President names his supreme court nomination | The Compost Bin | Forums

A A A
Avatar
Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Lost password?
sp_Feed F-Compost-Bin
President names his supreme court nomination
Avatar
K
Admin
Forum Posts: 31782
Member Since:
15 Feb ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
17 Mar ’16 - 9:24 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Looks like Mcconnell says no

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday the Senate will not consider President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

Obama did it "not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for the purpose of the election," the Kentucky Republican said.

He also said the Senate will "revisit" the matter when the next president nominates someone, adding that the people should have a say in who fills the currently vacant seat. "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate somebody very different," McConnell said.

more http://www.cnbc.com/.....am-et.html

some background on him

http://www.scotusblo.....k-garland/

Avatar
ashleigh11
Farm Hand
Members
Forum Posts: 584
Member Since:
18 Feb ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
17 Mar ’16 - 6:08 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

This is going to backfire. This will get tabled and Mitch McConnell will have to sit for Obama's SCOTUS confirmation hearings after President Hillary nominates him.

Avatar
DangerDuke
Rancher
Members
Forum Posts: 2030
Member Since:
21 Feb ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
17 Mar ’16 - 8:37 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Yeah pretty slick move by Obama. I honestly don't even think it's a big deal. The nullification movement is rapidly gaining ground, so before long it's not going to matter what the SC writes opinion on.

The following users say thank you to DangerDuke for this useful post:

jonathco
Avatar
jonathco
Michigan
Rancher
Members
Forum Posts: 1102
Member Since:
12 Oct ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
17 Mar ’16 - 10:25 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

DangerDuke said
Yeah pretty slick move by Obama. I honestly don't even think it's a big deal. The nullification movement is rapidly gaining ground, so before long it's not going to matter what the SC writes opinion on.

I'll just leave this here in case anyone wants to read up... http://tenthamendmen.....enter.com/

Avatar
K
Admin
Forum Posts: 31782
Member Since:
15 Feb ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
18 Mar ’16 - 10:04 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

good to see the states finally standing up for themselves

Avatar
jl
Green Horn
Members
Forum Posts: 63
Member Since:
18 Jan ’16
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
21 Mar ’16 - 7:27 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Judge Andrew Napolitano --- Garland Is Most Conservative Nominee by a Dem in the Modern Era  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE5m7_zWizo 

but  

Garland Shouldn’t Be Considered After Election, McConnell Says
http://www.nytimes.c.....nnell.html

I hate Hillary, but I don't like this guy either

his whole "The principle is the American people are choosing their next president, and their next president should pick this Supreme Court nominee.”

is just nonsense

he talks about the will of the people while at the very same time the GOP leadership does all they can to thwart the nomination of Trump

he talks about the will of the people but he says Republicans in senate won't vote for Garland no matter who is elected President

so which is it ?
McConnell believes the people choose the president and the president they choose picks the supreme court nominee ?
or
McConnell dismissed the possibility of Republicans considering Garland after the November election, even if a Democrat were elected president ?

politicians talking out of both sides of their mouth

Avatar
K
Admin
Forum Posts: 31782
Member Since:
15 Feb ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
22 Mar ’16 - 7:25 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

I was reading where the SC has never reviewed any of his decisions, so the sitting conservative justices had no issues at all with the decisions he was handing down

Forum Timezone: America/New_York

Most Users Ever Online: 698

Currently Online:
59 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

easytapper: 2149

DangerDuke: 2030

groinkick: 1667

PorkChopsMmm: 1515

Gravel Road: 1455

Newest Members:

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 12

Topics: 11482

Posts: 58640

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 19842

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Administrators: K