Header Image (book)


Sunday, February 26, 2017

The Consequences of "Resist"?

Click directly on the graphic to enlarge it:

[with a hat tip to Epaminondas of Infidel Bloggers Alliance]


  1. Pathetic. Knowing that Obama is still wandering around D.C. and probably behind much of the scheming to disrupt Trump adds fuel to the fire.

  2. Resistance won't be "complete"; it will likely be on par with the levels of GOP confirmation obstruction since 2014. Party antics is now the status quo, and neither side is innocent.

  3. McConnell can always change the Senate rules again and limit debate... jes sayin'.

  4. You think this delay is bad? Wait till another Supreme Court Justice opening comes up. We ain't seen NOTHIN' YET. THAT will be all out WAR.

    1. AND they'll use OUR words against us when another nominee comes up...though it was totally unethical to bring out a nominee when Obama did...presidents just didn't do that right before an election, but the media painted it as 'obstructionist'...the Right has EVERY right to OBSTRUCT that the Left does. But not according to the media....

    2. ....presidents just didn't do that right before an election....

      Can you cite a similar occurrence? Because in the previous 103 SCOTUS vacancies, a candidate was able to be nominated and appointed within the same Administration, as far as I can tell. I can't find a single vacancy that was treated in the same manner as was the Merrick Garland nomination.

      Not that I'm not happier to see Gorsuch reach the bench.

    3. @z - though it was totally unethical to bring out a nominee when Obama did

      FDR ,Nixon, Eisenhower, Wilson, Cleveland and Jefferson placed justices on the Supreme Court during election years, I think there were others.

      You may wish to research it, Z.

    4. CI,
      ....presidents just didn't do that right before an election....

      There is precedent -- or so I've read. Try a Google search.

    5. CI,

      From SCOTUS Blog:

      In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.


      In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election....

      Apparently, though, SCOTUS vacancies in an election year are relatively rare. The last time that happened was in 1987, I think.

  5. The President can blame an obstructionist congress when he fails, and Democrats can blame their minority status when the President succeeds.

    plus ├ža change

  6. http://bloviatingzeppelin.net/dnc-almost-goes-off-the-deep-end

    Recess Appointments

    1. Ed,
      Thanks for that link. Because of health issues (Again!, I haven't been making blog rounds the past few weeks.

      I note this portion of the PS to Bloviating Zeppelin's excellent post (emphasis mine):

      Here’s what the Demorats and the DNC are NOT doing:

      The Senate has only confirmed 14 of the 549 senior federal positions that Trump needs to run his government. Cabinet secretaries and people who run the departments, bureaus, agencies and the rest of government still need confirmation. The hold-up is due to Demorats only. And the written interrogatories being sent back and back by Demorats.

      So please note: the REST of the government is being administered and run by career bureaucrats and Obama holdovers. Read that: Obama holdovers. Do. The. Math.

      There are another 120 vacant federal judgeships and, of course, the Neil Gorsuch nomination to the Supreme Court. Each requires Senate approval.

      The solution is, of course, recess appointments. Let's see if that strategy is employed.

  7. Hi, Kid. The DISLOYAL Opposition would be quick to tell you that "we" were HORRIBLE to President Jug Ears. I know quite a few of "Them," and "THEY" believe that "THEY" are merely giving TIT for TAT!

    That is how distorted and completely Out of Whack "THEIR" thinking has become.

    The whole sorry lot of "THEM" has regressed to INFANCY, become RAGE ADDICTED, and totally IRRATIONAL.

    They're making a pathetic spectacle of themselves.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.