Ronald Reagan Has A Clear Message For SCOTUS-Blocking Republicans

I still have no figured out what rights we have lost. You (Generic) can still call the president names and you don't go to jail, you can carry your gun to church and don't go to jail. You can pray in any church you want and don't go to jail. You can force you religion down others throat (rhetorical) and don't go to jail. You can Protest peacefully and get arrested. You can make laws that discriminate and not get arrested. So what has been taken away.

MSgt Michael Bischoff Justice Scalia is the guy who wrote the majority opinion in DC vs Heller, that case a 5-4 decision stated that self defense was part of the 2nd Amendment, the dissent argued that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia and there is no basis for self defense. The specifics were D.C.'s ban on handguns that was deemed unconstitutional by Scalia. If Obama were to appoint another liberal the dissent would have won the case establishing precedent. Which means you would no longer have the right to a handgun, or to defend yourself. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Don't delude yourself into thinking your rights won't be infringed by the Democrats, especially when they keep talking about following Australia's gun confiscation program.

First of all Obama had NOTHING to do with Heller since it happened in 2008. Obama has never said to take guns away, he said for the states to enforce with their laws that are in place. I don't want or will get into more of this philosophical interpretation of the continuation and that is all it is. I support guns ownership by he way.

If you read McConnell's statement what he said was that he would not even bring up the nominee to the floor to have an up or down vote . The president will do his responsibility by nominating someone for that position . Shouldn't the Senate do their job as well ? They can vote up or down on his nominee . But to say that they won't even bring it to the floor before a name has even been mention is very hypocritical .

SGT Lou Meza - I get that and I also disagree with him. However, what I am pointing out is that if you're going to invoke the statements or actions of those in the past, note that this issue is not confined to one party. The Democrats have also made the threats and even attempted to take significant actions to prevent past Presidents from making appointments. I'm all for the up and down vote but I also have no problem with is a strong showing by the Republicans, voting down each of the nominees. If this happens through the election, I'm ok with that. After all as President Obama put it, elections have consequences, He's been playing with the Constitution through issuance of executive orders on unprecedented issues, and essentially ignoring Congress with regards to laws passed concerning GITMO and then some. If the Republicans proceed with the votes and vote down each candidate all the way through Jan 2017, President Obama is essentially getting a taste of his own medicine. The only difference is, they will be following the rules as written in the Constitution.

Exactly , and that's all the the Dems are expecting .

BS! The Democrats are going to whine as soon as the GOP votes against the first nominee. We all know this will happen. Just like Obama himself whined and threatened to filibuster Bush when he selected Alito. Make no mistake, the Dems will demand that the Republicans confirm the first choice and they will automatically make all kinds of accusations about racial, sexual preference, or gender discrimination when they don't. I'll even go as far as to say they will make those accusations as soon as the candidate is named and the Republican members begin to criticize the qualifications.

What the Dems are expecting is the Republicans to roll over and accept whatever they wish. I say they should fight back similar to the way Obama has been doing the last 7 years.