Justice Antonin Scalia Dies at West Texas Ranch

[Broncojohnny]

Not really. It's more-so the fact that he doesn't even take his job as a senator seriously. So he deserves to be president? He's anti-same sex marriage(which is fucking stupid), he's all for the war on drugs(which is fucking stupid and I don't even do drugs), and he's funded by his wife's company Goldman Sach's.

He's basically running for president on his wife;s dime.

The evangelical things has a bit to do with it. Separation of Church and State. Oh yeah, he also wants to kill the gay people in the country if they don't go straight within a certain amount of time. Fuck him. He's a shitty person.

Hillary's husband is essentially a sexual predator, tell me how that would play out if she were a Republican? Because she is a leftist, all of that is ignored.

Oh but hey everyone, Ted Cruz has his own opinions about gay marriage because of his own personal views on religion. He must be the next Hitler!

[SMKR]

Oh the timing?!?!?!

What will Alex Jones have to say about this?

http://www.infowars.com/supreme-court-justice-scalia-dead-is-thomas-next/

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153921175318459&id=6499393458

[46Tbird]

Oh but hey everyone, Ted Cruz has his own opinions about gay marriage because of his own personal views on religion. He must be the next Hitler!

I find it hilarious that these idiots have no idea about Hillary's views on gay marriage. Lefties, remember this is the person you intend to vote for:

[matts5.0]

Why Do people give a shit who gets married? It's a sin correct? Well so are a fuck ton of other things that I don't see many people bitching about. All the fags want is a damn tax break.

[kingjason]

Why Do people give a shit who gets married? It's a sin correct? Well so are a fuck ton of other things that I don't see many people bitching about. All the fags want is a damn tax break.

Since when is getting married a fucking tax break? People that are for same sex marriage want equality, health benefits, etc. More power to them.

[SBFORDTECH]

What if Obama make a recess appointment while the senate is out???

[Jimbo]

What if Obama make a recess appointment while the senate is out???

The SC wrote a decision in '14 that specifically limited him from doing that, because he had done it in '12.

[matts5.0]

Since when is getting married a fucking tax break? People that are for same sex marriage want equality, health benefits, etc. More power to them.

That's what I meant.

[LANTIRN]

I would rather see Cruz as SCJ than POTUS. Either way, this whole situation has put Cruz as my pick. Nominating a Justice is far too important to overlook these days. It's a decision that can last for decades. It'll be hard to replace one of the finest Justices to ever hold the position.

Cruz would make an excellent supreme court justice.

[Sgt Beavis]

I would rather see Cruz as SCJ than POTUS. Either way, this whole situation has put Cruz as my pick. Nominating a Justice is far too important to overlook these days. It's a decision that can last for decades. It'll be hard to replace one of the finest Justices to ever hold the position.

Man, I do not like Cruz at all as a politician. But as a justice. HELL YEA!

But speaking in the world of realities.. There are a few Republican Senators we cannot count on if this goes to a confirmation vote:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/02/15/Supreme-Court-Battle-Tests-These-Vulnerable-GOP-Senators-Reelection-Chances

In November’s election, there will be no fewer than four, and possibly six, incumbent Republican senators facing close races in either traditionally Democratic states or states where neither party holds a decisive numerical advantage. No matter how things play out, those senators will face a dilemma when President Obama, as he has indicated he will, nominates a judge to succeed Scalia.

Related: Two-Thirds of the US Government Basically Won’t Work for the Next Year

The Republicans in potential jeopardy are Mark Kirk of Illinois, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Rob Portman of Ohio, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

Of the six, some are in more danger than others. Johnson and Kirk are running in traditionally blue states and will likely face well-known Democratic challengers. Ayotte, in purple New Hampshire, is facing a challenge from Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan. Portman, in purple Ohio, faces former Democratic governor who was voted out of office in the Republican wave election in 2010. Burr and Blunt, while probably safe, are both from states that have elected Democratic senators in recent memory.

A lot of guys here will call these guys, and others, RINO's. However that ignores the fact that these guys have constituencies that are a little to a lot further to the left than we are in Texas. All politics is local and these guys will do what they think they need to do for re-election. This is the real danger we face in the coming confirmation process.

At least Obama has said he won't nominate anyone until after the recess is over. If he sticks to that we won't have to worry about an attempt at a recess appointment.

[Tremor14]

Loretta Lynch

[line-em-up]

um,,,,, no

The Senate must vote no. Although Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Republicans who control the Senate are under no obligation to do so, they have agreed to grant a confirmation vote to Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s nominee to replace Eric Holder as United States Attorney General. Ms. Lynch has testified that she supports and would implement President Obama’s executive action providing de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants. This edict, which blatantly violates Obama’s oath to execute the laws faithfully, also unconstitutionally confers positive legal benefits on illegal aliens, something only Congress has the authority to do. EDITORIAL: Defeat Loretta Lynch Yet, five Republican senators have announced that they will vote to confirm Ms. Lynch. Three have already supported her in the Judiciary Committee: Orrin Hatch (Utah), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Jeff Flake (Ariz). The two others are Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Susan Collins (Maine). If they follow through in the vote now scheduled for Thursday, Ms. Lynch would almost certainly have the 51 votes needed to be confirmed. There are six points to be made about this. 1. Violation of the Senatorial Oath of Office As mandated by the Constitution, every United States senator takes a solemn oath to support the Constitution and to bear it true faith and allegiance. Ms. Lynch has forthrightly told the Senate, under oath, that she will undermine the Constitution. A senator cannot support and defend the Constitution by voting to confirm — to the highest law-enforcement position in the federal government, no less — a nominee who has announced that she intends to undermine the Constitution. A vote to confirm such a person, therefore, would plainly violate the senator’s oath.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rew-c-mccarthy

[Tremor14]

watch

[SMKR]

Calibrate and listen

[Sgt Beavis]

I'm shocked. McCain has said he supports McConnells efforts to blocked a nominee. I definitely didn't expect that.

You can read the Huffington Post bitchin' about it here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-supreme-court-nominees_us_56c3ab12e4b0c3c550531205