McConnell: No New Supreme Court Justice Until The NRA Approves Of The Nominee

a reply to: dawnstar

I was listening to Virginia Foxx (R) on CSPAN. Obstruction and do nothing is still the plan and she laid it out. Her words verbatim was "we must get the Pres, the senate, keep the house, and a conservative supreme court appointee." So, until the republican "have it all", nothing will get done, another 4 to 8 years.

The right is going for a dictatorship.

I'm sure they'd love a Christian theocratic dictatorship.

a reply to: CB328

Holding government processes hostage for the sake of a political LOBBY? What the #?!? What a scumbag McConnell is. Stupid turtle...

well it looks the the supreme court is deadlocked on the Zubik v Burwell case (the case that the Little Sisters are a part of) and well, are looking for alternatives to delivering that tied vote. That tied vote by the way would leave divert back down to the lower courts' decisions, which are mixed leaving weather or not an employee of these groups will get birth control included in the health insurance dependent on what state they are living in.
so, instead of delivering that tied decision, well, they are trying to get a compromise from the parties.

Out of seeming desperation, then, the justices gave the religious non-profits and the Obama administration an assignment that will keep them busy during the court's two-week break. In supplemental briefs due on April 12th, “the parties are directed to...address whether and how contraceptive coverage may be obtained by petitioners’ employees through petitioners’ insurance companies, but in a way that does not require any involvement of petitioners beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees”. Hoping to find a way out of the impasse, the justices want women who work for Christian colleges, hospitals and social-service organisations to receive the Obamacare benefit of free contraceptives without asking nuns, bishops and devout deans to take any action that makes them feel complicit in distributing them. “The parties are directed to address whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners”, the order reads.

www.economist.com...

This is the type of compromise they are looking for:

For example, the parties should consider a situation in which petitioners would contract to provide health insurance for their employees, and in the course of obtaining such insurance, inform their insurance company that they do not want their health plan to include contraceptive coverage of the type to which they object on religious grounds. Petitioners would have no legal obligation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not pay for such coverage, and would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the Federal Government, or to their employees. At the same time, petitioners’ insurance company—aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds—would separately notify petitioners’ employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage, and that such coverage is not paid for by petitioners and is not provided through petitioners’ health plan.

(same source)

seems reasonable to me!! but the author of the article then proceeds to go into why they don't think the Little Sisters and groups will accept such an idea.

the article also gives a clue as to just the Chief Justices view might be on the republican idea of waiting till after the election to put someone in that empty seat....

Legally the Dems can't nominate anyone during an election year anyway. It's their rules!!

a reply to: mikell

show me the laws that say so?

Politifact

It’s generally accepted, though, that the modern political battle over Supreme Court seats started with Democratic opposition to Robert Bork, a Ronald Reagan nominee, in 1987, Reid's first year in the Senate. Democrats launched a massive public assault on Bork’s conservative judicial philosophy and record. Bork did face a hearing and a Senate vote, which he lost, but his confirmation process made the rules of the game more contentious.

Just want to point out that those frothing over the republicans doing this... as gets said many many many times... both parties are guilty for the present state of affairs.

It doesnt matter who started it... or who is worse about it now, just that people start paying attention to what both parties are doing, and that the people of the United states take steps to rectify the problem.

so far, I think I've heard republican presidential candidates mention that empty seat in their political speeches, as a way to express the importance of this election, or more specifically, the importance of the next president elected agreeing with you views, because he will be filling this seat!!!

oh and then there is this:

DESPERATE TIMES04.01.16 1:00 AM ET
The GOP’s Nuclear Option to Stop Donald Trump: A Third-Party Candidate
Forget the brokered convention: A cabal of establishment Republicans is working on the ultimate firewall that could keep Trump from the White House.

The first line of defense for establishment Republicans hoping to keep Donald Trump from carrying their party’s banner this fall is to prevent him from winning the delegates in the remaining primaries this spring.

If that fails, the next plan is to deny him a win at the GOP convention in Cleveland by peeling away pledged delegates on the second or third round of balloting.

And if that fails, a group of Republicans are readying a nuclear option: running a third-party alternative in just a handful of critical swing states in order to block both Trump and likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton from gaining the necessary 270 electoral votes required to claim the White House.

In such instances, according to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, the choosing of the next president would then fall to the House of Representatives. In the House, each state casts one vote, and considering the current Republican majority in that chamber, would give the election to this newly created third-party ticket.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

there is no law on the books that says that they can't seat a justice now, and the consitution doesn't not give the voters of voice in the process after the fact. we have our voice, we voted in the current president and congress... they are the ones that the consitution assigns the responsibility of filling the seat... it does not say to stall, delay, impede, for close to a year in hopes that your party can be elected and you get to chose!

It won't surprise me if the little sisters and gang find any suggestions like the one suggested by the justices as just as unacceptable. maybe their stubborness will cause one of the justices to shift sides. but, personally I hope the justices keep refusing to come down with a tie vote on this, and prolong this case just as long as the republicans can prolong filling that empty seat... and well, if they happen to find that they are prolonging too many cases like this, maybe they will get fed up and tell the senate to give them a call when when they decide to fill the seat... they're going on vacation!

a reply to: CB328

With the Second Amendment under such ferocious attack by extremists it's probably a good idea to have the NRA choose the next supreme court justices.

youtu.be...

a reply to: CB328

It's amazing to me that after all the shootings we have had that people are not begging the NRA to run the country. All the mass shooting, including the Orlando shooting was in a gun free zone. The NRA wasn't allowed near the place. If the NRA had been there, I guarantee no one would've died. Well, maybe the terrorist.

originally posted by: introvert
Who cares what the NRA thinks?

They do not represent the individual firearm owner and only serves to push the agenda of manufacturers.

This SCOTUS nominee deserves to scrutinized on the issue, but the NRA's opinion is not worth a lick of consideration.

Agreed. I see the sentiment and I get it. People don't want someone on the highest court that will rule to take away or infringe upon their rights.

But anyone who thinks McConnell OR the NRA give two craps about the little guy and his rights is wrong, IMO.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Why did you link to thinkprogress and their spin on his words, instead of FNC for the actual interview and McConnell's actual words?

I watched the interview this afternoon and I'll admit the NRA drop was not the best way to describe Garland's anti-gun history, but it was a side comment at the very end of the interview and not the cornerstone of his argument.

As an aside, I think the Senate should have confirmation hearings for Garland and give him and up/down vote. Preferably down, because of his anti-gun and other political activism.

Seems sorta clear here. What am I missing? At least he's being honest.