"Bork" all SCOTUS Obama nominees.

[solo1]

I'm sure that the spineless Repubs might consider giving in and approving Obama's choice for the Supreme court.   They will probably consider getting blamed for all the 4-4 decisions this year on important court issues.  They then, in their spineless mentality might think that they could lose the House and/or Senate next year if they look like the bad guys.

I just called my Senator and reminded him that a 5-4 conservative SCOTUS is far more important than which party controls the Senate or House. We could very easily lose the 2nd Amendment and other Rights, if the SCOTUS considers that the Constitution of the United States is a 'living document'

The Dems, lead by Ted Kennedy and other Dems, did such a railroad job on President Reagan's nominee, Bork, that now Bork's name stands for a railroad job.

That event was also a turning point in how a SCOTUS nominee is viewed, and  'Advise and Consent' of the Senate is now clouded by the two party system. No longer is just jurisprudence experience and fairness a plus but how a nominee thinks and has ruled in the past is now all important to the Wonks in DC, which is inexcusable, IMHO.

At any rate, the Dems did it, Now the spineless Repubs better grow one and do the same............BORK!

[The emperor has no clothes]

Wayne, as I'm sure you remember Bork was given a hearing and given a vote in the senate. If that is done for this nominee then all is fine. If they vote him down so be it. As I'm sure you also remember Bork along with Nixon orchestrated the Saturday Night Massacre. In turn for doing so was promised the next Supreme Court appointment by Nixon. Events scratched that though. So the reality is there is a huge difference between this nominee and Bork. But as I say if the senate gives him a vote as they did Bork then that is all that is asked.

[Moonshot_1]

The Constitution, which, by the way, every Senator took an OATH to uphold, clearly states the process of selecting a nominee for a vacant spot on the Supreme Court.

For the Senate not to take up their "Advise and Consent" role is, in my opinion, treason.

Not saying they have to approve of the pick but that they are Constitutionally obligated by the oath they took to give the President's nominees a fair and just hearing.

I understand the political issues involve. They are not given any consideration in the Constitution.

Obama's pick appears, at first glance anyway, to be a well qualified jurist. Given allocades in the past from conservatives and liberals alike. Orrin Hatch spoke well of him at a previous hearing about him.
From all perspectives, a rational pick.

My opinion is that the Senate should set a precedent that is moral and just and give the guy a hearing and "Advise and Consent".

Just because your rival political party sets precedents that are morally bankrupt and vacant of any ethics doesn't mean it makes it ok for your political party to do the same.

[solo1]

In  a perfect non greedy, non agenda, and moral world, this is correct.  I was wrong. 

However, both parties and the president seem to have forgotten their oath of office.

[Crackerborn]

I heard today that Senate Majority Leader McConnell is invoking the Biden Rule, which the current VP proclaimed was the only just thing to do when he was the Senate chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1992.

[scooperhsd]

There is no such thing as a "Biden Rule" -  I'd agree with the notion that if the Senate doesn't give Garland a fair hearing - they should be arrested for treason and conduct unbecoming of Congress - and heaven help them if we the people are the jurors .... I personally don't have a problem with throwing out the whole bunch of them in the Senate and start over....

Now note - giving him a fair hearing and THEN not confirming him is entirely different than not even holding a hearing.

The constiution gives no mention of politcal parties nor the politcal process when confirming nominees. Besides that - if the Republicans DON'T at least give the appearance of following the process - they may well get something worse - like - who would Hillary pick ?

[bigguy]

Obama's pick appears, at first glance anyway, to be a well qualified jurist. Given allocades in the past from conservatives and liberals alike. Orrin Hatch spoke well of him at a previous hearing about him.
From all perspectives, a rational pick.

Yes, at first glance. However a closer looks raises serious questions, especially for the 2nd Amendment.

In the D.C. vs. Heller gun case, which eventually made it to the Supreme Court, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit struck down most of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban. However, Garland joined Judge David Tatel in voting to have the full court reconsider the decision. Garland and Tatel were on the losing side when the Supreme Court recognized the individual right to bear arms in the Heller case and struck down the district’s ban.

–Source

Moreover, in the case mentioned earlier, Garland voted with Tatel to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement. Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but as Kopel explained, the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.” By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law. Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place. Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law abiding citizens.

–Source

In the second quote the Clinton policy is described as illegal. I don't think it was ever found to be illegal in a court, but Judge Merrick's action shows clear support for a de facto gun registration.

What ever good there may be in his record doesn't outweigh the bad for me.

[Crackerborn]

There is no such thing as a "Biden Rule"

Please use Google so I don't have to explain the term. Sometimes what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. There is no time statute on when the Senate decides to hold a hearing on a nominee. It is maybe the first time the spineless wonders have it right.

As far as political parties, here is one of my favorite quotes by a founding father:

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

― George Washington

[bigguy]

There is no such thing as a "Biden Rule" -  I'd agree with the notion that if the Senate doesn't give Garland a fair hearing - they should be arrested for treason and conduct unbecoming of Congress - and heaven help them if we the people are the jurors .... I personally don't have a problem with throwing out the whole bunch of them in the Senate and start over....

Now note - giving him a fair hearing and THEN not confirming him is entirely different than not even holding a hearing.

The constiution gives no mention of politcal parties nor the politcal process when confirming nominees. Besides that - if the Republicans DON'T at least give the appearance of following the process - they may well get something worse - like - who would Hillary pick ?

[Crackerborn]

Here are the Biden rules for your clarification:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html
And you will note the source isn't well known for their conservative viewpoint.

[MarkT]

1) Garland supported the DC gun ban in 2007, voting to reconsider the Heller case after a three judge panel had ruled against the ban.

Hence, we don’t have to speculate as to how Garland would vote on Heller if confirmed to the Supreme Court -- he’s already voted against Heller once before, thereby showing he’d effectively rip the Second Amendment from the Constitution!

2) In a 2000 case, Garland voted to maintain the registration of gun owners, supporting efforts by the Clinton administration to use the instant check to illegally retain gun owners’ names for six months.

This shows that Judge Garland not only hates the Second Amendment, he supports the ability of a President to illegally use executive power to advance liberal causes.

There is no freedom more fundamental than the right to defend one’s life and family.  The Heller and McDonald decisions are hanging by a thread, as both were decided by 5-4 majorities. 

If Garland were confirmed, we can expect to see him vote to effectively rescind the Second Amendment. That means we’ll see more gun registration, more gun bans, and more restrictions on carrying firearms -- all of it approved by the Supreme Court.

As a practical matter, good people will go to prison for exercising their constitutionally-protected rights.

We know that Obama and the Court can’t abrogate the 2nd Amendment -- not legally.  The Constitution supersedes any unlawful action to the contrary.

But a change in the Court -- with the anti-gun decisions that follow -- will give the “green light” for all kinds of gun registration and gun bans.

In their oaths of office, Senators did not swear to rubberstamp any and all judicial nominees put forward by the President.  No, they swore to “support and defend” the Constitution. 

Pushing through a nominee who is committed to eviscerating the Second Amendment would violate their oaths.

However, they would uphold their oaths of office by throwing this nomination into the garbage can of history.

[scooperhsd]

I'm NOT asking the Senate to "rubberstamp" Obama's nominee - I merely want them to do their duty and hold well reasoned and impartial hearings. And THEN if they have a legit reason to not confirm, then not confirm him.


Besides - what if the newly elected President puts in the same person ? Not likely, I agree - but it is possible.

All your guys rationale - "He'll eviscerate the 2nd Amendment" - these are things that the Senate SHOULD bring up in hearings.

(yes - I lean toward strict construction intrepetation).

[J.Mencalice]

The Republican't Party.  Working to make America great again... by obstructing the process of actual governance. They remain a joke of politics in 2016, as they have been for the past 16 years in Congress and the Presidency.   It's not the job of the electorate to determine who goes to the Supreme Court.  It's up to the entire Congress to either accept or deny the nominee, but it is their RESPONSIBILITY to ACT as they were charged to do.  Children.  So bring on Donald Drumpf as your candidate.  Watch him get beaten to a pulp in November, and then obstruct their noted "will of the people" (that they are championing now), with some lame-ass (but new and exciting) explanation to the American public.

Mitch McConnell has outlived his usefulness;  time for him to check out of Congress, or maybe to just check out, period.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

The way I understand it, DC residents at one time weren't even allowed to keep firearms in their own homes. When that was found to be unconstitutional, this guy didn't agree.

When Obama floats a candidate who doesn't support the Bill of Rights (just as we knew he would) how could anyone seriously expect that candidate to be considered? Anything and everything this president does is designed to hurt America as far as I can tell. Let's get him safely out of office and replaced with someone who believes in the dream of our Founders without incurring anymore damage to our country.

We, as a people are defined by our freedoms. If we give up our freedoms, if we give up the 2nd Amendment, America no longer exists. That is exactly what is at stake with this nomination. Should he even be considered? No. You don't ever get near a gas can with a burning match and you don't ever let one such as this get near our sacred Constitution.

[solo1]

Again, I'm with Frye!  We can all talk about fair. Fair isn't doing much.  This post has seen a lot of Repub bashing and rightfully so.  So now, in fairness, we should trust the Repubs to do the "right thing' when we don't trust them.

I don't like the Repubs much and I don't like Mitch much either, but he's on the right track (for now)

Between this thread, which I started and the various news outlets, I find that I'm spinning my wheels, wasting my time, my input isn't going to change anything, and it probably is best if I just sit back and watch this Republic go to hell in a hand basket.

I need a drive just as bad as I used to need a ride.  I'm temporarily tired of posting here.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The way I understand it, DC residents at one time weren't even allowed to keep firearms in their own homes. When that was found to be unconstitutional, this guy didn't agree.

When Obama floats a candidate who doesn't support the Bill of Rights (just as we knew he would) how could anyone seriously expect that candidate to be considered? Anything and everything this president does is designed to hurt America as far as I can tell. Let's get him safely out of office and replaced with someone who believes in the dream of our Founders without incurring anymore damage to our country.

We, as a people are defined by our freedoms. If we give up our freedoms, if we give up the 2nd Amendment, America no longer exists. That is exactly what is at stake with this nomination. Should he even be considered? No. You don't ever get near a gas can with a burning match and you don't ever let one such as this get near our sacred Constitution.

I honestly know very little about this nominee. But if what you say is correct shouldn't this be brought up at hearings and then vote him down ?

[michaelyoung254]

The way I understand it, DC residents at one time weren't even allowed to keep firearms in their own homes. When that was found to be unconstitutional, this guy didn't agree.

When Obama floats a candidate who doesn't support the Bill of Rights (just as we knew he would) how could anyone seriously expect that candidate to be considered? Anything and everything this president does is designed to hurt America as far as I can tell. Let's get him safely out of office and replaced with someone who believes in the dream of our Founders without incurring anymore damage to our country.

We, as a people are defined by our freedoms. If we give up our freedoms, if we give up the 2nd Amendment, America no longer exists. That is exactly what is at stake with this nomination. Should he even be considered? No. You don't ever get near a gas can with a burning match and you don't ever let one such as this get near our sacred Constitution.

I honestly know very little about this nominee. But if what you say is correct shouldn't this be brought up at hearings and then vote him down ?

Here's a little bit of information regarding Merrick Garland. I understand that the source is from Breitbart, but I haven't found anything regarding him that would dispute these facts.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-five-facts/

[The emperor has no clothes]

The way I understand it, DC residents at one time weren't even allowed to keep firearms in their own homes. When that was found to be unconstitutional, this guy didn't agree.

When Obama floats a candidate who doesn't support the Bill of Rights (just as we knew he would) how could anyone seriously expect that candidate to be considered? Anything and everything this president does is designed to hurt America as far as I can tell. Let's get him safely out of office and replaced with someone who believes in the dream of our Founders without incurring anymore damage to our country.

We, as a people are defined by our freedoms. If we give up our freedoms, if we give up the 2nd Amendment, America no longer exists. That is exactly what is at stake with this nomination. Should he even be considered? No. You don't ever get near a gas can with a burning match and you don't ever let one such as this get near our sacred Constitution.

I honestly know very little about this nominee. But if what you say is correct shouldn't this be brought up at hearings and then vote him down ?

Here's a little bit of information regarding Merrick Garland. I understand that the source is from Breitbart, but I haven't found anything regarding him that would dispute these facts.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-five-facts/

Yes he is Jewish. Yes he went to Harvard. Are those something that are bad ? I revert back to my statement that they should have hearings and either vote him in or vote him down. It's not that difficult. If the right really feels he is unqualified they have the votes.

[Moonshot_1]

No one is suggesting that the Senate blindly confirm Garland. Just that they take up his nomination and give it a fair hearing as the Constitution, which they took an Oath to uphold, requires them to do.

We need to demand the same of a Democrat Senate with a Republican Presidential pick.

I could see not giving Obama's pick a hearing if Obama nominated a Black, (or white but thinking RuPaul type here) transvestite, welfare drag queen, illegal alien, serial rapist, radical Muslim, High school dropout just out of spite.

But while you may have a non favorable opinion of Garland, he is a rational pick and should be given a hearing. Then vote him up or down.

Comes down to either you have faith in the Constitution or you don't.
I do.

[Rams]

Wayne, as I'm sure you remember Bork was given a hearing and given a vote in the senate. If that is done for this nominee then all is fine. If they vote him down so be it. As I'm sure you also remember Bork along with Nixon orchestrated the Saturday Night Massacre. In turn for doing so was promised the next Supreme Court appointment by Nixon. Events scratched that though. So the reality is there is a huge difference between this nominee and Bork. But as I say if the senate gives him a vote as they did Bork then that is all that is asked.

While I don't know much about the current nominee and have no issue with having a hearing or not having a hearing.    I think it's pretty funny how the Dems have changed their tune when Bush tried to nominate a new Justice back in 92.   Biden has sure changed his tune now that the shoe is on the other foot.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Wayne, as I'm sure you remember Bork was given a hearing and given a vote in the senate. If that is done for this nominee then all is fine. If they vote him down so be it. As I'm sure you also remember Bork along with Nixon orchestrated the Saturday Night Massacre. In turn for doing so was promised the next Supreme Court appointment by Nixon. Events scratched that though. So the reality is there is a huge difference between this nominee and Bork. But as I say if the senate gives him a vote as they did Bork then that is all that is asked.

While I don't know much about the current nominee and have no issue with having a hearing or not having a hearing.    I think it's pretty funny how the Dems have changed their tune when Bush tried to nominate a new Justice back in 92.   Biden has sure changed his tune now that the shoe is on the other foot.

If you will remember Biden had hearings 

[michaelyoung254]

The way I understand it, DC residents at one time weren't even allowed to keep firearms in their own homes. When that was found to be unconstitutional, this guy didn't agree.

When Obama floats a candidate who doesn't support the Bill of Rights (just as we knew he would) how could anyone seriously expect that candidate to be considered? Anything and everything this president does is designed to hurt America as far as I can tell. Let's get him safely out of office and replaced with someone who believes in the dream of our Founders without incurring anymore damage to our country.

We, as a people are defined by our freedoms. If we give up our freedoms, if we give up the 2nd Amendment, America no longer exists. That is exactly what is at stake with this nomination. Should he even be considered? No. You don't ever get near a gas can with a burning match and you don't ever let one such as this get near our sacred Constitution.

I honestly know very little about this nominee. But if what you say is correct shouldn't this be brought up at hearings and then vote him down ?

Here's a little bit of information regarding Merrick Garland. I understand that the source is from Breitbart, but I haven't found anything regarding him that would dispute these facts.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-five-facts/

Yes he is Jewish. Yes he went to Harvard. Are those something that are bad ? I revert back to my statement that they should have hearings and either vote him in or vote him down. It's not that difficult. If the right really feels he is unqualified they have the votes.

No, those are pretty much non-issues, and I think that they mentioned those as informational purposes whereas people could see his educational, and religious background. I'm more concerned about his previous Second Amendment, and EPA rulings. He seems to be pro EPA, and anti Second Amendment. Anybody who works in virtually any type of industrial or manufacturing job, or anybody who values their rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment should be VERY afraid of this person becoming a Supreme Court Justice as he will tip the balance of the court from a 5-4 in favor of the Second Amendment to a 5-4 against the Second Amendment.

I'm hoping and praying that the Republicans actually grow a backbone and refuse to consider his nomination. Invoke the "Biden Rule" (yes, I know that it's not a real rule), and allow the next President, and thereby the voters choose.

[Rams]

Wayne, as I'm sure you remember Bork was given a hearing and given a vote in the senate. If that is done for this nominee then all is fine. If they vote him down so be it. As I'm sure you also remember Bork along with Nixon orchestrated the Saturday Night Massacre. In turn for doing so was promised the next Supreme Court appointment by Nixon. Events scratched that though. So the reality is there is a huge difference between this nominee and Bork. But as I say if the senate gives him a vote as they did Bork then that is all that is asked.

While I don't know much about the current nominee and have no issue with having a hearing or not having a hearing.    I think it's pretty funny how the Dems have changed their tune when Bush tried to nominate a new Justice back in 92.   Biden has sure changed his tune now that the shoe is on the other foot.

If you will remember Biden had hearings 

Regardless, his position has changed.

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/03/17/joe-biden-rule-scotus-nomination/21329261/

[Daddie O]

The voters did choose.  They elected Obama, by an over 5 million vote margin if you remember.  A president doesn't have a 3 year term, he has a 4 year term.  The Republicans in Congress are so effin stupid they don't even know that they should consider an appointment, and refuse to consent if they don't approve.  Instead they obviously paint themselves as the party of do nothing politics, and shirk their clearly defined constitutional responsibility.  Combine the fact they refuse to do their job, with nominating a hateful, violence promoting racist as their candidate for president, I can see the Democrats take back the Senate! 

[Rams]

The pendulum swings both ways.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

The voters did choose.  They elected Obama, by an over 5 million vote margin if you remember.  A president doesn't have a 3 year term, he has a 4 year term.  The Republicans in Congress are so effin stupid they don't even know that they should consider an appointment, and refuse to consent if they don't approve.  Instead they obviously paint themselves as the party of do nothing politics, and shirk their clearly defined constitutional responsibility.  Combine the fact they refuse to do their job, with nominating a hateful, violence promoting racist as their candidate for president, I can see the Democrats take back the Senate! 

Many thanks my friend. I just got back from a morning ride up to my favorite lake. The sun was shining, the air was crisp, the smells of trees, woods and even a hog farm pungent in the air. Old Glory was flying at every other farm and house it seemed. I really thought today couldn't get any better.

Then I get on the board and nearly spray coffee on the screen.

Most of the country well realizes the "hateful, violence promoting racist" is already in the white house and we just can't wait to get him out.  Have a great day.

[MP]

If a Democrat is elected this fall, you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodby.  ANY judge they put forward, will be anti 2nd Amendment.  That is the way it is.  Period.

Elect Democrat,  no more 2nd Amendment, as we know it.

[The emperor has no clothes]

If a Democrat is elected this fall, you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodby.  ANY judge they put forward, will be anti 2nd Amendment.  That is the way it is.  Period.

Elect Democrat,  no more 2nd Amendment, as we know it.

I seem to remember many saying 8 years ago that if Obama was elected he would take ALL our guns. I've still got all mine and a couple more.

[Serk]

If a Democrat is elected this fall, you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodby.  ANY judge they put forward, will be anti 2nd Amendment.  That is the way it is.  Period.

Elect Democrat,  no more 2nd Amendment, as we know it.

I seem to remember many saying 8 years ago that if Obama was elected he would take ALL our guns. I've still got all mine and a couple more.

It's certainly not for a lack of trying...

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

[Jess from VA]

This guy appears to be very well qualified, except he's shown his colors on the 2d Amendment.

He's probably better than any judge that the Bitch would nominate, if she gets elected.  That's no reason to confirm him now.

I'm with Wayne, Mark and Mike.... screw this guy.... and by any means possible.  Hearing, no hearing, I don't care.  Whatever it takes, however expedient.  The lawless criminal Zero has no reason to expect the Senate to follow the rules; he avoids, ignores, and spits on the law and constitution.  You reap what you sew.  

One reason for a hearing; to mercilessly crucify him in the public eye for his 2d Amendment stands in the past, and to send a message on how hearings will go for any anti 2d Amend nominations in the future.  Lots of judges will not answer questions about potential future cases since it tends to make them seem to be be prejudging things that have not yet been briefed and argued.  But he has a solid anti 2d Amend past and could be grilled on his past votes, which he could not sidestep.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

This guy appears to be very well qualified, except he's shown his colors on the 2d Amendment.

He's probably better than any judge that the Bitch would nominate, if she gets elected.  That's no reason to confirm him now.

I'm with Wayne, Mark and Mike.... screw this guy.... and by any means possible.  Hearing, no hearing, I don't care.  Whatever it takes, however expedient.  The lawless criminal Zero has no reason to expect the Senate to follow the rules; he avoids, ignores, and spits on the law and constitution.  You reap what you sew.  

One reason for a hearing; to mercilessly crucify him in the public eye for his 2d Amendment stands in the past, and to send a message on how hearings will go for any anti 2d Amend nominations in the future.  Lots of judges will not answer questions about potential future cases since it tends to make them seem to be be prejudging things that have not yet been briefed and argued.  But he has a solid anti 2d Amend past and could be grilled on his past votes, which he could not sidestep.  

If he is as bad on the 2nd amendment as you say, just call a hearing. Excoriate him in front of the country and vote him down. Everyone is seen as doing their constitutional duties and your side wins. Doesn't seem that difficult to me.

[Serk]

The constitution does not say the senate has to hold hearings and have a vote.

All it says is this: Article II, Section 2: “(The President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”

(The removed parts are listings of other things the president nominate, here's the full text if you wish to check it yourself - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii )

IMHO, refusing to consider someone put forth IS advising and (not) consenting in and of itself.

Or to quote the 2005 version of Harry Reid (Not the self-contradictory 2016 version)

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

If a Democrat is elected this fall, you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodby.  ANY judge they put forward, will be anti 2nd Amendment.  That is the way it is.  Period.

Elect Democrat,  no more 2nd Amendment, as we know it.

I seem to remember many saying 8 years ago that if Obama was elected he would take ALL our guns. I've still got all mine and a couple more.

You're right, our country has been incredibly lucky. If this had happened a year or two sooner our 2nd Amendment rights would have probably been lost. If we had lost two of our pro 2nd Amendment/Civil Rights judges, it would have been over. That would have been the end of the Constitution, and the beginning of the downfall of the United States and the dream of freedom we embody for much of the world. It is not something to make light of.

I'm sure you well realize your freedom and the freedom of our decedents has been hanging by the thread of the thankfully long lifespans of our Supreme Court Justices. Would you really want to elect another such as the president we currently have in office and just close your eyes and pray you and yours don't live long enough to face the consequences? Or that somehow, only other people will lose their freedom, not you? An Obama, Hillary or probably Bernie appointed Supreme Court means the inevitable loss of our freedom! It would be the equivalent of our country committing suicide. Not because of the presidents policies, because of his or her Supreme Court picks.

According to Senator Coats, "Over the past eighty years, a Supreme Court vacancy has arisen only twice after primary voting began in the presidential election process. In both of those years – 1956 and 1968 – the Senate declined to confirm a replacement."

To my understanding, the Senate is not violating the Constitution by declining to hold hearings.

We are talking about a position on the Supreme Court. They are the American people's last defense against unconstitutional infringements on our civil rights. To even momentarily consider someone for that position who doesn't support those civil rights is insane at the best. Would a school board be criticized for refusing to consider a pedophile to lead a kindergarten class? That is, by no exaggeration what we are talking about here as I see it.

 

[The emperor has no clothes]

I guess I don't see it like that. The guy by all accounts from Republicans and Democrats has a good reputation as a judge. To equate that with a child molester is a big stretch.

[baldo]

I guess I don't see it like that. The guy by all accounts from Republicans and Democrats has a good reputation as a judge. To equate that with a child molester is a big stretch.

You think?   smdh....

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I guess I don't see it like that. The guy by all accounts from Republicans and Democrats has a good reputation as a judge. To equate that with a child molester is a big stretch.

As long as I maintain my 2nd Amendment rights I could defend my family from a child molester. If, an Obama/Hillary Supreme Court takes away my right to own firearms (which they will if appointed) I could be reduced to defending them with a brick or going to jail when it becomes apparent I didn't give up my firearms. And, it would be happening all over the United States. I think the analogy is fitting.

For this election, it's a done deal, if the hildabeast selects the next Supreme Court judges, our rein as a free, armed people is over. America as we know it, is over.

After this election, something needs to change. Our civil rights should not be attacked by any party. JFK was a 2nd Amendment supporter and a member of the NRA as I recall. It's only in recent years that the Democratic party has become the "take away your rights party". When I was growing up, Liberals supported personal freedom, Conservatives usually didn't. Things have somehow reversed. My Father was a union member, I have been a union member. My Dad said the Democratic party was the party of the working people. At one time it was. When this is all behind us, someone needs to bring the Democratic party back to supporting the Constitution. I don't like having no choices at election time. There have been lots of times I would have voted Democratic if not for the party's hatred of the 2nd Amendment.

Someone needs to bring that party back to being a party those who believe in the dream of our Founders can support.

[Roadog]

  Hey Daddie O, the people DID vote,...that is why there is a Republican majority in the House,   Duh.........whats with all this talk about "doing your job"  ?  Why dont you dems tell that one to obamma he isnt 'doing ' his job. Makes an end run around congress EVERY chance he gets. that isnt doing his job. Wont secure the border that IS constitutional . You Libs only care about that one when it is Repubs doing it.  Why dont you Libs say anything about Harry Reid or Biden reversing themselves on Supreme Court nominations....I remember watching a Democratic strategest being interviewed on pmsnbc  on election night in 2012  say "the democratic play book is  'blame the other side for what you are doing"   THAT IS exactly what is happening now with all this talk of 'hate' in the Trump Rallys.  It is the Dems and BLM groups along with move on. org who are creating all of this fighting and throwing around the 'hate speech' . We know who the 'haters' are.  They think it will help defeat Trump branding him a hater. Havnt you heard...his numbers are up !

Roadog

[Rams]

IMHO, refusing to consider someone put forth IS advising and (not) consenting in and of itself.

Or to quote the 2005 version of Harry Reid (Not the self-contradictory 2016 version)

As I said previously, the shoe is on the other foot.   Obama has used loop holes and a lack of specific authority authorization so he could put out an executive order so many times (when Congress would not authorize what he wanted) that I can't keep track of the totals.    While I admit I don't care for McConnell, he has not push the rules and is well within the Constitutional requirements.    I honestly don't care if Obama's nominee gets a hearing or not, I see it as the Senate doing their job and holding a out of control President in check.

I have no doubt that if Obama could find a way around this pesky problem, he would.