Home | About | Donate

On Supreme Court, Some Republicans Threaten Not to Do Their Jobs Indefinitely


#1

On Supreme Court, Some Republicans Threaten Not to Do Their Jobs Indefinitely

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

The GOP's U.S. Supreme Court blockade could last through a potential Hillary Clinton presidency, some Republican senators are warning.

Already, Senate Republicans have held up the nomination of Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's choice to fill the high court seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia's death, for more than 230 days.


#2

Surely such a political decision made ahead of time to STOP governmental process should be seen as treason, leading to loss of seat and to indictment.


#3

If the gubmit didn't stop the Talibundy invasion of Malheur, do you think they will charge Congresscritters with treason ?

SCOTUS will continue to shrink from attrition.

Had Obama not pushed his corporate welfare program disguised as "health care reform" through during his first year in office the Democrats would control Congress today and none of this would be happening.


#4

As the divide between the oligarchs (pirates and thieves with impunity) and the masses (those people who actually produce wealth and must be stolen from) becomes greater and more obvious, we can expect that the political forces will become more blunt and aggressive. The People can control the economy and political behavior and so must be denied the opportunity to realize and to organize within the legal structure so that the cost of change looks to be too great to contemplate.


#5

"Republicans threaten not to do their job indefinitely." Both parties are doing their jobs with great enthusiasm. Just ask their employers. Hint: not we the people.


#6

Three words: Brand New Congress.


#7

I'm particularly appalled that obstruction has become a campaign pledge. That is the tide that must turn.


#9

This is nothing new. If they will not do their jobs then they need to be removed. Really I think they all need to be removed. They put politics ahead of the country and the citizens. Once in they think they can do what ever they want. We should be able to remove them when they become a threat. McCain is one that really needs to go. This isn't the first time that he has had a tantrum. He calls for war more than any other politician.


#10

But only a small group of us has power to remove each of them or not. And now they are clearly selling themselves on the promise to reflect back to their voters the power to break our Constitutional system. They want to preserve the ruling that fills their (campaign) pockets, punish the SCOTUS for rulings like DOMA, and make sure no more common sense becomes the law of the land.


#12

For people that are antiunion, they sure do come together as a union to go on strike.


#13

You have to understand their point of view as socialists. Who else will pay their phone, cable electricty, food bills?


#14

Given the wonderful decisions coming from the er, Supremes, like Citizen's United, I have a hard time caring about the court at all. The words Justice and Supreme just make me laugh.
What we are watching is the slow destruction of the constitution and any shred of democracy we may have had, or not. This bought out congress has already pledged allegiance to the corporations and that includes most of the Judges so what difference does it make?
It has been made painfully clear that none have the best interest of the country at heart so they're really just haggling over who gets to preside over the theft of the treasury and every dime they can squeeze out of us. When you're being robbed do you really care which thief gets your money?


#15

It is a political act and remedies remain political, not criminal. There seems to be a great desire among some on both Left and Right to lock people up. Jefferson couldn't even lock up Burr and Burr murdered Hamilton and tried to lead a putsch on the Mississippi. Better to let the people and history make the judgements.


#16

There's a reason the judiciary is the one leg of the checks-and-balances stool that's never identified as partisan, and the SCOTUS justices in particular are not supposed to comment on elections. May not always work, but I'm pretty grateful for it.


#17

As always, it's Obamas fault. Just so millions of low income workers could get health care. The Bastard.


#18

Obama is BLACK that is the WHOLE reason for this obstruction. From the moment he was called a LIAR that day I knew we were headed downhill/ All civility in the RACIST RIGHT was exposed. I said to myself... Here we go The dam just cracked. I thought that the dam would burst when the Repubes stated that they would vote against every proposal Obama made but it did not burst until Trump came along which TOTALLY SHOWS just what DEGENERATE HUMANS Republicans are.


#19

Millions of low income Murkins could get INSURANCE, not "health care" via ACA.

Insurance is a financial product, not a health care product.

Obama being black has nothing to do with GOP obstruction. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) during the past three decades pushing the Party to the right of where the GOP was forty years ago has pushed the GOP so far to the right that obstruction is one of the few options they have to differentiate themselves from the Democrats.


#22

HRC will appoint Corporate Ass licking Judges though hopefully progressive.


#24

Congress holds the cards in this game. The House could re-set the number of Justices to a higher or lower number; the Supreme court term could be made year-round. The Senate, even in a Democratic majority, may no go for it. It's been 9 Justices since 1837, so Congress is not likely to be in a hurry to modernize the Court. As far as term limits, it's a tough call. Maybe 20 years would be a good length of service, especially if the Court is changed to a year-round term. In terms of the Supreme Court, any change is a big change.


#26

"if you want to live the American dream, you should move to Finland or Denmark, which have much higher social mobility."--Prof. Richard Wilkinson