S C Justices Have No Biased Political Ideologies?

[boxcar]

Think Again. But I do have to admire ol' Ruthie for her candor! Of course, as the most liberal of all the liberals on the high court, her glowing endorsement of Obama's SC nominee hopefully will ring a very loud and clear warning in the Senate. She's appeals to Obama's constitutional right to nominate but completely forgets the Senate's constitutional right to not hold hearings or to stonewall hearings. So much for equal branches of government. To her warped way of thinking the Executive branch is wee bit more equal than the Legislative!

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals the case she'd most like to see overturned

http://theweek.com/speedreads/635108...ike-overturned

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Think Again. But I do have to admire ol' Ruthie for her candor! Of course, as the most liberal of all the liberals on the high court, her glowing endorsement of Obama's SC nominee hopefully will ring a very loud and clear warning in the Senate. She's appeals to Obama's constitutional right to nominate but completely forgets the Senate's constitutional right to not hold hearings or to stonewall hearings. So much for equal branches of government. To her warped way of thinking the Executive branch is wee bit more equal than the Legislative!

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals the case she'd most like to see overturned

http://theweek.com/speedreads/635108...ike-overturned

You lost your boy Scalia.
The other side of the coin.

Judging by the lack of work that gets done on Capitol Hill,
this is the real issue at stake in the November election.
The thought of more conservatives on the SC turns my stomach.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

The thought of more conservatives on the SC turns my stomach.

The thought of Ruth Bader Ginsburg trying to interpret the Constitution is a cosmic farce that makes my head hurt. She has said that in determining the 'constitutionality' of a law, the court should not only consider our Constitution, but should look to the laws and court decisions of other countries.

In plain English, that means shopping around for any precedent that supports your desired outcome.

[Tom]

She has also come out against Trump.

Good.
If this little POS is against him I know he is the MAN!

So happy she is as old as she is.....tick tock tick tock

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by Tom

So happy she is as old as she is.....tick tock tick tock

No denying it - she is old.

Such a shame your guy Scalia wasn't found in bed with a hooker.
Maybe he was, though.......of the male variety.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

You lost your boy Scalia.
The other side of the coin.

Judging by the lack of work that gets done on Capitol Hill,
this is the real issue at stake in the November election.
The thought of more conservatives on the SC turns my stomach.

Yeah...but he mad more class than Ruthie because he exercised judicial discretion.

[Tom]

Boxie, EVERYONE has more class that Darth Vader Ginsburg.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Think Again. But I do have to admire ol' Ruthie for her candor! Of course, as the most liberal of all the liberals on the high court, her glowing endorsement of Obama's SC nominee hopefully will ring a very loud and clear warning in the Senate. She's appeals to Obama's constitutional right to nominate but completely forgets the Senate's constitutional right to not hold hearings or to stonewall hearings. So much for equal branches of government. To her warped way of thinking the Executive branch is wee bit more equal than the Legislative!

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals the case she'd most like to see overturned

http://theweek.com/speedreads/635108...ike-overturned

There is no Constitutional right to not hold hearings or to stonewall hearings. In fact the phrase, "Advise and Consent" (or not consent), implies a duty to hold hearings and arrive at a decision whatever that decision might be.

Republicans hold a 54-46 majority in the Senate. 60 votes is required to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. The only reason that these petty little men are not doing their constitutional duty is to embarrass the President.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by mostpost

There is no Constitutional right to not hold hearings or to stonewall hearings. In fact the phrase, "Advise and Consent" (or not consent), implies a duty to hold hearings and arrive at a decision whatever that decision might be.

Republicans hold a 54-46 majority in the Senate. 60 votes is required to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. The only reason that these petty little men are not doing their constitutional duty is to embarrass the President.

This is why you shouldn't be so quick to call people idiots. You might want to check in with Justice Alito (58-42).

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

This is why you shouldn't be so quick to call people idiots. You might want to check in with Justice Alito (58-42).

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/suprem...tusconfirm.htm
clearly states:
Finally the full Senate will vote on the nomination. A simple majority vote of the Senators present is required for the nomination to be confirmed.

DAMN!!!

I was wrong about that. That does not really change my contention that they are using this to embarrass Obama. They still have enough votes to block the nomination.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by mostpost

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/suprem...tusconfirm.htm
clearly states:
Finally the full Senate will vote on the nomination. A simple majority vote of the Senators present is required for the nomination to be confirmed.

DAMN!!!

I was wrong about that. That does not really change my contention that they are using this to embarrass Obama. They still have enough votes to block the nomination.

I don't know that it embarrasses Obama; it just prevents him from appointing an additional SC nominee. The approach may backfire if Hill wins, and she nominates someone to the left of the current nominee. In the end, you may be happy with the outcome.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost

There is no Constitutional right to not hold hearings or to stonewall hearings. In fact the phrase, "Advise and Consent" (or not consent), implies a duty to hold hearings and arrive at a decision whatever that decision might be.

Republicans hold a 54-46 majority in the Senate. 60 votes is required to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. The only reason that these petty little men are not doing their constitutional duty is to embarrass the President.

Yes.....
Live with it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by mostpost

There is no Constitutional right to not hold hearings or to stonewall hearings. In fact the phrase, "Advise and Consent" (or not consent), implies a duty to hold hearings and arrive at a decision whatever that decision might be.

Republicans hold a 54-46 majority in the Senate. 60 votes is required to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. The only reason that these petty little men are not doing their constitutional duty is to embarrass the President.

The Senate has complied! They have advised the president that he can stuff his nominee. You just don't like the way they have sent that message.

And for your info: This president has no shame and is too dense to be embarrassed.

And finally -- just for the record: LONG SC vacancies used to be a lot more common. History has a way of repeating of itself, ya know?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...e-more-common/

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

I don't know that it embarrasses Obama; it just prevents him from appointing an additional SC nominee. The approach may backfire if Hill wins, and she nominates someone to the left of the current nominee. In the end, you may be happy with the outcome.

Since ol' Ruthie was as happy as a piglet in the mud with Obama's nomination, that tells me that he nominated an extremist. Not likely Hillary can outdo him. But even if she did somehow, are we going to try to measure degrees of radicalism?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals the case she'd most like to see overturned

http://theweek.com/speedreads/635108...ike-overturned

In that same interview, she said that she was not happy with the 4-4 vote that left in place an injunction against Obama's policies of not deporting illegals. But it could have been worse if Scalia had lived.

A second deadlock, in United States v. Texas, left in place a nationwide injunction blocking Mr. Obama’s plan to spare more than four million unauthorized immigrants from deportation and allow them to work. That was unfortunate, Justice Ginsburg said, but it could have been worse.

“Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she said. Instead of a single sentence announcing the tie, she suggested, a five-justice majority would have issued a precedent-setting decision dealing a lasting setback to Mr. Obama and the immigrants he had tried to protect.