The U.S. Supreme Court

i feel terrible that i doubted it before, but now we have proof

http://winningdemocrats.com/pro-cruz-pastor-uses-numerology-to-prove-obama-sacrificed-scalia-in-pagan-ritual-audio/

http://www.theonion.com/article/obama-compiles-shortlist-gay-transsexual-abortion--52361?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Pic:Week1:Default

and hiring Ryan as his VP. Fair is fair.

Are you kidding? Paul Ryan is a squish in GOP circles.

Pro-Cruz Pastor Uses Numerology To Prove Obama Sacrificed Scalia In Pagan Ritual

this is the good stuff

Fucking Obama, always signing his crimes

Love the contrast between Ted Olson and Cheney's heads:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160220112337-05-scalia-funeral-0220-cheney-thomas-super-169.jpg

rolling contrasting heads 2016

In a 2013 case concerning signs on trucks, Justice Kagan gave a hypothetical example of one: “How am I driving? Call 213–867–5309.”

Tommy Tutone has achieved immortality.

i can't help but feel "i got your number off a truck" might have presented some tempting but dangerous rhymes to tommy and his tutones.

Someone in Los Angeles silencing their ringer and going, "Dammit, don't tell me this shit's happening again."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/supreme-court-precedent

Tierney Sneed is a made up name, right?

I knew a journalism professor named Don Sneed!

There was a golfer named Sam Snead.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6F6LK3CcAAXvX6.jpg

well well:

Toomey, Portman Hurt By Supreme Court Stance

New Public Policy Polling surveys of Pennsylvania and Ohio find that both Pat Toomey and Rob Portman are suffering from very weak approval numbers as they seek reelection to the Senate. Furthermore voters in their states, by wide margins, want the vacancy on the Supreme Court to be filled this year. Their opposition to even considering a replacement for Antonin Scalia has the strong potential to put them in even worse standing with voters than they are already.

Key findings from the survey include:

-Only 29% of voters approve of the job Toomey is doing to 40% who disapprove, and just 30% approve of the job Portman is doing to 39% who disapprove. They’re both very much in the danger zone for reelection based on those low approval numbers. One thing complicating their path to reelection is how bad the overall brand of Senate Republicans is. Mitch McConnell has a 13/56 approval rating in Pennsylvania, and a 14/57 one in Ohio. His extreme unpopularity is going to be a weight on his party’s incumbents running across the country.

-Strong majorities of voters- 58/35 in Ohio and 57/40 in Pennsylvania- think that the vacant seat on the Supreme Court should be filled this year. What’s particularly noteworthy about those numbers- and concerning for Portman and Toomey- is how emphatic the support for approving a replacement is among independent voters. In Ohio they think a new Justice should be named this year 70/24 and in Pennsylvania it’s 60/37. Those independent voters are going to make the difference in these tight Senate races, and they have no tolerance for obstructionism on the vacancy.

-Voters are particularly angry about Senators taking the stance that they’re not going to approve anyone before even knowing who President Obama decides to put forward. By a 76/20 spread in Pennsylvania and a 74/18 one in Ohio, voters think the Senate should wait to see who is nominated to the Court before deciding whether or not to confirm that person. Toomey and Portman are out of line even with their own party base on that one- Republicans in Pennsylvania think 67/27 and in Ohio think 63/32 that the Senate should at least give President Obama’s choice a chance before deciding whether or not to confirm them.

mmm schadenfreude

lol @ these jackasses

If their reelection prospects are sufficiently remote, won't these Senators feel free to flip the bird and obstruct to their hearts' content?

career suicide via party loyalty is kinda not a thing that happens too often

I mean, if they're already going to go down, why not do it in a flaming conflagration of buttholeness to curry favor with the RNC?

what good will that do them? McConnell can't really help you if you're not in the Senate.

a flaming conflagration of buttholeness

^^suggested new thread title.

Y'all mind if we start a new one?

don't think it's been mentioned yet, but senate republicans have apparently come to a consensus that they will not be allowing any Obama SC nominee to proceed to a hearing. I'm a little surprised, but I guess it makes sense. Better to block up front than to let a quality candidate get into the spotlight.

Grassley and judiciary republicans say they'll "withhold consent" until after election.

https://twitter.com/jasonnobleDMR/status/702204163241992193

In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court.

"Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent," McConnell said. "In this case, the Senate will withhold it."

gloves off

yeah, so are democrats going to start hitting back or are they just gonna get rolled?

guessing the latter

not knowing how this game is played myself, seems like obama has to find a candidate who a) would be a good justice, b) is maximally politically painful for grassley et al and c) is willing to make a kamikaze run and maybe not get on the bench

so easy to demagogue this shit. If Obama wants to remind pundits of his oratory, he needs to barnstorm the country.

O never struck me as much of a barnstormer.

The Dems don't have the majority, so what are you suggesting they do, to keep from getting rolled? Other than have Obama nominate someone, give some speeches, and retake the Senate in the next election. Republicans are busy pointing to Biden speeches and those of other Dems who vowed to block hearings. But of course with the Dems it was always talk, and then they approved Anthony Kennedy unanimously.

I expect the Dems to act as shrill, relentless, and "on message" as the GOPs but then again I'm not getting a pony for Xmas.

hm

But at the same time, two moderate Republicans -- Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Susan Collins of Maine -- support holding hearings, giving Democrats confidence divisions are bound to grow in the GOP ranks once a nominee is proposed.

"We should take this process one step at a time as we always do under the regular order," Collins told CNN. "I would expect that there would be a hearing on a nominee when it's sent to us for our consideration... The hearing would help me make a better decision."

A Fox News poll released earlier this month found that registered voters favor Obama and Senate leaders to "take action to fill the vacancy now" by a margin of 62% to 34%. A Pew Research Center poll released Monday found a majority of Americans (56%) say the Senate should hold hearings and vote on Obama's choice to fill the vacancy, with 38% saying they should not hold hearings until the next president takes office.

having all of this happen right before a presidential election is going to make the political calculus constantly shift. At this particular moment, its in the GOP's interest to be obstructionist. That may not be the case in August or September.

"Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent," McConnell said. "In this case, the Senate will withhold it."

Yoo-hoo, Senator McConnell, sir! Just because one has the right to do something doesn't make it a good idea. Just sayin'.

wouldn't it be crazy if another justice died

like what would the R's do then

Smile broadly and obstruct, obstruct, obstruct!

be jerks about it

autopsy the body

Well, now there's an official, signed document! No backing down now!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb7M8WMWAAAXNO0.png

As Mordy says, demand an autopsy and foster mutterings that Obama killed them.

Actually another justice dying means no ties, so even less need to do anything than there is now. The court, they will say, can function just as well with seven as with nine justices; there's nothing magical about nine.

handing this issue to the Dems in an election year is a hilarious gift, if this is the hill they want to die on more power to them

by the way Sotomayor kicked ass yesterday:

By this point, the battle lines are clear. The court’s liberals think that Utah’s rule would give officers a new reason to stop anybody and run a warrant check: If a warrant turns up, the illegality of the initial stop will be dissolved, and the officer can search his arrestee. Thus, to deter this behavior, the court should refuse to extend the attenuation doctrine. The conservatives, on the other hand, doubt that officers target communities where people have lots of arrest warrants, and doubt that applying the exclusionary rule here would deter police misconduct.

This dispute leads to the most searing and uncomfortable moment of the morning. Alito attempts to ridicule Watt’s deterrence arguments by asking, “Do you think the judges in traffic courts are going to start issuing lots of warrants because they want to provide a basis for randomly stopping people?”

Watt starts to answer, but Sotomayor cuts in with a brutal joust.

“I’m very surprised,” she says acidly, “that Justice Alito doesn’t know that most of these warrants are automatic. If you don’t pay your fine within a certain amount of days, they’re issued virtually automatically.”

It is one of those knockout moments so ruthless that you aren’t sure whether to cringe or cheer. Sotomayor is essentially calling out Alito’s privilege—why would he know about corrupt, scammy, racist policing?—and Alito doesn’t even attempt to respond. Instead, he wears an embarrassed smirk throughout the remainder of arguments, appearing appropriately shamed.

Roberts' 5-4 majorities are gone for the next year. I suspect a slim possibility exists for an irritated Roberts telling McConnell at a cocktail party that he's tired of this shit, it's wearing him down, and we need a nominee.

yeah the politicking of the individual justices shouldn't be left out of the equation here, however hidden and inscrutable it can be

i would imagine it would bug the shit out of them to be stuck at 4-4, though maybe some votes will change because of it

wow that slate article gives me hope