Discussion for article #246211
Since she is claiming that they should not follow the Constitution, a. it does not get more un-American than that, and b. she is anything but āmoderateā.
29 Likes
As for the ātradition embraced by both partiesā Murkowski referred to in
her Tweet Thursday, the historical record of the last century shows no
such tradition.
<img src=https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/31/ea/e2/31eae2df3b0b7cabcf450417e8f54748.jpg">
33 Likes
Obama better listen to us otherwise we will not follow the constitution.
15 Likes
There. Is. No. Precedent.
Ask her to point out the last time a President did nothing to fill a vacancy, because it was too close to an election.
My quick review showed it was in 1860.
31 Likes
Another gutless member of the Repulsive Party toes the line!
14 Likes
The Senate GOP is setting the precedent that the voters will decide who gets to make the nomination in November.
If they go through with this, then whoever President Sanders or Clinton nominates should get unanimous approval from the GOP. We should be allowed to nominate the equivalent of Scalia from the left and they would have to back it because thatās what the American people say.
15 Likes
Off topic
In his editorsā blog comment on the Cruz fake photo matter, Josh showed why he would be completely unqualified to manage a campaign:
This is OBVIOUSLY not a real photo. No one would think this was an
actual photo. So it canāt be a āfakeā or a ālieā because itās obviously
not real.
2 Likes
What a lying piece of shit.
3 Likes
Modern Day GOP: Nope
5 Likes
Another traitor lying that the President should only get 3 years at his job.
6 Likes
Expand your search and I think you will find that even in 1860, judges were being nominated on other courts.
Lets look at the actual text pertinent here.
āHe shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.ā
Ambassadors, other public Minister and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States. Make Treaties.
When we consider that population, this argument that its never done quickly falls apart. Its just that by focusing on such a small populationā¦SCOTUS justices that die during an election yearā¦it makes it seem like its rarity.
4 Likes
In a series of Tweets she said āthe American people will be weighing in on the direction of SCOTUSā in the upcoming election and that Obama should āallow his successor to select the next Supreme Court justice.ā
Reagan had three swings to get a candidate.
Murkowski previously told reporters that Obamaās nominee to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia deserved at least some level of Senate consideration in the form of a hearing, even if the Senate ultimately decided not to bring him or her to the vote.
poll the caucusā¦
If POTUS ignores precedent, I believe extraordinary circumstances give the Senate every right to deny the nominee an up or down vote.
and they areā¦
Many Alaskans want to know where I stand regarding the appointment of a nominee to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court.
Translation: āIām afraid of getting primaried.ā
15 Likes
McConnell must know where she buried a body. That, or he knows she knows something either embarrassing or illegal.
Is the Senate currently on recess? If so, President Obama, you might as well do a recess appoint now and get it over with.
3 Likes
Shameful! Shameful!! Shameful!!!
1 Like
Murkowski is a fucking liar.like all the other fucking liars in the cesspool called the GOP.
6 Likes
That would get very ugly, very fast. The SCOTUS has already slapped his hand on recess appointments, or rather, on this absurd ānon recessā nonsense that the GOP does these days. If he appointed someone, it would without a doubt be immediately challenged, and the newly appointed Justice would have to recuse her/himselfā¦making it a 4-4 decision and forever questioning the legitimacy of that Justice, probably resulting in immediate impeachment hearings.
5 Likes
āBallsā said t he Queen 'if I had āem Iād be Kingāā¦no guts no glory Lisaā¦
1 Like
POL TO PUBLIC: āI am vigorously for it and stand firmly against itā
POL IN ASIDE TO STAFF POLLSTER: āDid I cover all the bases? Or should I add something about those who donāt care?ā
1 Like
There is no tradition of a President not nominating a Supreme Court Justice when there is an open seat. There also has never been an instance of a nomination not being processed for confirmation once made.
There are two instances of a nomination to an open seat being withdrawn in the last century. One was Harriet Miers, whose nomination collapsed when even Republicans questioned her preparation to serve on the Court. The other was Abe Fortas, who was nominated for Chief Justice to replace Earl Warren.
But though Fortasā nomination was filibustered and eventually withdrawn, the nomination was actually considered by the Senate. The idea that the Senate would refuse to even consider a nomination, no matter how well qualified, sight-unseen, is simply outrageous political posturing.
And indeed, itās political cowardice. The Republican Senators all know that there is no precedent, Theyāre afraid to anger their ignorant constituencies who have no concern or concept of the institutional responsibilities of the Senate.
11 Likes