President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court

[Stoked]

Play up the issue of them taking this to avoid a more liberal justice and that it is proof that the liberals want to weaken the 2nd amendment.

But as stated the GOP is dumb.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

Play up the issue of them taking this to avoid a more liberal justice and that it is proof that the liberals want to weaken the 2nd amendment.

But as stated the GOP is dumb.

It's not tough to predict what will happen here. They are going to fold. The Mitch McConnels of the world will spend their days over the next few months/weeks playing up to the media of how tough they are against the nomination like they always do ..... so they can sell how hard they fought , for a few months before folding, to their voters that want to hear that come election time.....and at night Mitch McConnel and Harry Reid(or other public figure opposition) will be hanging out and splitting the cost of a Georgetown prostitute while discussing how they can continue to screw everyone further after the current charade is over. That's how DC works. All a show.

 

[JazzGal]

I wrote my senators a couple of weeks ago about my disapproval of not even pretending to consider Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. This is my response from Orrin Hatch:

Thank you for writing to me regarding the United States Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, the Constitution grants the President the power to nominate a candidate for the vacancy left after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death. The Constitution separately gives the Senate the power of advice and consent regarding a nomination. President Obama’s supporters repeat the slogan that the Senate must “do its job” with respect to the Scalia vacancy, and I agree. The Senate’s job is to determine the most appropriate way to fulfill our advice-and-consent role in the particular circumstances surrounding this vacancy. The Senate would not be doing its job, for example, if it structured the confirmation process in a way that was more appropriate for a situation different than the one we face today. In addition, withholding consent can be just as valid an exercise of the Senate’s role as granting it, and deferring the confirmation process can be just as appropriate as proceeding with it immediately.

I am convinced that the best way for the Senate to exercise its advice-and-consent responsibility regarding the Scalia vacancy is to hold consideration of a nominee after the election season is over. Both the confirmation process and the current presidential campaign, which is already well underway, have become confrontational and divisive. Considering a nomination in the middle of a contentious presidential election would be unfair to the nominee and could damage the judicial confirmation process even further. The goal of minimizing the politics surrounding the confirmation process is better served by conducting thoughtful deliberation after the presidential election season has come to an end.

Waiting to confirm a nominee is also necessary to respect the will of the American people after the 2014 mid-term election. Elections have consequences, and in the last election, the American people elected a Republican Senate majority to help check the President’s power. The decision by Senate Republicans to wait until after the election to confirm a nominee is simply a fulfillment of that promise. Americans will again make their voices known in the 2016 election when they vote for a President who will decide the direction of our nation’s highest court.

The issue is when—not whether—the confirmation process should occur for the Scalia vacancy. I remain convinced that the Senate can best do its job by conducting the confirmation process after this toxic presidential election season is over. Doing so is the best way to ensure fairness to a nominee, preserve the integrity of the judicial branch, and give the American people a voice in the direction of the Supreme Court.

I have served longer on the Judiciary Committee than all but one Senator in the committee’s history. During these past four decades, including eight years as chairman of the committee, I have worked hard to be fair toward the nominees chosen by Presidents of both parties. I have absolutely no doubt that my decision regarding the current vacancy fits squarely within this record of fairness.

Thank you, again, for contacting me with your comments. If you would like to have regular updates on my work in the U.S. Senate, I encourage you to subscribe to my E-newsletter, visit my Facebook page, and follow me on Twitter.

Your Senator,

Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator

As if the toxic environment will go away after the election.

 

[colton]

As if the toxic environment will go away after the election.

You could reply saying, "Dear senator, with actions like this YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE TOXIC ENVIRONMENT."

It wouldn't do any good, but might make you feel better.

 

[JazzGal]

You could reply saying, "Dear senator, with actions like this YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE TOXIC ENVIRONMENT."

It wouldn't do any good, but might make you feel better.

Yes, I'm planning to do so. I figure none of my emails will do much good, but at least they will know I didn't agree.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[colton]

I figure none of my emails will do much good, but at least they will know I didn't agree.

Kind of like why I voted for Kasich in the Republican primary.

 

[babe]

Kind of like why I voted for Kasich in the Republican primary.

Soooo........ you. . . were the one!!!!!!!

 

[Jamezz]

I wrote my senators a couple of weeks ago about my disapproval of not even pretending to consider Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. This is my response from Orrin Hatch:



As if the toxic environment will go away after the election.

The fact that he took the time to respond to you in not a brief manner is respectable. Let us know if he answers back when you reply to him. I like it when public figures are open to debating issues directly with the people.

 

[JazzGal]

I'm hoping it was a reply that was sent to many more people than myself.

I did send back my response, and I do feel a little better. I've done what I can (at least until the election).

 

[colton]

The fact that he took the time to respond to you in not a brief manner is respectable. Let us know if he answers back when you reply to him. I like it when public figures are open to debating issues directly with the people.

I'm certain it was a form letter written by a staff member (maybe with his input), because many people made the same complaint. I've gotten similar form letters on other issues. Call me jaded but there's no chance he will respond individually to her next reply.

 

[babe]

You could reply saying, "Dear senator, with actions like this YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE TOXIC ENVIRONMENT."

It wouldn't do any good, but might make you feel better.

I accept the reality that under your management, JazzFanz Community has collected a lot of agreeable folks who might think this is the right view, but I am here to differ. . . .

I would say, polling the truckers at the Flying J truck stops around the west, that confirming Merrick Garland would lead to an armed revolt, a march on Washington by ten million, coordinated by truckers who would pack their rigs with ranchers and conspiracy theorists whose prime "theory" is that the Constitution is the law of the land, against which some insider types of honchos are conspiring to go around it, or tear it to shreds. And that if some high handed governance schemers conspire to defeat it's basic premises and defy the Bill of Rights, it is their solemn duty to take down those conspiracists.

JazzFanzers have built their own bubble, and have utterly lost touch with reality.

And here's the fascist Trump base, about 30% of Americans, who will vote for anything but the status quo.

Another, a different, 20% who are "tea party irregulars" who expect they can right the ship of State, and about 15% on the verge, some even voting for Bernie, but no way will Hillary get over 40%, even in a tilt with Cruz. Trump might win it riding on all the dissatisfaction which I speak of, which underlies the wisdom of the GOP not confirming Garland, even if he is the ultimate hoof-in-mouth bull come in off the range.

 

[babe]

I'm certain it was a form letter written by a staff member (maybe with his input), because many people made the same complaint. I've gotten similar form letters on other issues. Call me jaded but there's no chance he will respond individually to her next reply.

But the staffers to compile lists, and pass up statistical breakdowns of the sentiments. Hatch will morph a little to catch the wind.

 

[colton]

I accept the reality that under your management, JazzFanz Community has collected a lot of agreeable folks who might think this is the right view, but I am here to differ. . . .

I would say, polling the truckers at the Flying J truck stops around the west, that confirming Merrick Garland would lead to an armed revolt...

I think most of us here aren't saying that Garland needs to necessarily be confirmed. Merely that the Senate should do its responsibility in giving serious consideration to Pres. Obama's nomination (holding hearings, etc.). At least, that's my view.

 

[colton]

But the staffers to compile lists, and pass up statistical breakdowns of the sentiments. Hatch will morph a little to catch the wind.

Yes, that's accurate. Numbers matter to them, and if enough people make the similar complaint/comment it will get noticed.

 

[babe]

I think most of us here aren't saying that Garland needs to necessarily be confirmed. Merely that the Senate should do its responsibility in giving serious consideration to Pres. Obama's nomination (holding hearings, etc.). At least, that's my view.

yah, that's right.

Hatch is also right that the Senate, in fact, has the prerogative and can act out the hearings and summarily reject the appointment, or just wait a while. I've already done my rant about the chances of Hillary. I don't think Bernie can win, either. And the Senate leadership apparently feels the same way.

And I think there is serious tonnage to the mail Hatch is getting that is telling him "No Way" on the hearings.

It's the way things are. . . . 2016 is an interesting political year.

Truckers listen to all the talk radio, the two guys on RedEye Radio, to that Mormon guy in the morning, what's his name. . . . Rush, Hannity, and Levine. I think the mainstream media is only seen over breakfast at the motels, where no one is there long enough to change the channel.

Homemaking women pretty much don't watch the soaps anymore, they're hooked on Rush.

 

[ConradA24]

I think most of us here aren't saying that Garland needs to necessarily be confirmed. Merely that the Senate should do its responsibility in giving serious consideration to Pres. Obama's nomination (holding hearings, etc.). At least, that's my view.

Yep! Me too.

 

[Jamezz]

I'm certain it was a form letter written by a staff member (maybe with his input), because many people made the same complaint. I've gotten similar form letters on other issues. Call me jaded but there's no chance he will respond individually to her next reply.

In that case screw him. Sorry I'm extreme like that.

 

[Gameface]

yah, that's right.

Hatch is also right that the Senate, in fact, has the prerogative and can act out the hearings and summarily reject the appointment, or just wait a while. I've already done my rant about the chances of Hillary. I don't think Bernie can win, either. And the Senate leadership apparently feels the same way.

And I think there is serious tonnage to the mail Hatch is getting that is telling him "No Way" on the hearings.

It's the way things are. . . . 2016 is an interesting political year.

Truckers listen to all the talk radio, the two guys on RedEye Radio, to that Mormon guy in the morning, what's his name. . . . Rush, Hannity, and Levine. I think the mainstream media is only seen over breakfast at the motels, where no one is there long enough to change the channel.

Homemaking women pretty much don't watch the soaps anymore, they're hooked on Rush.

When Hillary becomes President will you admit that not only were you wrong but that your entire premise and analysis of this issue was wrong?

 

[Jamezz]

 

[babe]

When Hillary becomes President will you admit that not only were you wrong but that your entire premise and analysis of this issue was wrong?

No. Hillary's victory will vindicate the trucker's view that our political process has been hijacked, the media is in the tank for flushing America down the toilet, and the votes aren't counted right any more, since the Spanish company that has the contract to count them offshore can't be subpoenaed and there's no paper ballots to count locally.

Hillary has punched her ticket with he bigs, and it's her turn to do the long weekends on Air Force One and rule the little people with her pen.

Are you kidding?

I didn't ever say truckers and homemaking women have political franchise in a totalitarian fascist State. I did say they still send letters to Orrin Hatch, which Hatch ignores just as much as those from progressives who sincerely want a better world and still believe what politicians like Hillary say, and ideologues like Obama believe.

If you'd study my rants more carefully, you know this, dude.