Discussion
  • Read More
    Mary, Queen of ScoffsRachel Vorona Cote
    2/15/16 9:52am

    A Supreme Court justice, ideally, is not a Democrat or a Republican but rather someone who can impartially evaluate complicated legal issues irrespective of politics.

    Threatening NOT to approve any nominee of another party’s president BEFORE THE NOMINEE IS EVEN NAMED shows that they are not planning to evaluate nominees based on their qualifications, but rather on their own political agendas.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ChemistreeMary, Queen of Scoffs
      2/15/16 9:56am

      This, so much.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      HobbylobbyistMary, Queen of Scoffs
      2/15/16 9:58am

      Yes. This. All.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    BlueJeansRachel Vorona Cote
    2/15/16 9:45am

    Cruz argues that it would be a disservice to the American people to allow a lame duck president appoint Scalia’s replacement, drawing on that nonexistent lame duck clause to which Warren refers in her post

    Rubio pulled this shit in the debate, too. Lame duck does not mean what you think it means, GOP. Obama has most of a year until he’s considered a “lame duck.”

    Push back when you hear people say this in real life, people. They are trying to use a looser version of this term to create the sense that Obama can’t do anything in his final year, when they are really trying to stop him from doing anything in his final year.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Ginger Is A ConstructBlueJeans
      2/15/16 10:10am

      PREACH. This has been infuriating. Rubio was also saying that Obama only has “a few months” left in office. Since when is 11 “a few?” “Can I have a few bites of your sandwich?” “Do you want to go to a few bars tonight?” Few =/= 11.

      And yes, “lame ducks” are a problem, it’s part if why the inauguration used to take place in March, but has since been moved (in only the last 140 some years) to January, to abbreviate the period between NOVEMBER and inauguration day. Can you imagine if Dems tried to hamstring a Republican president who had a year left in office?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      PucklebugBlueJeans
      2/15/16 10:15am

      They need to chill. After Election Day, yes, the sitting president is technically a lame duck...but I’m pretty sure we’re in February...not November. Would these assholes want to be considered a “lame duck” with 10ish months left in their hypothetical presidential term? I think not.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    TampaBeeAtch (misplaced witty subname)Rachel Vorona Cote
    2/15/16 11:35am

    Why don’t any of these morons know that a “lame duck” president is a sitting president after the next president is elected? So from November to January of their last term. The entire last year of the last term does not make a president a “lame duck”!

    I’m not honestly surprised, none of these people seem to understand words.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Rachel Vorona CoteTampaBeeAtch (misplaced witty subname)
      2/15/16 12:09pm

      That’s an excellent point, and in fact one I had forgotten because people keep throwing around the term (myself included)!

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      SomethingInTheMilkAintCleanTampaBeeAtch (misplaced witty subname)
      2/15/16 12:33pm

      They understand, but they don’t think others understand. If Cruz keeps repeating shit and many Americans don’t or won’t think critically, whatever he says is good enough as true.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ballofstressRachel Vorona Cote
    2/15/16 10:09am
    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Stig-a-saw-us wrecks loves nuclear power.ballofstress
      2/15/16 10:22am

      ETA: people weren’t getting my brand of humor. Not worth the trouble.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ballofstressStig-a-saw-us wrecks loves nuclear power.
      2/15/16 10:28am
      GIF
      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    wafflesfriendsworkRachel Vorona Cote
    2/15/16 9:43am

    “We are just one justice away from the Second Amendment being written out of the Constitution altogether...And if you vote for Donald Trump in this next election, you are voting for undermining our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

    I will never understand why the 2nd is the Amendment hill they are all prepared to die on

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      LaComtessewafflesfriendswork
      2/15/16 9:48am

      Well... Because it's the hill with the guns on it, so they stand a fighting chance *rimshot*

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Tejón Facewafflesfriendswork
      2/15/16 9:49am

      His “one justice away” speech in the debate was supposed to be scary but to a listener with a heart probably sounded like a pump up speech. One justice away from rejecting abortion restrictions in any state! One justice away from the end of the sanctity of the second ammendment! Woohoo!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SodburgerRachel Vorona Cote
    2/15/16 9:41am

    This is the only Lame Duck I see

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Akat101Sodburger
      2/15/16 9:45am

      “I love the Constitution! Except when it doesn’t say what I want it to say. Then I just start making shit up.”

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      InCaseYouDidn'tKnowTheyCallMeTheJackalSodburger
      2/15/16 9:46am

      Lame Duck, Limp Dick... po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    msmadscientistRachel Vorona Cote
    2/15/16 9:51am

    When did “advise and consent” become “obstruct and subvert”? Will it end when the Black man leaves the White House, or this the new politics as usual?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      EvanrudeJohnsonmsmadscientist
      2/15/16 9:56am

      This isn’t even new, Chuckie Schumer said he would most likely not allow any of G W Bush’s nominees move forward if an opening came up, back in 2007.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ZombieShooterEvanrudeJohnson
      2/15/16 10:49am

      Funny thing about liberals is that they almost always think their side is nothing but angels and the right is nothing but demons.

      Democrats say no one should vote on Bush nominees to SCOTUS. They clap and cheer.

      Republicans say no one should vote on Obama nominees to SCOTUS. They are up in arms screaming bloody murder. (look at Gawker. I think some of them are actually crying about Republicans being meanies..... LOL)

      EDIT: Republicans and Democrats are neither angels nor demons. They are human. So I don’t get mad when Schumer says no votes on SCOTUS for Bush just like I don’t get mad when McConnell says no votes on SCOTUS for Obama. Both sides do the samething to each other. No side has any “high ground” when it comes to ethics, morality, or fairness.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Paranoid Android (sometimes says dumb things)Rachel Vorona Cote
    2/15/16 10:03am

    Scalia was supposedly a Constitutional Originalist- Zombie Scalia would not approve of delaying a confirmation for a new justice for at least eleven months.

    And here we are- living through yet another GOP hissy fit. Fucking assholes.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ZombieShooterParanoid Android (sometimes says dumb things)
      2/15/16 10:36am

      Yes he would. The Constitution does not say when the US Senate must vote on a nomination or even when it must consider it.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      benjaminalloverZombieShooter
      2/15/16 11:21am

      As someone said upthread, that’s inconsistent with Scalia’s precedent. Scalia, you’ll remember, ended the Florida vote count to determine the president in 2000, because a delay of even one day was unacceptable. How does that gel with waiting 10 months to make the SCOTUS whole? It doesn’t. Nor does such a delay have any constitutional precedent. Republicans are just liars who make shit up and don’t care about the constitution beyond GUNSGUNSGUNSGUNS, provided there’s a t.v. camera around.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ChalmersRachel Vorona Cote
    2/15/16 9:54am

    Hypothetical question with my limited knowledge of the true functioning of government—If Cruz was indeed dead set on filibustering a candidate, he would therefore have to be present on the senate floor, correct? So, depending on when it happened, this could force him to take a serious amount of time away from campaigning, stumping before primaries, etc.?

    And to a lesser extent, wouldn’t this put other senators running (Rubio and Sanders) into a lose-lose position of either not campaigning against their opponent(s) while they return to DC to fulfill their current obligations, or stay on the trail, giving those opponents built in ammunition about them putting their own presidential ambition over their responsibilities (a problem for Rubio since he’s already been attacked on his attendance, a problem for Sanders since he’s only in a two horse race to begin with)?

    In essence, couldn’t Cruz’s desire to perform his favorite action (stop people from doing their job) lead to three people taking a serious hit to their chances?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ballofstressChalmers
      2/15/16 10:16am

      Ding ding ding! That’s actually EXACTLY what I’m pulling for here. You want to filibuster, go for it, shoot your own campaign in the foot! And maybe Rubio can even make an appearance in the Senate, if he remembers where his desk is...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      I'm Fart and I'm SmunnyChalmers
      2/15/16 10:34am

      Even though Sanders will have to spend time away from the campaign, it doesn’t seem like it would hurt him as much as the Republicans, since he will look good to Democrats because he is helping nominate the new justice. The Republican candidates will go there to prevent our government from functioning properly, which they can be called out on in the general election.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    I'm Fart and I'm SmunnyRachel Vorona Cote
    2/15/16 10:26am

    This is really a win-win for Democrats. The Republicans delay the vote for a year? Makes them look terrible and immature, and is likely to cause some Republican Senators to lose their seats in blue states (and it may hurt them in the presidential general election). The Republicans grow the fuck up and approve the nominated justice? We get a moderate to liberal justice for some huge cases coming up.

    TL;DR: SUCK IT REPUBLICANS

    GIF
    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      DontBeSuchaBoobPunchTinaI'm Fart and I'm Smunny
      2/15/16 12:53pm

      Agreed, I really think it’s a losing battle for the obstructionists.

      Also they look stupid.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      I'm Fart and I'm SmunnyDontBeSuchaBoobPunchTina
      2/15/16 1:14pm

      I have never seen them look not stupid, tbh.

      Reply
      <