McConnell: NRA will give marching orders on SCOTUS nominee

[Scooter]

Mitch McConnell has let the cat out of the bag - it will be the NRA who dictates how Senate Republicans vote on SCOTUS nominees:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doubled down on his insistence that Republicans would not consider President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court this year. Even if it seems that the next president could pick someone the Republicans would like even less, McConnell is adamant his fellow party members won’t budge on Merrick Garland. "I can't imagine that a Republican-majority Congress, in a lame-duck session, after the American people have spoken would want to confirm a nominee opposed by the NRA, the NFIB and that the New York Times says would move the Court dramatically to the left," McConnell told CNN.

So much for the will of the people. For Republicans, the gun lobby will have a veto on any Supreme Court appointment. The Roman Catholic Church used to have such an arrangement with the Austrian Emperor when it came time to elect a new pope. It didn't always work out very well, and it's not a model that I would have imagined the world's oldest and greatest democracy would seek to follow.

[Gob]

"the world's oldest and greatest democracy"?

The UK didn't?

[Bicycle Bill]

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

When McConnell and the rest of the Obstructionists Republicans in Congress took their seats, they took the above oath of office in which they "swore or affirmed" that they would "... support and defend the Constitution of the United States ..." and that they would "... well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office ..." they were assuming.

It doesn't seem like they are doing it; so it is time for them to either step down or be removed for failure to perform their sworn duties.

I might also point out that Justice Scalia died on 13 February 2016. The next president of the United States, whoever he or she may be, will not be inaugurated until 20 January 2017, meaning that, if McConnell and his cronies have their way (and it appears as if they will) Scalia's seat on the SCOTUS will remain vacant for a minimum of 11 months. And since the new president cannot designate a nominee until then — a nominee who must then be questioned, investigated, and whatever else before a confirmation vote can be held by the Senate — this means that the seat will in all likelihood remain vacant throughout much of 2017 as well.  Putting it as succinctly as I can, this is unacceptable.

-"BB"-

[wesw]

opposing the 2nd amendment is disqualifying.

you must swear to uphold the constitution.

I m sorry that you don t approve of our constitution....

....maybe you should move to Canada.

oh, that s right, you are Canadian.

maybe you should just butt out.....

[Crackpot]

I was unaware that the NRA was part of the second amendment wes

[wesw]

I never mentioned the NRA, I was referring to judge garland s position on the 2nd amendment.

I believe that the NRA is a supporter of the 2nd amendment, so I suppose that mc connel s statement is logical and accurate.

I d guess that they are both my allies on this issue.

I m glad that they are listening to Us.

[Crackpot]

Then you can accurately convey judge Garlands position?

[Scooter]

Please provide a quotation (from a ruling or otherwise) from Merrick Garland in which he opposes the 2nd Amendment.









waiting









waiting









waiting









waiting









waiting









waiting









waiting









Didn't think so.

[wesw]

I have read that he was in opposition to the heller decision..., perhaps I was misinformed?

[Scooter]

He did not even sit on the panel that took up Heller when it went to the DC Circuit. Are you claiming he has made statements about the case outside of its hearing by that court?

[wesw]

actually, I have researched a bit by now, and I am aware of just what he did in regard to the heller decision, and I strongly suspect that you are aware of the details as well....

you seem to want to play cat and mouse tho.....

I would strongly advise mc Connell to just rip the damned band aid off.

he should line up his members, quickly.

he should advise Obama to nominate ted cruz... (that would be hilarious and uniting)

...then he should call an immediate up or down vote, WITHOUT hearings, and laugh all the way to November as Obama stews...

it would be quite Trumpian....

[Crackpot]

But you are strangely afraid to share it

[Sue U]

perhaps I was misinformed?

Pretty safe bet no matter the topic.

Merrick Garland somehow "opposing the 2nd Amendment" (which is a moronic conceptualization of "gun rights" to begin with) is an outright lie fabricated by the NRA and repeated by Bill O'Reilly and Fux Newz.

[BoSoxGal]

perhaps I was misinformed?

Pretty safe bet no matter the topic.

[wesw]

no. I just didn t want to play with scooter.

he apparently advised reviewing the case.

not much in and of itself, but that combined with the fact that he has been on Obama s short list for years, and the likely hood that anyone on that short list is likely not very gung-ho on the 2nd amendment , is enough for me to be fine with rejecting him out of hand.

sorry, but elections have consequences.

yay , mc Connell ! (I can t believe I just said that....)

[Crackpot]

via Imgflip Meme Maker

Something told me I should make this this morning.

[wesw]

(insert video of Full Monty, here....)

[Sue U]

Nearly seven and half years and no guns grabbed -- It's like he's not even trying!

not much in and of itself, but that combined with the fact that he has been on Obama s short list for years, and the likely hood that anyone on that short list is likely not very gung-ho on the 2nd amendment , is enough for me to be fine with rejecting him out of hand.

sorry, but elections have consequences.

So your opposition to Merrick Garland is solely because he is Obama's nominee -- not because you know jack shit about his judicial record, his temperament, his approach to decision-making, his standing among the federal judiciary or his own personal views on any topic at all.

And yeah elections have consequences: the American people elected Obama -- twice -- to the office that the Constitution grants the power to appoint the justices of the Supreme Court. And the Republicans -- led by Mitch McConnell -- are doing everything they can to thwart the operation of the Constitution and to avoid doing their actual jobs.

You fancy yourself an "independent thinker," wesw, but you are neither. You are perfectly willing to spout the most stupid hypocrisy you "heard somewhere," cognitive dissonance be damned! Pavlov couldn't have had a dog better trained than you.

[Scooter]

I can tell any big fat lie I want to, and when called on it I will be a snivelling coward and refuse to own up to it.

FTFY.

[Bicycle Bill]

perhaps I was misinformed?

Pretty safe bet no matter the topic.

Me too.

-"BB"-