DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... GOP prepares to fight Obama nominee, no matter whom he picks

lol the party of no. this is getting comical.

http://news.yahoo.com/rnc-launches-campa...--politics.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court fight is about to get personal.
Related Stories

GOP prepares for drawn-out battle over Scalia replacement Christian Science Monitor
Obama warns high court credibility at stake in nominee fight Associated Press
Top Democratic Attorneys Slam GOP Over Supreme Court Blockade Huffington Post
[$$] Some GOP Senators Face Pressure Over Supreme Court Nomination Stance The Wall Street Journal
Senate Republicans rule out action on Obama high court pick Reuters
$10 Oil in 2016, U.S. Economy Doomed The Sovereign Investor Sponsored 
Republicans prepared Monday to unleash a torrent of activity opposing President Barack Obama's nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. As the president neared an announcement, Obama's allies, too, were priming for an election-year fight.

The Republican Party launched a task force housed within the Republican National Committee to orchestrate attack ads, petitions and media outreach, party officials said. They want to bolster a strategy that Senate Republicans adopted as soon as Justice Antonin Scalia died last month: refusing to consider an Obama nominee out of hopes that the next president will be a Republican.

The Republican National Committee will contract with America Rising Squared, an outside group targeting Democrats that's run by a longtime aide to GOP Sen. John McCain. GOP chairman Reince Priebus said it would be the most comprehensive judicial response effort in the party's history.

Priebus said the RNC would "make sure Democrats have to answer to the American people for why they don't want voters to have a say in this process."


View gallery
.Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus speaks to the audience and tells them that the Republican party will support whoever the people ...
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus speaks to the audience and tells them that the Republican …
Echoing that strategy, the conservative Judicial Crisis Network said it was spending upward of a quarter-million dollars on TV and digital ads targeting three appellate judges Obama has considered for the job: Sri Srinivasan, Merrick Garland and Jane Kelly. The group's move to attack candidates even before Obama had announced his selection underscored conservatives' insistence that nobody Obama nominates will be confirmed in an election year.
"This is Exhibit A of Republicans putting political considerations at the RNC ahead of their constitutional duties," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.

Obama is expected to announce his pick as early as this week, touching off a heated battle as Obama and Democrats try to pressure Republicans into relenting on hearings and a vote. A number of former top Obama advisers have been drafted to run a Democratic effort that will involve a bevy of liberal groups that hope an Obama nominee to replace the conservative Scalia could pull the high court's ideological balance to the left.

Amy Brundage, a former top White House communications aide helping to organize the Democratic push, said the effort would target specific states where they believe Republicans will feel political heat for opposing hearings once Obama has a living, breathing nominee to promote. She said Democratic groups would organize events with Democratic lawmakers as well as legal scholars, law school deans, state attorneys general and historians.


View gallery
.Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the ranking member of the the Senate Judiciary Committee, is joined by from l-r, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., Sen. Al Franken,...
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the ranking member of the the Senate Judiciary Committee, is joined by from l-r, Sen. …
"The coordinated grassroots effort that has already proven a powerful tool to put pressure on Republicans will only ramp up," Brundage said.
In an unusual criticism of a colleague from the same state, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., cited comments that GOP Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson made last week about the nomination process. In a Wisconsin radio interview, Johnson said "there's a little more accommodation to it" if a conservative president were nominating another conservative to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

"Do Senate Republicans really believe that they need a Republican president simply to do their jobs?" Baldwin asked on the Senate floor Monday.

She did not mention Johnson by name.

RNC officials said that in addition to scouring the nominee's history for anything that can be used against him or her, the party will also work to portray Democrats as hypocritical, dredging up comments that Vice President Joe Biden and other Democrats made in previous years suggesting presidents shouldn't ram through nominees to the high court in the midst of an election.

The GOP has already been looking into candidates on Obama's short-list and will oppose him or her with radio and digital ads, petitions and research documents. The committee is also lining up "surrogates" who will make the case in the media.

Key to the GOP's strategy will be targeting Democrats facing tough races over their insistence that Obama, in his final months in office, gets to pick a justice that could reshape the court's ideological balance for decades. In addition to presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, the RNC said it would target Democratic Senate candidates in Colorado, Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida and Pennsylvania, among others. The party also plans to target Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

___

Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this report.

___

Reach Josh Lederman on Twitter at http://twitter.com/joshledermanAP

__________________________

so, after all that, this is what is confusing:

Priebus said the RNC would "make sure Democrats have to answer to the American people for why they don't want voters to have a say in this process."

can somebody enlightening me on when we, the average citizen, have ever had a say in the SC process of nomination?

and why is the RNC involved?

So you want to know why the public has no say in SC choices?

Look around you son, Trump is Hitler, Bernie is Stalin, Hillary is Satan.

And you still gotta ask?

but they don't run anything, they aren't in office, except sanders.

so your post doesn't make a lick of sense.

Try to think son, try real hard now, I will help you...

The public is absolutely NUTS!

If you don't think if the tables were turned that the Democrats would not be doing the same thing you are delusional. There is no compromise and only extremes anymore in DC. Meanwhile the majority of America that is more moderate (just my opinion) is left to watch the circus.

ummm....the question i ask is when have we ever had a say in the SC process.

as in, why all of a sudden does the RNC think the public should have a say in it?

i know the public is nuts. maybe you and your sidekick should've actually read my question the correct way first.

ok, but i never seen the DNC get involved.

and i never seen the democrats ask why us voters aren't involved in a process we have never been apart of in the first place.

Post a video, you can't type.

i might as well start my own lifestyle blog i'm going to start making video's constantly.

sign me up as a groupie.

I still laugh thinking these congressional buffoons think their side of the aisle will win the presidency. Suck it up, accept defeat, and do your jobs.

We have a say, indirectly, every 4 years. We elect a President, we all know that there is a chance, at any time, that the President may need to nominate somebody to the SC..

We may vote for President based on all of the pie-in-the-sky promises they make us as they appeal to their base without totally alienating everybody else.. but what every voter should consider, in addition to all of those glowing promises, is that many presidencies are often most well known for things nobody even knew about during the election... so some portion of our vote needs to go to the character and values of the candidate because we never really know what challenges they may have to deal with.

Obama was elected, a SC nominee needs to be made, it's his job to nominate, it's the Senate's job to debate and vote on that nomination... I don't see why this is so hard.

and we have a winner folks.

Well said DC.

All I can add is that I'm smack dab in the middle - I've voted for both Bush and Obama. The Republicans are sure doing a hell of a job making sure I vote Dem this fall, and I know a lot of people that are in the same boat as me.

Republican Chuck Grassley who chairs, the Senate Judiciary committee stated that regardless who Obama nominates for Supreme Court, the Judicial Committee will not hold hearings this year.

This isn’t in the best interests of the country. What a stupid thing to say.

What has anyone in government done lately that's in the best interest of this country?

The Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage constitutional. That's a victory.

Let's stick with the elected that have to get rehired.

Yeah, it was a jab on my part against the idiocy of those actually elected.

There are just to many important things on our plate currently to take time on that SC thingy.

Check with us again come November.

You mean January.

No, November. Once we see who will be the next Prez.

Obama set to announce Merrick Garland as Supreme Court nominee

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/obama-scotus-nominee-announcement-live-134637234.html

President Barack Obama said on Wednesday that he has chosen a Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacant seat left by the death of Antonin Scalia.

According to a White House official, that choice will be Merrick Garland, chief justice for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Garland, 63, was a clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and served in the Justice Department in several leadership roles, including Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General.

Garland reportedly edged out two other top candidates considered by the president: Sri Srinivasan, a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; and Paul Watford, a judge in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Obama will formally announce Garland as his nominee live from the White House Rose Garden at 11 a.m. ET.


Merrick Garland (Photo: U.S. Court of Appeals/Handout via Reuters)

“It is both my constitutional duty to nominate a justice and one of the most important decisions that I — or any president — will make,” President Obama said in a statement. “I’ve devoted a considerable amount of time and deliberation to this decision. I’ve consulted with legal experts and people across the political spectrum, both inside and outside government. And we’ve reached out to every member of the Senate, who each have a responsibility to do their job and take this nomination just as seriously.”

Following Scalia’s death, Republicans in the Senate had urged President Obama to allow the next president to nominate a replacement and threatened to not consider his pick. But Obama said it is the Senate’s job to do so.

“In putting forward a nominee today, I am fulfilling my constitutional duty. I’m doing my job,” the president said. “I hope that our Senators will do their jobs, and move quickly to consider my nominee. That is what the Constitution dictates, and that’s what the American people expect and deserve from their leaders.”

At least one Republican senator is on the record in support of Garland.

“[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch told the conservative website Newsmax earlier this week. “[But] probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”

“This is a responsibility I do not take lightly,” the president said in his statement, outlining three principles that “reflect the role the Supreme Court plays in our democracy.“

Those principles:
First, a justice should possess an independent mind, unimpeachable credentials, and an unquestionable mastery of law. There is no doubt this person will face complex legal questions, so it is imperative that he or she possess a rigorous intellect that will help provide clear answers.
Second, a Justice should recognize the limits of the judiciary’s role. With a commitment to impartial justice rather than any particular ideology, the next Supreme Court justice will understand that the job is to interpret the law, not make law. However, I know there will be cases before the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear. In those cases, a justice’s analysis will necessarily be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment.
Therefore, the third quality I looked for in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly-changing times. In my view, that’s an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.

The White House also launched a dedicated Twitter feed, @SCOTUSnom, to coincide with announcement.

Excellent! We are so happy President Obama will nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court of the Land today.

We shall thoroughly investigate this nominee and in time, have our decision ready.

Next.

that needs to be in purple.

So are Republicans being unreasonable here? Only once in the past 100 years did a President attempt to nominate a Supreme Court justice in an election year (which the senate rejected).

Maybe Reid wasn’t paying attention during the last administration, but there was an empty seat at the Supreme Court during the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency. As video obtained from the Gateway Pundit shows, Democrats then were arguing against a nomination in an election year.

Chuck Schumer stated then:

“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (Justices John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito.”

Meanwhile, Schumer appeared on ABC’s “This Week” yesterday to blast Mitch McConnell for encouraging the Senate to not move forward with any nominees, stating that “kind of strategy isn’t going to last,” adding that “the American people don’t like obstruction.”

Look who’s talking.

http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/look-w...-was-president/

your argument is basically boiling down to "they did it first!!!"

lmao, i got front row seats to this republican train wreck. in 3D. come join me.

No. Our point is a precedent has already been set in how we should proceed.

well, you go ahead and proceed that way, seeing as you guys seem to love destroying your own party from within.

just don't point the finger when your party self destructs. ya know, the party of accountability and all that.

Yes, we will get right on it!
Here Judge Garland, have a seat in this closet while we diligently review your nomination.

lol...just because democrats did it doesnt make it right. That being said I hope they can find someone that everyone can agree will do a good job.

Who said what the Democrats did was wrong? It is simply Precedents.

that is purely my take on it

Judge Garland seems like a good guy. Perhaps he would like a glass of water in that there closet.

Enough talk now, gotta get on this decision immediately!

Ok guys that's done, who's deal is it? Where's my cigar?

Oh yea, Hey Mitch, don't forget to mention the "Biden Rule"!!!

I wouldn't sweat it. The spineless senate leadership will cave in like a sink hole in Florida.

who knows, bro.

i just watched McConnell's speech live following obama's nomination speech.

he said let the people decide. they will decide the direction of the SC judge by who they vote in the general election.

well, they might be making the situation worse. all signs point to a clinton presidency.

so which is worse? Obama just picked a moderate, a judge who was already confirmed as an appeals judge.

because if Clinton wins, she's gonna nominate a liberal judge straight up.

at this point, they are picking their poison. at least get the moderate in there.

also, they keep saying let the people decide?

well, the people already decided. obama won the election, twice.

and he still has until january of next year of doing his job. so maybe the senate should do theirs.

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.

The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916. On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two. Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Louis Powell. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957. The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.

And in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Justice, to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Fortas nomination was the target of a bipartisan filibuster – principally in reaction to the Warren Court’s liberalism and ethical questions about Fortas, although objections were certainly also made that it was inappropriate to fill the seat in an election year. That filibuster prompted Homer Thornberry, whom Johnson nominated to succeed Fortas as an Associate Justice, to withdraw his name from consideration in October 1968, because there was no vacancy to fill. Moreover, the failure to confirm Fortas as the Chief Justice did not leave the Court short a Justice, because Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.

Tom Goldstein also contributed to this post.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

huh....that looks like more than one.

maybe i can't read, though.

His job is to nominate, theirs is to vote. Sounds like they are.

The thing that annoys me with politics in general is that everyone knows it isnt going anywhere right now yet we still go through the motions to try to prove a point. Its silly.

if they are not gonna vote, or even hold a hearing, they aren't doing their jobs.