Posted on 12/25/2016 5:37:35 AM PST by Trump20162020
Soon after his inauguration next month, President-elect Donald Trump will nominate someone to the Supreme Court, which has been hamstrung by a vacancy since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. There will be public debates about the nominee’s credentials, past record, judicial philosophy and temperament. There will be Senate hearings and a vote.
No matter how it plays out, Americans must remember one thing above all: The person who gets confirmed will sit in a stolen seat.
It was stolen from Barack Obama, a twice-elected president who fulfilled his constitutional duty more than nine months ago by nominating Merrick Garland, a highly qualified and widely respected federal appellate judge.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Aww, boo hoo. Obama didn`t get `his` appointment even though it never was his. Congress used completely legal procedural means to delay Scalia`s replacement. The only thing that was almost stolen was our Constitution which would have been effectively nullified had Obama been able to place another infiltrator to the Supreme Court.
The New York Slimes complaining about this pick being stolen from Obama is like complaining about a murderer having his freedom stolen from him because he was sentenced to prison. When you`re traitors, like the New York Times, your priorities tend to get a little out of whack.
Oh f*cking spare me the tears. If the situation was reversed Dingy Harry would have done the same thing in a heart beat.
I recall when conservative judges were kept off the Supreme court when liberals were in power’ Ruth Bader Ginsberg was nominated because a conservative could not get through congress. Liberals can just suck it up and take a good dose of their past transgressions against conservative justices. Remember Robert Bork you bastards!!!!
I thought it belonged to the American people.
given to the people.
I always figured that obama had a deal worked with Hillary - he campaigns hard for her, and once she is elected she puts him on the SC. NO ONE would have stopped that appointment for the same reason they let him get away with everything he wanted to do. Otherwise I think he really would have put that Garland person in no matter what. EVERY ONE really believed Hillary was a lock. Bwahahahaa.
Part of the reason he rented that house too.
I am full of weird opinions like this. :)
And in looking at it that way - it would have been “stolen” from obama, as in it would have been HIS SEAT had Hillary won.
Boo Hoo…
The butt hurt is truly massive....Poor obama that seat was just STOLEN from him.. How will we ever get over it...To the fainting couch we must go.... Everything is going black !!! This is hugh and series.... p.s. NYT and Obama EFFFFFFYOUUUUUU
“Not a word about how the Democrat Senate help up lower court seat confirmations for capable judges nominated by George W. Bush . . .”
The Times conveniently forgets the Democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada’s nomination for more than two years. Estrada was nominated for the US Court of Appeals by George W. Bush in 2001 which would have postitioned the conservative Hispanic jurist for a future Supreme Court nomination. It was the first time in US history the filibuster had been used to kill a nomination for a federal appeals court.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/estrada.withdraws/
In the very first sentence, they mean “hamstringed.” Illiterates.
YouTube video of Biden himself explaining in detail exactly how the BIDEN RULE operates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0
1992, 2 minutes 27 seconds long.
It’s great that he left no questions unanswered in his explanation.
Yes, remember Robert Bork and how this distinguished jurist was denied a place on the Supreme Court by the now-burning Kennedy the Swimmer.
Also remember this is the NYT which recently demanded that Americans be forced to turn in their guns. F’em!
Fake news.
Completely bizarre article - fact that’s it’s an editorial is perplexing. These idiots might actually believe what they spew.
Dear New York Times,
You lost the Senate. It’s in the Constitution.
Wow!!!!
Some bunny’s booty is still sore.
We gambled (not confirming Garland, betting on winning the election) and we won and that Supreme Court issue was a HUGEEEEEEEEE reason why for a LOT of people. Despite everything that happened very few Republicans (regular voters, not elites) failed to vote for Trump in November, more democrats voted for him than Republicans voted against him. I don’t want to get crazy but was this God’s plan for taking Scalia? The court was gonna be an issue but having an actual vacant seat made it paramount.
Get over it, NYslimes. America doesn’t want any more commie lib Justices. Those GOP Senators we elected DID THEIR JOB, that’s one the reasons we elected them, to STOP lib Judges. They did what WE gave them a mandate to do. That seat, like ALL of Judgeships in the country belongs to US, the American people, not to your precious Hussein. The 2 AWFUL harpies he sullied the court with will have do for him.
“We gambled (not confirming Garland, betting on winning the election) and we won...”
Doesn’t get old, does it?
Ping to 257
The job of a supreme court justice is to interpret the law based on the constitution. If you want an impartial “blind woman with scales (brilliant symbolism in my opinion)”, then in reality the seat cannot be stolen, both sides should seek to find the most fair and impartial person, which in theory would overlap more than they would differ. The difference between left and right is though both sides have their biases and their agendas I believe the “right” would much rather have a truly theoretically 100% impartial judge knowing full well that their personal agenda items may be struck down, if given an absolute fair hearing. The left want their agenda items no matter what, and have no qualms about cheating to win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.