2016 Election
They broadcasted the whole rally live
Before Trump came on, the organizers made a point of telling supporters how to handle any protesters.
All the supporters are told not to get physical. Don't touch the protester, their sign or banner. Just chant "Trump" over and over at the protester and security will eventually escort the protester out.
There was a protester in the middle of the event , Trump yelled to remove the protester, and that person was peacefully escorted out of the event
Should be an interesting few months coming up...
Quote: ams288Antonin Scalia dead at 79.
Should be an interesting few months coming up...
Wow, just saw that
Wow
out of the blue
Ginsburg outlasted Scalia, wow
This next confirmation for Supreme Court will be the battle of the ages
The most conservative justice ever with a Lib President picking the replacement
Got my popcorn out. What an opportunity for Obama
I wonder if Ginsburg will consider retirement now?
Their disregard for the Constitution is frightening.
Okay, so I guess I will watch the Republican debate tonight.
The Clarence Thomas confirmation took 107 days and that was the longest ever. If the republican senate stalls for 11 months, that's 330 day, that would be more than 3 times the longest ever.
I think such a move by the republican senate would be very unpopular among independent and moderate voters. They better think about that.
Quote: kewljI think such a move by the republican senate would be very unpopular among independent and moderate voters. They better think about that.
Since when has that stopped republicans from acting stupid?
But seriously, I have a feeling this will stretch out all year.
Each candidate is basically going to have to say who they would appoint to the Supreme Court once they win, and the voters will have to decide...
I think the Dems win that fight. Before his death, many of the republican candidates talked about Scalia as being their ideal justice. But the country has moved left, socially. Voters don't want another racist bigot like Scalia on the court.
Quote: ams288Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz are already saying that the NEXT President should be the one to appoint his successor.
Their disregard for the Constitution is frightening.
They're making the only argument they have. Paraphrase -The American people should have the right to decide with the next President. Well, the American people voted this President in, and he's still the President.
what they were voting on. So conservatives
are screwed either way.
Quote: EvenBobAny tie in the court is considered a win for
what they were voting on. So conservatives
are screwed either way.
Major Washington DC earthquake, everything just shifted left :-)
Quote: EvenBobAny tie in the court is considered a win for
what they were voting on. So conservatives
are screwed either way.
Huge upset, far more people had Ruth going first on "Stiffs.com". But neither had as many people pick them as Abe Vigoda.
From the standpoint of a Democratic president, anyone less conservative than Scalia will still be a win.
Donald got really angry a couple times and didn't look very presidential. They all 4 are getting very nasty and personal. They are all calling each other liar many times over.
Perhaps the funniest thing was Jeb Bush stating that he is sick and tired of Trump picking on his family. Jeb has his mother and now brother campaigning for him, that means he has invited that.
Quote: kewljReally NASTY debate .
Daggers were out for about 10 minutes straight there.
all hate Trump because he's not supposed
to be in their playground. He's the rich
college guy stealing away all the pretty
girls and the other students hate him.
Quote: rxwineThey're making the only argument they have. Paraphrase -The American people should have the right to decide with the next President. Well, the American people voted this President in, and he's still the President.
Today it has become apparent that GOP-ers think that a black President only gets 3/5 of a term...
With more on the line, voter turn-out should be higher. I think higher turn-out usually favors the democrats, but I might be mis-remembering.
Obama will nominate someone and the republican led Senate can refuse to schedule hearing. As long as the Senate does not go into recess, that nomination is on hold. If the senate goes into recess at any time, the president can appoint a judge without confirmation.
So, the Republicans will make sure the Senate does not go into recess, even during vacation and down time. I think all that is required is that someone from leadership gavel a session to order for a minute every 3 days. So the republicans will be very vigilant about doing that.
But here's the problem. The current Senate expires on January 3, 2017. The new senate begins several weeks later, with the winners from Novembers elections taking their seats. That is a finite thing. The senate ends January 3, 2017....means they are in recess and that little gavel trick does not apply, because there is no official senate during that period.
That would give the president 17 days before the end of his term to just appoint a new Justice and have it take effect without any confirmation hearings. Such an appointment is deemed a temporary appointment and only lasts until the end of the next Senate session, which in this case would be 2 year, January 3, 2019.
If the repubs want to play hardball and not schedule a hearing they can delay it, but they might just end up with Obama appointing a far, far left Justice that would not even need confirmation for the next two years.
Quote: kewljThe Republicans really can not stop Obama from not only nominating, but appointing the next member of the supreme court. All they can do is delay it until the final days of his term.
Here is my understanding of the way it works.
Obama will nominate someone and the republican led Senate can refuse to schedule hearing. As long as the Senate does not go into recess, that nomination is on hold. If the senate goes into recess at any time, the president can appoint a judge without confirmation.
So, the Republicans will make sure the Senate does not go into recess, even during vacation and down time. I think all that is required is that someone from leadership gavel a session to order for a minute every 3 days. So the republicans will be very vigilant about doing that.
But here's the problem. The current Senate expires on January 3, 2017. The new senate begins several weeks later, with the winners from Novembers elections taking their seats. That is a finite thing. The senate ends January 3, 2017....means they are in recess and that little gavel trick does not apply, because there is no official senate during that period. That would give the president 17 days before the end of his term to just appoint a new Justice and have it take effect without any confirmation hearings. Such an appointment is deemed a temporary appointment and only lasts until the end of the next Senate session, which in this case would be 2 year, January 3, 2019.
If the repubs want to play hardball and not schedule a hearing they can delay it, but they might just end up with Obama appointing a far, far left Justice that would not even need confirmation for the next two years.
*fingers crossed*
Quote: kewlj
That would give the president 17 days before the end of his term to just appoint a new Justice and have it take effect without any confirmation hearings. Such an appointment is deemed a temporary appointment and only lasts until the end of the next Senate session, which in this case would be 2 year, January 3, 2019.
If the repubs want to play hardball and not schedule a hearing they can delay it, but they might just end up with Obama appointing a far, far left Justice that would not even need confirmation for the next two years.
The whole situation is worthy of some high stakes betting as to how it will eventually turn out.
Quote: ams288Today it has become apparent that GOP-ers think that a black President only gets 3/5 of a term...
Of course. The Republicans/Conservatives disagree with the President and that somehow automatically makes it some kind of race thing. This kind of statement does no good and is untrue--the truth is that the President is a Democrat/Liberal and the Republicans/Conservatives don't like his politics. They are putting forth their position on letting a President they don't agree with pick the next Supreme Court justice. The President could be lily white and the debate would be the same. That is a good thing, not a racist thing.
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/heres-how-supreme-court-nominations-work/
Just horrible how the Republicans might want to follow the Democrats lead on this issue...
"Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment. Not surprisingly, the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times. Of course, the partisan arguments will be exactly the opposite this time."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/
So...will the Democrats here and elsewhere say that those 1960 Democrats were wrong or just that the Republicans should not feel the same way? I know it is not a "law", only a non-binding position of the Senate, but it was done to let everyone know that the Democrats were against a recess appointment to the Supreme Court.
Quote: ams288Today it has become apparent that GOP-ers think that a black President only gets 3/5 of a term...
Once again, a liberal goes to the race card when they have nothing else. Policy has nothing to do with it, only that he is black.
I can clearly say him being half black has nothing to do with it. I dislike Hillary just as much and cannot stand Pelosi, Reid and others like them because they stand for everything I am against from a political point of view. But that doesn't fit what you want to hear does it?
Didn't Obama once say elections have consequences? Well the people spoke in 2010 & 2014 and this is the result.
I think it's an issue where Democrats have a huge advantage with voters. If Roe v Wade were ever overturned, Republicans would get nuked in national elections for at least the following ten years.
Plus, anger over legalized abortion is one thing that drives many Republican voters to the polls. Need to keep them angry.
Meanwhile, Hillary, the presumptive Democratic nominee is highly unliked and there is nothing about her that will drive Democrats and those sympathetic to them to the polls. But, if abortion is perceived to be really in play, this changes. She has her banner to carry.
So, if you are the brains in the Republican party, how do you handle all of this? You want to fire up your own base, but you don't want to raise the specter of reversing course on gay rights, abortion, etc. with voters as a whole.
I say you make a big stink about it, but ultimately let Obama's nominee through. Especially if he is business friendly, as is likely to be the case.
"The justices generally vote for a case’s outcome at a conference after oral argument, after which the chief justice assigns an opinion, but if Scalia was the fifth vote in a case that’s already been heard, that result is now negated. “Unless a justice is sitting at the court at the time of argument and at the time the decision is issued, the justice’s vote doesn’t count,” Bagenstos said."
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/what-happens-the-big-supreme-court-cases-after-scalias-death
That could well be a better potential outcome for conservatives than approving a liberal appointee for a lifetime. It would guarantee one appointee to the next President, and there are three other justices older than 75. It would be amazing for all of them to still be on the bench in nine years, and there is a huge possibility that the next President could fill those three slots...or, with the above scenario, a total of four. That is also counting on the younger justices staying healthy enough to serve.
...and, as to those who say that a judge voted on 97-0 in his last appointment should be easily confirmed, we are talking about a huge difference in the offices to which approved. Lots of people can be acceptable in lower positions and unacceptable in higher ones...
Quote: BozOnce again, a liberal goes to the race card when they have nothing else.
"Nothing else".... except, you know..... THE CONSTITUTION.
Quote: ams288"Nothing else".... except, you know..... THE CONSTITUTION.
...but you didn't go to the Constitution regarding actions concerning the potential nominee, you went to race...I thought we had "settled law" on that issue...so why bring it up?
There is a discussion of the Constitution and how it impacts this opening on the Court but you decided race was the factor that needed to be injected.
It is the content of the character that everyone else is talking about...and many have differing opinions. That fact has nothing to do with race.
I wholeheartedly agree with ams, that this will not look good to the independents for the Republican Party. I would bet that President Hilary Clinton will be appointing the next Supreme Court Justice.
Quote: SOOPOOI wholeheartedly agree with ams, that this will not look good to the independents for the Republican Party. I would bet that President Hilary Clinton will be appointing the next Supreme Court Justice.
That is a risk the party will have to decide whether they want to take or not. There is a whole lot of talking right now, but the actual decision hasn't been made. Politicians say a lot of things; we'll see how things play out over the next few months.
Quote: RonC...but you didn't go to the Constitution regarding actions concerning the potential nominee, you went to race...I thought we had "settled law" on that issue...so why bring it up?
There is a discussion of the Constitution and how it impacts this opening on the Court but you decided race was the factor that needed to be injected.
My original "3/5 of a term" comment was meant to be a joke, but I'm happy to double down on it seeing the angry reactions it got from you and Boz.
Shows that there is some truth there...
Quote: ams288My original "3/5 of a term" comment was meant to be a joke, but I'm happy to double down on it seeing the angry reactions it got from you and Boz.
Shows that there is some truth there...
No, actually it doesn't. I just don't know when you are joking.
If you don't accept that as the reason I reacted to your comment, then we'll know that there is some truth to the thought that you injected race and were not really joking at all. No one else did that.
My favorite:
Quote:Sen. Ted Cruz claimed that “we have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year.” That’s wrong. Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, an election year.
Please don't let facts get in the way of the GOP's obstruction!
Quote: ams288Fact checking last night's debate: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/factchecking-the-ninth-gop-debate
My favorite:
Please don't let facts get in the way of the GOP's obstruction!
The obstruction is incredible
Mitch McConnell had no problem with Reagan nominating a Supreme Court Justice in his last year in office
What a hypocrite
Jeb Bush is saying no to Everyone. WTF. He has no idea who the nominee is and he is already against. WTF
This guy want to lead the free world? What a clown
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/politics/jeb-bush-antonin-scalia-state-of-the-union/index.html
Scalia's narrow reading of the Constitution gives Obama this right, right now
The main reason I voted for Obama is so he can nominate Justices.
Quote: terapinedThe obstruction is incredible
Mitch McConnell had no problem with Reagan nominating a Supreme Court Justice in his last year in office
What a hypocrite
Jeb Bush is saying no to Everyone. WTF. He has no idea who the nominee is and he is already against. WTF
This guy want to lead the free world? What a clown
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/politics/jeb-bush-antonin-scalia-state-of-the-union/index.html
Scalia's narrow reading of the Constitution gives Obama this right, right now
The main reason I voted for Obama is so he can nominate Justices.
"That's his prerogative, he has every right to do it," Bush told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union" about Obama's power to nominate a replacement for the conservative justice. "The Senate has every right not to confirm that person ... Given his choices of Supreme Court justices in the past, the Senate of the United States should not confirm someone who is out of the mainstream."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/politics/jeb-bush-antonin-scalia-state-of-the-union/index.html
President Obama should act immediately and submit his nominee in the week or two that they are submitted. The Senate should then act on the nomination. Yea or Nay votes. If they choose to seat or not seat a nominee, they will need to defend that choice. If they choose not to schedule a vote and not to seat a nominee (something that has happened before and the Democrats wanted to happen if a vacancy came up at the end of Eisenhower's term), then they will be judged on that action in the election.
You can find people in politics all over the place on this issue based on when they are in power. Like that is something new...
(Very disappointed with the Terps loss yesterday...)
Quote: terapinedThe obstruction is incredible
Mitch McConnell had no problem with Reagan nominating a Supreme Court Justice in his last year in office
What a hypocrite
Jeb Bush is saying no to Everyone. WTF. He has no idea who the nominee is and he is already against. WTF
This guy want to lead the free world? What a clown
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/politics/jeb-bush-antonin-scalia-state-of-the-union/index.html
Scalia's narrow reading of the Constitution gives Obama this right, right now
The main reason I voted for Obama is so he can nominate Justices.
I've said for a while now: the Supreme Court is my number 1 consideration in this upcoming 2016 election. So many of the justices are very old and at risk of dropping at any moment, as was proven yesterday. I don't want a Republican appointing their replacements.
I feel like some liberals haven't given this enough thought, especially the younger ones. We need somebody who can win in 2016. Women's reproduction rights, gay rights, etc. would all be gutted if a right winger is the one who gets in. These are important issues to younger voters.
This upcoming confirmation fight will highlight the issue well, and I believe it will help the Dems.
If the nominee was in his late 60's, all the better...
I believe it is 24 Republican senators & 10 Democratic senators facing reelection.
For example, Sen. Rob Portman from my home state of Ohio is facing a tough challenge from former governor Ted Strickland. Is Rob Portman going to join in on the obstruction? I don't think a purple state like Ohio will view that kindly....
Quote: ams288It will also be interesting to see how this affects the Senate races this year.
I believe it is 24 Republican senators & 10 Democratic senators facing reelection.
For example, Sen. Rob Portman from my home state of Ohio is facing a tough challenge from former governor Ted Strickland. Is Rob Portman going to join in on the obstruction? I don't think a purple state like Ohio will view that kindly....
Yet another reason that how this issue is handled is pivotal. Republicans can't win the battle and lose the election. If a Democrat gets the vote at the top of the ticket, it is more likely that a Democrat a line or so below will also get the vote. The balance of the Senate is at risk; a majority in the new session is in no way a certainty for the Republicans. This has been talked about before, but this places new importance on how things are handled.
I thought Trump was horrible. Based on the current accuracy of my thoughts on how The Donald looks or acts in a debate, I predict an overwhelming victory in South Caroline. I have yet to be right about how he was perceived after a debate...if i was a certain member here, I would disappear for months and claim that I was not even posting when those posts that I made were made...
Quote: RonCI watched an hour of the debate last night. It deteriorated quickly and a lot of them did not look exactly "Presidential" .
Looking and acting 'presidential' never gets
any notice. Carson always looks presidential,
look where it's got him. Bush looked
presidential in the first 4-5 debates, nobody
noticed him. Now that he's finally acting
like a candidate, it's way too late.
Bill O'Reilly said something interesting last
week. He gets complaints all the time that
he has Trump on too often, and not enough
Rubio or Bush or Cruz. He said it's because
every time they ask, Trump does an interview.
None of the others do that, especially Cruz.
Trump always makes the time, he always
sits for a camera somewhere or does it on
the phone. Trump does TV and radio
interviews all day every day. He knows how,
he doesn't have talking points. He knows
how to think on his feet and speak like
a real person and not a candidate. He's
not a trained politician, that's what people
like about him.
Nobody else does that. You listen to any of
them, they all sound like a recording in the
interviews they do. I never get tired of Trump,
he's never the same twice is a row. For a TV
or radio show host, he's money in the bank.
Quote: EvenBobI never get tired of Trump,
he's never the same twice is a row. For a TV
or radio show host, he's money in the bank.
As President, will he have a different opinion on every issue every day? That does not appeal to me.
He is fun to watch. Like a train wreck.
*again, I am predicting victory. I just don't like him.
Quote: Boz
Didn't Obama once say elections have consequences? Well the people spoke in 2010 & 2014 and this is the result.
It would be nice if the people spoke, I think that's the way it's supposed to be. But the people only are allowed to choose between figure heads that will support special interests. It's why Ron Paul had zero chance last election and Bernie has none this election.
Cruz and Rubio look like they may take each other out like gandalf and that monster thingy, and perhaps bush has a better chance in a general than a candidate who is either racist and sexist or just happens to make an inordinate amount of brutally racist and sexist comments.
Quote: EvenBobBill O'Reilly said something interesting last
week. He gets complaints all the time that
he has Trump on too often, and not enough
Rubio or Bush or Cruz. He said it's because
every time they ask, Trump does an interview.
None of the others do that, especially Cruz.
Trump always makes the time, he always
sits for a camera somewhere or does it on
the phone.
Exactly. I watch Morning Joe most mornings and Trump calls in all the time.
Joe Scarborough always says people complain about them giving Trump so much air time, but none of the other candidates are willing to call in and answer their questions.
Then after Joe said that one time, Lindsay Graham must have been watching because he called in right after Trump and the interview was nowhere near as interesting.
