Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.
Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.
Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.
That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.
So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.
you are ignoring the fact that to the gop, there is not a human being alive that obama could appoint that would measure up to the standards they are expecting to even consider a vote. they have moved the bar so high the last 8 years that they are going to say nobody is "up to muster."
get a grip. this is the reality we live in in this country under this congress.
congress wants a right wing extremist. even if obama nominated the most moderate candidate they would not get a vote. period. bet on it.
Well, then, that's the beauty of our system. Still much better than letting extremists on either side simply have their way. Sad that some are cheering someone's death then saying they want someone equally as extreme but that shares their views. Funny that same folks moaning the right is what's wrong only wants their view represented.
Let's let the process play out, then you can all have something real to moan about which will fall into 1 of 2 categories -
1) Obama caved what a sell out 2) Republicans say no to everything
Even though the proper thing for the country is compromise and moderation which forces both sides to meet in the middle.
i am telling you that there is no way in hell obama gets anybody approved. mitch mcconnell has already said so. the only way mcconnell would even allow for a debate on an appointee is through constant media shaming and public outcry. even then, it will just be a show hearing. everything obama has accomplished has been without republican support. you think they are going to go along with him now? he could appoint jesus freakin christ to the bench and the gop would cry that he is too liberal and unsuitable for the job.
Because Jesus himself, is too liberal for the GOP. Jesus is a socialist too.
hillary is an attorney. maybe obama could nominate her. she would be a much more effective supreme court justice. the appointment is for life. plus, if clinton is appointed we would not have to have 4 more years of a gop obstruction party that will not pass anything simply because it is something a clinton supports.
This is an excellent scenario. I would be all for it. Good thinking, gimme!
she would work better in the SCOTUS where her power could be checked by the other justices. i would love to see a Bernie presidency with Elizabeth Warren as vice president and Hillary on the bench.
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
Spot on words from Senator Elizabeth Warren of my beloved Massachusetts this morning:
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."
Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.
Several things here: 1. No Obama justice will be confirmed under the current Senate 2. Obama should absolutely nominate someone 3. Obama, Hillary/Bernie will spend the entire fall bludgeoning the GOP on this issue. It's a no win for the Republicans, so long as Obama doesn't make an egregious mistake and nominate someone that polarizes the country. It has to be someone seen as moderate. Yes, this runs the risk of what happened with Kennedy (the Republicans thought he was more conservative), but at the end of the day, the new president can withdraw that nominee and pull who they want.
1. Wrong 2. Right 3. This is the point of the Republican rhetoric. A moderate will get confirmed or both sides risk the election. Obama will not be consulting Hillary or Sanders or the DNC, but nominating someone too liberal is the surest way to give this issue to the right in the next open election when there's the prospect of at least a couple retirements. So, there is a win for the republicans, and funny enough it's actually the nomination of a liberal justice.
A new justice will be confirmed by Summer's end. Not sure what withdrawal you hope for.
Hahaha do you really think so? I'll bet you a 2010 Columbus poster that you are wrong.
Spot on words from Senator Elizabeth Warren of my beloved Massachusetts this morning:
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."
Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.
Several things here: 1. No Obama justice will be confirmed under the current Senate 2. Obama should absolutely nominate someone 3. Obama, Hillary/Bernie will spend the entire fall bludgeoning the GOP on this issue. It's a no win for the Republicans, so long as Obama doesn't make an egregious mistake and nominate someone that polarizes the country. It has to be someone seen as moderate. Yes, this runs the risk of what happened with Kennedy (the Republicans thought he was more conservative), but at the end of the day, the new president can withdraw that nominee and pull who they want.
1. Wrong 2. Right 3. This is the point of the Republican rhetoric. A moderate will get confirmed or both sides risk the election. Obama will not be consulting Hillary or Sanders or the DNC, but nominating someone too liberal is the surest way to give this issue to the right in the next open election when there's the prospect of at least a couple retirements. So, there is a win for the republicans, and funny enough it's actually the nomination of a liberal justice.
A new justice will be confirmed by Summer's end. Not sure what withdrawal you hope for.
Hahaha do you really think so? I'll bet you a 2010 Columbus poster that you are wrong.
You're on. I will dig something out of the collection that I will send you if by September 21, 2016 we do not have a confirmed justice. (Not that I need another poster, but for the fun of it).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Doesn't much matter that Hillary is an attorney. Most justices have been federal judges.
Only one of many arguments against her that Congress would bring up.
I was going to say this as well. She has no judicial experience
And like Hillary, who has sold her soul to have this chance would settle for Justice. I mean any woman that put up with what she did, including attacking women who claimed sexual assault by her husband, then with a straight face claims to empower women is all in. She's not settling for a job she shares with 8 equals. You don't make that kind of deal with your inner devil.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
The religious affiliations of the justices is interesting too - right now it's 6 Catholics (5 since Scalia has died) and 3 Jews. Why not add a protestant? Or how about an agnostic? Here's a Huffington Post article on lack of religious diversity on the Supreme Court:
I am not surprised his death is being cheered on the Train. Some of you continue to have blinders on and just do not see how full of hate you are and completely intolerant of others opinions. The guy doesn't get to the supreme court and be respected by the most liberal judges on the court (even great friends with and travel companions) by being a bigot. He just interprets the constitution from his viewpoint and others view it differently. He still respected his peers on the court and they respected him, but on the Train it is the epitome of "My way or the highway" per usual. Cheering death for anyone you disagree with.
Oh gosh, drama queen post. "Cheering death for anyone you disagree with" He hurt many many people with his decisions, and the only crop he sowed was pain. He didn't interpret the constitution from his viewpoint, he bent the constitution to match his agenda. I would rather he had retired than died, but his archaic, selfish views have no place in the highest court.
Yet these are the same above the law double standard hypocrites who cheered when Ted Kennedy died and have issue with Benghazzi but none with Halliburtonghazzi because white republican magically makes it okay.
give it 50 years. scalia's rulings will be judged by history to be as backwards as the dred scott decision and separate but equal.
No different than the rest of the Conservatives throughout our history
Conservatives opposed the American Revolution Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage Conservatives opposed public school Conservatives opposed fighting fascism in Europe Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc. Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act Conservatives opposed the Farm Act Conservatives opposed the Interstate Highway System Conservatives oppose clean air and water Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act Conservatives opposed the G.I. Bill Conservatives opposed Medicare Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law .....etc...etc..etc..
the list is endless......!!!!!
"The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera." - Yusuf Karsh
NeoCon heads would explode the day Bernie takes over from Barack and his first order of business is putting Hilary's name in for SCJ.
Honestly though... this obstructionist position needs to end. Scalia was voted in by like 79-0 in Reagan's last year. It's time to end this illusion, they actually don't have much more backing in this country than 48%. The only reason they have the Senate and House is by Gerrymandering the districts. Time that ended and the districts actually represent the people.
"The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera." - Yusuf Karsh
I am not surprised his death is being cheered on the Train. Some of you continue to have blinders on and just do not see how full of hate you are and completely intolerant of others opinions. The guy doesn't get to the supreme court and be respected by the most liberal judges on the court (even great friends with and travel companions) by being a bigot. He just interprets the constitution from his viewpoint and others view it differently. He still respected his peers on the court and they respected him, but on the Train it is the epitome of "My way or the highway" per usual. Cheering death for anyone you disagree with.
Oh gosh, drama queen post. "Cheering death for anyone you disagree with" He hurt many many people with his decisions, and the only crop he sowed was pain. He didn't interpret the constitution from his viewpoint, he bent the constitution to match his agenda. I would rather he had retired than died, but his archaic, selfish views have no place in the highest court.
Yet these are the same above the law double standard hypocrites who cheered when Ted Kennedy died and have issue with Benghazzi but none with Halliburtonghazzi because white republican magically makes it okay.
Ted Kennedy was a murderer. So not really the same thing.
Doesn't much matter that Hillary is an attorney. Most justices have been federal judges.
Only one of many arguments against her that Congress would bring up.
I was going to say this as well. She has no judicial experience
And like Hillary, who has sold her soul to have this chance would settle for Justice. I mean any woman that put up with what she did, including attacking women who claimed sexual assault by her husband, then with a straight face claims to empower women is all in. She's not settling for a job she shares with 8 equals. You don't make that kind of deal with your inner devil.
You ascribe motives of which you can't possibly know. Perhaps HIllary believes her husband and in his better side, regardless of whatever demons he might have. Perhaps she loves him more than you or anyone possibly knows. Maybe she took the vow "till death do us part" seriously.
Spot on words from Senator Elizabeth Warren of my beloved Massachusetts this morning:
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."
Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.
Several things here: 1. No Obama justice will be confirmed under the current Senate 2. Obama should absolutely nominate someone 3. Obama, Hillary/Bernie will spend the entire fall bludgeoning the GOP on this issue. It's a no win for the Republicans, so long as Obama doesn't make an egregious mistake and nominate someone that polarizes the country. It has to be someone seen as moderate. Yes, this runs the risk of what happened with Kennedy (the Republicans thought he was more conservative), but at the end of the day, the new president can withdraw that nominee and pull who they want.
1. Wrong 2. Right 3. This is the point of the Republican rhetoric. A moderate will get confirmed or both sides risk the election. Obama will not be consulting Hillary or Sanders or the DNC, but nominating someone too liberal is the surest way to give this issue to the right in the next open election when there's the prospect of at least a couple retirements. So, there is a win for the republicans, and funny enough it's actually the nomination of a liberal justice.
A new justice will be confirmed by Summer's end. Not sure what withdrawal you hope for.
I can guarantee that no one left of center, no matter how moderate, will be ratified by the Senate. The grass roots would brutalize that person on talk radio every single day. The base of the party will accept no one other than someone in the Scalia mold. Otherwise you are giving up the most conservative seat for a left of center person. Not going to happen.
I think the republicans are just wishing and hoping. They all know that Obama has the job to name the next justice.
I hope Obama is able to find a candidate that will not be worthy of complete filabuster. I don't think he will though. I think he and the republicans are too stubborn at this point.
Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.
Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.
Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.
That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.
So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.
Depends on what you mean by 'passing muster'. It's the President's role to nominate someone that is qualified to be on the SCOTUS. For example, a law degree is an important start. Being a member of the bar is nice. Judicial experience at the circuit and appellate level is a bonus.
But it's not the President's job to put up a candidate that is ideologically acceptable to the Senate. In fact, it's the opposite. The Senate should have a specific reason NOT to pass the person. That's why Scalia got through no problem, 98-0 or something like that. And Thomas had so many issues. The Democrats focused on his Anita Hill issue, which is not about the jurisprudence.
Spot on words from Senator Elizabeth Warren of my beloved Massachusetts this morning:
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."
Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.
Several things here: 1. No Obama justice will be confirmed under the current Senate 2. Obama should absolutely nominate someone 3. Obama, Hillary/Bernie will spend the entire fall bludgeoning the GOP on this issue. It's a no win for the Republicans, so long as Obama doesn't make an egregious mistake and nominate someone that polarizes the country. It has to be someone seen as moderate. Yes, this runs the risk of what happened with Kennedy (the Republicans thought he was more conservative), but at the end of the day, the new president can withdraw that nominee and pull who they want.
1. Wrong 2. Right 3. This is the point of the Republican rhetoric. A moderate will get confirmed or both sides risk the election. Obama will not be consulting Hillary or Sanders or the DNC, but nominating someone too liberal is the surest way to give this issue to the right in the next open election when there's the prospect of at least a couple retirements. So, there is a win for the republicans, and funny enough it's actually the nomination of a liberal justice.
A new justice will be confirmed by Summer's end. Not sure what withdrawal you hope for.
Hahaha do you really think so? I'll bet you a 2010 Columbus poster that you are wrong.
You're on. I will dig something out of the collection that I will send you if by September 21, 2016 we do not have a confirmed justice. (Not that I need another poster, but for the fun of it).
Spot on words from Senator Elizabeth Warren of my beloved Massachusetts this morning:
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."
Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.
Several things here: 1. No Obama justice will be confirmed under the current Senate 2. Obama should absolutely nominate someone 3. Obama, Hillary/Bernie will spend the entire fall bludgeoning the GOP on this issue. It's a no win for the Republicans, so long as Obama doesn't make an egregious mistake and nominate someone that polarizes the country. It has to be someone seen as moderate. Yes, this runs the risk of what happened with Kennedy (the Republicans thought he was more conservative), but at the end of the day, the new president can withdraw that nominee and pull who they want.
1. Wrong 2. Right 3. This is the point of the Republican rhetoric. A moderate will get confirmed or both sides risk the election. Obama will not be consulting Hillary or Sanders or the DNC, but nominating someone too liberal is the surest way to give this issue to the right in the next open election when there's the prospect of at least a couple retirements. So, there is a win for the republicans, and funny enough it's actually the nomination of a liberal justice.
A new justice will be confirmed by Summer's end. Not sure what withdrawal you hope for.
Hahaha do you really think so? I'll bet you a 2010 Columbus poster that you are wrong.
You're on. I will dig something out of the collection that I will send you if by September 21, 2016 we do not have a confirmed justice. (Not that I need another poster, but for the fun of it).
Hahaha I was in a hurry so I didn't put any emojies, the Columbus '10 poster is absolutely horrible, you don't want it! How about a bootleg, I don't need the clutter any more than you do lol
Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.
Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.
Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.
That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.
So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.
Depends on what you mean by 'passing muster'. It's the President's role to nominate someone that is qualified to be on the SCOTUS. For example, a law degree is an important start. Being a member of the bar is nice. Judicial experience at the circuit and appellate level is a bonus.
But it's not the President's job to put up a candidate that is ideologically acceptable to the Senate. In fact, it's the opposite. The Senate should have a specific reason NOT to pass the person. That's why Scalia got through no problem, 98-0 or something like that. And Thomas had so many issues. The Democrats focused on his Anita Hill issue, which is not about the jurisprudence.
they already have a built in reason to oppose them. it was obama's pick. that is reason enough for most senators to vote to delay the hearings or outright vote against them.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I am not surprised his death is being cheered on the Train. Some of you continue to have blinders on and just do not see how full of hate you are and completely intolerant of others opinions. The guy doesn't get to the supreme court and be respected by the most liberal judges on the court (even great friends with and travel companions) by being a bigot. He just interprets the constitution from his viewpoint and others view it differently. He still respected his peers on the court and they respected him, but on the Train it is the epitome of "My way or the highway" per usual. Cheering death for anyone you disagree with.
Oh gosh, drama queen post. "Cheering death for anyone you disagree with" He hurt many many people with his decisions, and the only crop he sowed was pain. He didn't interpret the constitution from his viewpoint, he bent the constitution to match his agenda. I would rather he had retired than died, but his archaic, selfish views have no place in the highest court.
Yet these are the same above the law double standard hypocrites who cheered when Ted Kennedy died and have issue with Benghazzi but none with Halliburtonghazzi because white republican magically makes it okay.
Ted Kennedy was a murderer. So not really the same thing.
if you want to look at it that way, how many people died, or were at the very least HARMED by scalia's opinions?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.
Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.
Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.
That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.
So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.
Depends on what you mean by 'passing muster'. It's the President's role to nominate someone that is qualified to be on the SCOTUS. For example, a law degree is an important start. Being a member of the bar is nice. Judicial experience at the circuit and appellate level is a bonus.
But it's not the President's job to put up a candidate that is ideologically acceptable to the Senate. In fact, it's the opposite. The Senate should have a specific reason NOT to pass the person. That's why Scalia got through no problem, 98-0 or something like that. And Thomas had so many issues. The Democrats focused on his Anita Hill issue, which is not about the jurisprudence.
they already have a built in reason to oppose them. it was obama's pick. that is reason enough for most senators to vote to delay the hearings or outright vote against them.
I know, but I'm talking about the historical role the Senate has played in the process.
The religious affiliations of the justices is interesting too - right now it's 6 Catholics (5 since Scalia has died) and 3 Jews. Why not add a protestant? Or how about an agnostic? Here's a Huffington Post article on lack of religious diversity on the Supreme Court:
Why does everyone hate the Mennonites? We need the contribution of a religion that felt that civilization was perfect between 1835 and 1855..
I honestly don't know. To me hating a Mennonite would be like hating a bunny rabbit. But then, I'm half Amish. What do I know?
Half Amish, half Oneida is my guess. I'm on to you. Coming to 'Merica... taking our jobs. I used to raise barns.. but no more. That job is gone. A-hole.
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i would love to see a Bernie presidency with Elizabeth Warren as vice president and Hillary on the bench.
livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446
1995- New Orleans, LA : New Orleans, LA
1996- Charleston, SC
1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY
2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2
2020- Nashville, TN
2022- Smashville
2023- Austin, TX x2
2024- Baltimore
Only one of many arguments against her that Congress would bring up.
2. Right
3. This is the point of the Republican rhetoric. A moderate will get confirmed or both sides risk the election. Obama will not be consulting Hillary or Sanders or the DNC, but nominating someone too liberal is the surest way to give this issue to the right in the next open election when there's the prospect of at least a couple retirements. So, there is a win for the republicans, and funny enough it's actually the nomination of a liberal justice.
A new justice will be confirmed by Summer's end. Not sure what withdrawal you hope for.
Hahaha do you really think so?
I'll bet you a 2010 Columbus poster that you are wrong.
I'll bet you a 2010 Columbus poster that you are wrong.
You're on. I will dig something out of the collection that I will send you if by September 21, 2016 we do not have a confirmed justice. (Not that I need another poster, but for the fun of it).
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/23/sri-srinivasan-judge-supreme-court-circuit-dc-obama-bush/2351543/
The religious affiliations of the justices is interesting too - right now it's 6 Catholics (5 since Scalia has died) and 3 Jews. Why not add a protestant? Or how about an agnostic? Here's a Huffington Post article on lack of religious diversity on the Supreme Court:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/supreme-courts-lack-of-re_b_5545989.html
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Interesting read on filibusters of the SC nominees! What a hypocrisy...
Conservatives opposed the American Revolution
Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves
Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage
Conservatives opposed public school
Conservatives opposed fighting fascism in Europe
Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc.
Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals
Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act
Conservatives opposed the Farm Act
Conservatives opposed the Interstate Highway System
Conservatives oppose clean air and water
Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act
Conservatives opposed the G.I. Bill
Conservatives opposed Medicare
Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law
.....etc...etc..etc..
the list is endless......!!!!!
Honestly though... this obstructionist position needs to end. Scalia was voted in by like 79-0 in Reagan's last year. It's time to end this illusion, they actually don't have much more backing in this country than 48%. The only reason they have the Senate and House is by Gerrymandering the districts. Time that ended and the districts actually represent the people.
2. Right
3. This is the point of the Republican rhetoric. A moderate will get confirmed or both sides risk the election. Obama will not be consulting Hillary or Sanders or the DNC, but nominating someone too liberal is the surest way to give this issue to the right in the next open election when there's the prospect of at least a couple retirements. So, there is a win for the republicans, and funny enough it's actually the nomination of a liberal justice.
A new justice will be confirmed by Summer's end. Not sure what withdrawal you hope for.
I can guarantee that no one left of center, no matter how moderate, will be ratified by the Senate. The grass roots would brutalize that person on talk radio every single day. The base of the party will accept no one other than someone in the Scalia mold. Otherwise you are giving up the most conservative seat for a left of center person. Not going to happen.
I hope Obama is able to find a candidate that will not be worthy of complete filabuster. I don't think he will though. I think he and the republicans are too stubborn at this point.
But it's not the President's job to put up a candidate that is ideologically acceptable to the Senate. In fact, it's the opposite. The Senate should have a specific reason NOT to pass the person. That's why Scalia got through no problem, 98-0 or something like that. And Thomas had so many issues. The Democrats focused on his Anita Hill issue, which is not about the jurisprudence.
Hahaha I was in a hurry so I didn't put any emojies, the Columbus '10 poster is absolutely horrible, you don't want it! How about a bootleg, I don't need the clutter any more than you do lol
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
We have a lot to learn from those 2 Supreme Court justices. Disagree but no hate. Tough to do sometimes, but a valuable lesson