Who Does He Think He Is? Our Mother?
Okay, so I will admit that I rank Marco Rubio about three clicks below getting shingles on your wedding day, but he really chapped my butt this morning talking about the power of the presidency.
“The president can nominate whoever he wants, but the Senate is not going to act, and that’s pretty clear. So, we can keep debating it but we’re not moving forward on it, period.”
Well, thank you for that lesson in democracy, Capitan Ultimatum.
I guess that’s just Marco’s way of saying, Happy President’s Day!
Remind me again how many time Republicans have voted to kill Obamacare?
You know, just for fun, I think President Obama should nominate Marco Rubio just to watch the damnfool vote against himself.
.
Oh God. Justice Rubio. I wonder how long before he finds reading all those briefs ‘too boring’ and quits? I’d give him six months. It would shut him up though–they really don’t do pressers. I’m still trying to figure out how he is anyone’s viable candidate when he refuses to do the job he was elected to do already? I mean, why would you hand him the entire government when he can’t/won’t even deal with his small part in the current one? In addition to being a robot and dumb, he’s also very lazy. Please proceed GOP. A Marco/Hillary debate would be worth paying to see.
1What a little twit he is. Can someone please remove his batteries before he breeds with the Energizer Bunny and we are stuck with him forever?
2Let’s see how this plays out. Obama nominates a Progressive, one with real judicial chops, or a centrist democrat, one with Wall Street bonafides and a clear link to the DNC. Either way, a clear departure from Scaliaism.
Will the Senate refuse to vote on the nominee? Will they even hold hearings?
What hay can be made out of this on the campaign trail? More importantly, how many seats in Congress can be turned as a result?
I know, it’s not nice to use a SCOTUS pick as bait, but in this case it should be a major game changer. As such, the choice should be obvious: pick the liberal and push hard for a vote.
3He’s just parroting the stupidity of Mitch McConnell that the next President should nominate. So let’s see… the next Prez isn’t sworn in until Feb of NEXT year, that’s 12 months, and the average time for confirmation is 3 months, so… Mitch the Bitch thinks we should just make do without a full Supreme Court for the next 15 months… at least. And the Rs keep saying government is broken and doesn’t work. Well now we can put a face to it. Thanks, Mitch! YOU are why government doesn’t work!
4Obama should name a reasonable nominee (e.g. someone who was approved by Congress to their current seat by, oh, say, 97-0) and announce, “I have done my duty as described in the Constitution. Now the American people expect the Senate to do theirs and vote.”
5Rhea, I second that! Just sent an e-mail to the White House via the WH site asking the President to please pick someone who isn’t pissed with the 21st Century! Having a fully staffed Supreme Court in full voice and vigor is what we pay taxes for but OMG please no Neanderthals!
6The Washington Post has a nice article that finds that person, Rhea. “Jane L. Kelly, 51, a judge on the 8th Circuit who was confirmed 96 to 0”. http://tinyurl.com/jt79kyx The Daily 202: Why blocking Obama’s pick to replace Scalia could cost Republicans their Senate majority
Interesting read.
7http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.
8For the record,Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his face. Apparently,even in death,he was affeared Cheney would shoot his jowls off.
9I don’t know if the Senate might possibly confirm an Obama nominee. Since it’s the Senate and not the House it is possible. I suspect Obama will have a good idea before he nominates someone and that should affect his choice.
If the nomination is doomed to fail I hope he goes political and picks someone who will be an issue during the next election. I don’t think Dems should start a fight dirty, but in politics it is okay to respond in kind and can be foolish not to (John Kerry and Swiftboating, for example).
That said, I would be happy to see a nominee who is not from the East Coast and who is not Catholic or Jewish. I don’t think that’s prejudice–just a plea that the rest of us get some balance. I know that members of the Court are individuals and rule accordingly, but I don’t think it’s healthy for any organization to become too homogenized.
10LynnN, about 20% (and rising) of Americans are now nonreligious, but I’m not holding my breath for us to be represented on the SCOTUS or in the White House or more than maybe one seat in Congress, at least from those who are “out”. There was an ex-pres, maybe Taft, who was offered the presidency of a college with a religious origin, and he said he didn’t think he should accept because he didn’t believe Jesus was the son of God. Try to imagine anyone in public office being that honest today. When Jefferson ran for the presidency there were shrieks that he was going to close all the churches and burn all the Bibles and the country would be overrun by savages and demons….
11Let’s find out which Senators refuse to vote on a Supreme Court nomination. Then, we know who’s not working, so let’s not pay them. Like a minimum wage worker they’re so sure gets paid enough at $7.25 an hour, but receives nothing if they don’t fry the burgers.
12@Rick Says: most of these guys get their REAL funding from the Koch Bros; they just look at their federal salaries as pocket money.
13Just to make the R’s totally lose it Obama should appoint himself to Supreme Court and let Joe finish the term.
14WA Skeptic
15I understand not a single senator depends on his senate paycheck to pay his/her bills. I just liked the optics, if you’re not paid, you’re unemployed. Which should be true if they won’t discharge the duties of their office, or perform their job description.
JAKVirginia, let me gently correct a minor point in your otherwise brilliant rant. The new President is sworn in on Jan 20 of the year following his election. In this case, Jan. 20, 2017.
16@Rick, I am with you. If they do not do their job, we as their employers should not pay them. I do realize that what we pay them is minimal compared to their outside income, but it would be a statement.
17President Obama was privately sworn in on January 20, 2013 because it was a Sunday. The public ceremonies took place the following day on Martin Luther King National Holiday.
18JaneE-Ms Kelly got a plug at Dakota Free Press, yesterday or today, as a possible nominee. Unfortunately,wingnuts will find all sorts of excuses not to confirm anyone Obama or Clinton nominates. So much for upholding the constitution.
19A more likely name with a SD connection is Jane Kelly appointed with unanimous bipartisan support from the Senate to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals: “Kelly grew up in Newcastle, Ind., and graduated from Duke University in 1987. She earned a Fulbright scholarship to study in New Zealand before enrolling at Harvard, where she and Obama were acquaintances but not friends. She clerked for U.S. District Judge Donald Porter in South Dakota.” http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23258097/jane-kellys-experience-rare-us-appeals-court
20A more possible path to confirmation also?: Any nominee is going to have to face the Judiciary Committee, chair Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). “Kelly also makes history by having the quickest confirmation process of any of President Obama’s appeals court nominees so far… Kelly waited just 33 days for a confirmation vote, compared to the average 153 day wait for President Obama’s circuit court nominees… Kelly’s speedy confirmation may have something to do with the senators supporting her. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, who as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has been instrumental in obstructing President Obama’s judicial nominees, seemed to put aside his obstruction habits for a nominee from his own state.” http://www.pfaw.org/category/people/jane-kelly
@EPO- to shoot those jowls off Deadeye Dickless better be packing something bigger than that effete little .28 gauge Italian number he shot his friend in the face with. The least he could do would be pick an American make, say a Remington or Browning instead of that Perazzi.
21One interesting aspect of this is what happens after January 2017. Assuming the Repubs have spent the whole year stonewalling (seems likely), there should be a lot of pressure on them to finally act when the new President presents her/his nominee. If that Pres is a Dem they might be able to nominate someone truly progressive.
22Ken – I don’t think Obama can nominate himself. But if the Repubs insist on waiting until after the election, Hillary or Bernie could certainly nominate him, and if we’ve taken back the Senate (which doesn’t look at all unlikely), he’ll be confirmed. Wouldn’t that be lovely?
23Thanks for the correction, Gramiam.
Um… you think what I wrote was a rant? Well, maybe a touch.
24May the Bork be with them.
These Repukes are going to stonewall Pres. Obama to the max no matter what.
I hope he gets aggressively medieval all over them. If he, and lots of other Dem’s, point out the R’s obstructions and perversion of the Constitution daily, have at it.
This is a scorched earth battle ahead, don’t back down.
And, I for one, am sick of seeing a talking point clip of DetesTed Cruz or RoboMarco Rubio leading off tv newscasts spewing their venom.
25I’m developing a reflex of wanting to throw objects (or worse) at the tv when any of them appear, seeing DetesTed in HD makes my blood run cold (he always looks like an old movie Count Dracula, eh?).
Well, Trump is getting ready to sue Cruz for lying. He was bloviating all over MSNBC [their free time they give to Trump] and he thinks the RWNJs should block any nominee that Obama names or tries to seat!
26Faux Snooze is repeating the lie that no President can nominate or seat a Supreme Court judge in his last year of his term. I only heard/saw this while I was cruising the channels trying to find something worth watching!
I simply hate them all!! Equally!!
Elizabeth2, I’m not sure a Dem Senate would guarantee that a Dem President’s nominee would succeed. There are still too many Blue Dog types who are afraid their voters would be upset by a progressive choice.
The Dems controlled the Senate and the House when they failed to pass a single-payer health care bill.
27Can’t help but enjoy the sight of Trump telling Jeb! that his brother lied about WMD, attacked the wrong country and was asleep at the wheel on 911 during the debate. The audience of RKlans booed, but at least it got out there and it wasn’t a Democrat saying it this time.
28And would love to see Trump follow through with his threats to sue Cruz.
Cannot bear the arrogance of Rubio, Cruz and McConnell daring to tell our President that he cannot appoint a SCOTUS judge. Those lightweights so need to be put in their place…at the bottom of a well. There must be some strategy the President can use to get this appointment done. A split court would let lower court rulings go against him.
@JAKvirginia
Brilliant comment!
So this group of snacilbupeR a$$holes will have succeeded in shutting down two thirds of the US government. One third of the government from October 1-16, 2013 and by withholding action on President Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, one third from Justice Scalia’s death until the replacement is confirmed.
Way to go a$$holes!
29I read somewhere that Reekgun appointed a justice in the last few months of his snoozery, er, presidency. Does anyone know?
30Charlie Pierce suggested nominating Anita Hill. Since it’s unlikely that any nomination will get a fair hearing by the Senate, at least the fireworks would be fun to watch.
31This could fall into the “Be careful what you wish for” category for the Repubs. There is no guarantee that they’d be happy about a Trump nominee.
Not likely to happen, but I bet Trump’s choice would be bizarre. How about Palin? Didn’t he promise her a job?
32About 14 justices were confirmed in election years, and perhaps the most pertinent example is Justice Anthony Kennedy. As the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne noted this morning:
A Senate controlled by Democrats confirmed President Reagan’s nomination of Anthony Kennedy on a 97 to 0 vote in February 1988, which happened to be an election year.
Yes, in Reagan’s eighth year, nine months before Election Day 1988, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed Kennedy with ease.
Read more here- http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
33*** warning ***
Mama, please don’t click on this link. It’s a comedy act from Samantha Bee’s show “Full Frontal.” There’s no nudity, but she does have a few choice words for Mitch McConnell. Depending on where one works, it might also be rated NSFW (not safe for work). It’s a funny, but accurate bit on the snacilbupeR attempt to black stop any nomination for the SCROTUS.
http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2016/02/samantha-bee-breaks-down-dildo
34This cartoon is safe for Mama and work. But for those of your who might work around the snacilbupeR, then maybe not. They are humor challenged little critters.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cp8iNRvjwzo/VsJ-bRUdGnI/AAAAAAABZlU/chQeWiCwvKo/s640/mike%2Bluckovich.jpg
35Yeah, what is this
36Gack -wrong button!
Okay, what is this “tradition” that I never heard of in my damned life, that there are no SCOTUS appointments in an election year?
That’s every 4 years, or 25% of the time. Why do sheeple so easily swallow such a steaming pile of unmitigated codswallop??
Unbelievable.
37And the nominee is- https://www.facebook.com/GetCafe/photos/a.1512859512370270.1073741828.1509931725996382/1566711733651714/?type=3&theater
38So, is Rubio implying that he’d actually show up for a vote? That’s a new concept for him.
39They lie because they listen to their “yay-sayers” who are bobble-head dolls and agree with anything they already agree with. To them, lying has no down-side. They got elected, didn’t they? There’s money in their PACs, isn’t there? They get to go to posh places and be treated like royalty and never have to come face to face with the reality the rest of us live…so if you could back one of them into a corner, he/she would say “Well, yes, I do know not everything I say is completely true, but I’m giving the people what they want.”
40Elizabeth Moon: Yes. Yes. And yes!
41Oh epo! That’s a farking nightmare! OMG. That would truly be the end of civilization as we know it. It wasn’t nice of you to post that. I’m going to have nightmares all night!
42Re: the pillow “on” Scalia’s head. It was above his head, against the headboard. I also sleep like that, and it comforting to know that if I die peacefully in my sleep, my husband will have a little harassment about it.
43Ms Phipps,stop this right now! You are deliberately trying to undermine wingnut conspiracy theorists whose heads are ‘sploding because they know Obama is directly responsible for Scalia’s death. I,for one,don’t want them disappointed. (snark intended) 🙂
44