That Obstruction You See …

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

---

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: forkushV

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.

---

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...

---

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?

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Although I won't be calling anyone, I believe it's the responsibility of the Senate to vote on any Presidential nominee. I think it wrong to not even consider a candidate. It is not, however, their responsibility to rubber stamp a nominee.

I suggest President Obama reach across the aisle and consult with the Senate Judiciary Committee and work with the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to find a candidate who can be confirmed and serve honorably for that life term. You know...the Advice part of Advice and Consent. It would be a tremendous show of bipartisanship in these troubled and polarizing times. Unfortunately that ain't gonna happen. Even if he made the attempt it would not be well received.

On the bright side there have been 29 examples of Supreme Court nominees not ending up on the court for various reasons...such as Senate Rejection or Postponement or withdrawal. Tyler had 4 of his guys rejected...and it didn't destroy the union, so I imagine we can limp forward for a few more months with 8 on the bench.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: billryan

Quote

---

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Although I won't be calling anyone, I believe it's the responsibility of the Senate to vote on any Presidential nominee. I think it wrong to not even consider a candidate. It is not, however, their responsibility to rubber stamp a nominee.

I suggest President Obama reach across the aisle and consult with the Senate Judiciary Committee and work with the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to find a candidate who can be confirmed and serve honorably for that life term. You know...the Advice part of Advice and Consent. It would be a tremendous show of bipartisanship in these troubled and polarizing times. Unfortunately that ain't gonna happen. Even if he made the attempt it would not be well received.

On the bright side there have been 29 examples of Supreme Court nominees not ending up on the court for various reasons...such as Senate Rejection or Postponement or withdrawal. Tyler had 4 of his guys rejected...and it didn't destroy the union, so I imagine we can limp forward for a few more months with 8 on the bench.

---

That is inaccurate. Tyler did not have four Justices rejected. He had four cabinet nominees rejected,after almost his entire original one resigned.
He was never accepted as the President by the majority of congress and ended up serving in the Confederate Government.

---

Quote

---

Although I won't be calling anyone, I believe it's the responsibility of the Senate to vote on any Presidential nominee. I think it wrong to not even consider a candidate. It is not, however, their responsibility to rubber stamp a nominee.

---

I certainly don’t think they are obligated to rubber stamp anyone. However, what they did was publically announce they wouldn’t consider any candidate. Furthermore, they aren't going to allow votes on any candidates. Scalia’s body wasn’t even cold yet. They chose to honor the man they say they admired because he followed the constitution by demanding that the President not follow the constitution and refusing to perform their constitutional duties.

Quote

---

I suggest President Obama reach across the aisle and consult with the Senate Judiciary Committee and work with the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to find a candidate who can be confirmed and serve honorably for that life term. It would be a tremendous show of bipartisanship in these troubled and polarizing times. Unfortunately that ain't gonna happen. Even if he made the attempt it would not be well received.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2
The head of the Senate Judiciary committee publically stated Obama should not nominate anyone. How do you negotiate with some that refuses to schedule any hearing on any nominee through the committee? You are blaming the wrong person again Alan. Republican’ announced within a few minutes of Scalia’s being reported dead that they weren’t willing to compromise and that any nominee was unacceptable. Their idea of a compromise is waiting until after the election.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: jatki99

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.

---

---

"You guys started it", "You guys started it" C'mon boiler, you see how childish that sounds?

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2
The head of the Senate Judiciary committee publically stated Obama should not nominate anyone. How do you negotiate with some that refuses to schedule any hearing on any nominee through the committee? You are blaming the wrong person again Alan. Republican’ announced within a few minutes of Scalia’s being reported dead that they weren’t willing to compromise and that any nominee was unacceptable. Their idea of a compromise is waiting until after the election.

---

If I was the president I would reach out to Republicans...and then if my hand was bitten I'd take it to the bully pulpit.

I agree with you that it's wrong to not vote on the nominee. Instead it would be far better if the Republicans simply have caustic hearings where they go for months looking into any way possible to destroy the nominee and then vote in a block against him or her. You know..Bork him. Just to keep up appearances.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh
I think the constitution spells out those limitations...and the Supreme Court exists to make sure they are abided by. Any further questions I can help you with? Or can I point you to any first grade teacher?

But that's all secondary to your massive hypocrisy, Boilerman. There's a reason why people really struggle to take you seriously here. Whoever illustrated the comic I posted might be a close friend of yours? Dom, maybe?

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?

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.

---

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.

---

---

---