which the Dems then subsequently did.
Posted by: SH


I think the filibuster in that case was "unconstitutional" in its application.

People like John McCain and other RINOs thought it was A-Ok and made a deal with Reid that he then broke.


If the Founders wanted 60 votes to confirm a judicial nomination, they would have put that in the Constitution

The first 100 years of American history, the filibuster was used something like 1 time as just a stalling technique.

I really don't care how we torpedo Obama's nominations, even if creates charges of hypocrisy. that's politics

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 02:12 PM (74hKk)

211 >> I have her Jingle Bells album. She's quite fetching as a singer!

Rove her!

Posted by: Demented Leftist at February 17, 2016 02:12 PM (ml1PM)

212 I'm trying to keep up the standards of this here classy joint.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Adopt a Hot Air Refugee, get free pack of Argue-Mints at the Outrage Outlet! at February 17, 2016 02:04 PM (hLRSq)


_______________________________________________

Sort of like how Ron Burgundy is classy compared to the Kardashians.

Posted by: NotCoach at February 17, 2016 02:12 PM (rsudF)

213 The Communist Pope is just trolling us now. Taking a page out of Barry's playbook

Posted by: L, Elle at February 17, 2016 02:12 PM (2x3L+)

214 To our country, not his.

The Vatican generously agreed to let one Syrian refugee family into its realm, for all of one year.

This pope is always extraordinarily generous with other peoples' (mainly Americans') resources, but never with his own.
Posted by: TrivialPursuer at February 17, 2016 01:56 PM (df5V4)


What won't get reported in our press, was that the Pope was also chastising Mexico for having conditions where its people feel so hopeless that they have to flee to other countries. He told the clergy to stop sucking up to the elites, and push for real reform in government and against the cartels.

Posted by: Iblis at February 17, 2016 02:12 PM (9221z)

215 "205 "Her cellulite feels no pain."
-Posted by: Northernlurker at February 17, 2016 02:09 PM (hJrjt)"



The booze helps too. Hic.

Posted by: Grandma Hillary at February 17, 2016 02:12 PM (OD2ni)

216 I think the filibuster in that case was "unconstitutional" in its application.

-----------

There is nothing unconstitutional with the filibuster. And there is nothing wrong with eliminating it.

Posted by: SH at February 17, 2016 02:13 PM (gmeXX)

217 The problem with the GOP is that THEY care about what s said about them.The cocktail party circuit is powerful.They are shitting their pants already over the "racist" angle.

Posted by: steevy at February 17, 2016 02:13 PM (B48dK)

218 197 Hey Northerurker! How did the mission go?
(That was you, right? Or am I mixing you up with another Moron?)
Posted by: L, Elle at February 17, 2016 02:10 PM (2x3L+)

It was indeed me. The trip was awesome. The mosquitoes stayed away and I loved the people I met.

The poverty was mind blowing but that was expected. And the people were incredibly generous. (How does one react to an money gift from people who earn less in a year than I do in a couple of days?)

And the flight was exhausting--36 hours from departure to arrival back home with 24 hours in the air.

FYI I spent a day in Kisimu, which claims to be Obama's home town.

Posted by: Northernlurker at February 17, 2016 02:13 PM (hJrjt)

219
WaPo: 5 possible Supreme Court picks that could make Republicans squirm

1. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch
2. Judge Sri Srinivasan
3. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
4. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah
5. Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval



Sandoval is a nasty choice. Very GOPe moderate. He'd get 90 votes

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 17, 2016 02:14 PM (kdS6q)

220 Obama voted against Alito despite saying that Alito was well qualified. His complaint was that Alito's thinking was out of the mainstream of America.

That's all any Republican needs to say.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 17, 2016 02:14 PM (/tuJf)

221 To be fair, Scooby Doo has better vocal range than Hillary!

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2016 02:14 PM (JO9+V)

222 re 203: there will always be some Repubs who think that giving in once again will finally show that they're really not racist. One can usually rely on certain idiots to remain stupid.

Posted by: Satan of Teufelheim VT at February 17, 2016 02:14 PM (qSIlh)

223 Donald Trump might be the only Republican who can not only defy TFG on a SCOTUS nominee, but he would probably end up profiting from the fight.

Posted by: MTF at February 17, 2016 02:14 PM (TxJGV)

224 "What won't get reported in our press, was that the Pope was also chastising Mexico for having conditions where its people feel so hopeless that they have to flee to other countries. He told the clergy to stop sucking up to the elites, and push for real reform in government and against the cartels.
Posted by: Iblis"


Thanks for posting this. I was glad to read it.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 17, 2016 02:14 PM (OD2ni)

225 Nikki Haley endorsing Rubio.

===

Of course. But its at least official that Jeb is the not-favored son now. Wonder when he'll drop out? Do we have a pool?

Posted by: Bigby's Red Palm at February 17, 2016 02:15 PM (3ZtZW)

226
Did the family think of inviting Hillery in the name of non-partisanship so she could bark out "Amazing Grace"?----Satan of Teufelheim VT

Yes, but it wouldn't be barking...or coming from her mouth.

Posted by: Tilikum KAW at February 17, 2016 02:15 PM (m3iiU)

227 "GOP Sen. Thom Tillis fears party will be seen as obstructionist if it blocks Obama SCOTUS nominee sight unseen"

Thanks Thom!


Posted by: torquewrench at February 17, 2016 02:15 PM (noWW6)

228 >>>> What won't get reported in our press, was that the Pope was also chastising Mexico for having conditions where its people feel so hopeless that they have to flee to other countries. He told the clergy to stop sucking up to the elites, and push for real reform in government and against the cartels.
Posted by: Iblis at February 17, 2016 02:12 PM (9221z
------
The link from Drudge did actually mention and quote him on that. So a lot of people probably did see that mentioned.

Posted by: L, Elle at February 17, 2016 02:15 PM (2x3L+)

229 But for the Senate to vote down an Obama nominee though is exactly what the Constitution intended
________________

And they absolutely should vote down any and all leftist loons that Obama would nominate.

Take, for example, Loretta Lynch. She was confirmed as Attorney General, despite testifying that she believes illegal aliens have a "right" to jobs in the U.S., and despite testifying that she had no problem with Obama issuing his executive-order amnesties to millions of illegal aliens -- even though Obama, that noted legal scholar and self-professed expert in constitutional law -- had himself repeatedly admitted that the constitution gives him no authority to unilaterally issue those EO amnesties.

Here is a woman who admitted under oath that she does not take the constitution seriously, and yet she was confirmed for the top law enforcement job in the country -- and is now reported to be the leading contender for the SCOTUS nomination.

The Senate should be happy to vote against such an obviously unfit nominee, and they should be more than willing to step in front of cameras and explain their reasons for doing so.

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at February 17, 2016 02:15 PM (df5V4)

230 If the Founders wanted 60 votes to confirm a judicial nomination, they would have put that in the Constitution

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 02:12 PM (74hKk)


________________________________________________

They did.

Article I, Section 5, Clause 2

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Posted by: NotCoach at February 17, 2016 02:15 PM (rsudF)

231 The Senate should be happy to vote against such an obviously unfit nominee

They couldn't even bring themselves to reject her as Attorney General.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 17, 2016 02:17 PM (39g3+)

232
I think the filibuster in that case was "unconstitutional" in its application.
Posted by: Kal



Given that the filibuster isn't in the Constitution, that's always the case.

Just another dopey rule of the Senate.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 17, 2016 02:17 PM (kdS6q)

233 "Nikki Haley endorsing Rubio."

So that gives C3-bio more high profile GOP-establishment endorsements (Haley, Scott, Gowdy) in SC than in any other state, but the Rube is still getting waxed by Trump in the polls in SC. What's _that_ indicate?

Posted by: torquewrench at February 17, 2016 02:18 PM (noWW6)

234 But its at least official that Jeb is the not-favored son now. Wonder when he'll drop out? Do we have a pool?

Posted by: Bigby's Red Palm at February 17, 2016 02:15 PM


As long as Momma and Daddy and Dubya are in his corner, Heb! will certainly Fight The Good Fight for as long as his campaign draws donations.

Posted by: MrScribbler at February 17, 2016 02:18 PM (JPmdJ)

235 Appropos of nothing in particular, but about halfway into this is the gayest face EVAH


http://giphy.com/gifs/best-gifs-buzzfeed-barack-obama-president-2HkTljfXKtBn2

Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 17, 2016 02:18 PM (kKHcp)

236 "Of course. But its at least official that Jeb is the not-favored son now. Wonder when he'll drop out? Do we have a pool?"


Sunday. I think he's done unless he performs unexpectedly well in SC, which is looking unlikely.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 17, 2016 02:18 PM (OD2ni)

237 Sort of like how Ron Burgundy is classy compared to the Kardashians.

Posted by: NotCoach at February 17, 2016 02:12 PM (rsudF)


Exactly. The Outrage Outlet's ventilation system pumps in the scent of rich leather and polished mahogany.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Adopt a Hot Air Refugee, get free pack of Argue-Mints at the Outrage Outlet! at February 17, 2016 02:19 PM (hLRSq)

238 Let me count the ways 18 months is not like 11 months or 8 months if you consider date a new President to be elected. I guess the Dems aren't too.confident they have the election locked up. Hillary would definitely nominate a black woman. I'm sure Obama is considering the optics of that right now.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 17, 2016 02:19 PM (1g+wZ)

239 >>>> FYI I spent a day in Kisimu, which claims to be Obama's home town.
Posted by: Northernlurker at February 17, 2016 02:13 PM
------
Did you find Aunt Zutini's hut?
jk
I'm glad to hear the trip went so well. It sounds wonderful and very fulfilling. I'm so glad you got home safely and undiseased.

Posted by: L, Elle at February 17, 2016 02:19 PM (2x3L+)

240 and go to this American treasure's website and read the quote from Senator Barky. Makes you wonder where he learned to speak English.

http://tinyurl.com/jalkmaf

Posted by: Satan of Teufelheim VT at February 17, 2016 02:19 PM (qSIlh)

241
If the Founders wanted 60 votes to confirm a judicial nomination, they would have put that in the Constitution
Posted by: Kal

They did. Article I, Section 5, Clause 2

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Posted by: NotCoach



Completely unrelated in every possibly way.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 17, 2016 02:20 PM (kdS6q)

242 GOP Sen. Thom Tillis fears party will be seen as obstructionist if it blocks Obama SCOTUS nominee sight unseen

So? Again, who cares if the Dems call them obstructionist? Who will be upset at that? The people of the USA have made it pretty clear they are annoyed with how things have been going. The clear trend of voting is for reform and a new approach.

Being accused of opposing the old approach should be played up as a virtue, not feared.

"Yes, we are obstructing the old and failed ideas of this administration. They've failed to bring economic growth, failed to help the poorest and most needy among us, failed the African American community, and imposed a host of new ridiculous strictures and regulations upon us all. We're proud to obstruct this trend and welcome a new, fresh approach to government in the coming election."

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 17, 2016 02:20 PM (39g3+)

243 What won't get reported in our press, was that the Pope was also
chastising Mexico for having conditions where its people feel so
hopeless that they have to flee to other countries. He told the clergy
to stop sucking up to the elites, and push for real reform in government
and against the cartels.


He should have said martyrs not clergy because that's what they'll be.

Posted by: Hadoop at February 17, 2016 02:20 PM (2X7pN)

244 The link from Drudge did actually mention and quote him on that. So a lot of people probably did see that mentioned.
Posted by: L, Elle at February 17, 2016 02:15 PM (2x3L+)


Hmm, didn't see the link from Drudge.
Even with the migrant crisis in Europe the Pope has called upon countries to reform themselves so their people don't have to flee. He does also call for the human treatment of refugees and migrants, which is all the press cares about. Its OK to make Westerners feel uncomfortable, but can't let the 3rd worlders feel bad. That would be oppressive.

Posted by: Iblis at February 17, 2016 02:20 PM (9221z)

245 I understand Hilz is alerting her "friends" to some stock information re: the Depends she uses during her coughing fits. Says they are spillproof, durable, and used for male and females, depending on her day and if Hummer around.

I keep waiting for her to inhale her cough drop and then watch her aides do the Heimlich on teevee. I like it when she keeps holding up her "wait one minute" finger and keeps hacking up harf-balls. Each coughing fit represents a full diaper emergency.

Oh! And here staggering out of somewhere in NH (I guess) and exclaiming how "fresh" the newly snowed air is, cracks me up. She is hanging for life on the arm of some dude. Spazzing all over the icy sidewalk, I guess, or drunk.

Here's hoping for another coughing-fit at next debate. Maybe if Bernie asks her something hard (ha, I kid, I kid).

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, aging supermodel Redneck Queen at February 17, 2016 02:21 PM (cmXKg)

246 "231 The Senate should be happy to vote against such an obviously unfit nominee

They couldn't even bring themselves to reject her as Attorney General.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor"


I hope they would know to apply a higher standard to a SC nominee. The AG is part of the Executive Branch and the President should be given some deference. But the SC, no way.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 17, 2016 02:21 PM (OD2ni)

247 NOOD!

Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at February 17, 2016 02:21 PM (OQ9R7)

248 Did you find Aunt Zutini's hut?
Posted by: L, Elle at February 17, 2016 02:19 PM


Hell, I've lived near Boston for almost five years, and I never saw Auntie Zeituni's (tax-payer-provided) apartment hut.

Never been to Uncle Odinga's liquor store, either.

Posted by: MrScribbler at February 17, 2016 02:21 PM (JPmdJ)

249 Completely unrelated in every possibly way.

Not really. The Constitution leaves the sausage making up to the chambers of the legislature: if they want to do things one way or another, its up to them within the limits of the law. How they get it done is a matter of rules.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 17, 2016 02:21 PM (39g3+)

250 "The Senate should be happy to vote against such an obviously unfit
nominee, and they should be more than willing to step in front of
cameras and explain their reasons for doing so."

And, geez, Lynch? Whose office covered the Wall Street beat?

You would think that with a public still viscerally pissed off with the high-finance class over the 2008 bust, rejecting a nominee who had gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid indicting obviously shady financiers (e.g. Jon Corzine) would be easy.

#PartyOfStupid found it too hard.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 17, 2016 02:22 PM (noWW6)

251 by the way, I happened to catch W on the telebishion the other day. Is it just my opinion or is he starting to look a lot like his old man?

Posted by: Satan of Teufelheim VT at February 17, 2016 02:22 PM (qSIlh)

252 He should have said martyrs not clergy because that's what they'll be.

Posted by: Hadoop at February 17, 2016 02:20 PM (2X7pN)


I think there was a report that around 30 priests have already been killed in the past couple of years. I can't find it right now. Might've been Breitbart.

Posted by: Iblis at February 17, 2016 02:22 PM (9221z)

253 230 If the Founders wanted 60 votes to confirm a judicial nomination, they would have put that in the Constitution

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 02:12 PM (74hKk)


They did.

Article I, Section 5, Clause 2

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Posted by: NotCoach



What if the Senate made a "rule" that Republican Senators can no longer vote on bills?

By that definition, Democrats could make a rule like that and unless they had a majority in the Senate, they couldn't override such a rule.

Don't you think that would be unconstitutional?

The idea that a Republican President is not allowed to have any judicial nominations even voted on without 60 votes first to proceed is "unconstitutional" from where I'm standing.

I have ZERO problem using this on Democrats because that's politics, but I don't agree with it in principle

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 02:22 PM (74hKk)

254 Completely unrelated in every possibly way.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 17, 2016 02:20 PM (kdS6q)


_____________________________________________

No it isn't. Congress decides for itself how legislation/confirmations are brought up for a vote. They make their own rules. And the requirement that the Senate confirm all nominations lays out no set of special rules separate from their everyday rules.

Posted by: NotCoach at February 17, 2016 02:23 PM (rsudF)

255 241
If the Founders wanted 60 votes to confirm a judicial nomination, they would have put that in the Constitution
Posted by: Kal

They did. Article I, Section 5, Clause 2

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Posted by: NotCoach



Completely unrelated in every possibly way.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 17, 2016 02:20 PM (kdS6q)

Totally on point, actually. If the Senate wants to have 60 votes for a confirmation then it can do that; all the Constitution says is that the two houses can make their own rules.

Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at February 17, 2016 02:24 PM (RD7QR)

256 The Senate should be happy to vote against such an obviously unfit nominee

They couldn't even bring themselves to reject her as Attorney General.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor"


I hope they would know to apply a higher standard to a SC nominee. The AG is part of the Executive Branch and the President should be given some deference. But the SC, no way.
Posted by: Benji Carver



Something like a Loretta Lynch nom would be a gift to Republicans

I can almost guarantee you an Obama nom will be a female.

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 02:24 PM (74hKk)

257 They couldn't even bring themselves to reject her as Attorney General.
___________________

I know, and that was idiotic. They were terrified of voting against a black woman. Never mind that her own words demonstrated a complete lack of basic fitness for the job. It's all about tribalism now, and the GOPe are so cowed by the prospect of somebody calling them raaaaacist or sexist that they will jump to confirm a minority nominee who walks into the senate chambers, squats to take a dump, and wipes his/her ass with the constitution, before they'll simply vote no.

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at February 17, 2016 02:24 PM (df5V4)

258 >>>> Posted by: Iblis at February 17, 2016 02:20 PM (9221z)
-----
Yeah, it's very sad to see what a tool this Pope is allowing himself to be. He seems to really court the press but has no understanding of how he is being manipulated by the media.

Posted by: L, Elle at February 17, 2016 02:25 PM (2x3L+)

259 I have noted that !jeb! has taken my advise and gotten rid of his wonky glasses. Unfortunately the contact lenses make him blink like Morse code, but whatevah. Being without his trusty glasses also appear to have impacted his hearing as he was the only one in room who raised his hand that he is a Democrat (when asked by Miss Lindsay G.). Poor poopie, loser of the Bush dynasty. His motto: "I sort of tried."

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, aging supermodel Redneck Queen at February 17, 2016 02:25 PM (cmXKg)

260 What if the Senate made a "rule" that Republican Senators can no longer vote on bills?

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 02:22 PM (74hKk)


________________________________________________

What if congress only those who could stand on their head could vote on legislation?

What if congress decided only those who could hold their liquor could vote on legislation?

What if congress decided only those who kissed the Pope's ring could vote on legislation?

See, I can write silly shiite too.

There are no rules stipulating who can or can not vote on legislation. There are rules on how that legislation comes up for a vote. And often times the party in power (all the time?) shuts out the party out of power when deciding these things. So what?

Posted by: NotCoach at February 17, 2016 02:26 PM (rsudF)

261 McScribbler, Ha! The taxpayer funded hut and liquor store should be tourist stops on a Moron tour of the city.

Posted by: L, Elle at February 17, 2016 02:26 PM (2x3L+)

262 As long as Momma and Daddy and Dubya are in his corner, Heb! will certainly Fight The Good Fight for as long as his campaign draws donations.

===

Which, allow me to add, warms my heart! I have the opportunity to utterly dismiss the entire clan!

Posted by: Bigby's Red Palm at February 17, 2016 02:27 PM (3ZtZW)

263 So long as Hills has the super delegates, she wins.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 02:28 PM (iQIUe)

264 On topic, I too fear the fecklessness of the R senators. Sensing they may cave is only reasonable, given past history.

But this is an election year, and just this once they may respect our memories in that many of them need our vote to survive.

They're dunderheads, or they're on the other team, it really doesn't matter at this point. If they feel their vote could affect they Nov elections at the Senate AND presidential level, they may just stand strong long enough.

So call. Or Email your Senator. Even if they aren't on the judiciary committee.
Go further than that, is you have an R for a state assembly person, or state senator, or governor, and tell them to call or email the senator too.

As a brilliant economist once said, make the wrong person do the right thing.

But for once, sitting on hands, or just bitching here, or crossing our fingers and hoping for the best.

I let my senator know in no uncertain terms that if a nominee even gets out of committee, he's toast. I won't vote for him. But I won't stay home either.

If they can't stand for this one thing, they are useless.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 17, 2016 02:28 PM (kKHcp)

265 There are no rules stipulating who can or can not vote on legislation. There are rules on how that legislation comes up for a vote. And often times the party in power (all the time?) shuts out the party out of power when deciding these things. So what?
Posted by: NotCoach



If the silly rules get in the way of a Senator not being able to fulfill something the Constitutions says they are allowed to perform, it becomes an issue.

So just for clarification, you think Reid making a rule that no judicial nominations from Bush were able to even be voted on without 60 votes in the Senate first? You were on the side of John McCain and Lyndsey Graham?

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 02:31 PM (74hKk)

266 What if the Senate made a "rule" that Republican Senators can no longer vote on bills?

Then that would be a violation of the constitution, and outside the law. This is not particularly confusing.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 17, 2016 02:32 PM (39g3+)

267 What if the Senate made a "rule" that Republican Senators can no longer vote on bills?
----------------
Then that would be a violation of the constitution, and outside the law. This is not particularly confusing.


Outside the spirit of the Constitution and un-American, though perhaps not outright unconstitutional.

Civil War 2.0 would quickly ensue. The Democrats should remember who has the guns.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 17, 2016 02:35 PM (uURQL)

268 If the silly rules get in the way of a Senator not being able to fulfill something the Constitutions says they are allowed to perform, it becomes an issue.

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 02:31 PM (74hKk)


_________________________________________________

Their roll is to cast votes on legislation. Congress decides, in their own way, what legislation will be voted on.

______________________________________________

So just for clarification, you think Reid making a rule that no judicial nominations from Bush were able to even be voted on without 60 votes in the Senate first? You were on the side of John McCain and Lyndsey Graham?

_________________________________________________

Apples and oranges. That is a political struggle that I may or may not disagree with. But my disagreement does not make it unconstitutional.

Posted by: NotCoach at February 17, 2016 02:36 PM (rsudF)

269 What if the Senate made a "rule" that Republican Senators can no longer vote on bills?

Then that would be a violation of the constitution, and outside the law. This is not particularly confusing.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor



I would say the same about requiring 60 votes before a nominee even gets to the "advise and consent" part of the Senate's duty.

If you want a President Cruz to be able to make judicial nominations, he's not going to be able to make a single one if it requires 60 to merely get the right to have one voted on, unless you want shitty judicial nominees.

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 02:36 PM (74hKk)

270 Outside the spirit of the Constitution and un-American, though perhaps not outright unconstitutional.

Directly unconstitutional to deny a duly elected representative from ever voting in congress. Absolutely and blatantly illegal.

I would say the same about requiring 60 votes before a nominee even gets to the "advise and consent" part of the Senate's duty.

You can say that, but it holds no rational or legal weight. Your argument is basically that unless everyone wins, some are being oppressed. Its nonsense.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 17, 2016 02:37 PM (39g3+)

271 35 -- He also said that tough guys don't have orange hair.

http://spotlights.fold3.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/washington_zoom.jpg

Posted by: De Medici Tires and Trannies of Florence, SC at February 17, 2016 02:38 PM (K/MPD)

272 So in the SC debate, the candidates where asked who they would nominate. Trump offered Bill Pryor and Diane Sykes. Who did your preferred candidate suggest?

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 17, 2016 02:39 PM (LXJ1e)

273 We dodged a bullet when Obama's Energy bill died in the Senate. While the House was passing it, the question was asked whether there was a single copy of the final bill in the building. The answer was no.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 17, 2016 02:39 PM (r1fLd)

274 Its quite simple, the Senate can make its own rules. It could make a rule that states the Senate may only consider and vote on judicial appointments in the month of January. I see no reason with the Senate adopting such a rule as absurd as it may be. But the Senate could just as easily get rid of this rule. The filibuster may or may not be absurd. It may have served or never really served a purpose. But it is a legitimate rule in that it is entirely within the Senate's Constitutional powers to adopt. Just as it is entirely within the Senate's power to eliminate. You want to amend the Senate rules? First, get control of the Senate.

Posted by: SH at February 17, 2016 02:41 PM (gmeXX)

275 Outside the spirit of the Constitution and un-American, though perhaps not outright unconstitutional.

Directly unconstitutional to deny a duly elected representative from ever voting in congress. Absolutely and blatantly illegal.


Posted by: Christopher Taylor

If the Senate can make its rules, who's to say?

The Constitution also says a simple majority is all that's needed for a nominee to be confirmed, yet now it requires 60 votes because of "Senate rules"

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 02:41 PM (74hKk)

276 The FL PB winners claimed their prize of about 312 million bucks post taxes. Chump change...

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 02:42 PM (iQIUe)

277 So in the SC debate, the candidates where asked who they would nominate. Trump offered Bill Pryor and Diane Sykes. Who did your preferred candidate suggest?
Posted by: Make America Great Again


Maybe Cruz has got another great pick like John Roberts

Posted by: Kal at February 17, 2016 02:42 PM (74hKk)

278
Make that $319,385,5360 post taxes...

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 17, 2016 02:44 PM (iQIUe)

279 34 Sit, Hillary. Now, stay.

"Arf!"
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 17, 2016 01:31 PM (FsuaD)

----

hmmm, i guess i won't have to make you bark like a dog

Posted by: Carl Spackler at February 17, 2016 02:45 PM (oGRue)

280 Directly unconstitutional to deny a duly elected representative from ever voting in congress. Absolutely and blatantly illegal.

Depends on the exact rule ... It is one thing to vote, another thing to weight the vote and decide what the result is.

The Senate has the power and authority to create unfair rules that do not outright contradict the Constitution. but doing it on partisan lines is a very very bad idea with severe consequences.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 17, 2016 02:45 PM (uURQL)

281 I'm chained to those bastards I hate.. SPEAKER FEES ET ALL.wait and see me break them CHAINS and bring hope AND CHAINS TO Y'ALL IN S CAROLINA...

Posted by: saf at February 17, 2016 02:52 PM (qKiBT)

282 The Republicans must follow the constitution and allow Obama to install a leftist who will not follow the constitution. Nice. I wish the RINOs were smart enough to give only statements that are plagiarized from past Democratic statements justifying not seating a new judge.

Posted by: Punching up at February 17, 2016 03:01 PM (szCLr)

283 Ha ha ha *fingers in ears* lalalalalalalalala ha haha ha ha ha

Posted by: bour3 at February 17, 2016 03:02 PM (5x3+2)

284 When Obama said Alito was out of the mainstream of America.....he meant he was a cracka.

Posted by: Geoffrey at February 17, 2016 03:10 PM (LoRcb)

285 Hillary needs to get those SC African American votes. If she thought it would help her she'd go for to door serving collard greens, chicken and biscuits and speaking like a AA preacher.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 17, 2016 04:05 PM (w4NZ8)

286 Since Obama regrets filibustering Judge Alito, he should make amends by nominating him to the
Supreme Court.

Posted by: Sometimes I Crack Myself Up at February 17, 2016 04:33 PM (nbGZj)

287 Scalia won't be going to B+rry's funeral.

Posted by: torabora at February 17, 2016 05:37 PM (eKBtI)

(Jump to top of page)






Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0384 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0095 seconds, 296 records returned.
Page size 156 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.



MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat