Supreme Court scuffle triggers constitutional clash

[rooster59]

Supreme Court scuffle triggers constitutional clash

JOSH LEDERMAN, Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — It only took one man's death to give Congress an opening to extend its dysfunction to the rest of government.

Republican opposition to letting President Barack Obama replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia quickly sparked a constitutional clash over the president's right to fill Supreme Court vacancies. Democrats, who have their own history of boxing out Republicans over court nominees, are up in arms, but begrudgingly concede that Obama's pick is unlikely to be confirmed.

So as both parties prepare for political brawling, the eight remaining justices could spend the next year hearing critical cases alongside an empty seat, unable to break a tie in the event of a 4-4 split.

The standoff raises a scenario that Washington long has dreaded: that bitter partisanship in Congress, mixed with the tactics of obstruction, would eventually jeopardize the basic ability to function of another branch of government.

"If Republicans do what they suggest, I think we're headed not only for a constitutional crisis but also for big problems for the legislative process," said Jim Manley, a former aide to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. "This is the natural reaction to the continued Senate breakdown we've seen for years."

Supreme Court nominees have been rejected before. Yet Democrats accuse Republicans of taking obstructionism to a new level by insisting Obama not even name a nominee with 11 months left in his term — and refusing to hold a confirmation vote if he does. Though the Constitution is clear that it is the president who nominates, Republicans say the Founding Fathers never required the Senate to give a vote.

With a vast majority of Americans already disillusioned by Congress, the White House hopes the Republican gambit will backfire.

"It's a little bit like saying, God forbid something happen to the president and the vice president, 'We're not going to fill the presidency for another year and a half,'" Vice President Joe Biden said this past week.

Republicans are unimpressed by those appeals to the Constitution. After all, many of the leading cases now before the Supreme Court question Obama's unilateral actions. Opponents argue Obama exceeded his legal authority with climate change and immigration policies that he tried, but failed, to persuade Congress to enact.

"There is a significant portion of the country that watches the pretty egregious constitutional liberties the president has taken over the years and views with a sense of humor his newfound respect for the document," said Josh Holmes, former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The prospect of a protracted Supreme Court vacancy sounded alarms for those who worry that congressional gridlock will ultimately grind government to a halt. Three years ago, a quarrel over Obama's health care law led to a partial 16-day government shutdown. Obama has faced repeated nail-biting moments in which it appeared Congress might allow the U.S. to default on its debt or refuse to fund the government.

Obama acknowledges that he and his party aren't blameless. The White House says Obama regrets that when he was a senator, he supported using a procedural maneuver to block a vote on Samuel Alito's nomination to the high court. Alito was confirmed anyway.

Less than three years ago, when Democrats ran the Senate, they changed practices so that the minority party couldn't use Senate rules to block presidential nominees for key appellate judgeships. The change, which did not apply to Supreme Court picks, was accomplished without a single Republican vote. Infuriated Republicans warned that Democrats would lose Senate control sometime and regret that they had trampled on the minority's rights.

Obama and his aides have said he will nominate a qualified candidate who can win Republican support. But to overcome procedural roadblocks, Obama would have to peel away 14 Republicans, and that feat looks impossible now.

Former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey said that in past confirmation tussles, power was concentrated in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the Republican and Democratic leaders worked closely together. Since then, power has shifted to Senate leaders, he said, making the process more ideological and conflicts harder to resolve.

"For the next president, it will be, 'Well, is it 11 months? Fifteen months? Eighteen months?' If someone announces they're going to leave the Senate, do they lose the right to vote?" Kerrey said. "You can argue, 'Well, let's let the people decide.'"

But Sara Fagen, President George W. Bush's former political director, said Senate Republicans would pay no political penalty.

"The Republican base doesn't want a liberal justice, and they're completely fine with the court having a vacancy for as long as is required to get a justice they believe is right," Fagen said.

-- (c) Associated Press 2016-01-21

[Tatsujin]

Sounds like this form of Government has failed badly, it's just a bunch of overpaid children squabbling over everything and doing nothing.

Sack them all and start over.

[boomerangutang]

OP from AP: So as both parties prepare for political brawling, the eight remaining justices could spend the next year hearing critical cases alongside an empty seat, unable to break a tie in the event of a 4-4 split.

A tie means that the prior ruling stays.

OP from AP: "The Republican base doesn't want a liberal justice, and they're completely fine with the court having a vacancy for as long as is required to get a justice they believe is right," Fagen said.

Which means it may be up to Bernie to appoint a justice, which could well be a more liberal-minded person than Obama would appoint. Also, whereas Republicans control congress now, the way their candidates are tearing each other apart, Congress may soon have a majority of Democrats. That would make it even easier for Bernie or Hillary to instate a fair-minded justice.

Also, Obama has put forth two justices during the past 7 years, and both have sailed through to confirmation unscathed. Because of Republicans' current unconstitutional delay tactics, Obama's next submission will undoubtedly be contested, but that doesn't mean ALL Republicans are obstructionist. Some may vote in a reasonable way, and do their Constitutional duty, as some have prior.

Not all Republicans are as hot-headed and tantrum-oriented as Trump.

Edited February 21, 2016 by boomerangutang

[jpinx]

Given the way politicians behave, it is a relief that the founding fathers created a system which will basically fail if personalities do not give way to the US national interest. Most of my US friends agree that the whole political circus in Washington is just that - a circus. Unfortunately the candidates for the job of ringmaster are just the usual bunch of clowns behaving badly. Great entertainment value, especially as the process is long and protracted, giving lots of time for the various people to fall into the various holes they dug to trap their opponents. It would be a lot funnier if it wasn't for the fact the the winner is handed the keys of the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, and is commander-in-chief of the largest military force in the world.

[klauskunkel]

In the end Goldman Sachs, et al, decide who gets what position anyway, so just ask them directly and go from there...

[Srikcir]

The USSC is already being impacted by its current 4-4 deadlocked justices"

The U.S. Supreme Court just refused Friday night an one sentence decision not to consider a lower-court order demanding North Carolina legislators scrap a 2014 redistricting map and draw a new congressional map, meaning House primary elections won't occur in March 2016 as scheduled but shifted to June 2016 AFTER the elections.

This means the congressional primary elections will now occur under new boundaries that put two incumbents in the same district and seriously jeopardize the re-election of Democratic Rep. Alma Adams, who is now living in a strong Republican district.

This is an example why the USSC must be brought quickly to a full 9-member court.

[Pinot]

Forgetaboutit -highly unlikely a new Supreme gets appointed by Obama. Who knows. It doesn't matter.

Republicans are screwed. If they allow a judge, it will be a human being instead of a wingnut and all the terrible decisions made with that conservative court will get tossed.

It's not a constitutional clash, it's a human beings vs. wingnut clash.

If they wait until a new President is elected there will still be a human being but he/she will probably be more liberal all the decisions get tossed.

Screwed if they do; screwed if they don't.

The appointment becomes an election issue out of who that judge should be. Does America want another Anthony Scalia? Of course not. Citizens United is one of the worst things that has ever happened to America. All brought on by the 5 conservative judges.

Should a woman have the right to choose? Should corporations be considered people? Can states pass laws limiting voter rights? Can rich people choose who gets elected with their money? Do states have the right to gerrymander? On and on and on.

They're screwed. Trump vs the Pope or iPhones or whatever it is today...it's insane. Terrible rightwing candidates are blowing up the Republican party. They so deserve a beating and they're going to get it.

[jpinx]

lovely rant unfortunately true in many respects....

[wwest5829]

OP from AP: So as both parties prepare for political brawling, the eight remaining justices could spend the next year hearing critical cases alongside an empty seat, unable to break a tie in the event of a 4-4 split.

A tie means that the prior ruling stays.

OP from AP: "The Republican base doesn't want a liberal justice, and they're completely fine with the court having a vacancy for as long as is required to get a justice they believe is right," Fagen said.

Which means it may be up to Bernie to appoint a justice, which could well be a more liberal-minded person than Obama would appoint. Also, whereas Republicans control congress now, the way their candidates are tearing each other apart, Congress may soon have a majority of Democrats. That would make it even easier for Bernie or Hillary to instate a fair-minded justice.

Also, Obama has put forth two justices during the past 7 years, and both have sailed through to confirmation unscathed. Because of Republicans' current unconstitutional delay tactics, Obama's next submission will undoubtedly be contested, but that doesn't mean ALL Republicans are obstructionist. Some may vote in a reasonable way, and do their Constitutional duty, as some have prior.

Not all Republicans are as hot-headed and tantrum-oriented as Trump.

One can hope.

[wwest5829]

In the end Goldman Sachs, et al, decide who gets what position anyway, so just ask them directly and go from there...

Unless, the only candidate with an honest, lifelong record of fighting against the special interests is

elected through the growing groundswell of voters.

[Rancid]

This is the same supreme court that awarded Bush his election victory over Gore wasn't it? Hmm.

[Pinot]

lovely rant unfortunately true in many respects....

Thank you.

If the shoe was on the other foot they'd be howling like stuck pigs.

I will all work out in the end. The Republican pity party started with the death of that miserable old man.

[chuckd]

This is the same supreme court that awarded Bush his election victory over Gore wasn't it? Hmm.

The citizens of Florida elected Bush. Try to keep up.

[lostboy]

This is the same supreme court that awarded Bush his election victory over Gore wasn't it? Hmm.

The citizens of Florida elected Bush. Try to keep up.

Constantly on the wrong side of history. You will find that a corrupt political hack by the name of Katherine Harris played a significant role in delivering Florida to Baby Bush firstly by illegally purging many African American voters from Florida's rolls, with the connivance of Baby Bush's baby brother, the failed 2016 Presidential Candidate and then by directly interfering with the will of a number of voters by rejecting ballots due to those hanging chads (over-votes) caused by obsolete technology. She was rewarded with a seat in the US congress for a while before demonstrating her financial and political corruption and incompetence and was booted out.

The devil is in the details Chuck.

Edited February 21, 2016 by lostboy

[boomerangutang]

This is the same supreme court that awarded Bush his election victory over Gore wasn't it? Hmm.

The citizens of Florida elected Bush. Try to keep up.

Lostboy said it better than I, but Gore would have won FL in 2000 if the Republicans hadn't gone ballistic in barring voter counts. At one point, there was even a mob of Republicans who stormed a vote-counting session in order to disrupt it. They were successful in disrupting it. So many bizarre things happened back then. Several times, Bush Sr's right hand man Baker stormed into press sessions and red-faced shouted down anyone who didn't agree with him. I saw footage of Baker shouting, red-faced into peoples' faces, from inches away. All the while, the Reps were delaying and obstructing re-counts. And yes, it was finally a Republican-nominee-dominated Supreme Court which shut the door on Gore, who would have been a much better prez than Bush Jr.

[Andaman Al]

This is the same supreme court that awarded Bush his election victory over Gore wasn't it? Hmm.

The citizens of Florida elected Bush. Try to keep up.

Now that is either trolling or totally disingenuous.

[chuckd]

Just wondering how so many people can remain so misinformed for so many years. Either stupidity or blind partisanship.

1. AP: A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.

2. Palm Beach Post: Al Gore was doomed.

He couldn’t have caught George W. Bush even if his two best chances for an official recount had played out.

3. USA Today: George W. Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida’s presidential election if the most widely accepted standard for judging votes had been applied.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

4. Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER Published: November 12, 2001 A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

[arjunadawn]

Few OPs so blatantly betray their agenda and politics as this one. This author is either terribly ignorant or the editor and author are both liars. The "news" is presented here is a fictional quandary, set up as these things are by the left to use fear mongering to crisis govern. So, according to this buffoon the Supreme Court is effectively a sabbatical until another justice is appointed. The OP pretty clearly suggests that much of the nation's business cannot be conducted should those pesky republicans block advise and consent. Wrong!

This OP is garbage politics. SCOTUS can adjudicate with 8 justices and there is precedent for an even number of justices, including its creation. Furthermore, there is a highly evolved mechanic for rendering cases that are tried back to their venue, origination. They too are competent justices. This OP is one of the now common examples of misinformation stalking as news; it is not. News like this revises facts and history. Either someone is so stupid that they do not know what they are writing is wrong/incomplete, or they are intentionally lying. The US education system is broken but not yet producing people that are this stupid, so this is lies.

Gridlock is not a byproduct of a broken system. Gridlock is like inflammation is to the body. It is the natural and planned response to try to save the body when it moves rapidly from its narrow zone conducive to life. Inflammation may eventually kill you itself, but for the most part inflammation acts to enable the organism to survive. Gridlock is the intentional friction built into the system to stop crisis to crisis emotional governing, impulsive or fundamental transformation, and ceases the wheels of State- grindhalt/gridlock.

Its is to this lie that Big Government proponents peddle their deceit- the population does not want gridlock. Wrong! Gridlock saves; midterm and this elections overwhelmingly suggest the population wants everything to stop moving "forward" for a time.

[Chicog]

As I mentioned earlier, life expectancy even only 150 years ago was half what it is now.

So the churn of justices must have been significant.

I wonder if they ever believed someone could serve on that court for 30+ years, and if they would have done things differently if they foresaw it?

[lostboy]

Few OPs so blatantly betray their agenda and politics as this one. This author is either terribly ignorant or the editor and author are both liars. The "news" is presented here is a fictional quandary, set up as these things are by the left to use fear mongering to crisis govern. So, according to this buffoon the Supreme Court is effectively a sabbatical until another justice is appointed. The OP pretty clearly suggests that much of the nation's business cannot be conducted should those pesky republicans block advise and consent. Wrong!

This OP is garbage politics. SCOTUS can adjudicate with 8 justices and there is precedent for an even number of justices, including its creation. Furthermore, there is a highly evolved mechanic for rendering cases that are tried back to their venue, origination. They too are competent justices. This OP is one of the now common examples of misinformation stalking as news; it is not. News like this revises facts and history. Either someone is so stupid that they do not know what they are writing is wrong/incomplete, or they are intentionally lying. The US education system is broken but not yet producing people that are this stupid, so this is lies.

Gridlock is not a byproduct of a broken system. Gridlock is like inflammation is to the body. It is the natural and planned response to try to save the body when it moves rapidly from its narrow zone conducive to life. Inflammation may eventually kill you itself, but for the most part inflammation acts to enable the organism to survive. Gridlock is the intentional friction built into the system to stop crisis to crisis emotional governing, impulsive or fundamental transformation, and ceases the wheels of State- grindhalt/gridlock.

Its is to this lie that Big Government proponents peddle their deceit- the population does not want gridlock. Wrong! Gridlock saves; midterm and this elections overwhelmingly suggest the population wants everything to stop moving "forward" for a time.

Your answer to Big Government is a repellent nihilism of nothingness. Such nothingness emerging from the inability for any decisions to be taken as a result of this gridlock panacea. The far right and their complete rejection of sense. They don't like the word democrat so they reject the idea that the US is a Democracy. They hate the word Progressive with such a passion that some call for a stop to all 'forward movement' preferring instead an endless cycle of gridlock, shut downs and filibuster. Do we have a voter for Raphael Cruz here?

What then does your stand still solution offer Americans? Wikipedia tells us that were around 83 million Millenials in the US in 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials. This is the coming generation. These are the ones who are replacing the tired old Baby Boomers and will soon replace the Gen X'ers, both with their tired selfishness. What does your nihilism off them? The status quo is what you offer them. A financial system that actively rewards the rich and has been widening the income inequality gap for a generation. Weakened regulations of the financial system resulting in cyclical booms and busts creating havoc for the middle class. A legacy of failed military interventionism and the creation of radical terrorist groups. A military-security-industrial state that rides roughshod over personal liberties and privacy in the name of national security but in reality only for the purpose of protecting feudal-like fiefdoms and their budgets circling the power centres in the US. A social policy formed on the basis of the denial of universal human rights to satisfy a small minority of religious fanatics. This is what your Gridlock will give to the next generation.

They reject this utterly. The current election cycle is demonstration of this. You no longer have any choice in the matter. This next generation is taking the decision away from the Establishment, the Non Progressives, the Stick in the Muds, the Bigots, the Party of No.

And thank goodness for it.

I am sure the Millenials will make as many mistakes as the Baby Boomers and Gen X'ers. But I am already liking a lot of what they stand for. Real social equality. Real financial equality. Respect for diversity. Respect for the environment. The Age of Heroes (I have stolen the term from the novel Proxima by Stephen Baxter) that started after WWII where America could succeed in heroic projects irrespective of how many resources were consumed is coming to an end. Such an Age is not sustainable. The Millenials realise this. Shale Gas and Shale Oil may give the Energy Economic, the basis for the Age of Heroes a few hundred more years but then what. Your status quo is not environmentally, economically or socially sustainable. Your status quo relies on the maintenance of an under class, many of whom are undocumented immigrants who are both reviled and needed by the US.

Progress is inevitable. It cannot be stopped. The coming generation will see to it. The values and limited world view of the reactionaries will be swept aside and replaced with something new.

It has already started with America's small jump to the left (with homage to Rocky Horror) under President Obama and will be continued in the next generation with a majority left leaning SCOTUS.

[mopar71]

This is the same supreme court that awarded Bush his election victory over Gore wasn't it? Hmm.

The citizens of Florida elected Bush. Try to keep up.

Lostboy said it better than I, but Gore would have won FL in 2000 if the Republicans hadn't gone ballistic in barring voter counts. At one point, there was even a mob of Republicans who stormed a vote-counting session in order to disrupt it. They were successful in disrupting it. So many bizarre things happened back then. Several times, Bush Sr's right hand man Baker stormed into press sessions and red-faced shouted down anyone who didn't agree with him. I saw footage of Baker shouting, red-faced into peoples' faces, from inches away. All the while, the Reps were delaying and obstructing re-counts. And yes, it was finally a Republican-nominee-dominated Supreme Court which shut the door on Gore, who would have been a much better prez than Bush Jr.

Sorry, but this was rehashed many times after 2000 and in all cases Bush won. It wouldn't even have been close if the news channels didn't declare a winner too soon, while polls in the republican-dominated western panhandle were still open (1 hour time zone difference). Seeing the vote already decided, many voters stayed home.

[mopar71]

"Less than three years ago, when Democrats ran the Senate, they changed practices so that the minority party couldn't use Senate rules to block presidential nominees for key appellate judgeships. The change, which did not apply to Supreme Court picks, was accomplished without a single Republican vote. Infuriated Republicans warned that Democrats would lose Senate control sometime and regret that they had trampled on the minority's rights."

There you have it, Senate Democrats did it to themselves. Totally oblivious and short-sighted to the results of their actions, just like EU politicians welcoming migrants. They changed the rules then and it has come back to bite them in the ass. Just as the next president will continue doing things like Obama...and if that is Trump, hoo-boy.

[kamahele]

Just wondering how so many people can remain so misinformed for so many years. Either stupidity or blind partisanship.

1. AP: A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.

2. Palm Beach Post: Al Gore was doomed.

He couldn’t have caught George W. Bush even if his two best chances for an official recount had played out.

3. USA Today: George W. Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida’s presidential election if the most widely accepted standard for judging votes had been applied.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

4. Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER Published: November 12, 2001 A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

We'll never really know actually since there was a faulty purge of mostly minority voters before the election. The names on the list compiled by a private company with ties to the Republican party. We don't know for sure how many of these people who were wrongly purged would have voted but no doubt, had they voted, one would assume that most would have voted for Gore.

[chuckd]

Just wondering how so many people can remain so misinformed for so many years. Either stupidity or blind partisanship.

1. AP: A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.

2. Palm Beach Post: Al Gore was doomed.

He couldn’t have caught George W. Bush even if his two best chances for an official recount had played out.

3. USA Today: George W. Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida’s presidential election if the most widely accepted standard for judging votes had been applied.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

4. Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER Published: November 12, 2001 A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

We'll never really know actually since there was a faulty purge of mostly minority voters before the election. The names on the list compiled by a private company with ties to the Republican party. We don't know for sure how many of these people who were wrongly purged would have voted but no doubt, had they voted, one would assume that most would have voted for Gore.

I provide links. You might want to give that a thought.

[Pinot]

Few OPs so blatantly betray their agenda and politics as this one. This author is either terribly ignorant or the editor and author are both liars. The "news" is presented here is a fictional quandary, set up as these things are by the left to use fear mongering to crisis govern. So, according to this buffoon the Supreme Court is effectively a sabbatical until another justice is appointed. The OP pretty clearly suggests that much of the nation's business cannot be conducted should those pesky republicans block advise and consent. Wrong!

This OP is garbage politics. SCOTUS can adjudicate with 8 justices and there is precedent for an even number of justices, including its creation. Furthermore, there is a highly evolved mechanic for rendering cases that are tried back to their venue, origination. They too are competent justices. This OP is one of the now common examples of misinformation stalking as news; it is not. News like this revises facts and history. Either someone is so stupid that they do not know what they are writing is wrong/incomplete, or they are intentionally lying. The US education system is broken but not yet producing people that are this stupid, so this is lies.

Gridlock is not a byproduct of a broken system. Gridlock is like inflammation is to the body. It is the natural and planned response to try to save the body when it moves rapidly from its narrow zone conducive to life. Inflammation may eventually kill you itself, but for the most part inflammation acts to enable the organism to survive. Gridlock is the intentional friction built into the system to stop crisis to crisis emotional governing, impulsive or fundamental transformation, and ceases the wheels of State- grindhalt/gridlock.

Its is to this lie that Big Government proponents peddle their deceit- the population does not want gridlock. Wrong! Gridlock saves; midterm and this elections overwhelmingly suggest the population wants everything to stop moving "forward" for a time.

"Gridlock saves; midterm and this elections overwhelmingly suggest the population wants everything to stop moving "forward" for a time." Stop moving forward for ever! Go back to the 50's, when men were men and negroes knew their place. Or a hundred years ago when the damn women couldn't vote. Or 150 years ago when we had slaves. Forward? Who wants forward?

What a fantastic post, Arj, one of your best. You nailed it. The Republican party wants to stop all government from functioning. EMBRACE GRIDLOCK!

Gridlock, the Republican answer to government.

Stop everything with gridlock. Any forward movement is bad...and scary.

This 4-4 Supreme Court is the best Republicans are going to get. Everything after this is down hill.