Type to search

Obama Scolds Senate Republicans For Supreme Court Threat

Featured Post Headlines National News

Obama Scolds Senate Republicans For Supreme Court Threat

Share
U.S. President Barack Obama looks up during the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage

RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif. (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

“The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now,” Obama, a former constitutional law professor, told a news conference at the close of a two-day meeting with leaders from Southeast Asia.

In Washington, Scalia’s chair in the court’s ornate chamber was draped with black wool crepe in accordance with court tradition following a justice’s death.

The court said Scalia’s body will lie in repose at the Supreme Court building on Friday before his funeral Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington on Saturday.

Obama’s nominee could shift the balance of power on the court, which had five conservatives and four liberals before Scalia’s death.

The president said he understood the high stakes for Republican senators under pressure to vote against his pick for the lifetime appointment, who conceivably would be the deciding vote in cases where the court is split.

‘Venom’ and ‘Rancor’

Obama said the “venom and rancor in Washington” has led to the Senate routinely blocking his nominations for lower courts and other posts but said the Supreme Court is too important to get trapped in political gridlock.

“It’s the one court where we would expect elected officials to rise above day-to-day politics,” he said.

But Republicans have pointed out that Obama and members of his cabinet, who were then in the Senate, were not above trying to block the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Samuel Alito by then-President George W. Bush in 2006.

“While he complained about filibusters today, he joined filibusters while in the Senate,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Asked about his record, Obama acknowledged Democrats have played politics with nominations, too, through what he described as “strategic decisions” that ultimately did not block the president’s nominee.

“But what is also true is Justice Alito is on the bench right now,” Obama said.

Obama’s Strategy

Obama shed little light on whom he would choose or how the White House will try to finesse his choice through Congress.

“We’re going to find somebody who is an outstanding legal mind, somebody who cares deeply about our democracy and cares about rule of law,” Obama said.

“I’m going to present somebody who indisputably is qualified for the seat, and any fair-minded person, even somebody who disagrees with my politics, would say would serve with honor and integrity on the court,” he added.

Asked directly if that meant he would choose a moderate candidate, Obama said, “No.”

He said there was “more than enough time” for the Senate to hold hearings and vote on his nominee without the White House needing to resort to a procedure known as a recess appointment to get around the Senate when it is not in session.

But he did not explicitly rule out a recess appointment.

Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, whose panel weighs Supreme Court nominations, said on Tuesday he will wait until Obama names his pick to fill the vacancy before deciding whether to hold confirmation hearings.

Grassley has offered mixed messages since Scalia’s death on how the Senate should proceed on the vacancy, alternating hardline views on blocking any nominee with comments not ruling out hearings.

“I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions” about confirmation hearings, Grassley said, according to Radio Iowa. “In other words, take it a step at a time.”

 

(Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley, Richard Cowan, Ayesha Rascoe, Julia Edwards and Doina Chiacu; Writing by Will Dunham and Roberta Rampton; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama looks up during the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations  (ASEAN) summit at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California February 15, 2016.  REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque 

Tags:

137 Comments

  1. Lynda Groom February 17, 2016

    The stark contrast between our President and his critics in in full focus. We are going to miss his intellect no matter who takes the upcoming election. At least it won’t be any of those Senator’s who are so willing to ignore their Constitutional responsibilities.

    Reply
    1. itsfun February 17, 2016

      Their Constitutional responsibility is to accept or not accept the nominee, not to rubber stamp the nominee.

      Reply
      1. Marv Nochowitz February 17, 2016

        If the nominee has no criminal charges and is qualified, the Senate is to approve the presidents choice. The president picks the judge not the Senate.

        Reply
        1. itsfun February 17, 2016

          The Senate has to approve. The Senate is NOT Constitutionally ordered to approve any nominee.

          Reply
        2. paulyz February 17, 2016

          It is up to Congress to ENSURE any Supreme Court nominee strictly enforces our Constitution, not Legislate from the bench. The Republican Party has accepted more Democrat choices than visa-versa.

          Reply
          1. pisces63 February 17, 2016

            They have always legislated from the bench. They have made decisions tantamount to social network. When it was ‘popular’, Dred Scott was fine. When public opinion changed, it was wrong. It was fine to have segregation, separate but equal and then, gasp, public opinion changed, again and it was not. It was fine to forcibly sterilize the mentally challenged in a Virginia mental institution but I bet not now!! I can name you any number of flip flops that had NOTHING to do with constitutionality but what was popular, including recent 2nd amendment delusions. They had no qualms about messing with my voting rights since it is now the to do thing by republicans. Remember something, it has nothing to do with party but ideology. He could pick a republican more liberal than a chosen democrat. I am a democrat and I can be very conservative when it comes to personal responsibilities but vote for one of you? If I see one of you in the gutter, I will throw a barbecue!!

            Reply
          2. paulyz February 17, 2016

            Carrying a big chip on your shoulder? Whatever happened in the past doesn’t mean we have to continue ignoring our Constitution. And it was the Democrat Party guilty of most of your anger. If you are really a person of personal responsibility then voting for more Democrat dependency will get you nowhere.

            Reply
          3. pisces63 February 17, 2016

            What chip? What did they give me and what am I dependent on?

            Reply
          4. dpaano February 17, 2016

            Why, they don’t want to enforce the Constitution, which clearly says THIS president has the authority to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice no matter whether or not he’s in his last year or not.

            Reply
          5. paulyz February 17, 2016

            Check out the times Democrats blocked Republican nominees. Besides, the President can appoint someone, but it is the Congress that either approves or disapproves.

            Reply
        3. itsfun February 17, 2016

          cut and pasted from the Constitution. You will see he has to power to appoint Supreme Court judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. Sooo the Senate has to approve all nominees.

          Section 2

          1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of
          the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the
          several States, when called into the actual Service of the United
          States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal
          Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject
          relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall
          have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against
          the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

          2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of
          the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
          present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice
          and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other
          public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and
          all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
          not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established
          by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such
          inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone,
          in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

          3:
          The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies
          that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting
          Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

          Reply
      2. pmbalele February 17, 2016

        After all Repubs and TPs are responsible for Scalia death. Why did they separate him from his wife, body -guards and friends with whom he was partying with? And then this moron Poindexter went there the first time knocked at his door and did not hear thing; but he failed to vet why there was no response. It is when he and his friends went back and found him with a pillow on his head and under his head. I do not believe he died of natural cause. There is something fishy Poindexter and Scalia’s family do not want us to know; especially they did not want an autopsy conducted. Why! Forensic investigators should be appointed to see what really happened to this smart lawyer. How much life insurance did Scalia carry and who is benefiting. Please do not bury Scalia until Forensic experts have examined the body and place. I do not trust the people who were around him the evening before his death. I am told they were Repubs and TPs. They love money than fellow Americans. I just do not trust Repubs and TPs especially those in Texas.

        Reply
        1. itsfun February 17, 2016

          Because you don’t believe he died of natural causes makes it true! What do Republicans have to gain? If they wanted him out of the way, they just had to wait until the next election to do away with him. He was a conservative not a liberal. The liberals are the ones to gain something. The people that hate the 2nd amendment would gain for their political cause also. Not every thing is a conspiracy.

          Reply
          1. pmbalele February 17, 2016

            Do not forget Repubs and TPs are hypocrites. They will tell you something before you; but behind the scene they act differently. They fake conservatives and family value people but they divorce more, cheat more and are always in prison for stealing government money or for bribes. I just do not trust Repubs and TPs especially those from Texas. No Democrat or liberal was at the ranch. Repubs should be held accountable.

            Reply
          2. itsfun February 17, 2016

            How would you know that Republicans divorce more than Democrats? Being hypocritical is not unique to Republicans. The Democrat party has hypocrites too. How do you feel about Bill Clinton dedication to his family after several reported extramarital affairs? You don’ know or have any idea on what people do beyond the eye of the public. How do you know that a Democrat didn’t sneak into the ranch and kill the man? Should Republicans be held responsible for all the deaths in the world also? You don’t have to trust Republicans anymore than I trust Hillary or Obama.

            Reply
          3. dpaano February 17, 2016

            “Alleged” extramarital affairs.

            Reply
          4. itsfun February 17, 2016

            like the alleged blue dress

            Reply
          5. dpaano February 17, 2016

            For once, you said something that makes sense….amazing! Thank you!

            Reply
          6. Paul Bass February 17, 2016

            I looked out my window, and pigs were flying! 😉

            Reply
          7. dpaano February 17, 2016

            They flew by my window too!!!!

            Reply
        2. dpaano February 17, 2016

          Unfortunately, that’s not the way it works in Texas…..you may want to think about that. As for his family, they have the say in whether or not they want an autopsy done, and they do not. Scalia suffered from heart problems, obesity, high blood pressure, and a few other things, PLUS he was 80 years old!!

          Reply
          1. pmbalele February 17, 2016

            They are lying to you – not to me. Scalia was a federal figure-no Texas jurisdiction should play in the investigation.

            Reply
          2. dpaano February 17, 2016

            Unfortunately, the fact that he’s a Federal judge has NOTHING to do with it…..he died in Texas and they have the jurisdiction. By the way, have you adjusted your tin hat today??? Seriously?

            Reply
          3. pmbalele February 17, 2016

            Would please cite authority to your argument. When President Kennedy died, federal investigators were involved from the start to the end. Local or state officials simply helped. This is the same with Scalia. I will keep this issue alive and report to you Ms. None-believer.

            Reply
          4. dpaano February 17, 2016

            The President of the United States is NOT a Supreme Court Judge…..he is an elected president. Scalia is only a Supreme Court judge, and he’s not elected by the people. There’s a BIG difference! Again, adjust your tin hat, please!!!

            Reply
          5. pmbalele February 17, 2016

            Did you really say “Scalia was only a federal Supreme Court judge! This White male decisions was affecting lives of Blacks, poor White males and poor White females in the whole country. You must be rich and Repub or TP not to appreciate how powerful this White male was. He denied you as woman to have rights to decide for your body. You must lazy woman. I believe you obey your husband decisions whether you like it or not. Federal investigator should be involved in Scalia dearth.

            Reply
        3. Paul Bass February 17, 2016

          Can’t do an autopsy, it would show too much coke and alcohol in his system.

          Reply
          1. Zengo February 17, 2016

            Made me laugh!

            Reply
      3. Lynda Groom February 17, 2016

        Exactly, which is why this declaration that the Senate will not even consider anyone is so childish and counter-productive. Are they really afraid to hold hearings, cast an up or down vote and take responsibility for their actions?

        Reply
        1. itsfun February 17, 2016

          Nope, It may be as simple as what comes around goes around. Remember the nuclear option used to get obamacare passed?

          Reply
          1. Lynda Groom February 17, 2016

            Indeed it was used to shut off debate and move to the floor for a vote, not actually pass the bill. Yeah I know I’m using semantics here, but its more accurate that way.

            Don’t forget that VP Richard Nixon back in 1957 wrote the opinion which concluded that the Constitution of the United States granted the presiding officer the authority to overturn Senate rules.

            A more complet explanation is contained in ‘Changing Senate Rules: The ‘Constitution” or ‘Nulclear Option.’ Thats from the Congressional Research Service Rep;rot no RL32684, April 5, 2005 page CR5-4.

            Reply
          2. itsfun February 18, 2016

            What is does is not allow one Senator to filibusterer, because under normal rules it takes 60 Senate votes to stop a filibusterer. This is what dirty Harry used to get the obamacare tax law passed.

            Reply
          3. Lynda Groom February 18, 2016

            That is the point of my previous post.

            Reply
    2. plc97477 February 17, 2016

      If they continue to make a mockery of our government, it probably won’t be anyone on the right. They don’t seem to notice they are being watched.

      Reply
  2. ralphkr February 17, 2016

    The best tactic in my opinion is for President Obama to appoint a very liberal justice to SCOTUS when the Senate is in recess to temporarily fill the seat until a permanent nominee is accepted. This shall put a great deal of pressure the Senate to then accept a more moderate nominee to get the liberal off the bench. A temporary appointee shall serve until a permanent one arrives to fill the seat which means that if the next president is Democratic and the next Senate is still “true Christian patriotic” Republicans then that “temporary” appointment could last for years.

    Reply
    1. Otto Greif February 17, 2016

      A recess appointment would only serve until the following Senate session.

      Reply
      1. itsfun February 17, 2016

        You sure on that? I think I read the recess appointment was good until his term was over.

        Reply
        1. Otto Greif February 17, 2016

          That’s what I’ve heard:

          “The presidential authority at issue in this possible scenario exists, according to Article II, when the Senate has gone into recess and the vacancy a president seeks to fill remains. Such an appointment requires no action at all by the Senate, but the appointee can only serve until the end of the following Senate session. The president (if still in office) can then try again during a new Senate session, by making a new nomination, and that must be reviewed by the Senate.”

          http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/

          Reply
          1. itsfun February 17, 2016

            Thanks Otto

            Reply
          2. Otto Greif February 17, 2016

            You’re welcome.

            Reply
  3. paulyz February 17, 2016

    What goes around, comes around. Like Obama said, “Elections have consequences”. Obama’s policies were thoroughly rejected as we have seen when the Democrats lost historic numbers of Congressional seats in 2014. Obama himself rejected all the Republican choices when he was a Senator, & Schumer opposed President Bush’s choices when he had 18 months left in his Presidency.

    Like I said before, when Liberals jump for joy with leftist policies, they will have it come back to bite them as well. By Democrats being devisive, it just leads to more divisiveness.

    Reply
    1. Eleanore Whitaker February 17, 2016

      The next Republican president has not been born yet…You must have missed all the bad press of your control freak CONmen…or else like all CONs your are deliberately catatonic.

      Reply
    2. bobnstuff February 17, 2016

      Are you talking about the election that no one voted in. The one that you only needed 14% of the voters to win. There is only a mandate if people vote. There is a deference between delaying and blocking. Delaying the vote by less then a week is a little different then delaying it by a year.

      Reply
      1. paulyz February 17, 2016

        ALWAYS excuses for failures, just like your idol Obama.

        Reply
        1. bobnstuff February 17, 2016

          If the country is as bad as you would like everyone to believe why did no one show up to complain and make sure things changed. Things just aren’t that bad. No one really cared. Even the conservatives didn’t show up in big numbers so even they really didn’t care. As far as delaying the conformation, Obama is the President, he was elected and was given the power to run the country by the people. He gets to pick and if the republicans try to block it for a year they will pay the price. History and the constitution are on his side.

          Reply
          1. paulyz February 18, 2016

            Blocking another outright Liberal to the Supreme Court will be good for our Liberty, and having a Government that most Americans want.

            Reply
          2. bobnstuff February 18, 2016

            If I recall wasn’t Obama elected President twice. Blocking the nomination before a name has even been put forth is not how a democracy is suppose to work. This is not good for Liberty. There is suppose to be open debate once a name has been put forth and then a vote so people can see just where the congress stands. That’s democracy. That’s what the constitution calls for and how our country was set up. Pauly you do like to say the most Un-American things while pretending to support our country.

            Reply
          3. paulyz February 18, 2016

            You quickly forget Obama’s disapproval by the majority of the American People don’t you, how convenient. Why Democrats lost HISTORIC numbers of politicians in the mid-term elections. Obama has already shown his contempt for our Republic by transforming it any chance he gets, Constitution or not.

            Reply
          4. bobnstuff February 18, 2016

            Once again you know nothing but think you do. Obama’s approval is as good as most presidents at the end of their term and better then most of the republicans at this point. What was the turn out for the mid-terms? A record low!
            http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

            Reply
          5. paulyz February 18, 2016

            Could the record low be because MILLIONS of Obama followers found out he’s full of it? They certainly aren’t very enthusiastic like when they first fell for his BS.

            Reply
          6. bobnstuff February 18, 2016

            Explain why the Millions of conservatives didn’t show up. maybe thing were good and they didn’t feel a need to vote, or maybe all the conservatives showed up and it’s just that there aren’t that many of them.

            Reply
          7. paulyz February 19, 2016

            Apparently plenty showed up since the Democrat/Socialists lost in Historic Numbers! You don’t even make sense.

            Reply
          8. bobnstuff February 19, 2016

            https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s2KkvXl4kY6UvC47bksgsJ5kZPoFtdL4L5Roqb0bTJI/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=2072563414
            Lowest turnout in history. No one cared. Once again you are clueless. Facts just aren’t your strong suit.

            Reply
          9. paulyz February 20, 2016

            Outcome the same whatever you believe, the Democrat-Socialists lost BIG-TIME!

            Reply
    3. bobnstuff February 17, 2016

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito_Supreme_Court_nomination.

      Read the facts and then talk about how the nasty Democrats block the vote.

      Reply
      1. paulyz February 18, 2016

        So what, Bush had 3 years remaining as President. There are other cases of Democrats blocking Republican nominees, like Bork & others.

        Reply
        1. bobnstuff February 18, 2016

          Read the facts and the events, You are totally uninformed about things. The Congress did there job back then and followed the constitution. When the Democrats objected to a nominee it was to the person not to the presidents right to nominate them. Reagan know going into it that Bork was going to be shot down. Even then they still had the hearings on him. The republicans didn’t even fight for him after they know what he stood for. In the Senate vote two republicans voted against him. The main thing is he got a vote. So can you name any nominations that the Democrats did not allow a vote on? Can you name a time when they said that no matter what they wouldn’t at least talk about a nominee? You seen to be a little weak on your facts once again.

          Reply
          1. paulyz February 18, 2016

            Yeah, Chuck Schumer vowing to stop any of Bush’s picks, and of course Bork. Nobody said Obama couldn’t pick soneobe, they just don’t have to approve it, Dummy.

            Reply
          2. bobnstuff February 18, 2016

            You do know that Bork wasn’t a Bush nominee. No one said they were going to block all Bush’s nominations they block them after they were nominated and non were SC nominations. Read your history. Dummy!

            Reply
          3. paulyz February 18, 2016

            Bork was a Reagan appointee, and Schumer vowed to stop Bush’s picks, Dummy. Can’t you come up with your own intolerant, Liberal word, have to copy mine? LMAO.

            Reply
          4. paulyz February 18, 2016

            And Obama himself stating he will oppose any of Bush’s picks. Are you that biased?

            Reply
          5. bobnstuff February 18, 2016

            I looked and could find no proof of Obama ever saying that so unless you can give a link I call it BS.

            Reply
          6. paulyz February 18, 2016

            You sure didn’t look far did you? Check out what Obama said about Bush’s Supreme Court pics when he was a Senator. You’re BS.

            Reply
          7. paulyz February 19, 2016

            Always do, but Socialists like you just can’t accept it.

            Reply
          8. bobnstuff February 19, 2016

            Right you use facts, false and untrue ones. There is another name for your “facts” they are called lies. Even calling me a socialist, funny. I’m afraid the socialists might not believe it since I have owned four companies and am about as capitalistic as they come. Sorry brown eyes but once again you show up with an empty bag.

            Reply
          9. paulyz February 20, 2016

            “Have” owned 4 companies? Must be government backed companies since a Socialist like you could never be a real Capitalist.

            Reply
          10. bobnstuff February 20, 2016

            Since I’m not a socialist I did pretty well, made the front page of the WSJ once, got to be a speaker at my industries largest trade show and taught at my local community college. I have also held elected office in my local Republican party. I have created hundreds of jobs and been active in my community. I don’t think you even understand what a capitalist is let alone a socialist.

            Reply
          11. paulyz February 20, 2016

            Hard to imagine after listening to all of your Liberal comments.

            Reply
          12. bobnstuff February 20, 2016

            I only point out facts, they are not liberal or conservative in them selves just information based on history and actions. It’s you that must put labels on things. You have a habit of seeing thing with the labels that others put on them and only see the label and not the truth. You have called Hillary a socialist when in fact she’s a moderate. Wall St. is behind her as is some of the biggest companies in the country. For a socialist she sure rubs shoulders with a bunch of capitalists.

            Reply
          13. paulyz February 21, 2016

            Hillary is certainly no moderate, she, like Obama, talks a moderate game, but their ultimate goal has always been Socialism. I only need to look at both of their life histories, associations, & policies to understand that.

            Reply
          14. bobnstuff February 21, 2016

            If Obama’s goal is socialism then he sure is missing his goal. Name one thing that is socialistic The ACA is run by private insurance not public. As far a Hillary goes just what socialist association are you talking about. The most capitalistic groups in the world are supporting her. She has Wall St. and Walmart behind her. I’m afraid you don’t even know what socialism is but trust me Walmart sure isn’t it.

            Reply
          15. paulyz February 22, 2016

            Obamacare restricts what care people have, and isn’t based on the free market, getting subsidies from the Federal Government. Another Big Federal Government program, that is getting more costly and unaffordable every year. $716 Billion was taken from Medicare for Obamacare, plus another $500 Billion in NEW taxes, has Medicaid/Medicare involvement, & is forced on everyone. Many Americans lost their private insurance because of Obamacare, & many Illegal Alien Trespassers are even included in it. I’d call that Socialism.

            Reply
          16. bobnstuff February 22, 2016

            You do need to get your facts straight, the $716 Billion did not go into the ACA it went to fix the hole in Medicare Part D that was passed in 2005. 17 millions Americans got health insurance for the first time because of the ACA. I don’t think you understand what not having insurance means but the one largest causes for bankruptcy in the US is medical bills. No one lost insurance they just had to change there provider and get real insurance that covered something. You have this thing about Illegals getting government services. You must have an social security card to sign up for the ACA. Most of the restrictions are on the insurance companies which is why their paid for congressmen are fighting it. They can’t sell junk policies any more, they can’t drop you because you got sick, they can only make 20% profit. Do you know what socialism is?

            so·cial·ism
            ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm
            Simple Definition of socialism
            : a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

            Reply
          17. paulyz February 23, 2016

            Haven’t you bothered to keep up with the recent news? Tens of Thousands of Illegals were discovered receiving Obamacare. If a Republican took one nickel from Medicare, or even talks about saving S.S. by younger Americans having a choice in it, Liberals like yourself scream about “the wealthy” taking over, but ignore “the government ” actually taking it. Socialism starts by the Federal Government taking over more & more private functions, & they use regulations or forced compliance as is the case in Obamacare, or taxes to accomplish it. There are still many without healthcare, because the premiums & co-pays are skyrocketing

            Reply
          18. bobnstuff February 23, 2016

            What private functions have the government taken over? I guess you must have just landed on this planet since you don’t remember how much insurance rates were climbing before the ACA. I remember when there was a push to put SS into the stock market but then the market crashed and no one seemed interested. Now the market is back and everyone who say the President is doing a bad job on the economy want to jump right into the market. I will bet you don’t even know what percentage of Americans are involved with the ACA. Tens of thousands cheating the government, what percentage of the people that have gain by the act is that? less then 1%. Private insurance companies would love to have that small a cheat percentage. The last number I heard was 6% of all claims are false. I wish the government would have taken over the health insurance industry, right now we pay private companies 20% to do the job the government does for under 9%.

            Reply
          19. paulyz February 23, 2016

            ……..(Under Obamacare) tablet quit.

            Reply
          20. paulyz February 21, 2016

            Who do you want to see elected President? If you are a Republican capitalist as you say, I am curious.

            Reply
          21. bobnstuff February 21, 2016

            Kasich, he is the only one running that understands how government works. He also knows what it means to work for a living. He didn’t have a silver spoon at birth and can work with both sides. He might just be able to get the government back on track. That being said he doesn’t stand a chance.

            Reply
          22. paulyz February 21, 2016

            Under normal times, I could see a Governor & Congressman like Kasich, he’s a common sense, reasonable guy. The problem Millions see with another politician, will be business as usual. As far Left as our Country has gone, Millions believe it will take a forceful, non-politician like Trump to actually turn our Country in the right direction. I do like Kasich more than Rubio, or Bush though.

            Reply
          23. bobnstuff February 21, 2016

            You keep saying the country is going left but it really isn’t. If anything it’s going no where and that’s the problem. As long as we have a war going on in congress you are dead in the water. Trump would be worse the Obama, no one will work with him. We need some one who can put the country together , Trump can’t even put the party together. Cruz has the same problem.

            Reply
          24. paulyz February 21, 2016

            Of course the Country is and has been going Left. The reason so many people voted for Obama, & now even an avowed Socialist, Bernie Sanders, is because of more deficit spending “promising” things to so many groups. The Democrat Party has dozens of Socialists in their Party. Even though our National Debt will grow to $21 Trillion with nothing to show for it but more poverty, unemployment, & food stamps, while S.S. & Medicare are going deeper into the red. Many voters don’t have a clue because they buy into the class-warfare, blaming all of our problems on the wealth of others.

            If Kasich doesn’t rise soon in upcoming primaries, he won’t matter. Then who?

            Reply
          25. bobnstuff February 21, 2016

            Funny thing when the Democrats are in power spending goes down and taxes go up. When the Republicans are in power spending goes up and taxes go down. It’s a fact you can look up. S.S. isn’t in the red and spending on unemployment has gone down in the last few years as have food stamp use. They had gone up because someone tanked the economy. If you want to understand why there is more poverty look at where the people who work for a living get their money from, I will give you a clue it’s not the government or shouldn’t be. What ever happened to the idea of a far days pay for a far days work. What makes a corporate president worth 5,000 time that of his workers? There was a time not that long ago that companies cared about their workers welfare but now it all about stock value. Henry Ford thought his workers should make enough to buy the cars he was making. One of the greatest times of corporate growth was in the 1950’s and the top tax rate was 90%. Companies reinvested in the company and production instead of in CEO’s wages and in stock buy backs. Investors reward CEO’s for sending production over seas and we let them get away with it. A good capitalist builds a strong company that makes a return on it’s investments and stock prices are based on dividends. It’s not our labor costs that are sending jobs over seas it’s the need for short term profits. It’s cheaper up front to let someone else build the factories and just be a middle man. In the long run it’s a mistake, the company doesn’t control production or quality. They also have long supply lines and can’t go with market trends. So yes you can blame the problems on the wealthy and the MBA programs across the country.

            People don’t want hand outs they want to be paid a fair wage. One other little point Food stamp are a very small part of the budget and We pay more in corporate welfare then in welfare to the poor. Now if you truly believe that we need to cut spending you must look at the largest part, Military spending. If you cut defense spending by 10% it would be the same as if you got rid of welfare totally.

            Reply
          26. paulyz February 22, 2016

            Obama, like Clinton and most Democrats, always cut Defense first, to get easy revenue for votes, promising stuff for the masses. Then we get deeper into debt anyway, while poverty continues, as well as loss of jobs going overseas because of excessive regulations & the highest Corporate Taxes in the World, making them unable to comoete. On top of that, Democrats allow excessive unskilled Illegal Alien Trespassers into our Country, causing even more unemployment, poverty & illiteracy.

            Reply
          27. paulyz February 22, 2016

            Many of our problems are caused by a Congress that has gone along with Obama, but when they don’t, Obama just uses Executive Orders to get what “HE” deems we need. When a President doesn’t listen to The People, I want “representatives” that do, & oppose it.

            Reply
          28. bobnstuff February 22, 2016

            The President is not listening to Fox News, they are not the voice of the people. He is not listening to Glenn Beck, he is not the voice of the people. He is not listening to the far right since they are not the main stream. You know that main stream media you are complaining about, they represent the voice of main stream Americans. Obama has used EO’s less then most presidents, look it up if you don’t believe me. You may remember that the President won election twice so I think that means more Americans support his views then the view of the far right.

            Reply
          29. paulyz February 23, 2016

            The point is: Not any more the People don’t. Again, that is why the Republicans won historically record numbers in 2014, why the Democrat-Socialist Party suffered huge defeats, why Trump is so popular. Americans by the Millions seen what a completely wrong, Leftist direction the Democrat-Socialists under Obama took them.

            Reply
          30. bobnstuff February 23, 2016

            Trumps big win in SC, 20% voter turn out and he got less then a third of the votes so 6% of the voters voted for him. 2014 lowest voter turn out on record so where is you mandate. No one cared enough to show up, it doesn’t mean the right won it means no one cares.

            Reply
          31. paulyz February 23, 2016

            And the turnout for you Democrat-Socialists is lower!

            Reply
          32. bobnstuff February 23, 2016

            Democrats never come out in numbers for the mid terms. It’s the gerrymandering that helps the fasist-republican party in those elections.

            Reply
          33. paulyz February 24, 2016

            Try following American History for a change. So typical of corrupt Democrats rigging our government to their liking, then screaming when it comes back to bite them in the ass. The term gerrymandering started with the original Democrat Party by Elbridge Gerry, trying to expand congressional districts by drastically changing their boundaries to beat The Federalists.

            In other words, what goes around, comes around, when you mess with Liberty, it comes back to bite you in the ass, like the nuclear option may, and the Supreme Court pick now. LMAO.

            Reply
          34. paulyz February 19, 2016

            Right here Dummy, do I have to do everything for you?
            White House: Obama ‘regrets’ his filibuster of Supreme …

            Reply
          35. bobnstuff February 19, 2016

            Facts count you have non so you don’t count. I have given you links to the facts you have given me BS. The big filibuster that never really happened. A whole six days delay. You are so weak on facts as always. Obama wasn’t in the lead on the action and only supported his party.

            Reply
          36. paulyz February 19, 2016

            2007: Democrat vows to block Bush Supreme Court nominee
            Flashback: Obama Tried to Filibuster Bush’s Supreme Court …

            Reply
          37. bobnstuff February 19, 2016

            First you didn’t do any fact checking and second what you are saying is it’s OK for the Democrats to block all appointments by a Republican president. The Democrats never said they were going to block all of Bush’s nominations unlike the Republicans saying over and over that they would stop every actions of the President that they could. Are you going to give the Democrats a pass if they block the next president if by some wild chance the republicans get elected. I think your eyes must be brown.

            Reply
          38. paulyz February 20, 2016

            The Democrats surely will block any Conservative pick, maybe even a Moderate pick, when either Trump or Cruz is President. My eyes are green, yours are a yellowish / brown mix.

            Reply
          39. bobnstuff February 20, 2016

            Trump will make sure Hillary wins. Cruz voters will never vote for Trump once he is done and Trump voters will never vote for Cruz. If trump isn’t the nominee he will run as a third party. We will have a Democrat either way. Thank Trump for that.

            Reply
          40. paulyz February 24, 2016

            And you tried to pass yourself off as a Republican in other posts. What a complete phony!

            Reply
          41. bobnstuff February 24, 2016

            I’m a realist. Trump attacks the very heart of who Ted Cruz is, do you see his followers say it’s all right? Trump will run on a third party ticket if the republicans don’t nominate him. Either way the party looses. Any way you look at it Trump is destroying the party and Cruz is helping.

            Reply
        2. bobnstuff February 18, 2016

          The Republicans have blocked President Obama’s nominations more then all others presidents combined.

          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/

          Reply
          1. paulyz February 18, 2016

            They approved his two Liberal picks didn’t they? What idiocy.

            Reply
          2. bobnstuff February 18, 2016

            They blocked over 86 nominees, another record for the republicans in congress.

            Reply
  4. Eleanore Whitaker February 17, 2016

    The spiteful, childish Republican CONmen “act as if” to play the ONLY ruling government in the country. The South Shall Rise Again..sure …on our tax dollars…McConnell swaggers and drawl like the good ole good ole Mutton Chops Confederate President he thinks he is with Paul Corn Pone King Ryan lording it over the House of Reps as if the election is already over.

    Men in the US today are in for a huge awakening if they think this Bully Boy BS is going to get them ultimate power. That really is ALL they care about. Why else would the snot mosed middle aged punks like Ryan, Cruz, Rubio, JEB and the rest of the spiteful little boys forget that being a politician means showing the entire country some sense of common decency?

    Not these middle aged brats…they grew up with everything put right into the palms of their hands..So that which they cannot control reads like “It isn’t the kill. It’s the thrill of the chase.” And what they chase most? Embarrassing this President of the US.

    These middle aged moron men think seniors will vote for another Republican? Think again Bully boys….And since Boomers are the lion’s share of voters..oh gee…you are outclassed yet again. So..here’s what you do..get on your little tricycles and ride off into your sandboxes where you can play pretend battle like Cruz and Rubio are doing but you’ll do it without tax dollars paying for it.

    2016….the year the CONmen billionaires crash for overspending to buy a government only these control freaks ever thought they could own.

    Reply
    1. Paul Bass February 17, 2016

      Right on Eleanore, though I’d use a little less misandry, because not all of us old white men are GOP, some have been YDL for years, and proud of it! You have a fantastic day!

      Reply
  5. Eleanore Whitaker February 17, 2016

    Reagan appionted the Mafiosi Scalia capo di capo…and Bush appointed Roberts and Alito…but how dare THIS president do the same? The Senate’s only job is to approve the appointees…According to the US Constitution, this President and ONLY this president gets to make the appointment…so bully boys…eat your spiteful little hearts out.

    Reply
    1. paulyz February 17, 2016

      Obama can appoint who he wants, but the Congress has the Constitutional authority to decide. That is one more of our Separation of Powers, not putting too much power in just one man, or woman. Congress has hundreds of representatives from all the States. As for Roberts, he helped give us Obamacare. The Democrats blocked Bork, but the Republicans approved all the Liberals on the Supreme Court.

      Reply
      1. Eleanore Whitaker February 17, 2016

        Nice try Power freak…But, the ONLY duty of the Senate is to vet and approve the appointee the PRESIDENT CHOOSES. Oooooh and don’t you hate that. And, if the CONmen power freaks refuse to do their job…the president has the Constitutional right to make a recess appointment …ooooooh and don’t you hate that?

        Roberts was a Bush appointee for one reason only. His record as a judge here in NJ was that he overwhelmingly voted always in favor or corporations. Don’t tell me what I know about the two Princetonians…Alito and Roberts…two little rich boys of privilege.

        The Separations of Powers doesn’t allow the Senate to refuse a president his right to make an appointment whether you control freaks like that or not.

        The Dems blocked Bork because Bork was totally anti-union. That’s why he was blocked. In light of the total takeover of the US government under Republicans who called for “smaller government” parceled out to corporations who are also campaign donors, it would seem that now the Republicans are planning to “bork” the SC appointees en masse.

        Reply
        1. paulyz February 17, 2016

          And the Republicans can block Obama’s Socialist picks as well as the Democrats blocked qualified Republican picks. Check out U.S. History, Congress has withheld confirmation many times, and they can support or oppose any nominee they want.

          Reply
      2. pisces63 February 17, 2016

        Republicans approved a sexual predator. What did it matter? It was only black women. Really??

        Reply
        1. paulyz February 17, 2016

          Are you still bringing up the false accusations against the “black” Clarence Thomas?

          Reply
          1. pisces63 February 19, 2016

            Let me think!! HMMMM! Damned right. No matter the race, a sleaze is a sleaze. AND???????

            Reply
          2. paulyz February 20, 2016

            Yeah, Obama sure is a sleaze.

            Reply
    2. itsfun February 17, 2016

      He can make all the appointments he wants to. His problem is the Senate doesn’t have to approve any of them.. so eat your heart out old woman.

      Reply
  6. stuart21 February 17, 2016

    Perhaps the question is ‘What would Antonin do?’ 😉

    Or, make a democracy out of Mitch Mcs’ argument ‘so voters can have a say on the selection’ – allow ‘we the people’ to approve by referendum, in the same election.

    Reply
    1. Eleanore Whitaker February 17, 2016

      Stuart21…I think that is a great idea. Here in NJ, the judges are appointed by the Senate majority. I never liked that idea because it is just too easy for cronyism to rear its head.

      If you recall, the 8 Bush years saw massive numbers of Texans given appointments for which they were totally unqualified. Rice got hers with the 9/11 Commission. Cheney was VP because he made a deal with Halliburton for the Iraq War and the no bid contract. Alberto Gonzalez, the failed Justice Dept. head, was Bush’s favorite lawyer and Brown of FEMA infamny was also a Texan who was an accountant…and had zero knowledge of disaster relief.

      Reply
      1. nana4gj February 17, 2016

        Which is why no one should be appointed to any office based on their ideology, party affiliation, or “purity tests” to either. In the case of the SC, demographics are important for Justice for all, so it reflects the demographics of the country, but, qualifications and credentials, and resumes are equally important, and there is evidence that such nominees are abundant enough that, we no longer need a SC of 9 white men.

        Reply
    2. dpaano February 17, 2016

      Agreed….Justice Scalia would have agreed with President Obama….there is NO precedents in the Constitution that allow the Congress to hold up the appointment of a new justice during a president’s last year in office.

      Reply
      1. itsfun February 17, 2016

        Did you feel the same way in 2006 when the Democrats didn’t want Bush to make a appointment because he only had 18 months left to serve?

        Reply
    3. Paul Bass February 17, 2016

      Except the constitution SAYS the ‘President shall appoint’ !

      Darn those pesky Constitutional details!

      Reply
  7. Eleanore Whitaker February 17, 2016

    The real problem for Republicans who after almost 8 years never learned they cannot outwit this President on any level, is to rile President Obama will mean he has nothing to lose by appointing as many appointees as the Republican spiteful little boys can hate.

    I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she responded to why the president should appoint another woman to balance the court properly, “No one ever took issue with 9 men on the SC. Why take issue with an even number of women?”

    Why indeed.

    Reply
  8. pmbalele February 17, 2016

    I am told a criminal investigation is under way in Texas to find the truth how Repubs and TPs should be accountable for death of Hon. Scalia found with a pillow over his head. Why were in the rush to bury him without autopsy. If Repubs and TPs in Texas did not like his votes they should not have invited him on the ranch without his wife, children and body guards. I told you Repubs and TPs do not value human life. All they want is human money. Now the lawyers as administrator, wife and children will get the life insurance.

    Reply
    1. dpaano February 17, 2016

      Another BS conspiracy…..boy, it must be a slow news week!

      Reply
      1. pmbalele February 17, 2016

        Do you trust Repubs and TPs? I don’t. Just listen what GOP candidates are calling one another – liar, liar, liar. In fact how is that they family refused to conduct autopsy and quickly wanted him buried. How can you hate a White man like that? Those involved wanted his life insurance and they had opportunity to isolate him. The air in his room should be examined if it contained chloroform.

        Reply
    2. Paul Bass February 17, 2016

      Can’t do an autopsy, it would show too much coke and alcohol in his system.

      Reply
      1. pmbalele February 17, 2016

        Now you’re telling us the truth. I was just wondering why they were quick to abandon Scalia. Was he really a drunk and did cocaine? I thought Repubs and TPs are God’s people and family value is top priority. Now you’re telling the world he did alcohol and cocaine. Where is the world going now?

        Reply
  9. Elliot J. Stamler February 17, 2016

    If the Senate should recess, which is highly unlikely, the president should make a recess appointment because I think it is impossible for him to get this Senate to confirm any full term nominee. His recess appointment should be the most LIBERAL quote-unquote, highly qualified person he can find…thus sticking it to McConnell the frog face and the rest of them but good!!!

    Reply
  10. Otto Greif February 17, 2016

    Is he going to pick a qualified candidate or is he going to pick a candidate based on skin color/genitals/sexual orientation.

    Reply
    1. Thelma T. Reyna February 17, 2016

      Otto Greif: Wow, did you always ask these questions during your whole life, when men (mostly white straight men) were the ones EXCLUSIVELY getting the jobs, the promotions, the pay raises, the appointments?? Probably not, as most complainers about equality nowadays seem to be the case. Sorry, but women represent more than 50% OF OUR NATION AND OF OUR PLANET, so the time has come for them to be part of the important institutions of America. The worst part of your comment above is the clear prejudice that no woman, no ethnic minotiry, and no LGBT person could possibly be QUALIFIED! Ugghh!

      Reply
      1. Paul Bass February 17, 2016

        Thelma,
        otto is a despicable GOP troll on a liberal website. His only uddles in life is to irritate NM commentators. His upvote rating is far below 1, meaning on average less than one of us here on NM believe him. It’s pathetic..

        Reply
        1. Thelma T. Reyna February 18, 2016

          Thanks for the background info on him, Paul. Very sad.

          Reply
    2. dpaano February 17, 2016

      Seriously??

      Reply
    3. nana4gj February 17, 2016

      I think he has proven that he can find extremely qualified, credentialed, experienced candidates for SCOTUS from every demographic group that is representative of the country’s demographic, which is desirable, and it enriches the role and the function of the highest court in the land, as we have learned with the two Judges he has been fortunate to appoint, neither one of whom have been flaming radicals of any persuasion.

      Reply
      1. Otto Greif February 17, 2016

        Sotomayor and Kagan were not extremely qualified or experienced.

        Reply
        1. paulyz February 18, 2016

          Yup, Sotomayor made racist, anti-White male comments, and Kagan refused to recluse herself with conflict of interests in a ruling.

          Reply
      2. itsfun February 17, 2016

        The interest of Obama is not justice for all, but to push his liberal, socialist ideas.

        Reply
  11. nana4gj February 17, 2016

    What seems lost in all of this discussion is that as Republicans are accusing the President of “packing the SC with extreme left wing liberals, as he did with the ‘other two’ appointments….who have not deliberated on the bench as what they describe….they want to deny and obstruct an appointment made by him for this third vacancy for precisely the same reason and they have no qualms telling us so, to have the opportunity to appoint a right wing Conservative Justice to further their right wing ideological political agenda under the guise that only such a credentialed and pure jurist would interpret that Constitution correctly, as the late Scalia has.

    With all due respect to the late Scalia, dismissing Constitutional Amendments that provide for Civil Rights is not supporting the Constitution’s meaning and intent, admittedly, a very simplistic example I provide.

    I cannot support or endorse or value the basis of their argument based on that argument, that the SC should function on principles and policies of their campaign platforms.

    I, furthermore, cannot embrace their rationale that this President cannot do this Constitutional duty because he only has 340 days left in his term of office; or, he “cannot be trusted”; or, because he is “unlawful”, etc.

    That is just more of the same attempt to delegitimize him as an elected President, the last time, with 5 million votes making the difference and the same strategy they have used to obstruct, deny, sabotage, and foment anger for 7 + years and it, too, is not based on any evidence, just a refusal and inability to do their own jobs as required by their own Constitutional Oaths of Office.

    Whether or not they are able to prevent him from nominating; or they obstruct Senate Judiciary Hearings; or they reject anyone categorically he sends to them to hear in a pro forma going through the motions with no intention of seriousness, they will have consequences for the short term and for the long term. If the prior “stunts” have not convinced the majority of people, not just Dems or liberals, or whomever, but anyone desirous of protecting our democracy, of their nefarious goals, this one should.

    When those who seek to lead this nation with a takeover of the White House, the Congress, and the Judicial System, using the same methodology as the despots and terrorists in the ME, even issuing Fatwahs and calls to Jihad to institute their own versions of a Caliphate, there should be pause for everyone of us to consider their worthiness and their own legitimacy.

    Their very mission, not to mention their strategies, over these years, renders them illegitimate and unfit to serve in this country, anyway.

    Reply
  12. Sterling Harris February 17, 2016

    FACTS AND THE TRUTH ARE THE 2 ITEMS REPUBLICANS WILL NEVER ACCEPT.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.