The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices

[GMDino]

Quote:Cruz: GOP may block Supreme Court nominees indefinitely

In a vintage return to his confrontational style, Sen. Ted Cruz indicated that Republicans could seek to block a Democratic president from filling the vacant Supreme Court seat indefinitely.

After staking his endorsement of Donald Trump on a list of potential conservative Supreme Court nominees, Cruz said on Wednesday that there is precedent to limiting the Supreme Court to just eight justices. Last week, Cruz's colleague, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), suggested the
GOP should confirm President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, to avoid having to swallow a more liberal nominee under Hillary Clinton.

As is his nature, Cruz took a harder line when asked how Republicans would handle a potential Clinton nominee while campaigning in Colorado for Darryl Glenn, a longshot candidate for the Senate.

“There will be plenty of time for debate on that issue ... There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice [Stephen] Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have," Cruz said, in remarks first reported by The Washington Post.

Cruz was unlikely to vote for any Democratic nominee given his conservative ideology, but his remarks could indicate a broader shift within the GOP to halt Democrats from shifting the court's balance to the left. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said earlier this month the GOP would be "united" in blocking a Clinton appointment, remarks he later softened.

An indefinite GOP blockade of a Supreme Court nominee would almost certainly lead to an erosion in the Senate's supermajority requirement. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has already suggested lowering the bar for Supreme Court nominee from 60 votes to a simple majority. Under Reid, Democrats changed the Senate rules to allow all nominees but Supreme Court appointments to be approved by a majority vote.

"We need to treat it like the constitutional crisis it will be if Democrats don't take back the Senate majority," Reid said on Wednesday night in an email to members of the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "The Supreme Court could dwindle to 7, then maybe 6, Justices. It would turn our Justice system and our democracy on its head. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves."

Republicans have blocked from even holding hearings on the Garland nomination for more than seven months, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said the Senate will not confirm Garland in the post-election lame duck. In his last availablity on Capitol Hill before the election, McConnell refused to entertain the possibility that the Senate may be forced to entertain a more liberal judge next year, though there may be enough centrist Republicans and those deferential to presidential prerogative to confirm a justice like Garland.

Later Wednesday, Justice Clarence Thomas lamented that the broken confirmation process was a sign of larger problems. Speaking to The Heritage Foundation to mark 25 years on the Supreme Court, Thomas did not cite the Garland blockade but noted a decline in civil behavior.


"We have decided," he said according to The Associated Press, "that rather than confront disagreements, we'll just simply annihilate the person who disagrees with me. I don't think that's going to work in a republic, in a civil society."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/cruz-supreme-court-blockade-230363#ixzz4OHJdghyJ 
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[Benton]

Used to I was opposed to their opposition. Not doing your job because you don't like your coworkers is absurd. They get compensated pretty well to waste taxpayer money having hollow votes and not doing anything.

But I'm in favor of this. This kind of tactic combined with the latest presidential circus gets more people taking notice of how screwed up the federal government is, and how screwed up the two parties are. There's more likely to be some kind of legitimate change if all the stupidity is one display.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

As more or less a Libertarian, I am fine when the two parties are locking horns and aren't capable of getting anything done. It means they can't F up the country more.

When they're cooperating, they're not giving people more freedom, reducing money you need to pay, and shrinking the federal government. They're telling you what you can't do, increasing your financial burden, and including the government in more and more of your life.

So if the choices are between pumping out laws that don't help us/negatively effect us, or not being capable of doing anything, I choose the latter.

[fredtoast]

(10-27-2016, 03:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: As more or less a Libertarian, I am fine when the two parties are locking horns and aren't capable of getting anything done. It means they can't F up the country more.

When they're cooperating, they're not giving people more freedom, reducing money you need to pay, and shrinking the federal government. They're telling you what you can't do, increasing your financial burden, and including the government in more and more of your life.

So if the choices are between pumping out laws that don't help us/negatively effect us, or not being capable of doing anything, I choose the latter.

This country has problems that need to be addressed.

Calling every single law or government action "bad" is just ridiculous.

The world around us is constantly changing and new challenges arise on a regular basis.  If we can not change and adapt then we will fail.

[*Nately120*]

Hmm, 8 years of saying "NO" essentially led to a clinically insane reality TV star taking over the GOP and providing a layup election for the Democrats. I can't see what harm another 4 years of this crap could do! After another 4-8 years of Democratic rule I can only imagine what kind of apocalyptic, communist, shit-hole right-wingers will be convinced we're living in.

I can remember McCain being accused of blowing the election because he was "too nice" and didn't call out Obama on his ultra-liberal, crazy Christian Rev. Wright lovin', Muslim, Arab, Kenyan bs and we got Trump 8 years later. Maybe Trump is too nice, too. Ok, this rant is getting generic, but I just wonder what might come down the pipeline next if the GOP doesn't change its tactics a bit.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-27-2016, 04:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This country has problems that need to be addressed.

Calling every single law or government action "bad" is just ridiculous.

The world around us is constantly changing and new challenges arise on a regular basis.  If we can not change and adapt then we will fail.

Not every single law or government action, but it's a net negative.

It's like a tanning bed. It gives you that golden glow that make you look healthy and look nice, which is a positive, but all the while you're giving yourself skin cancer.

[fredtoast]

(10-27-2016, 05:06 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not every single law or government action, but it's a net negative.

It's like a tanning bed. It gives you that golden glow that make you look healthy and look nice, which is a positive, but all the while you're giving yourself skin cancer.

Making an argument with a shallow meaningless analogy.

How cute. 

[SunsetBengal]

(10-27-2016, 04:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This country has problems that need to be addressed.

Calling every single law or government action "bad" is just ridiculous.

The world around us is constantly changing and new challenges arise on a regular basis.  If we can not change and adapt then we will fail.

The Country's problems are being addressed just fine.  No need to appoint a radical to the Supreme Court to further a "fundamental change effort", being conducted by our current POTUS.

[fredtoast]

(10-27-2016, 06:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The Country's problems are being addressed just fine. 

This is comical.

You squeal louder than anyone here about how things have gotten worse over the last 8 years.

And the whole "Make America Great Again" crowd also seem to think we need to do something about the problems facing this country.

[Benton]

(10-27-2016, 06:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The Country's problems are being addressed just fine.  No need to appoint a radical to the Supreme Court to further a "fundamental change effort", being conducted by our current POTUS.

from everything I've read, garland is very moderate. And he's got prosecuting experience, not just a lawyer. He's a far cry from radical.

[*wildcats forever*]

Enough with the insults. Go back to being respectful and on-topic. Thank you.

[*Nately120*]

(10-27-2016, 07:31 PM)Benton Wrote: from everything I've read, garland is very moderate. And he's got prosecuting experience, not just a lawyer. He's a far cry from radical.

I, GARLAND, shall knock you all down!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-27-2016, 05:06 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not every single law or government action, but it's a net negative.

It's like a tanning bed. It gives you that golden glow that make you look healthy and look nice, which is a positive, but all the while you're giving yourself skin cancer.

If it is a net negative, move to Mogadishu where you can have less laws and more freedom. 

[fredtoast]

(10-28-2016, 12:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If it is a net negative, move to Mogadishu where you can have less laws and more freedom. 

Or breath the air in China where they don't have all those silly environmental regulations.  Or work in a coal mine there where they don't have all those "anti-business" safety regulations.

[Griever]

(10-27-2016, 09:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I, GARLAND, shall knock you all down!

dont touch his princess either

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-28-2016, 12:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If it is a net negative, move to Mogadishu where you can have less laws and more freedom. 

Why should I have to move? They're the ones who suck.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[fredtoast]

(10-28-2016, 02:25 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Why should I have to move? They're the ones who suck.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You should move there because Here in th United States we like government authority to promote the well being of the citizens.  So If you are going to be miserable here you might as well move to be around people who think like you do..

[*bfine32*]

I have said since the seat was left vacant that Congress should consider and approve (if qualified)any nomination POTUS nominates. There is no reason not to.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Henceforth, they shall be called Republican'ts.

So let it be written. So let it be done.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-28-2016, 02:25 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Why should I have to move? They're the ones who suck.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You have the liberty to pursue what makes you happy; a life free of laws which equal a net negative here in the US. 

Mogadishu is relatively free of those pesky laws.