The Goat Pen

sardis wrote:This executive thought, for some reason, that delivering this kind of news in person would make things better...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/watch-1-4 ... 18813.html

not sure who thought that was a good idea

RIP Scalia. Not my kinda guy, but an evil, racist genius nonetheless.

Now Rubio is saying that it's some kind of "understood" tradition/protocol that if a president is in within a year of the end of his last term, he won't appoint a supreme court justice, but will wait until after the next election and let the next president do it. Not sure if that's true, but it does't seem right that a guy elected to two terms would voluntarily give up that power. Obviously it would chap the asses of repubs to let Obama replace the most conservative justice on the Sup Court, but hey, them's the rules. They're probably scared that he might nominate the first black female, thus snookering Senate repubs into looking like racists/sexists if they block it. Oh well...

With Republicans holding the cards on the approval process, the best Obama could hope for is a moderate.

Compared to Scalia, Stalin was a moderate...

he was the ying to Sotomayor yang

hedge wrote:Compared to Scalia, Stalin was a moderate...

Why don't you go compare them first hand...

Funny how some of these conservative strict constitutionalists are saying there's no way they'll confirm any Obama nominee now b/c he has such a short time left in office, whereas the Constitution plainly says the president shall nominate and appoint, blahblahblah. It doesn't say "The president shall nominate and appoint, unless he has less than a year left in office. Then you should leave it up to the next guy." But again, it's funny how ostensibly "strict" constitutionalists find reasons to circumvent their holy text as soon as it suits them...

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... 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..."

Correct. And for Senate repubs to block a nomination based solely on the fact that they don't think it's right for him to nominate and appoint b/c he only has 11 months left in office is bullshit...

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it constitutional.

He'll get the last laugh though when Hillary or Bernie appoints him to the bench.

sardis wrote:Just because you don't like it doesn't make it constitutional.

Right, just b/c Senate repubs don't like Obama doesn't mean they should ignore the constitution...

a president handing out executive orders to bypass congress doesn't get much sympathy when they try to shut him down

Shenanigans! We got political shenanigans going on here!

Jungle Rat wrote:He'll get the last laugh though when Hillary or Bernie appoints him to the bench.

Hedging your bet on Hillary, I see.

Heh, when Harry Reid was ignoring/changing Senate rules, gnob gobblers like Hedge were stone silent....karma.

sardis wrote:

Jungle Rat wrote:He'll get the last laugh though when Hillary or Bernie appoints him to the bench.

Hedging your bet on Hillary, I see.

Bernie or Kasich for me.

There's no need for name calling...

eCat wrote:a president handing out executive orders to bypass congress doesn't get much sympathy when they try to shut him down

Especially, when as a Senator, he was filibustering justices...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... -clea.html