GOP keeps filibuster card ready for court pick - Yahoo! News »

Posted By engineer 7 months ago in Political News

Prop it 62 1 drop Drop it

As President Barack Obama prepares to name his pick for the high court , the Senate's No. 2 Republican said the qualifications being discussed — "emotions or feelings or preconceived ideas," Sen. Jon Kyl called them — aren't enough to justify a lifetime appointment. The Arizona Republican on Sunday wouldn't rule out a filibuster to block an Obama pick that falls outside his definition of the mainstream.

Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »

467 Views Share Story 55 Comments Report

Submitted By:

engineer

Hi

My background is Biomedical engineering with an MBA As you know from all my comments where I almost stand politically. I have loads of ...

Who Also Submitted: All »

RSS Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 55 (view all)
- Display

PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive7 Replies
- 38%
  b-happy7 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  It's called politics. The Democrats do the same things.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
  Reply
  2 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - 100%
    mesodude7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    "It's called politics. The Democrats do the same things."
    
    --Refreshing argument...
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...
  - 100%
    CaptainLucid7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    "It's called politics. The Democrats do the same things."
    
    Bullcrap
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...
- 38%
  Endoscopy7 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  The Democrats created this mess and I have to laugh when it gets turned on them. Before the Democrats did that there was never a filibuster attempt on Court nominees. You silly liberls created it so live with it.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
  Reply
  3 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - 100%
    tchef7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    There were only a few nominees that they blocked. Most went through without any problem.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...
  - 100%
    mesodude7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    "The Democrats created this mess and I have to laugh when it gets turned on them. Before the Democrats did that there was never a filibuster attempt on Court nominees."
    
    --As is often the case, you're 100% WRONG, Endo.
    
    Falsehood #1: Democrats' filibuster of Bush nominees is "unprecedented"
    
    The most prevalent talking point put forth by advocates of the "nuclear option" is that Democratic filibusters of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees are "unprecedented" in American history.
    
    But Republicans initiated a filibuster against a judicial nominee in 1968, forcing Democratic president Lyndon Johnson to withdraw the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice. Then-Sen. Robert Griffin (R-MI) recognized at the time that denying nominees a vote was already an established practice. "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote," Griffin said, according to a May 10 New York Times op-ed by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME).
    
    Cloture votes were also necessary to obtain floor votes on Clinton judicial nominees Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon in 2000, and Republicans attempted to filibuster the nomination of U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1994. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who is leading the Republican opposition to Democratic filibusters, voted against cloture for the Paez nomination.
    
    "You silly liberls created it so live with it."
    
    --Be sure to wipe that egg off your face and do your homework before posting more misinformation because I'm here to challenge lying, poorly educated cons, Endo. You don't stand a chance. ;-P
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...
  - 100%
    CaptainLucid7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    "The Democrats created this mess and I have to laugh when it gets turned on them. Before the Democrats did that there was never a filibuster attempt on Court nominees. You silly liberls created it so live with it."
    
    F off bull crap salesman. Call me on my honesty vs yours and I will make you ashamed to log in here.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...
JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned19 Replies
- 93%
  Dionys7 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  Yes, but an "extremist" to the current GOP would have been a centrist in the 50's.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
  Reply
  18 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - 25%
    b-happy7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    So a centrist in the 50's was a homegrown terrorists like Bill Ayers. Huh?
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...
  - JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
  - 36%
    simonsez7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    Extremism began in the middle to late 60's with flower children and drugs.
    
    In the 50's, we were still relatively free, the war was over, the GI bill was helping vets buy homes and get educations ... life was good. A and W cheeseburgers ...
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    14 Replies
    
    loading ...
100%
mmrhe7 months ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

The rest of America understands that having a judge who understands how the law efects everyday people is a GOOD thing.
Once again, the Republicans are barking up the wrong tree!

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
Reply
24 Replies

loading ...
- 36%
  b-happy7 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  Ya maybe we will get someone who will kick the illegals out and stop this plundering of our nations wealth in the terms of a bailout. Bush started the plundering with bailouts and Obama just stepped it up a notch. This really needs to stop
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
  Reply
  2 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - 100%
    wtagg7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    Are you stating that you supported a liberal?
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...
  - 100%
    mesodude7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    "Ya maybe we will get someone who will kick the illegals out and stop this plundering of our nations wealth in the terms of a bailout. Bush started the plundering with bailouts and Obama just stepped it up a notch. This really needs to stop"
    
    --So then you cons *were* troubled when Bush "bailed out" the ultra-wealthy, defense contractors and Big Oil after all. We had no idea (since cons re-elected Bush in '04) that excessive spending or deficts were a concern to right wingers. Anyway, This is funny coming from a con, considering that other than 2000 and Schiavo, Republicans would have been happy with a completely neutered judicial branch. In fact, before they started clogging the courts with delusional birth certificate verification cases and bogus election certification challenges, cons thought the courts were useless.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...
- JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
  - 50%
    Klarissa7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    I'd prefer the "legal" was the first requirement.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    3 Replies
    
    loading ...
  - 83%
    rimbaud7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    A constitutional trial is still, like other trials, an adversary proceeding, and the justices must first consider, with empathy, the claims of the litigants, as well as the constituional principle they are applying to the case. The Supreme Court does not hear idle, dispassionate, academic, philosophical inquiries on "what is constitional?"
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...
- 31%
  Endoscopy7 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  There is a difference between a judge who understands how the law affects people and a judge that creates laws from the bench. Liberals want laws created by judges and conservatives want the laws that are on the books correctly interpreted. Major difference.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
  Reply
  14 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - 94%
    Dionys7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    "correctly interpreted"
    
    Correctly interpreted meaning (to the GOP) whatever fits THEIR pre-conceived notions.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    3 Replies
    
    loading ...
  - 25%
    Skeptic7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    A lawyer that I once hired made it very clear to me that he was going to assist me in interpretation of the law; that is, he would try to guide the court in deciding favorably in my case, but I should not expect "justice." If I wanted justice, then I should petition the Assembly and the Governor to change the law.
    
    Unfortunately, liberals and the dumbocraps never learned that lesson. They would prefer to push their agenda by judicial fiat rather than work to get laws passed. When the judiciary does not agree with their narrow minded view of the law, they scream as if their Mama had been murdered. You only need refer to Bush v. Gore to hear them whine and cry about judicial activism.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    6 Replies
    
    loading ...
  - 93%
    StevieGee7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    From Endo: Liberals want laws created by judges and conservatives want the laws that are on the books correctly interpreted.
    
    It seems, based on the torture memos, the Conservatives want laws created by lawyers at the DOJ.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...
  - 100%
    quackpot7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    A filibuster threat in response to a particular candidate is one thing.
    
    A filibuster threat in response to the possibility of any candidate is quite another.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...
  - TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
78%
tchef7 months ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

Once again before a person is even named for the position the party of no rears it's ugly head and threatens filibuster.

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
Reply
1 Reply

loading ...
- 100%
  mesodude7 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  I really do believe its as many liberals and progressives have suggested... At worst this nomination would maintain the current balance of influence.They just need something around which to rally the base (since crying about "socialism" hasn't gotten a whole lotta traction). Simply threatening to do something right now makes them seem competent to cons. What will be interesting to see is what happens with the next nominee. All hell will break loose.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
  Reply
  0 Replies
  
  loading ...

View All 55 Comments

Add a Comment

Sign In With Your Propeller Account

Please keep your comments relevant to this story.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.

More News

Hello!

GOP keeps filibuster card ready for court pick - Yahoo! News »

Submitted By:

Who Also Submitted: All »

Other Related Articles: All »

RSS Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 55 (view all) - Display No Filter Fair Comments - 25% and above Good Comments - 50% and above Excellent Comments - 75% and above

PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive7 Replies

JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned19 Replies

JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply

JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies

TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned

Add a Comment

Sign In With Your Propeller Account

More News

Submit a Story

Story Tags ?

Propping This Article

Dropping This Article

Politics Links

Groups Watching This

Categories

Also Submitted By

Comments So Far: 55 (view all)
- Display