Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York is complaining that Republicans are being “obstructionists” when they say they plan to fight President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominees.
But watch Schumer say in 2007 that he wants his fellow Democrats to block ANY nomination by then President George W. Bush… a full 19 months before Bush left office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY
Typical of the hypocritical Democrat ! Don’t do as I do, do as I say ! Disgusting !
They seem to cut short the little barb that Steffy got in about voting down other nominees. The Dems always want their way. They scream and holler every time they don’t get it. We can’t afford to let the left take over. Schumer has never been investigated or charged with his and Al Franken’s illegal use of IRS information against GOP candidates, they wanted to ruin their run for office. He needs to go to prison with many other Dems that have committed felonies under this administration.
to get real justice you must kick everyone of the long term congressmen/women out of office and put non lawyers in ( first timers ,laborers ) get rid of the entrenched to get rid of the corruption !!!!
This is all politics. Mitch should not have said what he said. He would have been more effective to have said nothing and then worked to slow the process down as it works its way through the Senate.
Chuck Schumer doesn’t reflect my values. Barack Obama and the liberal wing of the Supreme Court doesn’t reflect my values.
This highlights a real problem in our nation. We have allowed a group of nine unelected justices to overrule the will and the votes of the citizens and their elected officials. Judicial restraint is lacking in our court system so every vacancy turn into a prize fight to see who can stack the deck in their favor. The Court did for gay marriage what it was unable to accomplish legislatively–make it legal across the nation. The Court either needs to practice restraint or we need to consider placing some limiting mechanism on it. That limit could be a term limit on judges or requiring the judges to run for re-election.
You will hear the same calls from Democrats if a conservative Republican is elected president in 2016. Three of the remaining members on the Court are over 70. There’s a good chance the next president will get to replace some or all of them. If the Democrats think a liberal seat is going to be filled by a conservative president they are going to make the same arguments that the conservatives are making now.
Mitch the old goat has no intention to go against any of the policies of the Jihadi in the Oval Office, or fight him on anything it just empty words that we heard before,like on the repeal of Obamacare, and planned parenthood,the executive amnesty,the cowards were supposed to fight these and promised to use the power of the purse they lied to us just as the Dem’s, Do not believe these cowards.
Article III. – The Judicial Branch
Section 1 – Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be v
ested in one supreme Court, and in
such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time
to time ordain and establish. The
Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, sh
all hold their Offices during good
Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for t
heir Services a Compensation which
shall not be diminished during their Continuance in
Office.
Section 2 – Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, J
ury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in L
aw and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Tr
eaties made, or which shall be made,
under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambas
sadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jur
isdiction; to Controversies to which
the United States shall be a Party; to Controversie
s between two or more States; between
a State and Citizens of another State; between Citi
zens of different States; between
Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Gra
nts of different States, and between a
State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,
Citizens or Subjects.)
(This section in
parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Mi
nisters and Consuls, and those in
which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court sha
ll have original Jurisdiction. In all the
other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court sha
ll have appellate Jurisdiction, both
as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under
such Regulations as the Congress
shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeach
ment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial
shall be held in the State where the said Crimes sh
all have been committed; but when not
committed within any State, the Trial shall be at s
uch Place or Places as the Congress
may by Law have directed.
Section 3 – Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist on
ly in levying War against them, or in
adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comf
ort. No Person shall be convicted of
Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to
the same overt Act, or on
Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punish
ment of Treason, but no Attainder of
Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeitu
re except during the Life of the
Person attainted.
Don’t worry, the GOP senate will cave
Trump 2016.
trumpt blast-
Thanks for posting Article 3, which defines(and limits) what powers SCOTUS may lawfully, that is, Constitutionally, exercise.
To any who are reading along, show me “interpret” in Article 3. It ain’t there. Ergo, it is NOT a power SCOTUS has been delegated, ergo it is a power which has been arrogated Unconstitutionally, that is, they have arrogantly TAKEN that power and have exercised it Unconstitutionally, along with the heinous and pernicious doctrine of “implied” powers. Does Article 3 mention anything about any “implied” powers? No? Then again, there’s NO SUCH THING as powers that are “implied.” One more thing: does the Supreme Law – you know, the one that is sworn to? – say ANYWHERE IN IT that “precedent” may trump the Supreme Law? No? Then that bullshit is also exposed for the nonsense it is.
Together, “implied” powers and the alleged “power to interpret” (as well as “precedent”) the Constitution are the tools with which SCOTUS has, via various alleged “rulings”(i say “alleged” because IAW Marbury v Madison, ANY and ALL laws which are Unconstitutional are null and void from the date of inception, much less implementation) have effectively changed the Constitution, a power delegated only to Congress and/or the States via the Amendment process clearly outlined in the Constitution itself.
So here’s what should happen: upon any and every SCOTUS judge making any ruling whatsoever that violates his or her oath to the Constitution, immediate arrest for felony perjury, followed – upon conviction – by a jail term not to exceed 10 years, forfeiture of every dime received while betraying the public trust, and a lifetime ban upon any further participation in any government in America again for the rest of their lives. Any “ruling” which has the effect of changing the Constitution either by adding to it or detracting from it is a clear violation of their oaths of office, and is an arrogation of powers NOT DELEGATED, ergo a felony breach of the Oath of Office, aka “perjury.”
Somehow these knuckleheads have gotten into their heads that THEY are superior to the Supreme Law(see Art. 6), when the opposite is the Truth; the Supreme Law, by definition, is superior to every ruling by SCOTUS, every EO issued by any presnit, and any “law” made by Congress which exceeds the boundaries of their few and defined powers. Any and all of the foregoing are void, a nullity, and may be ignored with impunity, for anything which violated the Oaths of Office taken by ALL Public Servants and Employees on the Public dime is first, Unconstitutional; if anything as mentioned earlier is Unconstitutional, then it is Unlawful; if it is Unlawful, then it is Illegal; if it is Illegal, it is Criminal, and those who betrayed the public trust by violating their oaths should again be immediately arrested, tried, convicted, fined, jailed, and forbidden any position of public trust again – at a minimum, for being too damned dumb to understand the Supreme Law to which they swore their Oaths.
Failure to arrest and try Oathbreakers is slovenly neglect of the power of the People to ensure faithfulness on the part of those elected or appointed to serve THEM, not the 1%. Besides, any and every time a bully gets away with bullying, the problem increases, not decreases. Anyone who’s ever been through high school and been a victim of bullying can testify as to the veracity of these words.
Some say that relatively soon, large areas of America will be placed under martial law by oathbreaking agents of the USG; i say, “show me that part of the Constitution which allows for martial law to be imposed under ANY circumstances; if you can’t find it, then it’s Unconstitutional.”
Others will say that “emergency” justifies Unconstitutional measures; i say “bullshit,” and can prove it:
“Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.”
~Justice Charles Evans Hughes(1862-1948) Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
Source: Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blairsdell, 1934