Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

a reply to: Indigo5

Basically screwed now or in a couple of years.

You honestly think that people are going to not vote because they worked, within the rules/laws, to not allow another Progressive Justice to the SCOTUS?

a reply to: Annee

Adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the bench is not Anti-American.

a reply to: macman

kind of like how they ruled that laws that segregated people was not constitutional? Hey that is within their rights to do!! They can decide if the laws congress writes denies people of their constitutional rights. live with it, it might be what saves you life one day is those evil progressives decide that all christians should be burned at the stake!!!

a reply to: dawnstar

*sigh* I like the attempted side step, but here is the issue.
Ruling in that manner was siding with the Constitution.
Ruling on 0bamacare, was legislating from the bench.
Trying to use UN/Global policies to influence cases is UN-Constitutional.

a reply to: macman

well, they aren't perfect, are you? to be honest, I think they made a mistake with the hobby lobby ruling, when in one of the opinions they clearly stated that this decision on birth control, would not necessarily carry over to any other healthcare need. it's not the gov'ts job to decide which beliefs are worthy of protection and which aren't, or if one group holds that belief more strongly than another or is worthy of more protections, and issue that one of the documents that was presented to the court to consider brought on ( in their argument (for the little sisters and other groups involved) they said that it's wrong to hold churches and such in higher esteem than them.

as far as the UN/Global policies, you'd have to expand some on it. if it involves treaties that have been signed throughout time, well, that might make a difference. don't know, just know that there's been quite a few treaties that's been signed in the past few decades that that quite honestly I think is the reason our gov't has done some of the crappy things thay've done of late. I'd have to back track and really urge my memory to work overtime to remember what it was that I am thinking about, but I do remember suspecting that something the gov't were doing recently was because of treaty obligations.... you just won't hear them say that.

a reply to: dawnstar

My perfections or imperfections are not on the plate.

What we have are Supreme Court Justices that are legislating from the bench.

Go back and look at some Ginsburg rulings where she used global based laws/policies to influence her ruling.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Basically screwed now or in a couple of years.

You honestly think that people are going to not vote because they worked, within the rules/laws, to not allow another Progressive Justice to the SCOTUS?

From a pure non-partisan analyst perspective...hell yes.

There are maybe 12-15 GOP Senators that squeaked into the Senate under the heading of "moderate" and coming from swing states that are teetering between GOP/Dem. I would have to see which are up for re-election this year, but if the GOP in the Senate obstruct and/or attack a reasonable Nominee for the Supreme Court (And the one Obama has cued up already received unanimous Senate approval when he was appointed to the DC Circuit)...the GOP in the Senate will be skewered in the press for months and GOP Presidential nominees will be boxed in with awkward grilling on the subject when the audience becomes less partisan friendly. It will be mayhem for the GOP...that is why Mitch McConnel was arguing for the President to not Nominate anyone...cuz when he does...everything that follows is the Senates fault with the country watching..

No joke...the far right might cheer...but the far right can not carry the swing state GOP senators...they need to present as the rational middle GOP to hold those seats and it wont fly if they obstruct a Supreme Court Nominee in an unprecedented way.

The GOP can get their obstruction...but the price will be the Senate Majority..

a reply to: Indigo5

Consider this.

Look at the popularity of Trump. He is campaigning on the Anti-establishment structure, as a true outsider of politics.

What he is based on the same notion as blocking this crap.

The moderates carrying of any state should be considered as up in the air as anything else.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says the People should have a "voice" in the selection of a new Supreme Court Justice, and therefore, the Senate should wait to confirm a new Justice until a new President takes office !!!!

He says this soon after former Justice Antonin Scalia died.

This seems to be the newest controversy in the continuous fight between Republicans in Congress and Democrats especially Obama.

The longest vacancy in the SCOTUS was less than 3 months I think.

Republicans now have a chance to make history !!!

This will be the fight of the year all of a sudden.

If the Court stays at 8, a tie of 4-4 would automatically allow a challenged lower court decision to stand without precedent.

Very strange set of circumstances in today's up-side-down political atmosphere.

Condolences from McConnell

Republicans rule out replacing Antonin Scalia until new president is elected

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that the Senate should wait until a new president is elected to confirm a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, whose sudden death Saturday shook Washington and threatened to reshape the 2016 presidential race.

Democrats said that with 11 months left in Mr. Obama’s tenure, the Senate has enough time — and indeed an obligation — to confirm a replacement.

Mr. McConnell, though, said voters must be given a say in the matter, and that means picking a president who will nominate the replacement.

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” the Kentucky Republican said in a statement.

wrong from top to bottom. The longest supreme court vacancy was multiple years. And in the 60's democrats passed a resolution in the final year of a presidency, that they would not allow the president to fill a vacancy.

Simple politics. Nothing groundbreaking or new about this.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh goodie.

I stated something very explicate in my statement, in paraphrases. You might want to go back and re-read my statement.

When a Justice/Judge starts legislating from the bench, that is against the Constitution.

"Very explicit" except that you "paraphrased it" ... Oookay. Word salad on the menu today!

The harangue about judges "legislating from the bench" is complete bovine-scat.

Just because one disagrees with something doesn't make it "against the Constitution."

Which judges, where and when? What cases? What decisions? Be specific please.

What reference in the Constitution are you referring to? Again, be specific.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
And in the 60's democrats passed a resolution in the final year of a presidency, that they would not allow the president to fill a vacancy.

And again, this regarded RECESS appointments only.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Simple politics. Nothing groundbreaking or new about this.

Absolutely, and the Republicans continue their history of ignoring the People's business for their own political maneuvering.

a reply to: Indigo5

2014 saw the lowest voter turnout since 1978. Not only was it a fluke, but the Republicans have done NOTHING in almost two years, did not keep even ONE of their promises, and the American people are getting very very tired of this garbage.

Presidential Election years result in a far higher turn out of Democrats and left-leaning Independents.

If the Republicans do this, drag this out over the summer or even better, refuse to follow the Constitution completely, coupled with a ever-more-likely Independent Trump run ... they're simply sounding the funeral dirge for their dying party.

a reply to: macman

Go back and look at some Ginsburg rulings where she used global based laws/policies to influence her ruling.

after spending over an hour search and reading her opinions, I've decided to come back and tell you no! you're the one making the claim, if you can't name any court cases the support your claim, well, I've wasted enough time on it. what I did see is quite a few opinions where the more conservative justices were agreeing with her.

so again, you made the claim, it's up to you to back it up.

a reply to: Gryphon66

0bamacare. It is a tax, it is not a tax, please re-write as.........comes to mind.
Gay rights and marriage.


Go and look at rulings over the last 10 years, there are numerous cases where SCOTUS created or changed laws to hand out a ruling.


Has little to do with agreeing or not agreeing with.

And to be fair and unbiased, this has been happening for some time now and not consolidated to the 0bama regime. It has little to do with R vs. D. It is Activist vs. Non-Activist.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Consider this.

Look at the popularity of Trump. He is campaigning on the Anti-establishment structure, as a true outsider of politics.

What he is based on the same notion as blocking this crap.

The moderates carrying of any state should be considered as up in the air as anything else.

The popularity of trump is a mirage...

He has 30% of the GOP vote in a watered-down competition.

30% of ...of generously 50%...of the country is what?...15% of the general popular vote? And he isn't one of those middle of the roaders that the independent left or moderates would ever vote for.

Believe me...Trump is already costing the GOP votes in a general election...

The Senate obstructing a SCOTUS nominee for the next 9 months? Democratic Senate candidates are drooling at the prospect. They will paint the senators as far gone extremists while pointing at Donald Trump as the standard..

Honestly...The Senate will approve a Nominee...they are not that stupid...this is talk and bluster on their part...if they don't it is political wreckage ahead for the next 9 months.

a reply to: dawnstar

I am looking for the case which international law is cited, regarding the rights of juveniles.
As soon as I find it I will post it.

a reply to: Indigo5

If you say so. outside of polls, which can be tailored, look at the numbers.
NH primary turn out numbers to be exact.
Highest turnout for the R side of the house in a long time.


It's going to be a crappy day when trump wins the general election and everyone that voted for him wakes up with buyers remorse and all those that threatened to leave the country are called out on their statement.

a reply to: macman

Are you kidding?

"Obamacare"

US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

"Gay Rights and Marriage"

US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again, you gesture at nothing. You make no claims aside from "I'm right."

Back up your claims.

a reply to: dawnstar

www.nytimes.com...

So, not an individual case given, but her statement that she uses international law as a sounding board, or litmus test.
So yes, activist Judge is the term to be used correctly.

a reply to: macman

the supreme court is well within it's rights to review a law, find it unconstitutional and and send it back to the legislative branch with suggestions as to make it constitutional. this isn't writing laws, or rewriting laws....
it's just them doing their job!

and interesting note on this...

Ginsburg kind of stood alone on it...

While Ginsburg was a part of the majority opinion, she had differing reasons as to why the mandate was constitutional. The rest of the justices found that under the Commerce Clause, the mandate requiring all U.S. citizens to buy health insurance was not valid. They upheld it as a tax.

Ginsburg, however, said it should have been upheld under the Commerce Clause, and explained how Congress followed Massachusetts' lead in preventing only sick people from signing up for health insurance:

"Massachusetts, Congress was told, solved the adverse selection problem. By requiring most residents to obtain insurance ... the Commonwealth ensured that insurers would not be left with only the sick as customers. As a result, federal lawmakers observed, Massachusetts succeeded where other States had failed."

Ginsburg continued, citing briefs "noting the Commonwealth's reforms" and "noting the success of Massachusetts' reforms." She noted that the reforms reduced the number of uninsured to less than 2 percent, the lowest rate in the nation.

"In cou­pling the minimum coverage provision with guaranteed­ issue and community-rating prescriptions, Congress followed Massachusetts’ lead," Ginsburg wrote.

www.businessinsider.com...