Slashdot Mirror
Obama Nominates Merrick Garland For Supreme Court (usatoday.com)
According to the New York Times, President Barack Obama has nominated Merrick B. Garland as the nation's 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appeals court judge for the lifetime appointment and daring Republican senators to refuse consideration of a jurist who is highly regarded throughout Washington. Like Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Garland comes from the powerful D.C. Circuit court. The president said Judge Garland is "widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence. The qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration from leaders from both sides of the aisle." Mr. Obama said it is tempting to make the confirmation process "an extension of our divided politics." But he warned that "to go down that path would be wrong." Mr. Obama demanded a fair hearing for Judge Garland and said that refusing to even consider his nomination would provoke "an endless cycle of more tit for tat" that would undermine the democratic process for years to come. Merrick B. Garland will serve in the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas.
Shouldn't the American people get to decide and have a voice on important matters?
Who's writing these summaries? Perhaps you need to learn what an honorific is and why you should be using it.
A very non-offensive, centrist choice. He has no chance.
We have plenty of other websites (or 'old media') that we can use to get news like this (which, in any case, is already several hours old).
This is a deliberate attempt to pick a fight with folks who support the second amendment. There is nothing "middle of the road",
or "centrist" about this terribly flawed politically motivated nominee.
He'll be a difficult nominee to dismiss out of hand, and I suppose that's the point.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
This is a perfect example of a purely-political submission that should not have been promoted to the front page.
It doesn't even have a damn thing to do about technology, science, math, computing, software, or anything relating at all to what Slashdot submissions should be about.
BeauHD, I know you're new here, but this is the kind of submission that does not belong at Slashdot. When you see ones like this, which are about politics and nothing but politics, toss them out.
If we wanted to read about political shenanigans like those that this submission is about, we'd go to CNN, or Reddit, or some other non-Slashdot site.
The fact that we're here at Slashdot means that we want submissions that aren't purely about political shit like this submission is.
BeauHD, I don't know if you have the power to do it, but if you do I would suggest you trash this submission and put something else more relevant to Slashdot's topicality on the front page instead.
The summary says: "Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas." I'm not one for conspiracy theories but, a more accurate description (as reported by the owner of the ranch) would be: "Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep with a pillow over his head while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas."
I'm sure that he regularly slept with a pillow over his head and it was all simply a misunderstanding. This can happen -- just like the guy who slept with a horse head on his bed in The Godfather.
The most popular /. stories aren't always about technology https://slashdot.org/hof.shtml ... You can go to CNN or Reddit but you won't get the same level of discussion
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
Here's hoping the Republicans keep this psycho out of the Supreme Court, the last thing we need is another liberal zealot like Kagan
I mean President Obama's administration studied the keystone pipeline for 7 years before deciding that it is more environmentally friendly to haul crude oil in trucks and rail. I say the senate should do him the same favor and consider this appointment for at least a couple years before deciding he was not qualified.
I mean let's not be mean spirited about it. The Senate should consider him, and consider him some more. Then after that is all done why not consider him again. Let's consider the fuck out of him. Make him the most considered appointment never to get appointed.
It is after all the Senate's constitutional duty.
We'll probably see more snowballs in Congress.
Table-ized A.I.
whipslash, just because political stories have gotten a lot of comments here in the past doesn't mean that it's good, wholesome discussion.
Controversial topics, of which politics is one of the main ones, tend to generate some of the shittiest and worst discussion around. The sheer volume of this shitty discussion makes it even worse.
Things have been looking really good around here lately. But this submission reminds me of the kind of bullshit that was so common during the Dice era.
I, for one, thought we were over that kind of nonsense here. I thought that Slashdot had moved beyond the divisive, pandering submissions that were so common in earlier days.
If this submission had even some minor connection to technology, or science, or math, or computing, or software, or engineering it would be excusable. But there's absolutely nothing relevant at all about this particular submission. It's nothing but politics, and not even important politics.
It's disappointing to see a submission like this wasting space on the front page. There could be a relevant story being shown instead in the space that this story is unnecessarily occupying.
You can go to CNN or Reddit but you won't get the same level of discussion
Exactly! I don't come here to read the news, but to read what Geeks and Nerds think of the news. I wouldn't mind if a story was posted about Kim Kardashian's butt. Someone would post that he is completing his Ph.D. in the theoretical geometry of feminine butts. Another would post that he is with a CSI unit as a Crackology expert.
Slashdot has an incredible wealth of expert knowledge . . . and I will read just about anything the folks here want to say about anything.
"Nudes for Nerds", indeed.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...Obama at least gave Garland a tour of the bus he just threw him under.
Political Cannon Fodder
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
If we wanted to read about political shenanigans like those that this submission is about, we'd go to CNN, or Reddit, or some other non-Slashdot site.
When you say we, you're exaggerating your representation of the lot of us.
If I hear about something political or tragic, I look to this site for the most insightful discussion. Sure, sometimes that is not as instantaneous as the 24 hr media coverage, but I'm looking for balanced careful reflection and response.
You can't get that anywhere else as consistently as you do here.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Not exactly Kim Kardashians ass but her sisters sex tape was involved... https://search.slashdot.org/st...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Thinks and tried to rule that DC residents should not be allowed to have legal guns in their own homes.
Not someone who should be a judge of any sort in the United States.
the Mau Mau hippocrit Obama filibustered Samual Alito's nomination. The self-serving jerk didn't care much about the tenor of the politics then. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Demand Trump! Fill Scalia's seat with a young, rock-ribbed conservative.
an ill wind that blows no good
Shut the fuck up.
I am sick and tired of these kinds of posts on every single fucking story.
If you don't like the story, don't click on it.
Don't read it. Don't read the summary.
And most importantly, don't fucking comment on it just to complain that it's not nerd enough for your tastes.
That fact that I'm on slashdot means I want to read fucking comments discussing the article, not bitching and moaning about the story selection.
And UNIBOMBER so he might have some technical knowledge. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Agreed, this is political news. Don't want to see it. As far as I am concerned, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton should not exist on slashdot.
Robert Bork. That jerkoff Biden will remember him. I don't expect Obama to. He was smoking dope in those days. Buh-bye.
an ill wind that blows no good
Scalia died in Texas, while on a hunting trip - yet the government STILL hasn't told us where Dick Cheney was during that time period.
I strongly suspect he's finally optimized his killing technique.
#DeleteChrome
If Clinton is voted in the Senate holds hearings right then, making Merrick the least possible Judge. If a Republican gets nominated, they pick their own. I sincerely hope that they pick someone with better grasp of the Constitution. Merrick is anti-2nd amendment, questionable on the 1st and 5th, and does not care about the 4th. You can look at the record.
IF YOU DON"T LIKE THE POST GTFO! Nobody makes you read things on a web site, or focus on THIS one post. Opinions are like assholes, in that everyone has them and they all stink worse than my own.
This is a perfect example of a purely-political submission that should not have been promoted to the front page.
It doesn't even have a damn thing to do about technology, science, math, computing, software, or anything relating at all to what Slashdot submissions should be about.
The Supreme Court will making decisions that will shape our society for generations to come. The geek will not escape unscathed.
"widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence."
I don't want a Supreme Court Justice who is one of the "sharpest legal minds". I want one who's level of reading comprehension equals or exceeds that of a five-year-old. And make sure he's read the Constitution.
[...] respect and admiration from leaders from both sides of the aisle.
I want someone who both parties hate.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
this isn't a tech news site anymore it's a propaganda anus. http://lobste.rs for life!
...why in the name of all that is fucking Tech is this fucking stupid, fucking available-everywhere fucking drek even fucking here???
If I fucking want Puffington Fucking Post or fucking Faux Fucking News I'll fucking go there.
Fucking got it, you fuck-witted dildos?
Thank you for your attention.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
and NOT in some whacko SJW way.
I have a very bare minimum expectation that anybody slipping into the seat of Justice Scalia, as staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people, would NOT be a turkey with a track record of denying the existence of that Amendment. The GOP confirmed this Clinton appointee to his current job on a lower court as an act of traditional bi-partisanship. But replacing Scalia with him on the high court would be like replacing Thurgood Marshall with with a Klansman or a slave owner. A judge who denies the plain text of the Constitution cannot be trusted with ANY of our rights - this sort of thing has been going on, eroding our rights, for far too long.
The GOP are correct to follow the precedents of President Obama, who tried to fillibuster the nomination of Justice Alito, Vice President Biden, who tried to block ALL bush appointees when he ran the senate committee, and Senator Charlie Shumer who fought to block all Bush41 and Bush43 nominees and actually orchestrated the political lynching of Justice Thomas and the trashing of Judge Bork that led to the term "borked" and created all the modern toxicity surrounding the nomination of justices. What comes around goes around...
Doesn't address any flaws in the system, unless insurance companies not making enough money by being middle men was a problem. Tort reform saves somewhere between 5 and 10 percent. Opening up interstate competition would also shave some percentage off the costs. Reducing the required coverage to actual health care and not lifestyle issues would save the average American a lot of money. Increasing the number of medical schools or founding a medical service academy would pay dividends almost immediately.
The ACA is going to bend costs sometime approaching never. It's just laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
It's grounds for impeachment because it is in fact treason.
What planet do you come from?
That video IS edited, it's cut off before Biden finishes his remarks. Later he states that since the American people have split the government between the parties, "Compromise is the responsible course, both between the White House and the Senate..." The clip of his continued remarks is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This was pretty well known as soon as the first set of remarks were brought up in the news in the last couple of days. That second clip took me all of ten seconds to find, the AC political shills here can do better...
Here's the thing. The nominee has to be approved by a majority of the Senate (and contrary to the rhetoric I've been hearing, every Supreme Court Nominee rejected by the Senate in the last 100 years has been a Republican nominee; so it's the Democrats who haven't been shy about shooting down nominations).
The Republicans hold a 4 seat majority in the Senate. The Senators up for re-election this year came in during the Tea Party wave in 2010 - Obama's first mid-term election. Consequently, a disproportionate number of them are Republicans. There are 24 Republicans up for re-election and only 10 Democrats. They Republicans need to win 21 of 34 seats to keep the Senate.
Right now, 13 of those Republican seats are considered safe, 4 are likely to be re-elected. That's 17. 3 are leaning Republican which would only get them up to 20. And there are 3 toss-ups. So there's a very real possibility the Democrats could take the Senate, or we have a 50/50 split with the tie-breaking vote cast by the Vice President (which right now is more likely to be a Democrat).
As we get later in the year, if the polls begin to clarify the Senate and Presidential races going in the Democrats' favor, expect a change of heart from the Republican leadership. They will take a centrist justice over a hard-left liberal nominated by a Democrat President and approved by a Democrat senate.
LoL. Yes, wholesome discussion on slashdot. There's been plenty of sharp edges here pretty much since inception.
As for politics, it too has been a long standing section, and if you don't think it affects technology, science, and a lot of other core nerd stuff you're sadly mistaken.
Just because you think "watergate: bad" and therefore conclude "Bork: bad" because he did something related to it, that just does not make it so. Bork had very good well-thought-out constitutional reasons for the precise actions he took and if you had any intellectual curiosity you would study what he wrote about it. Bork's actions relative to Watergate were far more legally sound that Obama's Atty Gen Holder's actions related to Fast&Furious, The Black Panthers, Obama's amnesty programs, and a dozen other scandals.
I hate defending Nixon, but do you even KNOW what Nixon's offense in Watergate WAS???
Hint: He did not order the break-in, nor did he know about it in advance. What he DID do was enough to get even the Republicans to help the Democrats remove him from office (a decision that was proper to my way of thinking). Nixon gained NOTHING from the break-in and did not stand to gain anything from it. In case you have not thought about it, there IS no intel on your opponents in the other party's campaign offices in PRIMARY season (particularly true in the pre-microcomputer era). It's quite possible all the Watergate actors will go to their graves without ever disclosing what they THOUGHT they'd gain for their boss with the break-in. In using one part of the government to coverup the actions of another part, his crime was on-par with actions both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have done, Bush43 too.,/p.
The big-wigs in BOTH parties in the past two decades have made Nixon look like an amateur at corruption. The BIG difference is that modern Democrats will do ANYTHING to cover for their team because, as progressives, they believe the ends justify the means. Having displayed this tendency, you can now bet that no Republicans in congress will ever again help the Democrats remove a bad Republican. Nixon was a pig, but people like Bork who honorably served him and carefully tried to obey the laws very precisely are no different from any honorable person who served Clinton while he was molesting the help, lying under oath in court, using campaign cash from the Chinese army, using the secretaries of nearly all his departments and the secret service to help distract from his abuses, etc.
There is no such thing as designing a nation. One could make some sort of ARGUMENT that a government could be designed or that a state could be designed, but a nation? Go back to elementary school and learn a few definitions before you post here.
You must be new here. Go suck on it!!!
Then don't fucking open the comments section and read it and don't fucking click the fucking link to read the article, you stupid shit-stain. This is not difficult. Skip the shit you don't want to see. You're not even a regular user, you're the new guy coming into OUR house and telling us how to run things. You're neither compelled to read nor click. If you don't like it, pound sand and head back to fucking Reddit where you belong, shit-stain. You literally have found a way to waste bits - something we have a near infinite supply of and you've managed to fucking waste them with your useless, inane, self-centered, claptrap. The world is a worse place with your presence and the IQ measurably lower because of you. Thanks, shit-stain. The world does not revolve around you and your leaving will make this place better. Please consider that as an option as you've served not one useful function here - as your posting history clearly decries.
Seriously, shit-stain, thanks. Do you have any more carpets you want to shit on and smile proudly about? Not only do we not have an obligation to make you happy, you're entire presence on this site consists of no contribution of measurable worth. We can see your post history by clicking on your username. You could save us all some effort, and some bandwidth, by fucking back off to Reddit where you came from. Take your bag of Fark and Digg and fuck back off to your useless world. You're neither wanted, appreciated, or valuable - to any of us. Thanks for adding your fucking pile of shit to an otherwise fine thread.
Screw with BOTH parties by putting Trump into the big chair.
He terrifies the Democrats who see him as a dangerous uncontrollable monster that will not do THEIR bidding.
He terrifies the Republican establishment who see him as a dangerous uncontrollable monster that will not do THEIR bidding.
Fire up the popcorn! There will be nothing more entertaining in 2017 than the senate hearings in which the stooges of the lobbyists for BOTH parties go insane trying to figure out how to deal with a Trump who owes none of them anything, has come to hate them all, and wants to build his legacy... it'll be the GREATEST (smile)
The guy is left of Lenin.
Keep going with the liberal soapbox slashdot..... you will make a bankruptcy lawyer very happy.
If Obama was playing just for the election he'd nominate a liberal minority for the Republicans to reject (or ignore) and build up extra Democratic support among that minority.
And if he was going for legacy he'd nominate a younger liberal.
Instead Garland is white, male, old, and relatively moderate. His impact will be far shorter and far less liberal than anyone else a Democratic president is likely to nominate. If you're a Republican it's easy to weasel out of the election year thing by saying that you forced Obama to nominate a compromise candidate. But if you keep it up and ignore the nomination you probably end up with President Hillary Clinton who nominates someone 15 years younger and more liberal.
I stole this Sig
"There might be perfectly rational reasons for the voters to impose forced cooperation or gridlock" only a partisan politician and probably a reps at that would think that. In a healthy democracy with a healthy government , people elect those they want at the power, but once the election is done, expect the government to WORK in their interest and the interest of the country. Note the emphasis. As soon as it comes to partisan politic and obstructionism AND the voters supporting (which is NOT a given seeing how congress has the lowest approval rate ever) then you have a very sick democracy and a sick country not being properly governed. This is arguably by the way on reason of being bipartisan. If you scratch the surface as soon as a 3rd or more party comes in, they usually tend to cooperate more between each other than fight each other. They go into compromises and alliances (temporary). With 2 party going toward extreme , this is the death of compromise and the death of governance. Case in point : refusal to do their duty by pretending they are not forced to if they wish and wait for the next election in the HOPE their party get it. And if you think THIS is better than a functioning government entering compromise or DUTYFULLY looking at a nomination in the interest of the American and NOT in the interest of Party, then you are as big a fool.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Excuse me, but who the fuck are you, and who the fuck gave you the right to speak for anyone else except yourself?
Get off your high horse, please.
The Founding Sages foresaw the filibuster and were well pleased.
The "American people" have agreed on a set of rules on how supreme court justices are nominated and appointed. Party-political opportunists would now abandon those rules, simply because they feel like it.
It's a nice illustration of their egocentric and aggressive mindset and willingness to bend (or simply flout) any inconvenient rules.
In all fairness, for who would ever believe they themselves would pause to "give the American people a voice on important matters" if they were in a position to nominate? Never! They just wouldn't. But they're fine with trying to impose this idea on others.
The US Constitution specifically says "advice and CONSENT".
They have considered him - hell, before 1916 there weren't even hearings - they just voted on Supreme Court nominees.
And the Senate has considered the entirety of the situation decided it doesn't CONSENT with his nomination. The first time the Senate did that with a Supreme Court nominee was back in the 1820s.
The Washington Post has already branded Obama a liar for suggesting the Senate has a "duty" to hold a vote:
Does the Senate have a constitutional responsibility to consider a Supreme Court nomination?
...
In August 1828, Justice Robert Trimble died just as President John Quincy Adams was battling a tough reelection campaign against Democrat Andrew Jackson. Adams ended up losing to Jackson, but in December nominated Kentucky lawyer John Crittenden to replace Trimble. (Recall that before passage of the 20th Amendment in 1933, the presidential inauguration did not take place until March.)
...
But this amendment was rejected in a voice vote and then the Senate voted 23-17 to adopt an amendment saying “that it is not expedient to act upon the nomination of John I. Crittenden.” A few days after becoming president, Jackson nominated John McLean, the Postmaster General under Adams, to replace Trimble. (Jackson did this mainly to get McLean out of the Cabinet and to remove the possibility of him running for president, according to a study of the confirmation process.)
According to the Congressional Research Service, “By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a final vote on every nomination.”
...
But it is also clear that politics has always played a role — and the Senate has set the rules to act as it wants. Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered. Indeed, the patterns don’t suggest the Senate used procedures out of constitutional duty, out of deference for what the Constitution says or what previous Senates have done. Instead they used procedures based on the political circumstances of each confirmation.
It’s matter of opinion whether a refusal to consider a nominee is a dereliction of constitutional duty or walking away from a constitutional responsibility. But the Senate majority can in effect do what it wants – unless it becomes politically uncomfortable. Democrats who suggest otherwise are simply telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale.
Three Pinocchios [He's a liar!]
Because, as usual, Obama pre-compromised from what he "wanted" to what he "thought he could get the Republicans to agree to", then offered that compromise position to start with. Even if they agree, they got what they would have had to horse-trade for and put effort and political capital into WITHOUT ANY EFFORT on their part.
MORE, they have now proved that they merely have to be more rigid and strident to get the original position moved to where they wanted it to be in the first place.
Nor for there to be any pay for employees of the representatives. And similarly for the senators.
And if they don[t have to do their job, what was the point of their job? Why should their job even exist if they don't have to do it???? And why the hell are you fine with paying someone a huge salary who then refuses their job, and will indeed defend their "right" to refuse to do the job you pay them for????
There is also no constitutional need for any armed forces in the USA. Why aren't you demanding they remove this huge costly white elephant?
An oath can be superceded by another oath. Unless the constitution requires the oath include a "defend the country" clause, it's not constitutionally required, even if it is an oath, and since you're not at war and refusing to go to war would not be aiding anyone, since defence doesn't require a war declaration, it cannot be treason.
PS Where is the constitutional requirement for permanent armed forces? If the prez is leader and takes an oath, and the millitia is supposed to be anyone who can have a gun, and the leader's oath is that he will lead you, and you insist that oath be made, you're agreeing that he can lead you as a military commander and send you into battle.
Which I guarantee you refuse blankly to be true.
But there's also no need in the constitution to pay soldiers. So rather than abandon it, just stop paying anyone for the arms,armaments and the soldiers themselves.
After all, a militia is needed for the protection of the states, and they are not paid for their status as militia.
With the advantage that the gun nuts who insist on their right to arms will become the militia and those saner people who think guns are dumb and dangerous get to live safer at no risk to themselves. And you gun nuts will be happy because you get to be a militia like you insist!
* White
* Male
* Western European descent
* Sixty-something
* Former Fed prosecutor
* Doubtless a practicing Christian
Way to reach for the ground, POTUS.
Here's to a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS for (Justice) Ivanka Trump she is just, yeah, I know, she is just going to be a terrific Justice, a great, great, listen: if she were not my daughter and already married and pumping out my grand kids, I tell ya, I tell ya! [applause] So anyways listen, LISTEN! Ivanka is going to be the nominee and she is going to be approved and she is going to be great and listen: if those bozos [clapping] Those Buttfaces [cheering] in congress can't see their way to respecting my choice - hey, OUR choice - then there will be riots in the street - burning and looting because it's our country now! We took it, and we did it, and we won and that means it's our way or the highway, right? Am I RIGHT? Yeah, yeah, sieg 'me'.
imagine a soft, buttery paw gently pressing down onto a sleeping soldier's face. forever.
Mr. Obama said it is tempting to make the confirmation process "an extension of our divided politics." But he warned that "to go down that path would be wrong."
By choosing someone who doesn't support the right to life, 0bama has himself made this nomination an extension of divided politics. Garland supports abortion (murder), is not strong on property rights (the fruits of your life), and doesn't support the right of self defense (Garland is a gun grabber).
If this submission had even some minor connection to technology, or science, or math, or computing, or software, or engineering it would be excusable. But there's absolutely nothing relevant at all about this particular submission. It's nothing but politics, and not even important politics.
I disagree. Whoever is picked as the next justice will be ruling on all of those issues and more.
whipslash, just because political stories have gotten a lot of comments here in the past doesn't mean that it's good, wholesome discussion.
Okay, so I'm not browsing this thread at 0 or -1 (no mod points at the moment), but I do have to argue that if you stick to the higher rated comments, Slashdot remains probably THE only place where one can still find somewhat intelligent discussion in a political thread.
You mean just like the Left wingers do? Pro Choice, right? Except when it comes to medical care, vaccinations, what types of food a person can purchase, and what size of soda a person can purchase.
"Mr. Obama said it is tempting to make the confirmation process "an extension of our divided politics." But he warned that "to go down that path would be wrong." Mr. Obama demanded a fair hearing for Judge Garland and said that refusing to even consider his nomination would provoke "an endless cycle of more tit for tat" that would undermine the democratic process for years to come."
Well, well, well, Mr. Obama. Hurts when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?
Here are 10 other times Democrats vowed to block Republican court nominees.
1. Sen Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in 2007 that President George W. Bush shouldn’t get to pick any more Supreme Court justices because Schumer was afraid the bench leaned too far Right. Schumer made this remark a whole 19 months before the next president was inaugurated.
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said in a speech to the liberal American Constitution Society. “They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”
2. His remarks in 2007 weren’t the only time Schumer vowed to stop a Republican nominee. In 2004, he said he would do everything in his power to stop Bush from elevating Charles Pickering to a federal appeals court in 2004.
“I’m prepared to do everything I can to stop the nomination of Justice Pickering,” Schumer said. “We can do a lot better.”
3. Schumer again promised to make the nomination process difficult for President Bush amid a confirmation battle over Carolyn Kuhl, who was nominated as a judge to the Ninth Circuit Court.
In 2004, his office released a statement saying Senate Democrats planned to “hold nominations until the White House commits to stop abusing the advise and consent process.”
The statement was part of Democratic coalition to stop Bush from using his recess appointing powers. The president eventually conceded and promised he would stop appointing judges while Congress was on vacation in exchange for them stopping filibustering.
4. Then-Senator Barack Obama said in 2006 that he supported the Democratic-led filibuster to stop Justice Samuel Alito from making it to the Supreme Court.
There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nomineethat once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.
Obama wasn’t the only Democratic senator to oppose Alito’s nomination. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) led an opposition coalition, which attempted to filibuster to block the confirmation process. Kennedy was joined by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who publicly stated they opposed Alito’s confirmation.
“The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds,” Kennedy said.
5. In 1960, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a resolution to block President Eisenhower from being able to make any more recess appointments to the Supreme Court. The resolution stated:
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.
6. Kennedy led a gang of eight senators in 2003 to block Bush nominee Miguel Estrada from rising to the Court of Appeals.
“Instead of looking for candidates who are extreme ideologues, the president should work with the Senate in nominating individuals who have the highest qualifications,” Kennedy said, while taking a victory lap after the Bush administrati
Well, there's a poll somewhere saying that more than half of the american people think Obama should have nominated someone. So, Republicans, do what they think.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
posted about Kim Kardashian's butt
I was on Reddit yesterday evening, where I clicked a link to see Kim Kardashian's large ass, and I was presented with a big photo of Kanye West. There wasn't nearly as much discussion as on /..
Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.
I clearly wrote that I thought it was CORRECT to get rid of Nixon. Unlike you who are clearly a partisan leftist who opposes anybody on the other side, and supports everybody on his own side, no matter the facts.
Then you lied: Nixon planted no bugs. You even admitted he did not even know about the break-in before it happened. Nixon's offense was that he was a paranoid guy who found his underlings had done something very wrong and he knew his opponents would use it to try to destroy him, so he illegally used part of the government to try to cover it up. Clinton and Obama have both done this numerous times. Obama's AttyGen and SecState and Irs official Lerner all took this sort of coverup paranoia to such an extreme they were hiding all their correspondence from the judicial branch and the legislative branch by using fake names on their e-mail accounts, running a private e-mail server, and hiding things like Fast&Furious under a presidential claim of executive priviledge (the same claim Nixon tried to use)
Clinton did not get it trouble for oral sex - THAT was the defense the hyper-partisan left used to deflect from what he actually did. The man placed himself above a law he himself signed and enforced against the average citizens (among other things). He was not impeached over sex, he was impeached over the crimes he committed trying to cover up the sexual acts as he was attempting to short-circuit a law he signed in order to get away with other sexual misconduct in other cases against him.
Next time you choose to try to look smart, pick somebody who is at least as ignorant of history as you appear to be
Don't forget Miguel Estrada who was blocked because liberals were afraid if he were elevated his next step could be the Supreme Court and then Republicans would have put the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court.
Liberals blocked a highly qualified judicial candidate because he was Hispanic.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
They would turn down Judge Roy Bean, even after Judge Roy promised to hang all the Democrats.
We've petitioned US/UK to expel Brahmin; wh.gov/iyhMK
Casteism
Garland makes the court 50% Jewish, oy vey.
Senate rules passed by the Dems in the 60's mandate that no appointments be made in a presidential election year. So, Obama can pound sand.