Kennedy?

 

That's the other obvious swing vote.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/results-in-key-cases-could-change-with-scalias-death/2016/02/15/94c5d848-d3c9-11e5-a65b-587e721fb231_story.html

^ Looks like labor unions and the President's healthcare stand to gain.

A non-Scalia court certainly can't hurt any. As I've said on here for years, there is nothing more important than the composition of the High Court. I'm excited about the prospects of a new justice, although Republicans, obstructionists as they are, will try to hold it up until and after Hillary takes office. They would be willing that we go with eight justices for the next nine years. They will obstruct. That's what they do---like a GEICO commercial.

Besides Justice Kennedy after the Bork nominee died?

The Kennedy appointment followed a unique sequence.. The Dems had already delayed, and no voted on two nominees.. Kennedy was actually nominated in late 87.. Appointed in 88.. And Reagen had to strong arm the Dems to get the vote then..

A non-Scalia court certainly can't hurt any. As I've said on here for years, there is nothing more important than the composition of the High Court. I'm excited about the prospects of a new justice, although Republicans, obstructionists as they are, will try to hold it up until and after Hillary takes office. They would be willing that we go with eight justices for the next nine years. They will obstruct. That's what they do---like a GEICO commercial.

 

I am certainly going to push my elected folks to obstruct.:thumb:

If Hillary loses the nomination to my man, Bern, maybe Obama could put up Hillary for the SC nominee. The lady would look mighty good in that black robe--- A helluva lot better than Uncle Clarence looks in his white sheets.

 

White sheets? Did you really just go there?

A non-Scalia court certainly can't hurt any. As I've said on here for years, there is nothing more important than the composition of the High Court. I'm excited about the prospects of a new justice, although Republicans, obstructionists as they are, will try to hold it up until and after Hillary takes office. They would be willing that we go with eight justices for the next nine years. They will obstruct. That's what they do---like a GEICO commercial.

 

They can't be any more obstructionist than Harry Reid and company when they held the Senate.

 

You have a short memory. Then again, it's typical of the far Left, which you seem to be a member of.

As would the Dems if there was a Repub in the White House.

 

Just like the did in Reagan's last year?

There hasn't been an appointment during an election year in over 80 years.. I doubt there will be one in this cycle..

 

I read there was in 1988

Both sides do it and have done it. The cons just happen to be the flavor of the day. Just so happens that the esteemed senior senator from The Bluegrass State decided to make their intentions known before the poor guy was cold. Embarrassing.

Guess which party in 1960 passed a resolution in the Senate stating no supreme court justice should be confirmed in a election year ?

Guess which party in 1960 passed a resolution in the Senate stating no supreme court justice should be confirmed in a election year ?

 

1960. Doesn't surprise me.

 

Neither party is our grandpap's party these days.

White sheets? Did you really just go there?

 

Weak arguments tend to go that direction.

If Hillary loses the nomination to my man, Bern, maybe Obama could put up Hillary for the SC nominee. The lady would look mighty good in that black robe--- A helluva lot better than Uncle Clarence looks in his white sheets.

 

Come on Sci Fi, this was a low blow. I don't agree with Clarence Thomas's views, but to essentially call him an uncle tom is petty. Black people don't have to be liberal or vote democrat.

I think Science Friction sounds more bizarre than normal. That is saying something...

Edited February 17, 201610 yr by Randy Parker
Rule 2