Chuck Grassley already waffling on GOP "no SCOTUS appointment" pledge

[Anti Federalist]

LOL @ The Stupid Party



Republican Judiciary chairman open to hearing for Supreme Court pick

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-supreme-court-scalia-nominee-20160216-story.html

February 16, 2016, 2:51 PM

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is leaving open the possibility of holding a hearing for President Barack Obama's choice to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, amid signs of uncertainty about how Republicans would treat a nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said he backs Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's view that Obama's successor should make the nomination of a lifetime appointment. But Grassley didn't rule out holding confirmation hearings and a vote by his panel on an Obama selection.

"I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decision," Grassley said Tuesday in a conference call with Iowa radio reporters. "In other words, take it a step at a time."

[AuH20]

The NSA is worth it's weight in gold for times like this. No confirmation vote is a 'safe' vote, regardless how absurd the nominee is.

Obama Inc. plays for keeps. Just look at Obamacare.

[milgram]

Hey, give them credit for holding firm for three whole days!

[presence]

Obama's supreme court picks (per NY Times) are a who's who of how to get out of jail on corporate corruption


David Barron, academic and federal judge, penned Obama's controversial american citizen drone policy

The New York Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times) Editorial Board as "a slapdash pastiche of legal theories — some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law — that was clearly tailored to the desired result."




Now these guys... every one of them comes from a law firm that specializes in get out of jail free cards for "foreign corrupt practices", "bribery", "ponzi schemes", .

Paul Watford, a multinational fixer for Munger, Tolles & Olson The American Lawyer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Lawyer) described the firm as an "army of trial lawyers capable of waging war".

Merrick Garland, a multinational fixer for Arnold & Porter LLP

Patricia Ann Millett, a multinational fixer for Miller & Chevalier

Sri Srinivasan, a multinational fixer for O'melveny and Myers

Loretta Lynch - drug war DA; fifa prosecutions, multinational fixer for Hogan Lovells



http://i.imgur.com/zjG9kTF.png
http://www.mto.com/practices-industries/practices/international/fcpa-investigations-and-counseling

http://i.imgur.com/3jM9zu5.png
https://www.omm.com/services/practices/regulatory-and-government-affairs/foreign-corrupt-practices-act/

http://i.imgur.com/jFUg2IH.png
http://www.hoganlovells.com/bribery-corruption/

http://i.imgur.com/ZO5bcd5.png
http://www.arnoldporter.com/en/services/capabilities/practices/anticorruption

http://i.imgur.com/BrlcR8l.png
http://www.millerchevalier.com/OurPractices/International/FCPAInternationalAntiCorruption

[CPUd]

He's up for reelection

[jkob]

these losers better not get spooked

they can't lose on this issue

[ShaneEnochs]

In what world is waiting until you have all the information possible before making a decision a bad thing to do?

[Anti Federalist]

In what world is waiting until you have all the information possible before making a decision a bad thing to do?

I may or may not jump off this cliff.

I'm waiting for more information.

[ShaneEnochs]

I may or may not jump off this cliff.

I'm waiting for more information.

That's a terrible analogy. What are Republicans so afraid of that they can't even have a hearing and a vote? They control the Senate.

[donnay]

Flashback:

President Obama could get another opportunity to make an appointment should a vacancy arise in the next 14 months, but no justice has indicated any plan to retire. Despite calls from some liberal activists and newspaper editorial writers for Ginsburg to step down soon and let Obama replace her, she has insisted she’s staying put.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2015/10/next_president_will_name_as_many_as_four_supreme_c ourt_justices

[Zippyjuan]

Election theater. Appealing to the base by standing up to Obama. If a name is presented, I predict they will have a vote on it (with some candidates still saying they won't).

[JK/SEA]

maybe grassley will be the nominee.

[jkob]

every senator up for reelection should be challenged on whether or not they'll accept this Obama nominee, the wimps should all be primaried.

[phill4paul]

I get to vote for the local Judge positions. I feel empowered by having a voice in the democratic process that defines our Republic. I can't wait to be able to vote on the upcoming SCOTUS candidate. Who do we get to choose from? I'm soooo excited. My vote is my voice and it's not everyday you get to voice your opinion for a SCOTUS and I am definitely going to vote harder than most.

[Zippyjuan]

Rand Paul says it would be a "conflict of interest" for Obama to nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court? That is one of the jobs of a President- with the advice and consent of Congress- to nominate judges.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/15/3749689/rand-paul-scalia-supreme-court-obama-nominee/


Rand Paul: It’s A ‘Conflict Of Interest’ For Obama To Nominate A Supreme Court Justice

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Monday weighed in on the Senate’s upcoming battle with President Obama over the next Supreme Court nominee, saying he believes Obama “has a conflict of interest” in appointing somebody to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat.

Appearing on conservative Kentucky radio host Leland Conway’s show, the former Republican presidential candidate said he would likely oppose any Obama pick for the Supreme Court, because he believes Obama has too many of his own policies at stake before the high court — his executive actions on immigration and climate change regulations, for example.

“The president has said he has the power basically to create immigration law out of nothing,” Paul said. “He says he has the power to basically cripple entire industries like coal without ever having been given that power by Congress. So see, we have a Constitutional debate on whose powers is it, the president or Congress? And I think the president sort of has a conflict of interest here in appointing somebody while we’re trying to decide whether or not he’s usurped power.”

Under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, presidents have the power to appoint Supreme Court justices with the “advice and consent” of the U.S. Senate. Paul clarified that he agrees the president has the power to appoint someone to replace Scalia, but that he likely would not give his consent to do so.

“It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to get me to vote for a presidential nomination from this president,” he said. “I will look at it if it comes down, but my threshold for voting for somebody is going to be very, very high.”

President has the right and responsibility to put forth a nominee and Congress has the right duty to accept or reject it. If Obama is in a conflict of interest because laws he proposed may come before the court, Congress too has a conflict of interest since they wrote and passed most of the laws the Court may rule on.

[loveshiscountry]

Rand Paul says it would be a "conflict of interest" for Obama to nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court? That is one of the jobs of a President- with the advice and consent of Congress- to nominate judges.

President has the right and responsibility to put forth a nominee and Congress has the right duty to accept or reject it. If Obama is in a conflict of interest because laws he proposed may come before the court, Congress too has a conflict of interest since they wrote and passed most of the laws the Court may rule on.

It was a poke at King Obama
because he believes Obama has too many of his own policies at stake before the high court — his executive actions on immigration and climate change regulations, for example.

[Zippyjuan]

Congress too has many of their actions before the court. They too get a voice in who gets the job.

[Dianne]

Congress too has many of their actions before the court. They too get a voice in who gets the job.

Unfortunately the majority are democrats, posing as republicans. I have no doubt, they will confirm a Justice within the next five months, after having their little "pretend" arguments. And it won't be pretty, someone like Loretta Lynch in all probability.

[puppetmaster]

That's a terrible analogy. What are Republicans so afraid of that they can't even have a hearing and a vote? They control the Senate. many Republicans are shills for the democratic party. You know this. Only terrible because it is true.

[ShaneEnochs]

many Republicans are shills for the democratic party. You know this. Only terrible because it is true.

Republicans aren't the only ones who have members that vote with the other party. Look at this graph: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/here-are-the-members-of-congress-who-vote-against-their-party-the-most/

In the Senate, you'll notice some of the Republicans vote a slight percentage more with Democrats than the reverse, but considering that Republicans have the majority, it all comes out in the wash.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

If Obama is in a conflict of interest because laws he proposed may come before the court.

Rand isn't talking about laws, he's talking about Obama's lawless exectuive actions. Try to keep up and quit spouting Obamaite bullshit.

[Anti Federalist]

More Wobblies coming to the forefront.

GOP = Crimping and folding faster than a Chinese laundry.


Cracks emerge in GOP refusal to consider Supreme Court pick

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-republicans-supreme-court-pick-20160217-story.html

February 17, 2016, 5:39 PM |WASHINGTON

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, did not rule out a committee hearing on Obama's forthcoming nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, went a step further and said she'd support such a move.

"I do believe that the nominee should get a hearing," Murkowski, who's running for re-election this fall, told reporters in Juneau, Alaska. "The question then becomes, we have a hearing on a nominee. But that doesn't necessarily mean that that ends up in a vote."

Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said chances of Senate approval were slim but added that Obama should "use this opportunity to put the will of the people ahead of advancing a liberal agenda" on the high court.

"But should he decide to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, who knows — maybe it'll be a Nevadan," Heller said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he opposes a filibuster to prevent a vote, as some Republicans have suggested. Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has said he'd wait to see who Obama selects before ruling out a hearing in his committee.