- AARP Online Community
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Invest, Diversify, Integrate Your Financial Life
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Reveal Your Travel Secrets Sweepstakes
- Home & Family Forums
- Dogs, Cats and Pets
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Love, Sex & Dating
- Our Front Porch
- Random Thoughts and Conversations
- Singles Perspective Revisited
- Comunidad Hispana de AARP
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Caregiving Forums
- Grief & Loss
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
Community Current Events
03-21-2017 04:09 PM
Democrats on the Committee and the Leadership of the Democratic Party lack the Chutzpah to fillibuster this Nomination - they realize they need to go along to get along - to get some pork for their Districts down the road
Remember Democrat Leaders Today care nothing about the Working Middle Class the Poor or the Elderly - not enough at least to Put their Careers on the Line Over Principle
All they care about is getting Re-elected
No Reasonable Democratic Voter should reward them for allowing what the Republicans did to Merlick Garland - Obama's Nominee - to go into the history books without a major rebuttal - this is their one and only chance to Make Some Noise and let everyone know - Americans should not have had to go over a year without a Full Bench on the Supreme Court - the best part is it's the Strict Constitutionalists who have supported this the most
Again, the Democratic Leadership will demonstrate who they really represent when this Vote is called - Themselves as Usual or the Base who is taking it on the Chin day after day with each new Executive Order - with Each New Attack on our Healthcare System - with each new Stupid Tweet from Trump where the next one could start a Nuclear War
( " Eat Tic Tacs - Grope Woman - Become President " ) " - Anonymous
03-21-2017 01:21 PM
Afisher-i've had an incredibly busy week could you please explain to me what the indicator and resist means thanks
03-21-2017 01:13 PM
Senate Republicans refused to hold hearings on president Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court
FYI The hearings are on know on MSNBC and FOX were he is being grilled again like he was yesterday.
Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's first day of hearings featured ...
18 hours ago - Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's first day of hearings ... court, as the hearing on his Supreme Court nomination began Monday amidst ...
Follow Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing LIVE ...
1 hour ago - Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch began the second day of his confirmation hearing by stating that the Roe v. Wade precedent "has been reaffirmed many times," and telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that the question of whether he could rule against Trump was a ...
Neil Gorsuch's confirmation hearing begins in Senate | USA News | Al ...
14 hours ago - The Senate Judiciary Committee has opened its confirmation hearing for Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's US Supreme Court nominee, ...
Live coverage: Supreme Court nominee hearings begin | TheHill
1 day ago - The committee got through opening statements from its members and Gorsuch, and will begin questioning the nominee when the hearing ...
03-21-2017 01:07 PM - edited 03-21-2017 01:08 PM
Why would any Senator be anxious to stand behind a WH nominee at this point in time? They have been warned that it is not 100% about the nominee at this point but do you want to be associated with a WH that is corrupt and you forwarded their agenda. A vote will be a huge black mark against the Republican legacy. Once the party had morals and ethics - they have killed off those values on their own. Yep, I used #resist to contact both my Republican Senators.
03-21-2017 12:53 PM
Saworld and others
- having just posted a long list of other supreme court nominees where no action was taken, I then heard Dem., Senator Patrick Leahy say that since the committee started holding hearings on candidates for Supreme Court-- and he went back as far as 1960-/no one has ever been denied hearing as was Merrick Garland. he said he found this disgraceful.
Apparently this is someone who realizes unlike Gorsuch, that times change and; therefore, the way of doing things change. listening to the testimony this morning, I am very concerned about Gorsuch's stance on birth control, which he voted against against and his siding with Hobby Lobby-a store I will no longer throw my business to as they used "religion" as an excuse not to pay for birth control,
on the second amendment. I believe I heard him correctly as he referenced the forefather's writing of the second amendment and the right for the military and citizens to bear arms.
I wonder if he realizes that at that point, the military used muskets, not semi-automatic weapons that can kill many with a single clip.
This guy over and over--went back to standing law-- all my life I thought that the Supreme Court's job was to decide whether standing law was right and applicable for the time. How else would we have gotten Row v Wade or same-sex marriage? guess I missed something when I was in college or taking those civic classes in high school--or as I followed politics my adolescent and adult life.
03-21-2017 12:30 PM
Hey Saworld--Couldn't get into the first link you sent me,--says unavailable--but did find a list of Supreme Court nominees and the outcomes of those nominations in the Wikileaks link.
There is a section in this article that defines the outcomes--the one you and I are interested in at this juncture would be NO ACTION.
Explanation of NO ACTION reads as follows: for cases in which the Senate session ended without the nomination being brought to the floor for consideration. (Notice that with the exception of the first two on this list and with regard to the nomination of Jeremiah Black, whose names were not submitted in the next session, party with control was not the same as that of the President,
I did find other nominees whose nominations would fall under NO ACTION.
:Reuben Walworth, age 55, under President Tyler, party affliliation--none, Replacing Justice Thompson, seat-1, Senate Control WHIG, Submitted to Congress, June 17, 1844--NO ACTION
John M. Read, age47--under President Tyler, party affiliation--NONE, replacing Balwin--Thompson, Seat-3, Senate Control--WHIG, Submitted to Senate--Feb. 7, 1845, 1844, result--NO ACTION
Edward A. Bradford, age 38,-- under, Presdient Fillmore, party affiliation--WHIG, replacing McKinley, seat--8, senate Control--DEM, Submitted to Senate--Aug. 16, 1852--result-NO ACTION
William C. Micou, age 46--under, President Fillmor, party affliliation--WHIG, replacing McKinley, seat--8, Senate Control--Dem, submitted to Senate--Feb 14, 1853--NO ACTION
Jeremiah Black--under Buchanan--Dem Pres., Democratically controlled Senate
Henry Stanbery-under A. Johnson--party affiliation none-Republican Senate control--NO ACTION
Stanley Matthews-UNDER Hays- Rep-Senate control--Dem--NO ACTION--
Matthews was subsequently confirmed March 14, 1881
John Marshall HarlanII--under Eisenhower-Rep,--Senate control--Republican
Harlan was subsequently confirmed Jan, 10, 1955
MERRICK GARLAND-age, 63--under President Obama, Dem,-replacing Scalia, seat 9,--Party in Control-Rep.--date submitted, March 16, 2016--NO ACTION
So, Saworld--between the two of us, we have the answer--THIS HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES BEOFORE!!
03-20-2017 10:47 PM - edited 03-21-2017 08:30 AM
pc6063 wrote: Saworld--Reread article again-its a little ambiguous as to hearings-clearly there have been times seats weren't filled. Lmk your take on this-I admit i didnt read Huff Post-lots of reading re: this issue.
Here's a link to what Senator Leahy said about it and one from WIKI. The latter provides history on all SCOTUS nominations & what happened to them. There are some other "no actions" but I think the reasons are different. For example, a "no action" in 1954 that was confirmed a few months later in 1955. Similar situation in 1881. Others are older & reasons were not given; perhaps the person who did the page couldn't find records.
03-20-2017 09:57 PM
Saworld--Reread article again-its a little ambiguous as to hearings-clearly there have been times seats weren't filled. Lmk your take on this-I admit i didnt read Huff Post-lots of reading re: this issue.
03-20-2017 09:52 PM
Yes, it has happened before. i went to The Federalist 2/ 13/2016 for confirmation. Or you can just google previous outgoing presidents supreme court candidates who were denied hearings.
03-20-2017 09:21 PM
albion61--What the Republicans did to Garland wasn't unpresidented, but that doesn't make it right, and their reasons for doing so were transparent--a total right wing take over of our Supreme Court.
pc6063, I don't think what happened to Garland - a refusal to even give the nominee a hearing - ever happened previously. Am I wrong?
- Illegal immigration
- American Legislative Ex…
- Hillary Clinton
- immigration law
- Social Security
- 2016 election
- Abolish 9Th Circuit Cou…
- AG Jeff Sessions
- Bernie Sanders
- Blind hatred
- Carson thanks biased me…
- Chris Matthews
- climate hoax