Wednesday, March 16, 2016

President Obama chooses a Supreme Court nominee. Gasp! In an election year?

Courtesy of NPR: 

Federal appeals court judge Merrick Brian Garland is President Obama's pick to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. 

The president officially named Garland as a Supreme Court nominee as they stood before the media and a large gathering of attendees in the Rose Garden at the White House Wednesday. 

Addressing the refusal by Republican leaders in the Senate to consider a Supreme Court nominee, Obama said that in Garland, he had chosen "a serious man and an exemplary judge."

Of course Judge Garland has had an exemplary career and is highly respected, but of course that in no way means he is not about to get vilified and smeared by the conservative media who simply do not want the President to nominate ANYBODY and leave that up to the next President.

Though for the life of me I cannot understand why they think that President Hillary Clinton will select a Supreme Court nominee more to their liking.

Garland actually supervised the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols for the Oklahoma City bombing and Ted Kaczynski in the Unabomer case.

And you would think that would be laudable, but that is because you failed to notice that he is only known for prosecuting white Christian terrorists.

Dammit, he is obviously soft on Islamic terrorism! 

(I thought I would go ahead and give the Right Wing zealots a little help to get them started.)

Not that they need one since Mitch McConnell has already stated that he is refusing to hold a hearing on this nominee.


  1. Anonymous2:09 PM

    Why doesn't turtle face just up and croak already? He serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

    1. Anonymous2:57 PM

      I said the same thing when I saw him on the news today. What a jackass.

    2. Anonymous4:41 PM

      Dereliction of duty. impeach!!!!

      Though I wonder if T.Rump would just tell Mitch...You're Fired.

      The ONLY time I would be appreciative of those words.

    3. He could. As we saw with Scalia, it could happen at any time.

      Wouldn't that be....karmic?

  2. Anonymous2:19 PM

    This crap will come back to bite the GOP as bad, if not worse, than Trump's shenanigans.

    1. I hope so! But, WE have to get our butts to the polls and VOTE!!!

    2. If they obstruct this nomination until January 21, they are going to pay for it in November when they lose their majority in the Senate. They will have handed every Democrat running for a seat plenty of ammunition against their opponents.

  3. Anonymous2:21 PM

    Chris Matthews had someone on today who made the point that the Senate doesn't just stop voting on things the last year of their term, and that caught CM by surprise and he said touche.

    1. What about the House? Do they only vote every other year since they only serve two year terms?

  4. Anonymous2:26 PM

    The Dems--and Biden himself!--need to get out there and put an end to this use of the so-called "Biden Rule" that does not exist. Years back, Biden was simply making an observation about when during a last term in office there had been SCOTUS nominees confirmed. He said that after summer it had not happened. Well, it's March. And there is no official "rule" or even adamant statement about refusing to confirm final-year nominees. I so want people to get out there in front of the cameras and in printed articles and nip this crap of the GOP in the bud.

  5. Ellen2:56 PM

    Hatred for any achievements or successes that would ne credited to a black potus run very, very deep.

    1. Anonymous8:41 PM

      Got that right, but he knows he did a wonderful job for which he was twice elected and so do we.

  6. Anonymous3:00 PM

    Screw Mitch McConnell! He's as ugly externally as he is mentally!

    Who in the Hell does he think Hillary Clinton will send their way as the next Democratic POTUS? Are they going to be as nasty to her as they have been to President Obama because she is a woman and smarter than most of the men on the hill!

    McConnell is racist and I'm calling him on it! He's shown his feeling against President Obama from the minute he took his first oath as POTUS! And, it just galled the Hell out of McConnell when President Obama was reelected for his second term!

    1. Well, he's already stated they'll obstruct the next nominee for 4 or even 8 years if necessary. As long as it takes to get a Republican back in the White House.

      That won't sit well with many people.

      And if by some act of the Devil Drumpf is elected what then? The GOP doesn't like him either. What sort of nominee does he think Drumpf is going to put forth? His sister? He thinks she's qualified. She's also a liberal.

      If they're smart they'll check their reality, bite their bullets (provided free from the NRA) and realize that this moderate WHITE MAN is probably as good as it's going to get.

  7. Jkarov3:08 PM

    The main reason that Teaparty, Repubs, and religious right types don't want Garland for Supreme Court is that he's not an evangelical or Catholic.

    He's "one of those" people, you know, those Jews, which according them are so much unsave trash.

    Yep, they just aren't country club or gun club material, and they despise them, except that their Jesus Savior was one, but he probably had blond hair, blue eyes, and had him some religious notions they've taken a shine to all these years, also too.

    Doesn't matter to them that the Constitution they claim to love makes it crystal clear that NO RELiGIOUS TEST shall ever be required for any Federal or state office.

    Article 6, paragraph 3:
    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and JUDICIAL Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; But no RELIGIOUS TEST shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    Doesn't matter to Senate Repubs that the COnstitution they claim to love REQUIRES them to give the man a hearing and vote up or down.

    Constitution doesn't matter any more to the Teaparty and religious right, and KKK types, because they are in love with DrumpF, racism, xenophobia, hatred, and their lily white image of Jesus and their bible full of mythology and fairy tales.

    1. What do you expect when so many of them say they serve God first and the Constitution is at best second place. To me pretty much violates that oath they swore when they took office. But the 'baggers and thumpers don't care.

  8. Anonymous3:09 PM

    Does the nominee have to be confirmed by the senate to be appointed to the supreme court is there a way to appoint him without the senate? It makes no sense for the senate to be able to hold America hostage by not voting or having hearings on anything they don't like.

    1. Anonymous3:58 PM

      Yes, there is a non-senate way to appoint (not confirm). Will President Obama do this? Probably not.

      "...while the Senate is in recess the President may act alone by making a recess appointment to fill "Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate."

    2. Anonymous5:54 PM

      The problem is that the Senate will continue to hold pro forma sessions so that they are never officially in recess. It's a technicality that Republicans have used before to prevent the President from making recess appointments.

    3. He can be appointed while they are in recess but it's only temporary.

      They've held plenty of other appointments hostage these last 7 years. There are a lot of temporary heads of government agencies running things as best they can because the permanent appointments are in obstructionist hell.

  9. "I cannot understand why they think that President Hillary Clinton will select a Supreme Court nominee more to their liking."
    Because they have no intention of losing. Between crooked machines, voter intimidation, shenanigans by sleazy election officials, and voter suppression, they have no intention of allowing the Democratic candidate to win.

    VOTE! Help friends, neighbors, and relatives to get registered, and then help them to the polls. If you here of any sleazy goings on that will hinder registration or voting, speak up, loudly and often.

    The margin of difference has to be too big to be overcome by republican fraud or election theft.

    1. Anonymous4:21 PM

      Amen, Nefer, they'll try every rotten thing they can! We all remember Ohio 2012 and Rove. He swore the results were wrong; something must have backfired, and they've had four years to perfect what they were trying.

    2. Anonymous6:01 PM

      I've heard speculation on several different reports tonight that if Clinton wins the election, they will suddenly change their minds and vote to confirm Garland before she takes office.

      Better to confirm a moderate they know than take a chance that whomever she might nominate is much further to the left. If the Senate swings back to the Democrats, I suspect it will be the fastest SCOTUS confirmation on record!

      Of course, it would be the height of hypocrisy since Obama really WOULD be a lame duck at that point, but the GOP has never been strong on logic or consistency.

  10. Anonymous3:30 PM

    I forgot. It's only liberals who are lauded for slandering and attacking the other side.

    1. Anonymous4:26 PM

      Try to remember next time.

    2. Anonymous8:38 PM


  11. Anonymous3:32 PM


    1. She's a senator. Exactly how are the banks going to manage that?

    2. Leland2:14 AM

      Mia, they are banks. They have LOTS of money. No one said they would have a LEGAL way of doing it!

  12. Anonymous3:52 PM

    Asshole Orrin Hatch was just smarming on NPR that it's never, EVER been done that they've had a hearing in an election year. In other words, he's a big fat liar who lies. But he's Mormon--that's what they do, lie.

    1. Ellen4:16 PM

      So true 3:52. Especially your last sentence. I despise the LDS.

  13. Anonymous4:12 PM

    Now I disagree with the Mormon comment, but Orrin Hatch is a c*nt. Why won't he retire? And McConnell can suck it. That Yertle the Turtle good-for-nothing. He and Lindsey Graham need to STFU.

    1. Anonymous4:34 PM

      From the office of President Barack Obama

      To the office of Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT):

      Hey, buddy. Hey, friend.

      How’s it going? How are things? Things good? I hope things are good. I hope things are really, really good with you and your family and the nutritional supplement industry and EVERYTHING ELSE IN YOUR THIRD-FROM-THE-PRESIDENCY-BUT-AIN’T-NEVER-GOING-TO-SMELL-THE-DAMN-SEAT LIFE, ORRIN.

      Hey, what was that you said last week?

      Something about, say, a certain Supreme Court justice nomination?

      I believe what you told Newsmax, which is a news source (maybe?), was: “The President told me several times he’s going to nominate a moderate … [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man … [But] he probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election…”


      See, Orrin, the American people want a nominee, and a hearing, but you won’t give it to them because…? Because why, Orrin? Because it’s a day ending in “y” and you need to get in my FUCKING WAY? Because you want a Republican president to get a crack at naming a SCOTUS justice? Oh, well, since DONALD FUCKING TRUMP is about to be your nominee (AND GOOD LUCK IF YOU TRY TO STOP HIM AT THE CONVENTION, FRIEND), I’m sure that’ll end JUST FINE. And if Hillary wins, well, I’m sure that’ll go great for y— hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha, sorry, sorry. Was just imagining it in my head.

      I put your fucking party on a RAFT with this nomination, Orrin, and I pushed you off the riverbank into the distance, and I’m waving and smiling and smoking a cigarette because I DON’T CARE ANYMORE, ORRIN. You want to play politics with ME? You think I’m going to just nominate the most liberal person I can find to the Supreme Court when your party is already being a WET BAG OF ANGRY CATS? No. No. I’m going to nominate the candidate who is going to make shit, like, seventh-grade dance level awkward for you, and I’m going to stand by and WATCH. IT’S BEEN A LONG EIGHT YEARS, ORRIN, AND I JUST WENT DOWN TO THE BASEMENT TO SEE IF I HAD ANY POLITICAL FUCKS LEFT TO GIVE, AND NO. NO, IT APPEARS I AM FRESH OUT.

      See you at the White House!

      Your pal,

      PS “Orrin”? Funny name.

    2. Anonymous8:42 PM

      I don't disagree with the Mormon comment. My ex SIL was one and an absolute bastard.

    3. They're all old. They could be called home to Jeebus at any time. Scalia could use the company.

    4. Anonymous3:56 AM

      Orrin Hatch is the reason why untested random things people find in the dirt can be sold as "supplements" without any sort of oversight. The Mormons have a whole bunch of pyramid schemes where they prey on each other selling snake-oil in the form of pills, oils, juices, etc., and if they had to actually meet the benefits they claim, they would all be in jail. So Orrin Hatch fought hard to keep that from happening.

  14. Anita Winecooler4:14 PM

    They keep intimating it as unconstitutional. They've had seven years to "be constitutional", and haven't yet, so why bother now. Obama should have let them leave for vacation, then make the announcement. As usual, President framed his argument perfectly, their "answers" were all over the place. Last week, former first lady Reagan passed away, why didn't the Senate just name a new one? It makes the same amount of sense.
    I liked this pick, but he's "safe", first, he's white, jewish, and has been a judge from Chicago, He's a bit too centrist for my tastes, but he's "safe". Obama should have picked someone just as far left as Scalia was far right.

    1. If he had chosen someone far to the left, they would never have been confirmed as they have nothing to lose by just waiting out the elections. Hillary might not nominate someone as far left. Maybe.

      This way they are torn. Do they want to chance someone more liberal when Hillary wins? Even if Drumpf wins, his nominee may be worse than Garland. They are being told to obstruct Drumpf too.

      So this is a reality check. Better the devil you know. They've previously confirmed Garland no problem. They have no reason to deny him now except for POLITICAL reasons that have no basis in the Constitution or precedent. And if they do they risk losing their majority in the Senate if the electorate gets pissed enough to make the Democrats a majority again.

      Oh, and McConnell is an IDIOT.

      (I so miss Jon Stewart.)

  15. Anonymous5:54 PM


  16. Anonymous8:35 PM

    Mitch's hate of P Obama knows no bounds. And yes, it's because he is black. PERIOD. History will not be kind to Mitch.

  17. I think that no laws should be passed by congress because it's an election year. President Obama needs to veto all bills passed during an election year. What's fair is fair.

  18. Anita Winecooler3:20 PM

    This just in.... stop the presses!

    Anonymous hacks Donald Trump.

    Ya know, Gryphen, I really really like some of your "Anonymous" posters and the work they do in their spare time. Thanks Again, whoever you are!!!!!

    On the topic at hand, I think his pick is wonderful, did some reading up on him, he's the middle of the road, not too liberal, not too conservative. POTUS picked him because he's been lauded in the past by the GOP, but they won't even meet the guy, so POTUS needs to line up more and more leftist picks, or fire them all for dereliction of duty, or in the least, hit them where it hurts, their paychecks.


Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.