raydan raydan:
BRAH BRAH:
Dems Fundraise Off Scalia Death
http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001076/________________
The Tolerant Left is F****** pathetic!
I may be wrong, but it doesn't look like they're asking for money.
Not to mention that Ted Cruz was commenting within the hour on how Obama must be stopped from doing anything about a new justice, an so too was every candidate, party, news network, blog and pundit across the States (and many around the world). The death of a Justice in office is pretty damn shattering and will be front and center in the candidacy race for the new few months, everyone is going to be talking about it, no one is "fucking pathetic" for talking about it, regardless of leanings.
Frankly, Americans would be silly NOT to talk about it, especially given how rare it is to see a democratic president put in a nominee in modern times and how much it could change the dynamics of the court. Who will Obama appoint to replace an originalist? Probably not another originalist. Thomas Clarence is going to be so lonely, but on the plus side he might actually have to say something rather than sit quietly and stare all day.
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
$1:
During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flash ... minations/... and less than a decade ago, Mitch McConnell threw out that idea while he is pushing it today. This Thurmond Rule isn't actually a rule (nor does it really apply here, since Obama's got a year left, not six months), and historically it's always come and gone with whatever side has benefitted from it's "existence."
“Our Democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called ‘Thurmond Rule,’ under which the Senate supposedly stops confirming judges in a presidential election year. This seeming obsession with this rule that doesn’t exist is an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are waiting to fill badly needed vacancies.”- Mitch McConnell, 2008
McConnell
has voted for a judge in the final term of a President before (after Bork and Ginsberg was Kennedy, who got in) as well.
Literally no one has the high ground. Back in 2008 people were asked what the Thurmond Rule was and people bumbled around without a clue. Same in 1988. It gets invoked but is generally irrelevant. What the Republicans want to do has no basis in precedent, but they still have the power to do it. If I were part of the Republican decision making apparatus, I'd be playing up the theory (election year with a lame duck president!) rather than joining the Democrats who are arguing precedence.
CKA Elite 
CKA Uber 
