Vegas Free-for-All - That Obstruction You See …

That Obstruction You See …

billryan

Feb 14, 2016
2:30am

Quote

Originally posted by: bbking
Just read an article earlier this morning that stated over the last 100 years, 19 judges were appointed during an election year.Including the one that just died.

You are confusing the real world with the world the Party of God lives in.
Could you imagine if a President, for whatever reason, decided not to nominate a replacement and created gridlock on the court?

pjstroh

Feb 14, 2016
5:32am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman

If a Republican wins the presidency, I suspect I can finally get an answer from PJ on limits to presidential executive orders. Suddenly PJ will decide that there are limitations.

The last Republican president we had issued way more executive orders than Obama did. And you wont find any threads during that time where either I or Boilerman objected to them as an abuse of power.
Thats because I'm not a hypocrite with different rules for different parties - while Boilerman is a massive one. This is just one in a hundred examples.

But from a political perspective I'm completely cool with Republican obstruction on this matter. It REALLY hurts their chances of maintaining the Senate in November. Which is why I'm pretty sure there will be a justice picked by November.

Boilerman

Feb 14, 2016
6:06am

Block User

If asked this of PJ many times, with no response. Are there any limitations to the executive order? Can an American president do anything that he likes?

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman

If a Republican wins the presidency, I suspect I can finally get an answer from PJ on limits to presidential executive orders. Suddenly PJ will decide that there are limitations.

malibber2

Feb 14, 2016
6:32am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Originally posted by: billryan
What excuse will they use?

That he is a communist, liberal, fascist, black panther, Nazi, Muslim and part of or supportive of the black radical Christian liberation movement. Worst of all he wants to take your guns away and enact sharia law.

Oh, and he likes to hang out with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright in his spare time.

It will probably look something like this:

"President Obama is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of his IRS scandal, reach into the muck of the Benghazi scandal and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."

Careful Alan, you are showing your bias.

alanleroyII

Feb 14, 2016
6:56am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Originally posted by: billryan
What excuse will they use?

That he is a communist, liberal, fascist, black panther, Nazi, Muslim and part of or supportive of the black radical Christian liberation movement. Worst of all he wants to take your guns away and enact sharia law.

Oh, and he likes to hang out with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright in his spare time.
It will probably look something like this:

"President Obama is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of his IRS scandal, reach into the muck of the Benghazi scandal and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."

Careful Alan, you are showing your bias.

I'm just telling you what excuse they will use...The words of Senator Edward Kennedy.

"President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."

Senator Ted Kennedy...From the Senate Floor....On the nomination of Robert Bork.

Gotcha.

To continue on with that line of thought though....

On Kennedy's attack Bork responded: "There was not a line in that speech that was accurate."

In an obituary of Kennedy, The Economist remarked that Bork may well have been correct, "but it worked." Bork also contended that the brief prepared for Sen. Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."

I have no doubt the Republicans are equally up to such a challenge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

malibber2

Feb 14, 2016
7:09am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Originally posted by: billryan
What excuse will they use?

That he is a communist, liberal, fascist, black panther, Nazi, Muslim and part of or supportive of the black radical Christian liberation movement. Worst of all he wants to take your guns away and enact sharia law.

Oh, and he likes to hang out with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright in his spare time.
It will probably look something like this:

"President Obama is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of his IRS scandal, reach into the muck of the Benghazi scandal and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."

Careful Alan, you are showing your bias.

Reagan got a Supreme Court nominee approved 97-0 his last year in office, and even an ultra-right wing nominee and supporter of Poll Taxes like Bork got an up or down vote. So by all means lets follow that example, and I will be counting on you to call every Republican Senator’s office and demand an up or down vote just like Bork got.

alanleroyII

Feb 14, 2016
7:24am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
If asked this of PJ many times, with no response. Are there any limitations to the executive order? Can an American president do anything that he likes?

...a highly placed White House aide noted that there are a number of things “the President can unilaterally do,” stating that “With a hostile Congress that doesn’t show much sign of coming toward us on some of these issues, it behooves us to take the initiative when we can take it.”

coldhoist

Feb 14, 2016
7:27am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Hillary's indictment will lead to the GOP controlling everything. I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I believe that's the most likely outcome.

Boiler doesn't like scummy political behavior, but believes that it's the only way for the Republicans to compete with the scummy Democrats. You guys started it. I hope that Trump wins and uses executive orders each day of the year. You guys started it, so be careful what you wish for.

If a Republican wins the presidency, I suspect I can finally get an answer from PJ on limits to presidential executive orders. Suddenly PJ will decide that there are limitations.

Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Its funny watching Boilerman defend and blast scummy behavior in the same post.

Politically speaking there's only three potential outcomes unless by some miracle republicans win both the presidency and the Senate in the upcoming election....which nobody expects.

1). Obama and the GOP senate agree on a moderate justice now
2) republican president and democrat Senate agree on a moderate justice in 2017
3) Democrat president and Democrat Senate pick a liberal justice in 2017

(3) would be a nightmare scenario for conservatives everywhere. Lets see if republicans really want to roll those dice. I suspect they dont.

The Clinton's have been investigated for the last 20 years and still have not been indicted for anything.
I doubt we will ever see Hillary indicted. If the FBI actually had enough to indict, why have they not done it by now? What are they waiting for?
People who want to see Hillary indicted are just dreaming. Fairy tales seldom come true.

esteskefauver

Feb 14, 2016
7:28am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Most pollster's predict the Democrats will retake the Senate in 2016. That's not a political statement - its just not a good year for Republicans. There's a lot more of them up for re-election in 2016. Dems only need to pick up 4. If the GOP sets a precedent for obstructing a justice now...then Democrats will have every excuse to do it in the next term. I'd prefer we don't set these kinds of precedents of obstruction.

Republicans Senators in Blue/Purple States up for re-election in 2016:
Mark Kirk - IL
Chuck Grassley - IA
Kelly Ayotte - NH
Richard Burr - NC
Rob Portman - OH
Pat Toomey - PA
Ron Johnson - WI
Marco Rubio - FL - not running
Roy Blunt - MO

You neglected to mention that the Dems have NV and CO that they need to hold. The only 2 GOP seats most likely gone are IL and WI. Grassley, Burr, and Blount should be favored with the remaining being tossups at this point. The Dems would have to have a very good night to take back the Senate. It would help to have a very good candidate running for Pres. and that doesn't exist this year.

forkushV

Feb 14, 2016
7:34am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Originally posted by: billryan
What excuse will they use?

That he is a communist, liberal, fascist, black panther, Nazi, Muslim and part of or supportive of the black radical Christian liberation movement. Worst of all he wants to take your guns away and enact sharia law.

Oh, and he likes to hang out with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright in his spare time.
It will probably look something like this:

"President Obama is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of his IRS scandal, reach into the muck of the Benghazi scandal and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."

Careful Alan, you are showing your bias.

alan-"false equivalence"-leroy strikes again. The up or down vote granted to Bork, in which six Republicans voted against him, does not bear any resemblance to what Republican obstructionists have said about Obama's right to nominate the next Supreme Court justice.

And please alanleroy, spare us your version of what the Republicans are going to say. They've already said it, haven't they?

«‹4 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now