So are we gonna talk about how he was staying for free at a property owned by someone who had a case appear before the court?

2/23/2016 6:57:46 PM

they have no other shot. they have to get a conservative judge. if they don't, they lose gerrymandering and without that, they will lose the house permanently.

2/23/2016 7:44:25 PM

yeah i truly wonder if gerrymandering is the sole reason that shit like Abortion is always at the top of the GOP agenda when polls consistently find that 81% of American believe women should be allowed to have abortions in at least "some" circumstances.

2/23/2016 8:06:45 PM

^^ wouldn't be permanent. America isn't going to be a 1-party country. the party would be meaningfully altered if gerrymandering went away, though.

2/23/2016 10:29:52 PM

The green party and libertarian party will rise up over the next 50 years as the debt and climate crises manifest themselves in ways that affect americans more directly.

There may still be a party called the "republican" party but the platform that exists today will be completely fringe when the baby boomers die.

[Edited on February 23, 2016 at 10:44 PM. Reason : k]

2/23/2016 10:43:19 PM

It's really hard to take this page seriously.

2/23/2016 11:07:08 PM

I was being serious

Why Justice Scalia was staying for free at a Texas resort
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/justice-scalias-death-and-questions-about-who-pays-for-supreme-court-justices-to-visit-remote-resorts/

2/24/2016 8:50:29 AM

kick-backs?

2/24/2016 11:01:33 AM

Where else would the Illuminati meet? Duh.

2/24/2016 1:23:21 PM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/24/scalia_reportedly_on_texas_hunting_trip_with_members_of_exclusive_austrian.html

2/25/2016 11:22:42 AM

Quote :

"Sen. Franken (D-MN): It is our duty to move forward. We must fulfill our constitutional obligation to ensure that the highest court in the land has a full complement of justices. Unfortunately, it would seem that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not agree—and they wasted no time in making known their objections. Less than an hour after news of Justice Scalia’s death became public, the Majority Leader announced that the Senate would not take up the business of considering a replacement until after the presidential election. Quote, “[t]he American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” he said. The only problem with the Majority Leader’s reasoning, M. PRESIDENT, is that the American people have spoken. Twice. President Barack Obama was elected and reelected by a solid majority of the American people who correctly understood that elections have consequences, not the least of which is that when a vacancy occurs, the President of United States has the constitutional responsibility to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not set a time limit on the President’s ability to fulfill this duty. Nor, by my reading, does the Constitution set a date after which the President is no longer able to fulfill his duties as Commander in Chief, or to exercise his authority to, say, grant pardons or make treaties. It merely states that the President shall hold office for a term of four years. And by my count, there are in the neighborhood of 11 months left. If we were to truly subscribe to the Majority Leader’s logic and extend it to the legislative branch, it would yield an absurd result. Senators would become ineffective in the last year of their term. The 28 senators who are now in the midst of their reelection campaigns and the 6 senators who are stepping down should be precluded from casting votes in committee or on the Senate floor. Ten committee chairs and 19 subcommittee chairs should pass the gavel to a colleague who is not currently running for reelection or preparing for retirement. Bill introduction, and indeed the cosponsorship of bills, should be limited to those senators who are not yet serving in the sixth year of their terms. If the Majority Leader sincerely believes that the only way to ensure that the voice of the American people is heard is to lop off the last year of an elected official’s term, I trust he will make these changes. But I suspect he does not. Rather, it seems to me that the Majority Leader believes that the term of just one elected official in particular should be cut short. Which begs the question, M. PRESIDENT, just how short should it be cut? As I said, by my count, approximately 11 months remain in Barack Obama’s presidency. 11. Now, 11 months is a considerable amount of time. Sizable. It has heft, to be sure, but I wouldn’t call it vast. Then again, there’s a certain arbitrariness to settling on 11 months. After all, it’s just shy of a full year. Perhaps, in order to simplify matters, an entire year would be preferable. Or maybe just six months—half a year. It’s a difficult decision, M. PRESIDENT. If only the American people had a voice in selecting precisely how much time we should shave off the President’s term. …. But M. PRESIDENT, suggesting that the Senate should refuse to consider a nominee during an election year stands as a cynical affront to our constitutional system—and it misrepresents our history. The Senate has a long tradition of working to confirm Supreme Court justices in election years. One need look no further than sitting Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Supreme Court nominee appointed by a Republican President and confirmed by a Democratic Senate in 1988, President Reagan’s last year in office. So when I hear one of my colleagues say that, quote “it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year,” I know that’s not true."

2/25/2016 12:30:50 PM

I'm really truly starting to wonder if most Republican politicians don't like Obama since he's Black?!?!?!?

2/26/2016 11:11:20 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/29/justice-thomas-asks-questions-in-court-1st-time-in-10-years.html

2/29/2016 1:51:15 PM

Any thoughts on whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would nominate a more liberal or conservative justice?

Clinton may actually be more conservative than she has appeared during the Democratic primary, and Trump may actually be more liberal than he has appeared during the Republican primary.

3/3/2016 11:08:45 AM

3/21/2016 2:26:26 PM

Yeah the true colors of the Republicans are coming out thanks to the SCOTUS nomination. They really are just a bunch of partisan hacks. I hope people don't really buy the "the people should have a choice in this by electing the new president first!" Well sorry dipshits the people made a choice when they voted in Obama in 2012.

3/21/2016 3:13:07 PM

I'm mostly interested to see how fast they about face after Hillary wins in November, and how they'll spin deciding to confirm Garland.

3/21/2016 4:20:56 PM

He wouldn't still be the nominee though right?

3/21/2016 4:27:53 PM

Obama has to withdraw in that lame-duck period, I think.

3/21/2016 4:41:25 PM

I'll laugh at the RePoutBlicans when Hillary puts a hard-core liberal (I don't really see her doing that since realistically she is very establishment and moderate) in the SCOTUS. You figured as grim as the GOP convention is looking they'd be attempting to negotiate a moderate candidate before they lose their leverage in the face of the Trump or Cruz ship crash and burning.

3/21/2016 5:32:09 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/grassley-calls-out-john-roberts-on-senate-floor-221607

So apparently John Roberts is the one who's being political because he doesn't rule on party lines and came out before Scalia died as criticizing how political the confirmation process has become?

Can someone please decode exactly what Grassley is trying to say here?

4/6/2016 1:47:46 PM

Another piece of gold from this speech:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/grassley-takes-aim-supreme-courts-chief-justice

Quote :

"In case after 5-4 case, the Justices the Democrats appointed vote for liberal policy results. This can’t be a coincidence. Democrat Presidents know what they want when they nominate Justices – Justices who will reach politically liberal results regardless of what the law requires."

So basically it's only the liberal justices who are being political when they vote for liberal things. Apparently when the conservative justices vote for republican things that's because they're doing their job correctly.

I know that's from MSNBC website, but the quote is direct from Grassley

4/7/2016 9:15:35 AM