If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Harry Reid's gelatinous notochord facilitates yet another failed judiciary nominee   (nytimes.com) divider line 61
    More: Obvious, Harry Reid, Republicans, judicial system, Republican Block, United States Senate  
•       •       •

1100 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Nov 2013 at 9:40 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-13 09:44:25 AM
Here's to hoping Obama notches another 50 or so recess appointments to the bench during the holiday season.
 
2013-11-13 09:45:37 AM
I wonder what former senator Scott Brown thinks of all these blocks of presidential nominees.
 
2013-11-13 09:46:29 AM
How surprising.
 
2013-11-13 09:51:56 AM
Ms. Pillard's liberal record on issues like abortion has troubled many conservatives

So re-take the White House and nominate horrible people.  Until then, do your damn jobs and confirm these people.
 
2013-11-13 09:58:51 AM
Is his wife still dead?
 
2013-11-13 10:01:52 AM
If Republicans aren't careful, Reid will bluff about chaning the filibuster rules again.
 
2013-11-13 10:05:39 AM

Kuta: Here's to hoping Obama notches another 50 or so recess appointments to the bench during the holiday season.


I believe the Republicans just stopped having official recesses (they continue "pro forma" sessions while on unofficial recesses) since they recovered the house, just to stop recess appointments.
 
2013-11-13 10:10:08 AM

maddermaxx: Kuta: Here's to hoping Obama notches another 50 or so recess appointments to the bench during the holiday season.

I believe the Republicans just stopped having official recesses (they continue "pro forma" sessions while on unofficial recesses) since they recovered the house, just to stop recess appointments.


Those aren't recognized by the courts or the Executive branch as sessions.
 
2013-11-13 10:12:10 AM
Social conservatives have seized on Ms. Pillard's published writings on abortion and motherhood, in which she has staunchly defended a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy as constitutionally protected. One writer for The National Review Online called her "a pro-abortion extremist."

So in their world, supporting the law of the land (which a majority of Americans favor) makes one an "extremist."
 
2013-11-13 10:12:13 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Ms. Pillard's liberal record on issues like abortion has troubled many conservatives

So re-take the White House and nominate horrible people.  Until then, do your damn jobs and confirm these people.


Um, you seem to have forgotten that Obama only won the election because of handouts to the poors like Obamaphones.  Real Americans wanted a Republican president, so the conservatives in the Senate are just protecting Real Americans---which is their job.
 
2013-11-13 10:12:53 AM

Kuta: Here's to hoping Obama notches another 50 or so recess appointments to the bench during the holiday season.


I hope he breaks the record for them, and recess appoints them *again* next year before his term is up.
 
2013-11-13 10:15:15 AM

Super Chronic: So in their world, supporting the law of the land (which a majority of Americans favor) makes one an "extremist."


Again, you're missing the point.  The majority of Real Americans (which are defined as people that John Boehner's country club would admit) are against that law.  Republicans do quite well at representing the majority of Americans, as long as they get to define "American" as they see fit (which they often do).
 
2013-11-13 10:15:22 AM

maddermaxx: Kuta: Here's to hoping Obama notches another 50 or so recess appointments to the bench during the holiday season.

I believe the Republicans just stopped having official recesses (they continue "pro forma" sessions while on unofficial recesses) since they recovered the house, just to stop recess appointments.


.To be fair, I believe the Democrats pioneered this move in 2006 and 7.
 
2013-11-13 10:19:03 AM
FTFA: "There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases that we'd love to put on the bench," referring to Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, multi-Billionaire Chip Wilson said. "Quite frankly, some women's bodies just actually don't work," the Iowa-based Senator explained. "It's about the rubbing through the thighs," said Grassley, and "how much pressure is there."

Its amazing how juxtaposing the comments of Lulemon's Chip Wilson and Senator Grassley sheds light on a certain common mentality.
 
2013-11-13 10:21:05 AM

Somacandra: FTFA: "There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases that we'd love to put on the bench," referring to Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, multi-Billionaire Chip Wilson said. "Quite frankly, some women's bodies just actually don't work," the Iowa-based Senator explained. "It's about the rubbing through the thighs," said Grassley, and "how much pressure is there."

Its amazing how juxtaposing the comments of Lulemon's Chip Wilson and Senator Grassley sheds light on a certain common mentality.


Hatred and fear of women coupled with raging insecurity?
 
2013-11-13 10:25:55 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Somacandra: FTFA: "There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases that we'd love to put on the bench," referring to Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, multi-Billionaire Chip Wilson said. "Quite frankly, some women's bodies just actually don't work," the Iowa-based Senator explained. "It's about the rubbing through the thighs," said Grassley, and "how much pressure is there."

Its amazing how juxtaposing the comments of Lulemon's Chip Wilson and Senator Grassley sheds light on a certain common mentality.

Hatred and fear of women coupled with raging insecurity?


Two planks of any worthwhile GOP campaign.
 
2013-11-13 10:29:52 AM
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is the second most visible court in the nation, after the Supreme Court, and it has a Republican majority...and three vacancies.

Due to these vacancies, it also has one of the heaviest caseloads of the circuit courts of appeal. Despite this, Republicans are vehement that any attempt to fill these vacancies is "court packing" and they have submitted bills to permanently reduce the size of this court by - imagine that! - three judges.

They are absolutely desperate not to lose their majority on said court, and Reid is too chickenshiat to do anything about it. The "I'll end the filibuster!" threats have gotten a lot of the President's nominees through, but in order to get these through he'll actually have to do it.

The President would have an easier time getting a Supreme Court nominee through, because those are so high profile that the Republicans know it costs capital to block. But on the circuit courts, only activists really watch, so they know they can block away without real penalty.
 
2013-11-13 10:33:23 AM

maddermaxx: Kuta: Here's to hoping Obama notches another 50 or so recess appointments to the bench during the holiday season.

I believe the Republicans just stopped having official recesses (they continue "pro forma" sessions while on unofficial recesses) since they recovered the house, just to stop recess appointments.


How can they filibuster with a pro forma session.
 
2013-11-13 10:34:52 AM

MFAWG: maddermaxx: Kuta: Here's to hoping Obama notches another 50 or so recess appointments to the bench during the holiday season.

I believe the Republicans just stopped having official recesses (they continue "pro forma" sessions while on unofficial recesses) since they recovered the house, just to stop recess appointments.

.To be fair, I believe the Democrats pioneered this move in 2006 and 7.


How many appointments were blocked?
 
2013-11-13 10:39:38 AM

Muta: MFAWG: maddermaxx: Kuta: Here's to hoping Obama notches another 50 or so recess appointments to the bench during the holiday season.

I believe the Republicans just stopped having official recesses (they continue "pro forma" sessions while on unofficial recesses) since they recovered the house, just to stop recess appointments.

.To be fair, I believe the Democrats pioneered this move in 2006 and 7.

How many appointments were blocked?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_con tr oversies

Quite a few. So there's that.
 
2013-11-13 10:41:17 AM
"Go ahead," Mr. Grassley (R-Iowa) said. "There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases that we'd love to put on the bench,"

Yup, these guys are assholes. You might as well go ahead and change the rules and stack the HELL out of the courts while you have the chance.
They did when it was their turn, it is the only way to have any balance at this point.
 
2013-11-13 10:49:48 AM

Somacandra: FTFA: "There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases that we'd love to put on the bench," referring to Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, multi-Billionaire Chip Wilson said. "Quite frankly, some women's bodies just actually don't work," the Iowa-based Senator explained. "It's about the rubbing through the thighs," said Grassley, and "how much pressure is there."

Its amazing how juxtaposing the comments of Lulemon's Chip Wilson and Senator Grassley sheds light on a certain common mentality.


wrong thread
 
2013-11-13 10:51:42 AM
FTFA: One writer for The National Review Online called her "a pro-abortion extremist."

Roight, guv.  One who defends settled constitutional law is an extremist.
 
2013-11-13 10:52:14 AM

mrshowrules: maddermaxx: Kuta: Here's to hoping Obama notches another 50 or so recess appointments to the bench during the holiday season.

I believe the Republicans just stopped having official recesses (they continue "pro forma" sessions while on unofficial recesses) since they recovered the house, just to stop recess appointments.

How can they filibuster with a pro forma session.


thebulletwire.com
 
2013-11-13 10:54:31 AM

MFAWG: How many appointments were blocked?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_con tr oversies

Quite a few. So there's that.


Your list includes stalled yet later confirmed appointments.  How many were out and out blocked?
 
2013-11-13 10:59:07 AM

HMS_Blinkin: Super Chronic: So in their world, supporting the law of the land (which a majority of Americans favor) makes one an "extremist."

Again, you're missing the point.  The majority of Real Americans (which are defined as people that John Boehner's country club would admit) are against that law.  Republicans do quite well at representing the majority of Americans, as long as they get to define "American" as they see fit (which they often do).


images.huffingtonpost.com
 
2013-11-13 10:59:19 AM

namatad: "Go ahead," Mr. Grassley (R-Iowa) said. "There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases that we'd love to put on the bench,"

Yup, these guys are assholes. You might as well go ahead and change the rules and stack the HELL out of the courts while you have the chance.
They did when it was their turn, it is the only way to have any balance at this point.


At this point I don't see why Harry Reid doesn't go nuclear.
 
2013-11-13 11:04:14 AM

Muta: MFAWG: How many appointments were blocked?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_con tr oversies

Quite a few. So there's that.

Your list includes stalled yet later confirmed appointments.  How many were out and out blocked?


Do you remember the 'Up or down vote' talking point from the GOP back then? That's where the hypocrisy lies.
 
2013-11-13 11:18:45 AM
FTFA: "There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases that we'd love to put on the bench," referring to Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court.


As opposed to the super-reasonable squishes they put on the bench before (Janice Rogers Brown says hello!)?  If the current setup holds, where Republicans get fire-breathing right wingers, and Dems are restricted to squishy, middle of the road types, then why not just blow up the filibuster?
 
2013-11-13 11:19:33 AM
"Ms. Pillard's liberal record on issues like abortion has troubled many conservatives, who are concerned about her attaining a position on a court widely considered second in stature to only the Supreme Court. "

Thank you Joe Biden.

/Robert Bork is smiling from the hereafter at the results of a young congressman's efforts to bolster his political career by applying political 'litmus tests' to judicial nominations. Goose and Gander coming home to roost.
 
2013-11-13 11:21:22 AM
imageshack.us
 
2013-11-13 11:22:13 AM
Stolen:

The 2010 Census showed the states to have 308.1 million population, with the smallest 21, from Wyoming's 564,000 to Iowa's 3 million, having a total of 34.8 million, or just 11.3% of the 50-state population.

That's right, technically Senators representing 11.3% of the population can block legislation.
 
2013-11-13 11:29:31 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Robert Bork is smiling from the hereafter at the results of a young congressman's efforts to bolster his political career by applying political 'litmus tests' to judicial nominations. Goose and Gander coming home to roost


Wow. Still holding that grudge, huh? I guess when over half the constituency is still sore over how the Civil War turned out (in case you forgot, THE CONFEDERATES CRIED LIKE BABIES WHO'D SOILED THEIR DIAPERS AND GAVE THE FARK UP LIKE BIATCHES!!!!), 30 years is nothing.
 
2013-11-13 11:29:38 AM

BojanglesPaladin: /Robert Bork is smiling from the hereafter at the results of a young congressman's efforts to bolster his political career by applying political 'litmus tests' to judicial nominations. Goose and Gander coming home to roost.


Do consider Bork's role in the Watergate coverup.  Can you say "obstruction of justice", boys and girls?  He and Nixon should have both gone to prison.
 
2013-11-13 11:31:59 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Do consider Bork's role in the Watergate coverup. Can you say "obstruction of justice", boys and girls? He and Nixon should have both gone to prison.


You think the law still applies to Republicans? There's a war criminal speaking at the Jews for Jesus swindling over the weekend you should talk to.
 
2013-11-13 11:56:42 AM

EyeballKid: Wow. Still holding that grudge, huh?


What grudge? Biden is the one who started this nonsense of pre-qualifying judicial nominations along partisan lines. It's been going on for 30 years and EVERY.SINGLE.TIME one side biatches and moans about how it's not right when the OTHER guys do it. But the Genie is out. And It's just kinda funny that it's his actions that are biting his administration in the ass
 
2013-11-13 12:14:08 PM
I think the Democrats should start filibustering the shiat out of Republicans. Not anything important, mind you(not that Republicans will let anything important come to a vote). I mean the little, feel good stuff.


Want to name a new post office? Oops, filibuster.
Want to pass a vote saying your previous vote? Oops, filibuster.
Want to declare it "X Awareness Day"? Oops, filibuster.
Want to pass another bill that doesn't actually accomplish anything, but makes your supporters cheer? Oops, filibuster.

Maybe then people will stop acting like children and filibustering things because they don't like it. These Republicans filibustering are basically saying "We'd only agree with a conservative nominee," and if Democrats refused to bring a Republican nominee to a vote, they'd be screaming about how bad for America that plan is.

Seriously. It's getting farking ridiculous. The filibuster needs to go.
 
2013-11-13 12:20:04 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Do consider Bork's role in the Watergate coverup.


Biden didn't. His nomination wasn't objected to because Bork was the third guy in line to do a bad fire at the President's request more than a decade prior.

It was all about abortion and attacking his supposed personal politics. Oh, and about his video rental history.
 
2013-11-13 12:23:59 PM
Harry Reid's Gelatinous Notochord would be a cool name for a band.
 
2013-11-13 01:12:51 PM

BojanglesPaladin: EyeballKid: Wow. Still holding that grudge, huh?

What grudge? Biden is the one who started this nonsense of pre-qualifying judicial nominations along partisan lines. It's been going on for 30 years and EVERY.SINGLE.TIME one side biatches and moans about how it's not right when the OTHER guys do it. But the Genie is out. And It's just kinda funny that it's his actions that are biting his administration in the ass


Something tells me you really don't know much about Democratic opposition to Bork's nomination.
 
2013-11-13 01:14:53 PM

maddermaxx: Kuta: Here's to hoping Obama notches another 50 or so recess appointments to the bench during the holiday season.

I believe the Republicans just stopped having official recesses (they continue "pro forma" sessions while on unofficial recesses) since they recovered the house, just to stop recess appointments.


The House and Senate may not adjourn without permission from the other.
 
2013-11-13 01:42:03 PM

BojanglesPaladin: /Robert Bork is smiling from the hereafter at the results of a young congressman's efforts to bolster his political career by applying political 'litmus tests' to judicial nominations. Goose and Gander coming home to roost.


Bork was looney tunes & should have never been nominated.  He spent all his remaining years after the nomination fight highlighting that fact.
 
2013-11-13 01:48:36 PM

Kuta: Here's to hoping Obama notches another 50 or so recess appointments to the bench during the holiday season.


I'll be furious if he doesn't. We need to get past this asinine notion that there's some sort of honor to be found in "doing the right thing" while losing important battles to an opponent who cheats. The Republicans are well aware of the Dems' need to feel like they're behaving honorably, and use it against them at every opportunity.

Oh, and because I haven't said it yet today, F#CK that dainty little millionaire Harry Reid for his simpering ineffectiveness. This is every bit as much his fault as it is the Republicans'.
 
2013-11-13 01:56:31 PM

BojanglesPaladin: It was all about abortion and attacking his supposed personal politics. Oh, and about his video rental history.


Bork didn't believe you had any right to privacy except what was specifically protected by statute.  (Ninth Amendment?  WTF is that?)  So they pulled his video rental history to make a point.

Bork would have made a terrible justice and you know it damned well.
 
2013-11-13 03:09:54 PM

grumpfuff: I think the Democrats should start filibustering the shiat out of Republicans. Not anything important, mind you(not that Republicans will let anything important come to a vote). I mean the little, feel good stuff.


Want to name a new post office? Oops, filibuster.
Want to pass a vote saying your previous vote? Oops, filibuster.
Want to declare it "X Awareness Day"? Oops, filibuster.
Want to pass another bill that doesn't actually accomplish anything, but makes your supporters cheer? Oops, filibuster.

Maybe then people will stop acting like children and filibustering things because they don't like it. These Republicans filibustering are basically saying "We'd only agree with a conservative nominee," and if Democrats refused to bring a Republican nominee to a vote, they'd be screaming about how bad for America that plan is.

Seriously. It's getting farking ridiculous. The filibuster needs to go.


A better fix would be to use fillibuster rules similar to Texas or the old days.
No more anonymous holds.
You want to fillibuster? fine, stand up and talk, and talk about the actual bill, 3 strikes you are out.

And the house? WTF is it with not bringing bills to a vote?
All bills must get a voter within .... 24 hours or they are assumed to have automatically passed unanimously! farking do your jorbs !!!

the real problem is that congress gets to make their own rules.
 
2013-11-13 03:13:08 PM

namatad: the real problem is that congress getsRepublicans get to make their own rules.


/ftfy
/Don't believe me? There's a whoremonger/madam-murderer in Louisiana, a staff-schtupper in Nevada, and a war criminal who'll be on Leno next week who can prove otherwise.
 
2013-11-13 03:25:56 PM

Blathering Idjut: Bork was looney tunes & should have never been nominated.


Perhaps. But his nomination was opposed on the grounds of his presumed personal political views. Just like we see here. Wrong then, wrong now.

qorkfiend: Something tells me you really don't know much about Democratic opposition to Bork's nomination.


Something is wrong. Some of us are older than others here.

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Bork would have made a terrible justice and you know it damned well.


I don't actually. Yale Law School professor, Solicitor General, Acting Attorney General, and a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit with unimpeachable legal credentials. He was a marine, and he taught both Clintons in law school. He was a strong advocate of judicial restraint and strict adherence to the limits of the Constitution. Agree or disagree with originalism, he was eminently qualified.

He was unquestionably qualified. Moreso than the current nominee (a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General and former Assistant to the Solicitor General, now a tenured law professor at Georgetown University.) It was political opposition pure and simple. It's why his name became a verb. He was attacked personally, and not on the merits of his qualifications, setting a precedent that has plagued and hindered presidential nominations ever since.

The point here is not about Bork, per se, but about having to later eat the shiat you cooked up. When Obama gets frustrated that his perfectly qualified nominees are getting hung up for purely political reasons, I hope he slaps Joe in the back of the head.
 
2013-11-13 03:29:34 PM

BojanglesPaladin: The point here is not about Bork, per se, but about


madwomanintheforest.com
"IT'S NOT FAIR!!!! MCCAIN WAS SUPPOSED TO WIN! ROMNEY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PRESIDENT!!! THAT N...SOCIALIST MUST HAVE CHEATED!!! IT'S NOT IN THE CONSITUTION!!! OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE HATED THAT N...SOCIALIST!!!!"

/ftfy
 
2013-11-13 03:30:57 PM

EyeballKid: /ftfy


No clue who you think you are responding to.

Here's a hint: Romney was not my guy.
 
2013-11-13 04:01:02 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Perhaps. But his nomination was opposed on the grounds of his presumed personal political views. Just like we see here. Wrong then, wrong now.


I'm sorry, but no.  Robert Bork was the last honest supreme court nominee to testify before the judiciary committee.  In the course of answering questions he argued forcefully that there is no constitutional right to privacy, that married couples had no right to purchase birth control, that Roe v. Wade was wrongfully decided and PROMISED Biden and the other senators that as a supreme court justice he would make decisions based on those views.  His own jurisprudence, not politics, killed his nomination.

In a modern conservative movement built on misinformation, prevarication, fraudlence, distortion and dishonesty it still remains one of the biggest whoppers that Bork had anyone but himself to blame for his failure to make it on the supreme court.

The ONLY thing admirable about Robert Bork was his aforementioned honesty in testifying.  Had subsequent justices such as Clarence Thomasor or John Roberts displayed as much honesty before the judiciary committee we would not be saddled with their radical decisions today.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report