Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Google Peter Kiesler liberal morons. There is ample precedent for the Senate failing to act on federal judicial appointments.

Yes. He deserved to be confirmed but the D Senate wouldn't do it. Both sides play this game and it is disgusting.

Well the first Senate to pass on him was the 109th, which was Republican. So neither party seems to agree with you on this.

Managing editor of the Republican site RedState, saying Senate Republicans should confirm Garland now, because it's obvious Trump will lose big and Hillary will pick someone less moderate:

Republicans must know that there is absolutely no chance that we will win the White House in 2016 now. They must also know that we are likely to lose the Senate as well. So the choices, essentially, are to confirm Garland and have another bite at the apple in a decade, or watch as President Clinton nominates someone who is radically more leftist and 10-15 years younger, and we are in no position to stop it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/04/raising-the-white-flag-conservative-blog-says-confirm-obamas-supreme-court-pick/

Anonymous wrote:Google Peter Kiesler liberal morons. There is ample precedent for the Senate failing to act on federal judicial appointments.

Yes. He deserved to be confirmed but the D Senate wouldn't do it. Both sides play this game and it is disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that Obama picked Merrick Garland because he intends to push him through as a recess appointment and the GOP will still be able to save face by saying they fought as hard as they could? Obama knows that the GOP could live with Garland and both sides preserve the theatre they are so fond of. In the end, Garland gets in and both sides have a 'win'? Could that be a possibility?

I see this as exactly what's going on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that the Senate is on Easter recess, can't Obama just make a recess appointment?

Believe the senate Ned's to be in recess a certain number of days before the president can make a recess appointment (20? 22?), and the current senate calendar is set for recesses to always fall just short of that.

According to this - http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/ - seems like it needs to be just three days.

Here's the answer - http://www.rollcall.com/news/no-recess-senate-year. The Senate Republicans are actually refusing to go into recess, just so they can block any recess appointments.

"I and many of my Republican colleagues have already agreed to be in Washington every three days for the rest of this year to gavel in this body in pro forma session so that this president cannot put in a recess appointment judge," Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., made clear in a floor speech Wednesday. That means shifts of GOP senators turning up during the holiday later this month, the seven-week break in July and August, and throughout October. The process is fairly simple, with a senator taking the presiding officer's chair and gaveling the chamber in and out of session without conducting any business along the way.

More do-nothing from the do-nothing Congress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with just following the Biden rule?

He was chairman of the Judiciary committee and is now the VP........ he has credibility and strives for bipartisanship.

Because it's a dumb rule.

I get it that it is a "dumb rule" because when Biden proposed it we had a Republican president in office. How about the "Schumer rule" which he offered almost 18 months before GWB's term ended?

Of course, it is politics and in an ideal world politics should not enter into Supreme Court nominations and confirmations.

It really is quite simple: if what the Republicans are doing is so wrong, argue the case before the American people and try and get the Republican senators who are running for reelection defeated because they will not hold a hearing. If the American people agree with you then some or all of these senators will be defeated and the people will have affirmed that Garland should have been given a hearing.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court will continue to function and the country will survive a vacancy on the court.

BTW, I support giving Garland a hearing ....... but I know the Democrats as evidenced by Biden and Schumer's comments would do the very same thing if roles had been reversed because both parties indulge in political opportunism and nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, name one meaningful thing the senate has actually done recently.

Or the entire congress for that matter.

By their presence, they are a blocking mechanism regarding any excessive laws the administration might propose.

Or things like passing a budget.

In any business it is customary, to say the least, to replace essential employees when they die. In this bizarro world of conservatism, letting a year go by is OK though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, name one meaningful thing the senate has actually done recently.

Or the entire congress for that matter.

By their presence, they are a blocking mechanism regarding any excessive laws the administration might propose.

Today's GOP in a nutshell. Rather than drafting legislation for things like comprehensive immigration reform or criminal sentencing reform or an alternative to the ACA should it ever be repealed or all the mental health services that are referenced everytime there is a mass shooting they view themselves as nothing more than obstructionists and piss away time snd opportunity "investigating" BENNGHHHAAAAZZZZI and Planned Parenthood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, name one meaningful thing the senate has actually done recently.

Or the entire congress for that matter.

By their presence, they are a blocking mechanism regarding any excessive laws the administration might propose.

And Supreme Court nominations, too. Although a nomination after a sitting Justice has passed away doesn't seem that excessive, really.

Anonymous wrote:Ok, name one meaningful thing the senate has actually done recently.

Or the entire congress for that matter.

By their presence, they are a blocking mechanism regarding any excessive laws the administration might propose.

Anonymous wrote:^^And that "hateful bigots" dont adopt children outside of their own race and raise me as their own.

What a terrible miserable person that PP must be.

Me? So you're an adopted child of one of these people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with just following the Biden rule?

He was chairman of the Judiciary committee and is now the VP........ he has credibility and strives for bipartisanship.

I'm not Joe Biden, I never voted him into the Senate, so I'm not bound by some hypothetical he expressed an opinion on 24 years ago. So I get to have an opinion of my own, regardless of what Biden said 24 years ago about a situation that never actually came to pass, and I get to have an expectation that my elected representatives will take that into consideration.

If the GOP will agree that all 24 GOP senators up for re-election this year have to refrain from voting because it's only fair that we let the American people decide issues this year through the upcoming elections, then we can talk about waiting on Judge Garland.

^^And that "hateful bigots" dont adopt children outside of their own race and raise me as their own.

What a terrible miserable person that PP must be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm laughing at the poster who got up in arms about Obama bowling....

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz did an ad with the Duck Dynasty idiots.

I'm curious as to why you think the Duck Commander owners are 'idiots'

Oh, come on...they are lowest common denominator reality show phonies. And hateful bigots to boot.

Wow. No, wait a minute....you do realize the company was a multi-million dollar company at the top of its industry before the show began, right?

Anonymous wrote:Now that the Senate is on Easter recess, can't Obama just make a recess appointment?

Believe the senate Ned's to be in recess a certain number of days before the president can make a recess appointment (20? 22?), and the current senate calendar is set for recesses to always fall just short of that.