gftChris Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/supreme-court-pick-sets-up-showdown-with-gop-senate/?utm_content=inf_10_1164_2&tse_id=INF_30b5a81bb5364bdea6da75f72652acf9 President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court for the seat held by Justice Antonin Scalia until his sudden death. Garland is the Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals where he has served since 1997. He is a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School.
gftChris Posted March 16, 2016 Author Report Posted March 16, 2016 http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/03/16/president-obama-to-announce-supreme-court-pick-wednesday.html
Clevfan4life Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 here we go again......FIIIIIGHTTTTIIIINNNNGGG out of the blue corner....
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 I just watched a segment featuring judge Napolitano speaking highly of Justice Garland. He says he is no left-wing ideology and that if nominated would be a good choice. Hopefully he is correct and hopefully the Republicans are not just in knee jerk mode. We know Obama can find much much worse candidates and Hillary... WSS
Clevfan4life Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 Republicans are not just inknee jerk mode. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH. Sure why not
gftChris Posted March 16, 2016 Author Report Posted March 16, 2016 I hope the process takes its course and people just do their job. That doesn't mean appoint whoever is nominated, but go through the process, and if they are acceptable, approve, otherwise decline. If the GOP senators just flat out reject someone immediately, it'll severely dent their chances in the election. Or at least, have some impact.
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 Remember that doing their job also means denying a rubber stamp to a candidate that does not meet their approval. WSS
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 But but......... Oba "mao" is bad And that still true, so? WSS
gftChris Posted March 16, 2016 Author Report Posted March 16, 2016 Remember that doing their job also means denying a rubber stamp to a candidate that does not meet their approval. WSS That's literally what I said.
gftChris Posted March 16, 2016 Author Report Posted March 16, 2016 Interesting tidbit Sen. Orrin Hatch, R.-Utah, considered one of the U.S. Senate’s foremost scholars of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, told Newsmax Friday he felt President Obama would nominate a decidedly liberal candidate to succeed the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court."This [nomination process] is all about the election." "The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him," Hatch told us. "[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," he told us, referring to the more centrist chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia who was considered and passed over for the two previous high court vacancies. Latest News Update But, Hatch quickly added, "He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants."
Clevfan4life Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 And that still true, so? WSS It was never true. He wasnt great though either. I think he'll be remembered fondly though for finally resetting with cuba.
Clevfan4life Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 Interesting tidbit Hatch is a partisan hack no more no less
gftChris Posted March 16, 2016 Author Report Posted March 16, 2016 Hatch is a partisan hack no more no less Sure, and he's saying "hey, he could nominate this guy and we'd love it, but because he's some uber liberal he'll probably appoint Al Sharpton, or maybe even himself" and now he's going to look like a colossal fuckwit if he votes against it.
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 That's literally what I said. And I agree. Your point? WSS
gftChris Posted March 16, 2016 Author Report Posted March 16, 2016 And I agree. Your point? WSS That you seemed to be trying to point something out I'd missed? Never mind. No point wasting energy on things we agree on To the point, this is what I have an issue with: Senator Pat Toomey @SenToomey Should Merrick Garland be nominated again by the next president, I would be happy to carefully consider his nomination... #SCOTUS
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 That you seemed to be trying to point something out I'd missed? Never mind. No point wasting energy on things we agree on To the point, this is what I have an issue with: Senator Pat Toomey @SenToomey Should Merrick Garland be nominated again by the next president, I would be happy to carefully consider his nomination... #SCOTUS I can't help you there, I think they might as well go for it. Then again many of the politicians, it should be on both sides but it isn't, have seen the danger in capitulating too quickly. Example: conservatives think the budget is out of control. When it comes time to stop the spending they always bend over and vote to extend the debt limit. So how can you trust them? Toomey is just playing Hardball to impress his base. If he doesn't he will soon have an opponent barking about how he bent over for Obama. WSS
calfoxwc Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 he's a nominee that looks the part of a good nominee ...but.. the truth is.. even according to "Thinkprogress" http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/16/3760727/who-is-merrick-garland/ "To be clear, Garland's record does not suggest that he would join the Court's right flank if confirmed to the Supreme Court. He would likely vote much more often than not with the Supreme Court's liberals, while occasionally casting a heterodox vote." AND, Garland is an anti-gun TROJAN HORSE. http://www.mediaite.com/online/potential-supreme-court-nominee-merrick-garland-tough-on-crime-but-soft-on-guns/ Garland, currently the Chief Judge of the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals, is viewed by some to be left-leaning on gun control. In a 2007 case, he voted to review a restrictive gun law that had previously been shot down. The law included a requirement for guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled, unless they were being kept at a place of business or were being used for legal recreational activities. Prohibiting people from having functioning guns for defense in their home was a critical issue. A U.S. District Court had ruled against the ban (and for the gun owner). The D.C. Circuit upheld that ruling, but Garland then voted, as part of a request to the court as a whole, for the D.C. Circuit to reconsider their own ruling, otherwise known as a request for en banc review. Garland lost, and the previous decision was upheld. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, eventually went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the ban unconstitutional. While Garland’s actual decision was only to review the law and not to enforce it outright, the fact that he didn’t just agree to kill the ban may not sit well with conservatives.
calfoxwc Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 http://www.bustle.com/articles/148207-is-merrick-garland-a-liberal-the-supreme-court-prospects-political-leanings-could-make-him-a-safe The National Review has called foul on the claim that Garland is a tried and true moderate justice, though. The claim is based off of Garland's record regarding gun control in which the judge voted to pave the way for stricter gun laws in D.C. Garland's decision marked a major turning point in restrictions that would prevent gun ownership for those seeking handguns as protective tools for self-defense. Given the fact that Obama is looking to making sweeping changes when it comes to gun control, this point may count in Garland's favor.
VaporTrail Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 If Hatch, the biggest idiot in the Senate, is okay with Garland, then I can't see why he would be blocked.
calfoxwc Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 because hatch hasn't looked into Garland's pro-gun control stance. It's a win-lose for obamao. Hell with Garland if he will ignore our 2nd Amendment because of his own prejudices. That makes him not qualified for the court. And, we don't know his views on gay marriage, and abortion. But you can bet obaMao does. Just vote NO. Garland is a trojan horse, to tilt the Court into at least one glaring anti-Constitution position.
Clevfan4life Posted March 16, 2016 Report Posted March 16, 2016 But wasnt it republicans who suggested garland to the white house months ago?
calfoxwc Posted March 17, 2016 Report Posted March 17, 2016 but did they know he was on obamao's side of the pro gun control, anti-2nd Amendment biz? He may very well be pro abortion, too. and pro gay falsemarriage. we don't know. The pro gun control crap is worrisome. Forget him - wait and get a pro-Constitutionalist during the next rep president era. Let the people decide what kind of Justice replaces Scalia. That is exactly what obamao demanded back in the day.
calfoxwc Posted March 17, 2016 Report Posted March 17, 2016 Not only is he anti-2nd Amendment... planned parenthood loves him. They know he has been tested for being a liberal by Obamao. No vote, hell with this obamao trojan horse nominee. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/16/planned-parenthood-ceo-applauds-obamas-supreme-court-nominee/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/16/obama-set-to-nominate-merrick-garland-to-supreme-court-red-flags-raised-over-second-amendment-record/
bbedward Posted March 17, 2016 Report Posted March 17, 2016 He's a generally moderate, neutral choice. Not sure about his record on gun issues I'd have to look into it.
calfoxwc Posted March 17, 2016 Report Posted March 17, 2016 he is not neutral. go look up ...no, just read the links I posted. He's "neutral" only because you libs will have a libtard justice to tip the balance against the 2nd Amendment, and be proabortion. and don't give us the "well, even if he were totally against abortion, planned parenthood would still love him".
MLD Woody Posted March 19, 2016 Report Posted March 19, 2016 So you'd basically only accept a very conservative judge. Surprise there If Republicans shoot this down, then Cliton wins, watch her just nominate super liberals
Westside Steve Posted March 19, 2016 Report Posted March 19, 2016 So you'd basically only accept a very conservative judge. Surprise there If Republicans shoot this down, then Cliton wins, watch her just nominate super liberals Actually even though I could live with this guy I prefer a very conservative Justice. I think its to balance out the Supreme Court it's necessary. It's not like we're replacing Sotomayor or Kagan. WSS
calfoxwc Posted March 19, 2016 Report Posted March 19, 2016 I do prefer a conservative justice, woody. A conservative reveres our Constitution, and our rights. Like, our 2nd and 1st Amendment. And the right of born and unborn children to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom. This leftwing nominee is a liberal trojan horse that would prefer to sneak and and help obaMao ruin those rights. You prefer that, from sckewl.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.