Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(NBC News)   If Neil Gorsuch isn't a legitimate SCOTUS judge, then I understand the Senate has ways of shutting that down   ( nbcnews.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Supreme Court, Democratic Party, Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court seat, Merrick Garland, President Donald Trump, Antonin Scalia, United States Senate  
•       •       •

1983 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2017 at 8:20 AM (43 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-03-20 07:10:40 AM  
How many justices does the Constitution say the SC is to have? Not a word about it, you say? Then eight is enough.
 
2017-03-20 07:23:08 AM  

Notabunny: How many justices does the Constitution say the SC is to have? Not a word about it, you say? Then eight is enough.


I seem to remember republicans arguing that very point.
 
2017-03-20 07:35:02 AM  

Notabunny: How many justices does the Constitution say the SC is to have? Not a word about it, you say? Then eight is enough.


Inorite?  It's not like Valen founded the Supreme Court.  There doesn't HAVE to be nine.
 
2017-03-20 07:59:49 AM  

Notabunny: How many justices does the Constitution say the SC is to have? Not a word about it, you say? Then eight is enough.


Technically the constitution requires at least one (the Chief Justice)
 
2017-03-20 08:00:21 AM  

xanadian: Notabunny: How many justices does the Constitution say the SC is to have? Not a word about it, you say? Then eight is enough.

Inorite?  It's not like Valen founded the Supreme Court.  There doesn't HAVE to be nine.


Nice.  It's a good day when you can read an obscure B5 reference.  Well done.
 
2017-03-20 08:07:09 AM  
Not without at least 41 votes, they don't.
 
2017-03-20 08:22:37 AM  

xanadian: Notabunny: How many justices does the Constitution say the SC is to have? Not a word about it, you say? Then eight is enough.

Inorite?  It's not like Valen founded the Supreme Court.  There doesn't HAVE to be nine.


Sauron founded it.  There must be nine.
 
2017-03-20 08:23:53 AM  
Well, the GOP obstructed Garland on the argument the election is coming soon and the people should decide.  Well, the people selected Clinton, so...
 
2017-03-20 08:26:08 AM  

dittybopper: Not without at least 41 votes, they don't.



Yeah, the Democrats can't possibly get 41 votes.
 
2017-03-20 08:26:24 AM  
The Senate Democrats stance should be fark you no to any and all nominees but I will accept fark you no SCOTUS confirmation unless a full investigation into the White House and Russia is complete and clears the president of wrong doing instead.
 
2017-03-20 08:27:40 AM  
Didn't FDR try in increase the number to 12 and was spanked by both sides on that idea
 
2017-03-20 08:30:20 AM  
Never forget that the GOP lied to the public and stole a seat on the SCOTUS.
 
2017-03-20 08:31:46 AM  

The Drawing Board: The Senate Democrats stance should be fark you no to any and all nominees but I will accept fark you no SCOTUS confirmation unless a full investigation into the White House and Russia is complete and clears the president of wrong doing instead.


No, this is a different fight.  The Republicans kicked up obstruction to unprecedented levels by refusing to even consider Obama's court pick.  The Senate Democrats' stance should be fark you no to any and all nominees except Garland.  Period.  At stake here is the very ability of a president to get his nominees heard.
 
2017-03-20 08:35:31 AM  
I'm not normally one to agree with feet stomping, but the GOP did really screw the pooch on this one.

They gambled and won, but with the peoples money. I'm not okay with that.
 
2017-03-20 08:36:49 AM  
Personally, I think the Senate should wait.  Historically, a president with such low approval ratings this early in his administration has never been allowed to fill a seat of the Supreme Court.  They should withhold confirmation until such time as the American people have had a say and at least 50.1% of them support such a president.
 
2017-03-20 08:41:53 AM  
Yea... they'll confirm him.  It's quite obvious the GOP just doesn't give a shiat how shady they appear.  If they can get what they want, they will because fark you, try and stop us.
 
2017-03-20 08:42:22 AM  
The Democrats are in a bit of a pickle here. If they refuse to nominate a SC judge they'll be forcing power to devolve to the lower courts and states which, in most places, puts major decisions in the hands of state level GOP. And the only thing crazier than the national Republicans are state Republicans. The more deadlocked Washington is the more power the GOP secures. The Democrats' only real options are A. stall for 4-8 years (not going to happen, they'll break eventually) or B. suck it up and confirm him and oppose Trump elsewhere
 
2017-03-20 08:42:33 AM  
What is the worst about this is that the the SC is suppoednto be the final arbiter of our laws, in a fair and impartial manner.

Fair and impartial goes out the window when we start stacking the deck with partisan BS.
 
2017-03-20 08:43:03 AM  

italie: I'm not normally one to agree with feet stomping, but the GOP did really screw the pooch on this one.

They gambled and won, but with the peoples money. I'm not okay with that.


Yeah, you just can't play nice with someone who isn't acting in good faith. Rolling over now would just tell the Republicans that acting likebeing petulant children works.
 
2017-03-20 08:43:15 AM  

Karac: Personally, I think the Senate should wait.  Historically, a president with such low approval ratings this early in his administration has never been allowed to fill a seat of the Supreme Court.  They should withhold confirmation until such time as the American people have had a say and at least 50.1% of them support such a president.



Pfft.  Just say , "No, we agreed reluctantly to forgo Obama replacing Scalia, and he would've liked a more liberal judge.  Pick another.  You wouldn't be picking one AT ALL if we didn't allow you to, it was OUR pick."

They never should have caved in the first place.  They had the pick.  They farking punted.
 
2017-03-20 08:52:41 AM  

xanadian: Notabunny: How many justices does the Constitution say the SC is to have? Not a word about it, you say? Then eight is enough.

Inorite?  It's not like Valen founded the Supreme Court.  There doesn't HAVE to be nine.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-03-20 08:53:27 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: The Democrats are in a bit of a pickle here. If they refuse to nominate a SC judge they'll be forcing power to devolve to the lower courts and states which, in most places, puts major decisions in the hands of state level GOP. And the only thing crazier than the national Republicans are state Republicans. The more deadlocked Washington is the more power the GOP secures. The Democrats' only real options are A. stall for 4-8 years (not going to happen, they'll break eventually) or B. suck it up and confirm him and oppose Trump elsewhere


Also, stalling for 4 years isn't an option.  They'll just nuke the filibuster.
 
2017-03-20 08:55:32 AM  

BMFPitt: To The Escape Zeppelin!: The Democrats are in a bit of a pickle here. If they refuse to nominate a SC judge they'll be forcing power to devolve to the lower courts and states which, in most places, puts major decisions in the hands of state level GOP. And the only thing crazier than the national Republicans are state Republicans. The more deadlocked Washington is the more power the GOP secures. The Democrats' only real options are A. stall for 4-8 years (not going to happen, they'll break eventually) or B. suck it up and confirm him and oppose Trump elsewhere

Also, stalling for 4 years isn't an option.  They'll just nuke the filibuster.


vignette1.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size
 
2017-03-20 08:56:00 AM  
He is fine.  Political objections to SCOTUS nominees are pointless and dangerous.

He's qualified.  He's conservative.  Move on.

Besides the next one is the big scary one.  It will shift the court more to the right.  This one is holding serve.
 
2017-03-20 08:57:03 AM  
"I'de be happy to have a hearing on Neil Gorsuch just as soon as we start and finish the one on Merrick Garland"
 
2017-03-20 08:57:38 AM  

Karac: Personally, I think the Senate should wait.  Historically, a president with such low approval ratings this early in his administration has never been allowed to fill a seat of the Supreme Court.  They should withhold confirmation until such time as the American people have had a say and at least 50.1% of them support such a president.


I think we should respect the McConnell rule - we had an election for the American people show who they wanted to replace Scalia on the court,

And by a margin of almost 3 million votes they wanted it to be Hillary Clinton, once she makes her choice clear, the Senate should adhere to that.
 
2017-03-20 08:58:13 AM  

hobbes0022: "I'de be happy to have a hearing on Neil Gorsuch just as soon as we start and finish the one on Merrick Garland"


That should have happened.  It didn't.  New president.  New nominees.
 
2017-03-20 09:01:29 AM  
Any democrat voting to confirm should be primaried,  their capitulation will set the precedent that democrats aren't allowed to nominate supreme court justices.
 
2017-03-20 09:02:20 AM  
Honestly, this is pretty much a 1 for 1 replacement.  Gorsuch is a mini Scalia.  I would hold onto the filibuster and the preening and prancing until there is an opening like RGB, which would be a true swing of the court.  Wait until it truly matters before showing the ass.
 
2017-03-20 09:06:18 AM  

lennavan: Well, the GOP obstructed Garland on the argument the election is coming soon and the people should decide.  Well, the people selected Clinton, so...


Trump has already filed for the 2020 election. So since the campaign's underway, it's not the time to be allowing a vote, we should let the people decide.
 
2017-03-20 09:07:43 AM  

lennavan: Well, the GOP obstructed Garland on the argument the election is coming soon and the people should decide.  Well, the people selected Clinton, so...


Even more so, Trump has already filed for re-election.  I'm pretty sure the GOP has strong feelings about confirming a new justice during a campaign....
 
2017-03-20 09:09:21 AM  

Chris Ween: Besides the next one is the big scary one. It will shift the court more to the right. This one is holding serve.


Uh, are you serious?  The court was shifted to the right, 5-4.  Thus rulings like corporations are people.  Then one of the far right justices died, leaving the court 4-4.  This one will break that tie.
 
2017-03-20 09:11:15 AM  

weddingsinger: lennavan: Well, the GOP obstructed Garland on the argument the election is coming soon and the people should decide.  Well, the people selected Clinton, so...

Even more so, Trump has already filed for re-election.  I'm pretty sure the GOP has strong feelings about confirming a new justice during a campaign....


Tyrone Slothrop: Trump has already filed for the 2020 election. So since the campaign's underway, it's not the time to be allowing a vote, we should let the people decide.


Yeah, I thought about going with that argument but then that just leaves us perpetually 4-4 on the SCOTUS which isn't bad but could be better.  I prefer the "let the voters decide who should get to choose the next justice."  Seems like Hillary gets to choose, so (D)'s should filibuster any candidate that she doesn't choose herself.
 
2017-03-20 09:13:11 AM  

Chris Ween: hobbes0022: "I'de be happy to have a hearing on Neil Gorsuch just as soon as we start and finish the one on Merrick Garland"

That should have happened.  It didn't.  New president.  New nominees.


Never before has a president been denied their constitutional right to have their SC nomination heard by the Senate, until this is rectified by the current President by renominating Merrick Garland we refuse to take part in any hearing.
 
2017-03-20 09:16:35 AM  
He is probably the best justice the dems will get from this administration.  Have the hearings, look for smoking guns, then make your decision based on that.

And is something happens to RBG in the lady tray and a half of this Presidency, block the ever living hell out of her potential replacement.
 
2017-03-20 09:18:20 AM  
Democrats are still upset over the obstruction of Merrick Garland

They should be. As should any American, no matter their political affiliation.
 
2017-03-20 09:21:01 AM  
It turns out that your constitution doesn't guaratee that the country will function. You still have to elect smart, ethical, and sane people. The entire country is at risk of collapsing now because the writers of the constitution thought that little bit would be obvious and never wrote it down.
 
2017-03-20 09:22:38 AM  

ChrisDe: Democrats are still upset over the obstruction of Merrick Garland

They should be. As should any American, no matter their political affiliation.


I would have been fine with them not confirming him, but that would have required them actually having hearings.
 
2017-03-20 09:29:57 AM  

Headso: Any democrat voting to confirm should be primaried,  their capitulation will set the precedent that democrats aren't allowed to nominate supreme court justices.


All federal office holders should be primaried.  You sohuldn't get to automatically keep your seat because you are still breathing.

I live in the Georgia 6th district.  In some years we've had only 1 candidate because the democrats never even bothered to nominate someone.  Of course now we have 18 candidates (well 5 who have any sort of chance at it before either Karen Handel or Judson Hill get the nod).
 
2017-03-20 09:30:49 AM  
Actually on second thought, I'd say "Ok but within 6 months we need him to push forward the overturning of Citizens United or no deal".
 
2017-03-20 09:33:44 AM  

Russ1642: It turns out that your constitution doesn't guaratee that the country will function. You still have to elect smart, ethical, and sane people. The entire country is at risk of collapsing now because the writers of the constitution thought that little bit would be obvious and never wrote it down.


I know you see that as a bad thing but you have to understand, the Trump voters love what's happening.  The constitution guarantees the country will function however the people want it to.  If the people want to burn it down, burn it shall.
 
2017-03-20 09:37:48 AM  

Chris Ween: He is fine.  Political objections to SCOTUS nominees are pointless and dangerous.
He's qualified.  He's conservative.  Move on.
Besides the next one is the big scary one.  It will shift the court more to the right.  This one is holding serve.


I'd love to see Trump troll both parties and appoint Garland when Ginsburg dies. He's to the right of Ginsburg so the court overall would move right, Trump could claim he's maintaining the court's balance, and Democrats would effectively be forced to sign off without complaint.
 
2017-03-20 09:40:52 AM  

xanadian: Notabunny: How many justices does the Constitution say the SC is to have? Not a word about it, you say? Then eight is enough.

Inorite?  It's not like Valen founded the Supreme Court.  There doesn't HAVE to be nine.


You get a funny AND a smart!
 
2017-03-20 09:42:00 AM  

Notabunny: How many justices does the Constitution say the SC is to have? Not a word about it, you say? Then eight is enough.


The constitution doesn't set a number. Federal Law does, and the law says there are 9.
 
2017-03-20 09:49:10 AM  

jethroe: Actually on second thought, I'd say "Ok but within 6 months we need him to push forward the overturning of Citizens United or no deal".


That's not how SCOTUS works. They have to have a case in front of them before they can overturn anything. Are there any in the pipeline that would speak to Citizen's United, even tangentially?
 
2017-03-20 09:49:12 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Chris Ween: He is fine.  Political objections to SCOTUS nominees are pointless and dangerous.
He's qualified.  He's conservative.  Move on.
Besides the next one is the big scary one.  It will shift the court more to the right.  This one is holding serve.

I'd love to see Trump troll both parties and appoint Garland when Ginsburg dies. He's to the right of Ginsburg so the court overall would move right, Trump could claim he's maintaining the court's balance, and Democrats would effectively be forced to sign off without complaint.


Funny enough, I'm fine with that. Garland was a good choice, and should have gotten the job.
 
2017-03-20 09:50:42 AM  

TheGreatGazoo: Headso: Any democrat voting to confirm should be primaried,  their capitulation will set the precedent that democrats aren't allowed to nominate supreme court justices.

All federal office holders should be primaried.  You sohuldn't get to automatically keep your seat because you are still breathing.

I live in the Georgia 6th district.  In some years we've had only 1 candidate because the democrats never even bothered to nominate someone.  Of course now we have 18 candidates (well 5 who have any sort of chance at it before either Karen Handel or Judson Hill get the nod).


*begin threadjack*

When's the ATL Fark Party gonna happen? I know there are a few of us on here.

*threadjack ended*
 
2017-03-20 09:52:53 AM  

Icarus_Rising: Notabunny: How many justices does the Constitution say the SC is to have? Not a word about it, you say? Then eight is enough.

The constitution doesn't set a number. Federal Law does, and the law says there are 9.


But as we've seen, Congress is more than willing to shirk their legal obligations for political ends.  If they can't follow through on their constitutional obligations, they sure as hell aren't going to care about some Federal law.
 
2017-03-20 09:54:23 AM  

Icarus_Rising: jethroe: Actually on second thought, I'd say "Ok but within 6 months we need him to push forward the overturning of Citizens United or no deal".

That's not how SCOTUS works. They have to have a case in front of them before they can overturn anything. Are there any in the pipeline that would speak to Citizen's United, even tangentially?


There would be if there was any chance of success.  ATM, groups like the ACLU would see it as a waste of resources to pursue such a case.
 
2017-03-20 09:56:16 AM  

Warrior Kermit: Didn't FDR try in increase the number to 12 and was spanked by both sides on that idea


It was actually as many as 15 and he only backed down on the plan when the supreme court opted instead to play ball with the new deal laws and tone down its opposition rather than getting side stepped by packing the court.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report