Hillary probably was behind this whole thing. she needs a justice to get her out of her crap storm. no better way to do it then to pop off one to get a radical in there to set her free.
I especially liked the press conference yesterday when POTUS was asked about the SCOTUS nomination and how he indicated that the Republicans were saying they were going to block and that all the Republican candidates were against any nomination and that basically they were not worthy candidates because of those positions. Called out the Donald big time and then the great part was that we had big issues to solve and delved into climate change AGAIN. He needs his SCOTUS nomination to further this crazy climate warming/cooling (change) agenda? Give me a break. I agree that we have massive issues to tackle as a society but linking climate change to a SCOTUS nomination is like saying eating bologna has caused world overpopulation. (For those that don't get that analogy look up a quote from Loretta Lynn talking about her husband from years ago).
More political BS in a year filled with political BS. I'm not happy that he gets to appoint someone...but I'm equally unhappy that the Senate has played the toddler defense (taking my toys and playing elsewhere). Maybe it is just me but I'm tired of all the energy and efforts put out by both sides to not do their jobs...it's sickening. The entire congress needs to be gutted and replaced with new blood...we absolutely need term limits! My prediction is that Lynch will be appointed which will up the ante...inaction on confirming her could energize the left's base.
I agree with this completely. As it sits right now, no one political party is actually trying to accomplish anything. They both focus on not allowing the other party to get what they want, no matter what it is. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
last I noticed the republican party wasn't keeping anything away from the dems but caving in and giving them everything they want. COWARD republicans!!!!
We elected a republican majority senate to stop Obama. It's not taking their toys and playing somewhere else. That is their job. They haven't been doing it well because he just does what he wants without them. They have the power they are supposed to vet the appointment. If Obama appoints someone with an agenda they don't pass the vetting process. Simple as that. Obama will not appoint a constitutional conservative so they should not get the nod. The left stay energized, they are always angry about something and don't have anything else to do.
It has nothing to do with "taking toys home," he said he wanted them to fill the constitutional duty and do what they were elected to do. That includes decides if whoever gets nominated is the right person, not just agreeing with whatever he or the dems decide is a good nomination. So basically in one breath he wants them to the their job and in the next it's no just do whatever I say. That's a dictatorship not a democracy.
Well gents, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this and call BS on the whole state of politics in our country. Our two party system has evolved (regressed?) to a point that it is no longer about what is right for the country, it is and endless battle of just saying "no" vice actually trying to come to some sort of compromise...and it isn't limited to one party, it's both. You can point fingers at the opposite side of your political ideology all you want but both sides are at fault...both sides play the same games and act like they are innocent of playing these games. Bringing this back to the original post, Scalia wasn't even cold yet when McConnel made his announcement that they wouldn't play ball...that's not vetting whoever is appointed, that's typical BS politics that have come to become commonplace in our country...and quite frankly, we deserve better from all of our representatives. Clean house and get new blood in there, enact term limits...the system is broken.
What has Obama done, who has he appointed that tells you he would appoint anyone other than a agenda driven progressive who will twist the constitution to their will and make laws from the bench?
There lies the problem, your believing anything a politician says. I'd rather sit back and wait and see what they actually do. No one has been nominated yet so nothing has happened. But no matter what's happens there will be a outrage form the other side. But I agree there should be alot of house cleaning.
So DSD, lets suppose that he tries to appoint an "agenda driven progressive" to the bench, what happens? Obviously that person is not going to get confirmed as well as probably cost his side votes on key senator races...which are probably more important than the Presidency at this point. We know he isn't going to appoint a conservative, his own base wouldn't allow it. What if he appoints someone who is a moderate with a proven record? If the senate stalls on it or balks, it is a very risky play which could tilt the outcome of not only the Presidency, but the Senate as well...something I'm sure you don't want to see. What then? The other thing in play here is that there are two liberal judges that will most likely retire during the next term, even more reason to not anger the electorate. They're going to do what they're going to do...I honestly believe that they stopped caring about us "little people" a long time ago.
While I agree that both sides are at fault in the political quagmire and I also strongly agree that we need term limits for everyone and I also agree that we need to get some fresh blood in there, the rub for me on the SCOTUS appointment is that it is a lifetime appointment. We have been blessed in the recent past with strict constitutionalists such as Scalia which have held consistently for 2nd amendment rights and other constitutional liberties. The liberal progressive judges view the constitution as a "living, breathing document that needs to constantly change and evolve" and so their ambition is to change it to what they see as appropriate not what the founding fathers envisioned or put in place. There was a reason that constitutional amendments were so difficult to get done and they should not get done by executive or judicial branches. I think the balance of the court is too important to get wrong regardless of the "politics" involved.
It's not the lifetime appointment that's actually the problem, it's that if we're going to settle for a two party system then the court should have a mandatory equal number of judges representing both parties and confirmed only as such. That would negate the entire partial president appointment mess. Liberals always want the rules to be "flexible" so they can change them at their very whim, that's because most liberals have a criminal mindset. They only like rules when they're dictating to everyone else.
Stand still vice is good for me but we really haven't seen that. I don't know what your talking about. I guess you want more moderates so they can comprise some more on spending and double the debt again. Maybe you want some compromise on the 1st or second amendment. What new laws do you want them to pass exactly? I'm at a loss I can't think of anything else I would like them to screw up.
You have a point in that judicial impartiality does not exist. Most judges opinions, like you and I, are colored by the beliefs that they have and do not separate them from their rulings.
100% agree. There are too many laws that have been passed. If you get right down to it everyone in the country operates outside of some rule or regulation every day. 2,000 pages of Obamacare regulations, 17,000 pages of IRS regulations and it just goes on and on and on. We don't need more laws and regulations, we need less. Multiple state and federal agencies all with jurisdiction over the same thing and all with slightly different enforcement and interpretations creates a mess that stifles this country and only succeeds in employing more bureaucrats that we as taxpayers have to pay for.
