28
   

The Supreme Court vacancy, a minefield for Republicans

 
 
Lilkanyon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2016 09:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I say that Trump the racial bigot and xenophobe has an empty brain. We'll just have to agree to disagree.


Oh! I dont disagree hes a bigot and an asshole! But I wont say hes stupid either. He has learned how to manipulate the most stupid, unsophisticated, shallow, racist parts of our country...to them...that makes him very smart! Lol
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 07:31 am
Oklahoma Bombing Trial Reporters: Merrick Garland-Led Case "Reinstilled Faith" In American Courts

(excerpt)

Quote:
Garland, currently chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, was serving as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice when the case went to trial in 1997. McVeigh was eventually convicted for his part in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that left 168 people dead.

Those who covered the case said Garland, who oversaw the choice of the prosecution team and organized much of the evidence and gathering of witnesses, showed professionalism and a keen legal understanding that helped the prosecution win convincingly.

"I was impressed," Nolan Clay, a veteran Oklahoman journalist who was the hometown paper's lead reporter on the trial, told Media Matters. "He came down here and he was involved in the very first hearings and he chose the prosecution team and he chose a bunch of spectacular people."

Clay added that Garland "had the O.J. Simpson trial in mind and he didn't want people who would make names for themselves. He let them do the case and did not micro-manage them. He insisted that search warrants be done properly. He did it very much by the book."

Clay recalled the initial appearance before the court by McVeigh on April 21, 1995, two days after the bombing.

"Garland was there and made sure reporters and some members of the public could come in and see it," Clay recalled. "It was a public airing and he wanted it done by the book. I was impressed by that."
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 07:32 am
No offense, but can't some threads where Trump's name does not take over a thread?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 08:46 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Not much of a response.

Well, to be fair, it was a pretty stupid question.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 09:25 am
@Lilkanyon,
That only proves there are many stupid, shallow, people in this country.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 12:34 pm
@Lilkanyon,
Lilkanyon wrote:
Because its spitting in the eye of the constitution you Republicans claim to defend so much is why!

Which part of the Constitution was it again which says that Senators have to confirm a nominee they feel would hurt the country?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 12:48 pm
@Brandon9000,
You're splitting peas. The idea that the republican congress will not even consider the nomination of the president for SC justice is childish and not in keeping with the letter of the Constitution.
Wait until the next election? Why?
I hope Hillary becomes the next president and nominates a liberal judge.
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 01:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Trump is very smart. He may turn out to be one of the smartest scam artist this country has ever seen. With his ability to swindle, con, and scam so many people makes him smart. Trump is attempting to achieve the greatest scam or con game of all time. Disturbingly, there are millions of people eating the bull crap that he's dishing out like it was a gourmet dinner. So, in a since I guess he is smart.
timur
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 01:14 pm
Real Music wrote:
So, in a since I guess he is smart.


Since when does it make sense?
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 01:21 pm
@Brandon9000,
The Senate has the option to either confirm or not to confirm supreme court nominee. I thought the Senate was suppose to consider and give a fair hearing to the nominee. There is nothing preventing the Senate from voting against the nominee after the nominee has had his fair hearing.
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 01:34 pm
@timur,
Con artist, like Trump will always find victims and suckers. There's a sucker born everyday. It's unfortunate that it had to be millions of American voters. I have faith that his grand scam of winning the White House will be unsuccessful. Let's just say I pray that he fails in his attempt to swindle the nation with his lies, double talk, and deceit.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 02:25 pm
@Real Music,
I think most Americans know enough about Trump not to vote for him. He's an ego maniac with no government experience. He just wants the title for the history books - nothing else.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 05:38 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:
The Senate has the option to either confirm or not to confirm supreme court nominee. I thought the Senate was suppose to consider and give a fair hearing to the nominee. There is nothing preventing the Senate from voting against the nominee after the nominee has had his fair hearing.

I totally agree with you. If it were me, I would have questioned the guy and then rejected him, unless, of course, he revealed himself to be a conservative strict constructionist.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2016 07:21 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I think most Americans know enough about Trump not to vote for him. He's an ego maniac with no government experience. He just wants the title for the history books - nothing else.


If Trump gets elected, it will do no good both for America and for Trump himself.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2016 09:47 am
@Real Music,
A New Yorker magazine article on the website this week agrees with you fully. No link, as I monitor how many times I access the site, for paywall reasons.
I've thought the same, a con man, off and on, usually deciding "nah". But I think it could be a possibility.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2016 09:51 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I think McConnell made a serious political blunder in an attempt to placate his angry base. He might have been able to drag out the confirmation process 11 months anyway... but you don't announce your plan to subvert the Constitutional process publicly.



Are you teaching McConnell how to hide his dirty little secret?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2016 01:28 pm
@oristarA,
I don't think he made a blunder. He's still around.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2016 05:09 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

I predict that Obama's choice to replace Scalia will be the most liberal nominee ever foisted upon the senate and the American people. How do I know that? Because Fox News and the conservative echo chamber will tell me so. I don't even have to know who the nominee will be. Srikanth Srinivasan? Ultra-liberal. Loretta Lynch? Ultra-ultra-liberal. Brian Sandoval? Ultra-liberal, and maybe an illegal alien. Elizabeth Warren? Don't make me laugh.

It begins:

Quote:

When pushed on the possibility that someone more liberal than Garland could be nominated in 2017 if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, McConnell responded, "It'd be hard to be more liberal than Merrick Garland, but it's my hope that she will not be making the appointment."
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2016 05:23 pm
I'm wondering is a president can nominate himself. You know, former professor of constitutional law, and all that stuff.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2016 05:24 pm
@roger,
He/she would still need the consent of congress. That would be an interesting twist to test it.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/12/2024 at 07:31:10