Random Politics & Religion #00

Cruz is my guy, but trump looks pretty good too

Good luck America.

I will remind you that they were developed on G. W. Bush's watch. You know, the president who kept us safe.

Some legal experts claim Senate Republicans are exceeding their constitutional powers by refusing to hold a hearing on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

In a call with reporters, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, said Republicans’ decision not to hold a hearing, vote or even a meeting on the nominee is unprecedented.

“I can’t identify any other instance where a Senate Judiciary [Committee] has ever said it wouldn’t hold a hearing,” he said.

The call was organized by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a group often aligned with Democrats.

If Republicans follow through on blocking the nominee, the Supreme Court could be left with a vacancy until spring 2017. Even if the next president were to make a nomination on his or her first day in office, Chemerinsky said it takes time to hold a hearing, which means the seat could be left vacant for oral arguments in the majority of cases next term.

Edward Fallone, an associate professor of law at Marquette University Law School, called the Republican blockade an “unconstitutional power grab.”

The Constitution, he said, is clear: The role of the president is to appoint a nominee, and the role of the Senate is to provide advice and consent on the nominee.

By refusing to consider any nominee, Fallone claims the Senate is asserting a pre-nomination power that doesn't exist under the Constitution.

Senate Republicans have said they want to wait until after the election to give the American voters a chance to decide who replaces the late Justice Antonin Scalia, but the legal scholars on the call say the people have already decided.

“The people elected President Obama twice,” said Verna Williams, a Judge Joseph P. Kinneary professor of law at the University of Cincinnati College of Law. “And I dare say when they reelected him they knew what his judicial philosophy was.”

In a guest blog Wednesday on SCOTUSblog.com, President Obama said filling the open seat is not a job he takes lightly.

“It’s a decision to which I devote considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation and serious consultation with legal experts, members of both political parties and people across the political spectrum,” he said.

Obama said his nominee would have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity.

He said he’s also looking for "someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary’s role; who understands that a judge’s job is to interpret the law, not make the law."

“I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand,” he said.

Why? There are over a million registered voters in Nevada and this is low turnout for a primary for them. It's also a generally red state with more registered republicans...

So yeah... Once again we face nausi's ignorance head on!

Why you ask? Because it is unparalleled! Nevada is also not a Primary state it is a caucus! Which is a totally different beast, which you would know if you backread. I didn't even know this and was informed by a certain poster here.

Regardless, 75k people turned out for the Republicans 3X as many as ever before. The Democrats have never even broke 35k! Even when obama was running!

So.. yeah.. Maybe you should inform yourself before calling other people ignorant..

nevada has only been a caucus state for three presidential election cycles and democrat turnout has sucked in all three.

I would be happier about the republican turnout if I thought any of it had to do with republicans rather than "The Trump Effect"

Democrats have a history of not really showing up until the general election. Plus, there are only two Democratic candidates this time, who aren't nearly as divisive as the Republican candidates.

nevada has only been a caucus state for three presidential election cycles and democrat turnout has sucked in all three.

I would be happier about the republican turnout if I thought any of it had to do with republicans rather than "The Trump Effect"

Dem playbook 101

You can't be the racist if your the victim.
You can't be the victim if your the racist.

Do you think the Trump effect is bringing in people to vote for the other candidates? .

Don't ALWAYS look a gift horse in the mouth.

huh?

huh?

Democrats are the divisive ones, but they always mask it by playing victim.

"Stop calling me divisive you racist"

Dem playbook 101

You can't be the racist if your the victim.
You can't be the victim if your the racist.

Ok cool, but wtf does that have to do with the post you quoted?

you're*

I seriously hope you don't take yourself seriously.

Jeanpaul called the republicans divisive ( I bolded that part).

That's what liberals do, play victim by pointing any finger they can at the republicans. What do you think he means by "divisive"? He obviously means racist or sexist or homophobic, or xenophobic or some other "assaultive" class, by which democrats are the victim of.

C'mon, Pleebo, you're suppose to be the puppet master and understand how this works not just another puppet.