Saturday, February 13, 2016

Justice Antonin Scalia...Dead.

The weak GOP presidential candidates just got a gift...

If there ever was a moment of Republican honesty, this was it. They are now admitting how they've been politicizing the judicial branch with partisan activist conservative justices for years, and intend to make it even worse by delaying Senate approval.

They never intended to defend the Constitution, but transform what it means by the conservative activist court.

The flurry of right wing tweets pictured here says it all, and shouldn't be forgotten during the campaign. In fact, a number of surreal pointblank promises to nominate the most extreme conservative candidates were made in tonight's GOP debate, but that's perfectly acceptable. Can't make that promise about nominating a "liberal" justice.

The absolute balls to think we should wait till we have a new president. Anybody falling this stuff:

The Huffington Post reports....
It took only a few minutes after news broke of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death on Saturday for conservatives to demand that Senate Republicans block any replacement nominated by President Barack Obama. The most prominent reaction came from Conn Carroll, a spokesman for Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who sits on the Judiciary Committee -- through which any Supreme Court nominee must go.

The haste with which Scalia's death was reduced to a political battle was a bit alarming. What is perhaps more telling is the immense political importance that one man's death could have on our system of governance. Beyond the president, the death of a sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has possibly the greatest ripple effects.
With a possible tie on the court, I wonder how many challenges we'll see from the lawsuit crazy GOP now that they don't have their sure thing anymore?

Hillary Clinton's strongest suit is her ability to take the fight the Republicans. Clinton's statement on Scalia frames the argument perfectly, using the Constitution against the conservatives.

This absolute nonsense was a crowd pleaser during the GOP presidential debate:
"It’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year,"said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Saturday.
Not quite, according to Voxdotcom:

Igor Volsky, a staffer at the liberal Center for American Progress, responded with a tweet listing justices who have been confirmed in election years:


nonquixote said...

WI Justice Rebecca Bradley is rumored for appointment to the SCOTUS bench and in the top 5 potential picks by the POTUS. Her meteoric rise to the top in WI caught nation-wide attention.

Anonymous said...

Libtards are such hypocrites.

The least you could do is proofread your blogpost before posting it so it sounds like you at least have a 3rd grade understanding of the english language...

"Anybody falling this stuff:"

"Hillary Clinton's strongest suit is her ability to take the fight the Republicans."

Democurmudgeon said...

You're so smart, gee, hope to do better next time grammatically. Of course, another sidetracking tactic I am so tired of playing with knuckle dragging geniuses gripping their pocket Constitutions, bibles and guns.

Schumer's statement is based on a different scenario. But of course, you would never see that. After all, it was written at the far right wing site Breitbart, where you believe everything. Breitbart, when he was alive, amazed the world with his partisan lunacy.

You guys and your news sources of proof...get a grip.

Anonymous said...

From the article you didn't bother to read...

"No word yet from Schumer as to why it is acceptable for Democrats to not act on a Republican nomination to the Supreme Court for 18 months, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to not act on a Democratic nomination for 11 months."

So perhaps one of the hypocrite libtards who thinks he is so smart but can't create correct sentence structure can show me how this is based on a "different scenario."

Could you at least try to present a logical argument to back up your words?

Breitbart, when he was alive, was fearless. Obama murdered him for it since he was going to expose what a total fraud the president is. But you would never do any real journalism by investigating the facts of the case so instead you accuse me of doing exactly what you do...believe.

Only a libtard would attack the messenger instead of criticize the message.

I'll take my constitution out that I am "gripping" if you'd like to go through some of that too. It would do you well to read it once in a while. It's not written in Chinese. It doesn't need to be interpreted. It needs to be OBEYED!!!

We can talk about the Bible and guns sometime too if you like. I'll expose you for the idiot that you are on those 2 topics too.