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.

(Talking Points Memo)   The Republican Senate can, and probably will, "blockade" Obama's Supreme Court. Sweet John Paul Jones, that's not how the branches of government work   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 91
    More: Scary, Obama, Supreme Court, Senate, Republicans, GOP, branches of government, d.c. circuit court of appeals, Justice Stephen Breyer  
•       •       •

3037 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Apr 2014 at 10:32 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-15 09:18:13 AM  
I'm pretty sure we've spent the last thirty years or so finding out Republican Government DOESN'T work.
And yet people are still gullible enough to keep electing Republicans because they want to stick it to the libs, instead of having a competently run country.
 
2014-04-15 09:25:36 AM  

SilentStrider: I'm pretty sure we've spent the last thirty years or so finding out Republican Government DOESN'T work.
And yet people are still gullible enough to keep electing Republicans because they want to stick it to the libs, instead of having a competently run country.


Yes. It is also sad that 'Conservatives' hate 'Liberals' because ... hell if I know. They don't think the same way? Sadly they don't realize they are being used.
 
2014-04-15 09:41:01 AM  
Of course they will do it. There is no such thing as a moral republican.

These are the people who have threatened to crash the global economy three times if they don't get what they want.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2014-04-15 09:45:28 AM  
Do it. Remind the American people that you're petulant children, and let Hillary or Biden make those picks. You lose twice.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-15 09:45:30 AM  
Tigger:

Yes. It is also sad that 'Conservatives' hate 'Liberals' because ... hell if I know. They don't think the same way? Sadly they don't realize they are being used.

They just need someone to blame for their problems.  Like that guy who shot up the Jewish center.  I doubt that he had any specific grievance against Jews based in reality, he needed a target for his anger.
 
2014-04-15 09:49:53 AM  
Not sure there's any way around it.
 
2014-04-15 09:57:14 AM  

DamnYankees: Not sure there's any way around it.


I have some suggestions, but I'm really not in a mood for a visit from the authorities today so I'll just stay mum.
 
2014-04-15 10:05:15 AM  

vpb: Tigger:

Yes. It is also sad that 'Conservatives' hate 'Liberals' because ... hell if I know. They don't think the same way? Sadly they don't realize they are being used.

They just need someone to blame for their problems.  Like that guy who shot up the Jewish center.  I doubt that he had any specific grievance against Jews based in reality, he needed a target for his anger.


You mean the guy who said this?

Jew journalist Max Blumenthal exposes and explains this attempt by a foreign government Israel, to buy the presidential election for the neo-con, war-mongering republican establishment.

Doesn't sound like a conservative to me.  Certainly not a Republican.

Of course, he also says this in the very next sentence:

Like I've been saying, the kikes simply do not trust a lame-duck black president with the name Hussein. Jews fear his re-election, thus this jewish Super PAC to defeat him.

It's pretty safe to say, I think, that his hatred of Jews is at the center of his philosophy, which puts him apart from the conventional left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican dichotomies.

Trying to force either one upon him isn't fair to either.
 
2014-04-15 10:12:59 AM  

dittybopper: vpb: Tigger:

Yes. It is also sad that 'Conservatives' hate 'Liberals' because ... hell if I know. They don't think the same way? Sadly they don't realize they are being used.

They just need someone to blame for their problems.  Like that guy who shot up the Jewish center.  I doubt that he had any specific grievance against Jews based in reality, he needed a target for his anger.

You mean the guy who said this?

Jew journalist Max Blumenthal exposes and explains this attempt by a foreign government Israel, to buy the presidential election for the neo-con, war-mongering republican establishment.

Doesn't sound like a conservative to me.  Certainly not a Republican.

Of course, he also says this in the very next sentence:

Like I've been saying, the kikes simply do not trust a lame-duck black president with the name Hussein. Jews fear his re-election, thus this jewish Super PAC to defeat him.

It's pretty safe to say, I think, that his hatred of Jews is at the center of his philosophy, which puts him apart from the conventional left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican dichotomies.

Trying to force either one upon him isn't fair to either.


I was merely commenting on the complete failure of the GOP to act in a manner that benefits the country. The consistent history of this suggests anyone who thinks they 'won't do anything this destructive' is a fool. The specifics of that particular nutjob aren't really pertinent.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-15 10:19:49 AM  
dittybopper:

It's pretty safe to say, I think, that his hatred of Jews is at the center of his philosophy, which puts him apart from the conventional left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican dichotomies.

Trying to force either one upon him isn't fair to either.


He is certainly right wing and would probably describe himself as conservative, but I never said that right wingers had a monopoly on hating people.  It's just the main factor motivating the "social conservative" wing of the party.
 
2014-04-15 10:21:11 AM  

i1089.photobucket.com

 
2014-04-15 10:24:57 AM  

DamnYankees: Not sure there's any way around it.


I know a way around it. The Republican caucus in the Senate could look at Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 and decide that the Constitution tells them their job entails providing explicit advice and consent for or against President Obama's nominees in the form of an up-or-down vote on their confirmation.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-15 10:25:36 AM  
The interesting thing is that it is possible to impede the operation of government without controlling it.  Control one house and that's it.  You can't have your way but you can keep anyone else from having theirs.  If they really keep up this anti government thing things will eventually get interesting.
 
2014-04-15 10:35:20 AM  
Great idea, just wait til they see who Hilary nominates...
 
2014-04-15 10:37:50 AM  

monoski: Great idea, just wait til they see who Hilary nominates...


If her first executive order were  to exhume the corpse of William Rehnquist and have it serve as a public urinal, I'd understand.
 
2014-04-15 10:41:26 AM  

monoski: Great idea, just wait til they see who Hilary nominates...


She'd probably nominate even more center-right, business-friendly justices than Obama would, so while they'd freak the fark out regardless, their interests probably would be better served by Clinton's potential nominees than by Obama's.

Then again, a Hildawg landslide would probably bring a Senate supermajority, and she might just go and nominate an actual liberal just to run up the scoreboard.
 
2014-04-15 10:42:16 AM  

Nadie_AZ: SilentStrider: I'm pretty sure we've spent the last thirty years or so finding out Republican Government DOESN'T work.
And yet people are still gullible enough to keep electing Republicans because they want to stick it to the libs, instead of having a competently run country.

Yes. It is also sad that 'Conservatives' hate 'Liberals' because ... hell if I know. They don't think the same way? Sadly they don't realize they are being used.


Ive been told its because Libs are educated elitist know-it-alls who want to run your life. And they have a strong preference against Ivory as a construction material.
 
2014-04-15 10:43:32 AM  
TPM seems awfully concerned about something that could happen but probably won't.
 
2014-04-15 10:46:29 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-15 10:48:01 AM  

vpb: They just need someone to blame for their problems.  Like that guy who shot up the Jewish center.  I doubt that he had any specific grievance against Jews based in reality, he needed a target for his anger.


I stumbled on this today and thought it was interesting (sorry about the size):

www.dumpaday.com
 
2014-04-15 10:49:23 AM  
Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have retired years ago. She is a dumshiat for holding on as long as she has and if she holds on too much longer, she will make her replacement someone who is  far more right-leaning and most likely horrible for our nation.
 
2014-04-15 10:50:21 AM  
The Senate has their own navy?

Those guys are getting WAY TOO MANY job perks!
 
2014-04-15 10:52:43 AM  
They could certainly tempt fate and try to block a nominee... but they would have to devise a strategy to kill about 6 million Democratic voters before 2016, otherwise the older judges will have to try and rule on high as bags of dust and skin. Which won't work, and then Hillary will get to nominate four new liberal judges to replace the two liberal and two insane judges that will soon retire.

/you know who else killed 6 million people to fuel their agenda?
 
2014-04-15 10:55:31 AM  
FTFA: I think the political reaction to such a strategy might be sufficient to rein in GOP obstruction," said Binder.

Sure buddy, you keep telling yourself that. Since when do the repubs give a shiat about the optics?
 
2014-04-15 10:55:45 AM  
Anyone who didn't see this coming is...well, probably dead.
 
2014-04-15 10:57:17 AM  
None of the members have announced intentions to retire.

Wow  I am glad that constitutional crysis has passed.

Now can we talk about the chance that Obama will call up martial law and stop the 2016 elections becoming the dictator we all know him to be.
 
2014-04-15 10:58:00 AM  
I fully expect no new Supreme Court justices to be appointed until the next presidency, whether one dies tomorrow or not.
 
2014-04-15 10:58:16 AM  

Saiga410: None of the members have announced intentions to retire.

Wow  I am glad that constitutional crysis has passed.

Now can we talk about the chance that Obama will call up martial law and stop the 2016 elections becoming the dictator we all know him to be.


Hardly a constitutional crisis, but the odds are good that at least one justice will retire between now and 2016.
 
2014-04-15 11:02:26 AM  
I double dog dare the GOP to pull this.

I can't wait to see the explanations during the election cycle. "Well, we refuse to let government do it's job because.... well.... he's blah..... libtards........ derp"
 
2014-04-15 11:02:32 AM  
That's fine. That won't play well in the press and after the shellacking the GOP is going to get in 2016, we'll have 4 more years to replace Ginsberg, Breyer, Scalia, AND Kennedy.
 
2014-04-15 11:03:25 AM  

SpectroBoy: I double dog dare the GOP to pull this.

I can't wait to see the explanations during the election cycle. "Well, we refuse to let government do it's job because.... well.... he's blah..... libtards........ derp"


Basically what they've been doing since January 2009, then?
 
2014-04-15 11:03:28 AM  
Yes. It is also sad that 'Conservatives' hate 'Liberals' because ... hell if I know. They don't think the same way? Sadly they don't realize they are being used.

They just need someone to blame for their problems.  Like that guy who shot up the Jewish center.  I doubt that he had any specific grievance against Jews based in reality, he needed a target for his anger.


Party of personal responsibility!
 
2014-04-15 11:03:50 AM  

qorkfiend: Saiga410: None of the members have announced intentions to retire.

Wow  I am glad that constitutional crysis has passed.

Now can we talk about the chance that Obama will call up martial law and stop the 2016 elections becoming the dictator we all know him to be.

Hardly a constitutional crisis, but the odds are good that at least one justice will retire between now and 2016.


Slate published a SCOTUS Justice Death Calculator last year to calculate the odds of different people dying by the end of Obama's term. They put the odds of at least one justice dying at about 64%.
 
2014-04-15 11:05:13 AM  

SpectroBoy: I double dog dare the GOP to pull this.

I can't wait to see the explanations during the election cycle. "Well, we refuse to let government do it's job because.... well.... he's blah..... libtards........ derp"


Difficulty: to their base, preventing the government from doing its job is the GOP doing its job. Many of these Senators were sent to Washington for the explicit purpose of gumming up the works.
 
2014-04-15 11:07:18 AM  

qorkfiend: Saiga410: None of the members have announced intentions to retire.

Wow  I am glad that constitutional crysis has passed.

Now can we talk about the chance that Obama will call up martial law and stop the 2016 elections becoming the dictator we all know him to be.

Hardly a constitutional crisis, but the odds are good that at least one justice will retire between now and 2016.


Also, they're getting old.  There's been a proven strong correlation between advanced age on sudden onset death.
 
2014-04-15 11:07:35 AM  

Saiga410: None of the members have announced intentions to retire.

Wow  I am glad that constitutional crysis has passed.

Now can we talk about the chance that Obama will call up martial law and stop the 2016 elections becoming the dictator we all know him to be.


The justices are kind of old, though. One could die from something like a heart attack or stroke or something, which would open up a vacancy. So, just because none have retired, it doesn't mean a vacancy in the next two years isn't going to happen. It just means if one does, it will likely be because of something rather unpredictable like a death.
 
2014-04-15 11:07:53 AM  
"It may seem implausible that Republicans would simply refuse to allow Obama to appoint any justice to such a vacancy.  ..."


HAHAHAHAHA No. That's exactly what I'd expect.
 
2014-04-15 11:09:17 AM  

Serious Black: DamnYankees: Not sure there's any way around it.

I know a way around it. The Republican caucus in the Senate could look at Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 and decide that the Constitution tells them their job entails providing explicit advice and consent for or against President Obama's nominees in the form of an up-or-down vote on their confirmation.


No, they'll look at that clause of the Constitution and decide that it tells them that their job entails preventing an up-or-down vote on a judge's confirmation.
 
2014-04-15 11:09:52 AM  

phaseolus: "It may seem implausible that Republicans would simply refuse to allow Obama to appoint any justice to such a vacancy.  ..."


HAHAHAHAHA No. That's exactly what I'd expect.


For real. Hell, I'd expect that even if tomorrow there was a vacancy, if the US elects another Democratic president, they'd try to stonewall the nomination until 2020. Congressional Republicans are a bunch of entitled goddamn children, and it's wrecking havoc on our country. But, hey, they keep winning somehow.
 
2014-04-15 11:09:55 AM  
Always good to see a Thirteen Days reference.

Quality film; if you haven't seen it, find it and watch it.
 
2014-04-15 11:16:00 AM  

Karac: Serious Black: DamnYankees: Not sure there's any way around it.

I know a way around it. The Republican caucus in the Senate could look at Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 and decide that the Constitution tells them their job entails providing explicit advice and consent for or against President Obama's nominees in the form of an up-or-down vote on their confirmation.

No, they'll look at that clause of the Constitution and decide that it tells them that their job entails preventing an up-or-down vote on a judge's confirmation.


Sure, that's what is more likely to happen, but that doesn't mean they couldn't try my suggestion to find a way around refusing to let the sitting president get somebody he nominated on the SCOTUS bench.
 
2014-04-15 11:18:15 AM  

sdd2000: [img.fark.net image 403x403]


For some reason I didn't know there was a GOP congressman with the name CRAPO.

/snicker
 
2014-04-15 11:20:38 AM  

incendi: monoski: Great idea, just wait til they see who Hilary nominates...

She'd probably nominate even more center-right, business-friendly justices than Obama would, so while they'd freak the fark out regardless, their interests probably would be better served by Clinton's potential nominees than by Obama's.

Then again, a Hildawg landslide would probably bring a Senate supermajority, and she might just go and nominate an actual liberal just to run up the scoreboard.


Business, center right but social issues she will go off the chart left and there will be a flood of GOP tears.
 
2014-04-15 11:25:09 AM  

Serious Black: Sure, that's what is more likely to happen, but that doesn't mean they couldn't try my suggestion to find a way around refusing to let the sitting president get somebody he nominated on the SCOTUS bench.


So long as the Senate fails to confirm a nominee, I don't know that there's a legal way to eventually "force" acceptance. Conceivably, we could have 0 sitting SCOTUS justices if the Senate didn't care about doing that part of its duty for a generation.

That extreme is unlikely to happen, but if one justice dies tomorrow, what do we think the odds are that the GOP makes damn sure no one gets seated until after the 2016 elections? (Though I guess if they take the Senate in November, they'll push just as hard as they can for a confirmation NOWNOWNOW, but they're probably not going to get to 51 seats, and certainly not going to get 60.)
 
2014-04-15 11:29:15 AM  
Obama could use his military authority to abolish the Congress and rule the country how it needs to be ruled
 
2014-04-15 11:33:23 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Obama could use his military authority to abolish the Congress and rule the country how it needs to be ruled


We don't have to go that far as to abolish the whole thing. Just take out those who tried to shut down the government. (Most) Problem(s) solved.
 
2014-04-15 11:37:00 AM  
It's pretty risky to do.

If there is little that's actually objectionable about the nominee, the GOP are going to look like fools to swing voters, and that will be used against them in 2016.
 
2014-04-15 11:39:32 AM  
Note that Supreme Court nominees being the only judicial nominees subject to a cloture motion is just what the agreement was and has no legal basis. If changing the Senate rules mid-session to allow that change was legal then if hard pressed Democrats could do it again and finish off cloture votes for judicial nominees completely.

Though again, if they get 51 Senate seats then it's still an issue.
 
2014-04-15 11:42:30 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Serious Black: Sure, that's what is more likely to happen, but that doesn't mean they couldn't try my suggestion to find a way around refusing to let the sitting president get somebody he nominated on the SCOTUS bench.

So long as the Senate fails to confirm a nominee, I don't know that there's a legal way to eventually "force" acceptance. Conceivably, we could have 0 sitting SCOTUS justices if the Senate didn't care about doing that part of its duty for a generation.

That extreme is unlikely to happen, but if one justice dies tomorrow, what do we think the odds are that the GOP makes damn sure no one gets seated until after the 2016 elections? (Though I guess if they take the Senate in November, they'll push just as hard as they can for a confirmation NOWNOWNOW, but they're probably not going to get to 51 seats, and certainly not going to get 60.)


I'd assign that event a non-zero probability. It should be zero. If the president nominates somebody to a seat, that nominee deserves an up-or-down vote based on that either confirms or rejects the nomination. And if that nominee is rejected, the president deserves to nominate somebody else who similarly deserves an up-or-down vote. I would say the same thing even if (God forbid) we were talking about President Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin's nominees.
 
2014-04-15 11:43:59 AM  

thornhill: It's pretty risky to do.

If there is little that's actually objectionable about the nominee, the GOP are going to look like fools to swing voters, and that will be used against them in 2016.


The problem with this is that most of the members know that mathematically the only electoral threat they face is from their right.
 
Displayed 50 of 91 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