|
Divide Texas into five, if you rig it right you'll get +8 for Senate Republicans.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Could the problem be that any suggestion they make for a justice is either too liberal for the Tea Party or so Conservative that Obama can laugh it off as not being serious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Could the problem be that any suggestion they make for a justice is either too liberal for the Tea Party or so Conservative that Obama can laugh it off as not being serious. No, the problem is that suggesting anyone at all would entail compromising and backing down from the ultimatum of "no one."
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/breakingpol/status/705121603282214912
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Trollbama continues to be best Bama: quote:In a Senate floor speech in 2013, Mr. Grassley effusively praised Judge Kelly, who has spent her career in Iowa and is well regarded in legal circles there. He quoted from a letter from retired Judge David R. Hansen, a Republican appointee, who called her a “forthright woman of high integrity and honest character” and a person of “exceptionally keen intellect” before voting to confirm her for the appeals court post. “I congratulate Ms. Kelly on her accomplishments and wish her well in her duties,” Mr. Grassley said at the time. “I am pleased to support her confirmation and urge my colleagues to join me.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
 Grassley you poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Trollbama is great and all, but when can we expect to see an actual nominee?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
So they've basically trawled through all the transcripts and found every single circuit judge Republicans have effusively praised.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Trollbama is great and all, but when can we expect to see an actual nominee? It generally takes a few weeks to vet a nominee. You do a really intrusive and frankly creepy vetting because you know the other side will as well. Someone is busy asking each potential nominee every detail about their sex life, among other things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The Atlantic:"Obama offered to seriously consider candidates put forward by Republicans, but neither McConnell nor Grassley would name any." Obama made a major tactical mistake in offering to nominate Calipari instead of Pitino. This has just further entrenched Mitch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:35
|
|
They're not even pretending to give a poo poo about running the country.
|
quote:In 2004, Kelly was attacked while jogging in a park in Cedar Rapids, and was brutally beaten and left barely conscious; her assailant was never identified. Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Trollbama is great and all, but when can we expect to see an actual nominee? The day after Trump wins the nomination
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It generally takes a few weeks to vet a nominee. You do a really intrusive and frankly creepy vetting because you know the other side will as well. Someone is busy asking each potential nominee every detail about their sex life, among other things. Of course this round of vetting comes with the added bonus of making sure whoever is nominated is both cool with being trashed for almost a year and won't lash out or in some entirely reasonable way express frustration with month 9 of being widely and publicly labeled a demonic communist sent from hell to destroy America while cackling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Interesting Twitter Stuff about today's abortion arguments: https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/705099706087690243 https://twitter.com/JoshACLU/status/705112741095325696
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
How long until Obama leaks that he's looking at Trump's sister
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Trollbama continues to be best Bama: "The American people should decide" gives them what they see as a nice out for any of their previous statements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
DOOP posted:How long until Obama leaks that he's looking at Trump's sister He's taking his time to let the leaks get their full troll value before the next one. So probably Friday at the earliest. Maybe wait until the next big primary election day and have someone mention he was looking at her record, see how much chaos that causes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Honestly, making a big show out of holding your breath and shaking your head seems to be the dumbest play. Instead of just yelling NO and refusing to even talk about a nominee it seems like it would be much more platable to the public to just slow everything down to a crawl and simply vote against every single most liberal nominee ever that Obama puts up. He's not going to cave and nominate clone Scalia, so you get to block the President while still at least maintaining the fig leaf of productivity. Oh we want to fill this important seat but mean old Obama just keeps giving us unacceptable candidates. Obama's black and the people who elect McConnell and his ilk love it when their white Senators put him in his place. One of the main reasons Obama's seen so much obstructionism is that the GOP base gets a racist vicarious thrill seeing Obama thwarted at every turn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Called her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Interesting Twitter Stuff about today's abortion arguments: But then again, you have Kennedy signaling that he wants to just send it back to the lower courts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Obama's black and the people who elect McConnell and his ilk love it when their white Senators put him in his place. One of the main reasons Obama's seen so much obstructionism is that the GOP base gets a racist vicarious thrill seeing Obama thwarted at every turn. The nyt is the only msm organ that calls them on this
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Another woman justice and a former public defender would be cool. It'd be nice to see what sort of spotlight gets shined on Grassley if he'd ignore her nomination too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:But then again, you have Kennedy signaling that he wants to just send it back to the lower courts. Wouldn't it be awesome if we had a 4 liberal majority, kennedy concurrence saying it should be sent back down for more info, and alito/roberts/thomas dissent?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Interesting Twitter Stuff about today's abortion arguments: Jesus alito is a gigantic piece of poo poo. What an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Jesus alito is a gigantic piece of poo poo. What an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
its fun how much of the questioning is just rhetorical tap dancing. the guy defending texas put on a great show of "the densest motherfucker on the planet".  "so whats the point of this regulation?" "oh, gee, to protect the health of women" "hmmm but these other things are more dangerous?" "well the legistlature can do whatever it wants and they must really care about women's health!" "you dont think they wanted to, say, stop women getting abortions?" "oh heavens no that would be unconstitutional, they really just want your heartless babykilling antics to be safe as possible!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 10:09
|
|
|
Oh hey, Chuck has an update about the nomination.US Senator Chuck Grassley posted:However, in his post, President Obama six times states that he “appoints judges to the Supreme Court.” From that fundamental misunderstanding, he reveals that the person he will nominate, not appoint, will be someone whose decisions are not tied to the Constitution’s text. That is some pro tier mean spirted and deceptive pendancy. It's almost like Scalia never left us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Doesn't the constitution say the president 'shall nominate' and 'shall appoint' justices? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Oh hey, Chuck has an update about the nomination. that is petty as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Jerkface posted:Doesn't the constitution say the president 'shall nominate' and 'shall appoint' justices? Yes
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Jerkface posted:Doesn't the constitution say the president 'shall nominate' and 'shall appoint' justices? Yes it does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Oh hey, Chuck has an update about the nomination. All I'm seeing there is a pile of  and  . Looks like Trollbama has gone to work after all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Isn't there some hypocrisy in giving full weight to the clause "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" in the President's ability to appoint judges while also ignoring "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" in the 2nd Amendment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Jerkface posted:Doesn't the constitution say the president 'shall nominate' and 'shall appoint' justices? quote:He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
From USPOLzoux posted:https://twitter.com/jonathanhsinger/status/705398978787954688 I hope Obama goes with Jane Kelly, I think she has the best chance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Isn't there some hypocrisy in giving full weight to the clause "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" in the President's ability to appoint judges while also ignoring "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" in the 2nd Amendment? No? The equivalent example you'd be looking for is something like: quote:he shall nominate, and being that they are in good moral character, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court [...etc] (emphasis on the changed passage) In this scenario, there's no explicit call for the Senate (or Congress at all) to be involved. Conversely, the scenario you're imagining with the Second Amendment would be something like: quote:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except where Congress may deem necessary. In this scenario, Congress has the ability to set laws, so any anti-gun laws would be fine (except I guess state level laws might still be in conflict, but you get the idea).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:its fun how much of the questioning is just rhetorical tap dancing. :bigtran: : isn't making them travel 100 miles terribly inconvenient?  : they can just go over state lines to the nearest state! That's like 20 miles away:bigtran: : I thought the point of this was to make sure the women in your state were protected medically. Why say they can go somewhere that doesn't set the same standards for medical care 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Here's a pretty entertaining, informative, and quick highlight of the Whole Women's Health oral arguments
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:From USPOL Yup. Plus, I want to see Grassley squirm. I dunno what percentage of Iowans think that the Senate needs to let Obama nominate someone, but I bet that number increases when that nomination would be someone who has worked in Iowa for years, had bi-partisan support from Iowa's senators when she was appointed to the appeals court, and was the fastest from nomination to appointment of any judge in Obama's tenure. gently caress you, Chuck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
FilthyImp posted:The part that kills me is when someone falls into the very obvious trap set by the liberal wing. (Paraphrased)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:00
|
|
