Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead at 79

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dies at 79 http://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-court-jus...

GOP hopefuls at debate react to Scalia death http://www.ktvb.com/news/nation-now/gop-ho...

Swift social media reaction to Justice Scalia's death http://www.cbsnews.com/news/swift-social-m...

The GOP's bitter South Carolina brawl http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/rep...

What do you think Ron, should the new appointment wait until after the election?

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Clarence Thomas is FREE at LAST!

Now we have the opportunity to see the FREE MAN that named his son Jamaludeen

It is the right of the sitting President to appoint any vacancies to The Supreme Court on his watch, it is his constitutional right . What this clown, McConnell is doing, will have consequences. McConnell will awaken a sleeping democratic giant.

God Bless the family of Justice Scalia.

We all know what Obama will do, but the better course would be to wait. Unless Obama wants to nominate a non-partisan. Fat chance, so the country will continue to fracture.

Until Trump wins, then things will get better.

So, you say, NO to the constitution when you see fit.

I say yes to the Constitution always. Obama will appoint, and the Senate will dissent. Is that what you want Ron, dissension?

What I want is the Senate to do its job and if that will not happen, then vote them bums OUT!

It's courting disaster to politicize the Supreme Court.

That will be on the Republicans.

No Ron, it's on both Parties. Democrats nominate Liberals and Republicans nominate Conservatives, but a rose by any other name is still a rose. Take responsibility for your part in it.

From day one, the Republican Party decide not to work with this president. All of the GOP candidates are in lock step as well. It is not both sides and that is the LIE here Steven.

Spoken like a true Democrat Ron.

GOP candidates along with the regular elected right wing of the party are broadcasting in advance what they are going to do and the body of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was not cold yet. Steven, this is what you want to be a part of? Do you think that The Republican Party is right on this one? Do you see that this is a power grab which they are not holding the winning cards?

What I think is that the appointment should wait and not be done in an election year. My opinion has nothing to do with what the Republicans are saying, it has to do with common sense. An election year is already contentious and divisive enough. I do want to see someone appointed like Justice Scalia, who respects the Constitution. President Obama does not.

Steven, your common sense has nothing to do with constitutional law, nothing to do with the law of the land. Let us go back in history to Ronald Reagan and the very actions that Mitch McConnell did in Reagan's last year in office.

On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0.

Now this very same man is talking about not even taken up a vote in Obama's nominees to fill the vacancy with over 330 days to go in office, that sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Damn!!! That is right, their was a WHITE MAN IN OFFICE. How foolish is that? Mitch said the peoples voice should be heard, I am SHOUTING OUT THAT THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE IS BEING HEARD AND MICTH IS TRYING TO SILENCE THAT VOICE.

MICTH McConnell, Throw away the "M" in MICTH and add an "B" and that best describe how his actions.

We are talking about who the people of The United States put in The Office of President, not just once but "TWICE," to the Highest Office in THE WORLD.

Now you still want to talk about your common sense or is that the same thing that motivates Mitch McConnell?

What does the Constitution say, not what does Mitch McConnell say. The Contitution can be understood by an ordinary person, it doesn't take a "constitutional lawyer" to understand it, that is a myth. And again, Obama may understand the Constitution, but that's a far cry from respecting it. What does Article 2 say Ron, tell me what it says and let's stay on point.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. It includes the President, the Vice President, the Cabinet, executive departments, independent agencies, and other boards, commissions, and committees.

Thanks for making my point Steven.

What about the paragraph I posted Ron?

By Law The President submits his candidate for appointment to The Supreme Court to The Senate for confirmation and it is the job of the Senate for confirmation or not. Just hours after Supreme Court Justice Scalia death, The head of the senate said that he will not do his job to abide by the LAW.

Steven, YOUR WORDS: What about the paragraph I posted Ron? I Thanks for making my point Steven.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2, says that the President will act with the advise and consent of the Senate. That's the point Ron, we're not talking about some damn monarchy.

Obama will lose on this one and that's a fact. There's not a damn thing he can do about it except to put forth a nominee who is acceptable to the Senate.

Last long as Obama do his job for the people of The United States, it will be up to the Republicans to do their job and the people will be watching, who speaks for the people.

The Senate will do their job and withhold their consent. The President wants to milk this situation for political gain but it will backfire on him come election day.

Withhold, refuse, suppress, quash, repress, block, contain, inhibit, deny, or obstruct this is not what the founding Fathers of this country set up for the will of the people. The real sad thing about all of Mitch McConnell’s obstruction is, that you agree with his 💩 - actions, WHY?

President Obama does not respect the Constitution. He doesn't respect the 2nd Amendment. He doesn't respect Congress. He can't be trusted to make a good nomination and the Senate leadership agrees with me. They have the Constitutional authority to advise and consent. Their advice for the President is to delay the nomination until after the election. He has ignored their advice so they will withold their consent. That's exactly what the Founders intended when they designed a Government of checks and balances.

Steven, I am talking about constitutional law and pass practices to send Supreme Court nominees to the Senate to fill a vacancy during President Obama's watch.

I see that you never did answer the question of " The real sad thing about all of Mitch McConnell’s obstruction is, that you agree with his 💩 - actions, WHY? "

If this is your answer: "President Obama does not respect the Constitution, He doesn't respect the 2nd Amendment." Direct me to one case where President Obama came for your guns or anyone's guns. CAN YOU DO THAT? STEVEN?

Steven, it is you who are agreeing with a man who fought for the right to permit President Raegan to send his nominee to the Senate to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in Raegan's last year in office, now that same man Just hours after Supreme Court Justice Scalia death, The head of the senate Mitch McConnell said that he will not do his job to hold a hearing to abide by the LAW. Was that because Raegan was a Republican and that action of his was not seen as a power grab? Steven, you agree with a man who is seen as a person that is desperate to keep the flow of power on the Republican side?

This is the same man that said that he wants to make president Obama a one term President and found that the people said different.

Republicans have no constitutional grounds to refuse to vote on a Supreme Court nominee, and President Obama, challenged his political foes in the Senate to rise above the "venom and rancor" that has paralyzed judicial.

YOUR WORDS: The President wants to milk this situation for political gain but it will backfire on him come election day.

Just a day after you said that, their is cracks showing up already in the Republican armor. Quote of The Chicago Tribune reported this: As Obama cast the dispute over filling the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia as a test of whether the Senate could function, there were early signs that Republican resistance could be eroding. Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley suggested he might be open to considering Obama's yet-to-be named nominee, an indication his party may be sensitive to Democrats' escalating charges of unchecked obstructionism.

The people of The United States have spoken twice that President Obama reflex the will of the people.

I said that Mitch McConnell agrees with me, not the other way around. Where in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 are the words "vote" or "hearing"? Show me where Ron.

Sorry Steven, the people of the United States elected you to anything, not even dog catcher. (LOL) I see that you are still running like hell from this simple question: "The real sad thing about all of Mitch McConnell’s obstruction is, that you agree with his 💩 - actions, WHY? "

If this is your answer: "President Obama does not respect the Constitution, He doesn't respect the 2nd Amendment." Direct me to one case where President Obama came for your guns or anyone's guns. CAN YOU DO THAT? STEVEN?


The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Let me just High light on these few words for a moment: " provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" Steven, the only way THE SENATORS WILL CONCUR IS BY HAVING HEARING AND BY THE POWER OF THE VOTE, their is legal president in the history of Constitutional LAW in this country.

Steven, you can't have this law work for one duly elected president and not the other simply because you may disagree with him, that is not how it works and if this BULL 💩 continues, the republican party will hear from the people of The United States.

Ron, the two-thirds concurrence refers to treaties not appointments.

I see that you are still running like hell from this simple question: "The real sad thing about all of Mitch McConnell’s obstruction is, that you agree with his 💩 - actions, WHY? " WHY STEVEN? Wasn't President Obama duly elected by the people of The United States?

I know the reason why Mitch McConnell’s obstruction is due to and that is a Republican POWER GRAB! Is this your position as well?

NOW ON TO YOUR LAST COMMENT:

Steven, do you see a period anywhere between treaties to where it states, Judges of the supreme Court?

Take your time to answer that question.

There's a semi-colon. It's a simple English sentence that anyone with an understanding of English can parse correctly.

25. Parsing a Sentence. English Grammar Lesson
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Drt9SJPW7Qo

Then you should understand that The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment, which includes filling vacancies on The Supreme Court.

Another great point Steven when it comes to this: "Then you should understand that The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.""

I want to highlight "THE MILITIA" do you see that there in writing Steven? This is the same MILITIA that P{resident Obama is Commander in Chief of, that is mentioned to give the people in the U.S. to bare weapons / arms, you can understand that can't you!

Sure Ron, I understand all of that.

OK!

Okay.

Great!!!

Why isn't the President attending Scalia's funeral? No one can figure it out.

Why isn't the President attending Scalia's funeral? No one can figure it out.
Friday, February 19th 2016 at 2:28AM
Steve Williams

because within the last 6 months of his life, Anton Scalia stated that the African American cannot succeed INTELLECTUALLY at MOST....MOST Higher Educational ESTABLISHED Universities and Colleges......

any RACIST in 2016 that makes that BELIEF.....should be shunned and if one DIES.....OK

any RACIST in 2016 that at 79Years GOES on a HUNTING trip ....should be shunned....for suicide

*************************************************************************

Constitutional Professor President Baraka Hussein Obama SHOULD nominate the GREAT Minnesota Representative and Schlolar Keith Ellison for the Position of Associate Justice for the Supreme Court

Steven,

Have you forgot this: Fisher has been lambasted by members of the African American community for suggesting that she deserved to attend UT Austin more than they do. And racial tensions surrounding the case increased Wednesday when, during oral argument, Justice Antonin Scalia cited a friend-of-court brief contending that African American students who benefit from affirmative action should instead opt for “slower-track” schools.

This is the same Justice Antonin Scalia So, don't give me that BULL 💩!!!

Read More: READ MORE: http://blackamericans.com/top-news/113357-...

Because Scalia didn't think the 14th Amendment supports racial discrimination? And Obama does?

No, I don't think that's the reason for skipping the funeral. It's something else.

Because Scalia didn't think the 14th Amendment supports racial discrimination? I am more interested in talking about what you thinK about why Justice Antonin Scalia meant by this:

"And racial tensions surrounding the case increased Wednesday when, during oral argument, Justice Antonin Scalia cited a friend-of-court brief contending that African American students who benefit from affirmative action should instead opt for “slower-track” schools."

By the way Steven, The President and The First Lady will pay their respects to Justice Antonin Scalia, later today.
So you can lay that reason for skipping the funeral of Justice Antonin Scalia, TO REST, OKAY!

All I wanted to know is why the President isn't going to the funeral. Nobody is saying so I guess I'll wait and see what he does tomorrow instead.

STEVEN,

I see that you have no comment on the remarks made by Justice Antonin Scalia.

I am more interested in talking about what you thinK about why Justice Antonin Scalia meant by this:

"And racial tensions surrounding the case increased Wednesday when, during oral argument, Justice Antonin Scalia cited a friend-of-court brief contending that African American students who benefit from affirmative action should instead opt for “slower-track” schools."

It has been reported that The President and The First Lady will pay their respects to Justice Antonin Scalia, later today.

What part of "TODAY," that you don't understand?

The President and The First Lady will pay their respects to Justice Antonin Scalia, later today?

President Obama to Pay Respects to Justice Scalia at Supreme Court http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-o...

It doesn't look good Ron. It looks like tit-for-tat.

What are you talking about Steven, " tit-for-tat?"

Because of the suggestion he should hold off on making a nomination. Ron, don't you think attending the funeral would be the dignified approach?

you act like you did not see this link:

" President Obama to Pay Respects to Justice Scalia at Supreme Court http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-o... "

Come on Ron, you're older than me, you know that going to the viewing isn't the same as going to the funeral. If Obama had died in office and Scalia didn't go, wouldn't you think it odd?

Wow, 3 o'clock and still waiting.

At about 3:40 p.m. EST, the president arrived with First Lady Michelle Obama and stood silently before the casket of, Justice Scalia at Supreme Court, with their heads bowed.

He was there for under two minutes.

Maybe it't like Josh Earnest said, the President is afraid.

The First Lady and The President stood silent before the casket of, Justice Scalia at Supreme Court in respect.

This morning, the news reported The president and first lady entered the court, where Obama shook hands with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and went to a room out of sight of the press before heading to the Great Hall, where Scalia's casket lay. The two met "privately with some members of Justice Scalia’s family," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said later in a statement.

Also Earnest said."The president and Mrs. Obama extended their personal condolences on behalf of the nation, and expressed gratitude for Justice Scalia’s decades of public service.

' The Obamas, both dressed in black, walked slowly into the hall and stood by the casket — flanked by an honor guard of the justice's former clerks —for about a minute. At one point, they clasped their hands and bowed their heads by the casket, which rested on the Lincoln Catafalque. Congress loaned the catafalque to the court for the ceremony. Washington Post...

Sound like more then two minutes to me, how about YOU STEVEN?

No, I don't think that's the reason for skipping the funeral. It's something else.
Friday, February 19th 2016 at 10:12AM
Steve Williams

Again, why attend a funeral of an individual ---- When there is President of USA WORK to be DONE......

AND

1. That in his LIFE......was against the Constitution of the United States of America
2. He Helped rehnquistDestroy the Miranda Rights of African Americans
3. He maintained slavery.....of uncleThomas
4. In his DEATH ........REPUBLICANS are acting as if they WANT to destroy the Constitution of the USA
5. AND......Muslims do not go to catholicChristian funerals

I watched it live Ron, how bout you? 3:39-3:41.

I wouldn't want to go to a Catholic funeral either Robert. So why didn't Earnest just say so?

GOOD QUESTION...

I wouldn't want to go to a Catholic funeral either Robert. So why didn't Earnest just say so?
Saturday, February 20th 2016 at 6:20PM
Steve Williams

GOOD QUESTION...


Saturday, February 20th 2016 at 9:42PM
Deacon Ron Gray

************************************************

BECAUSE

The GREATEST President of All TIME...President Baraaka Hussein Obama

The GREATEST UpHolder of the USA CONSTITUTION of All TIME

...President Baraaka Hussein Obama is NOT required to go to funerals of radicalHaters of the CONSTITUTION..

I think he just wanted to get back in the news. Everyone's been ignoring him lately.

Oh, you are talking to Robert. OK!

I saw a clip today of Harry Reid in 2007, making the case that the Constitution doesn't say the Senate needs to vote on a nominee. And the Whitehouse released photos of the President preparing to work on the nomination instead of going to the funeral.

The President and The First Lady paid there respects to the family of Justice Scalia of Supreme Court, now it is back to work for the President, do you have a problem with that?

They didn't show him respect, they snubbed him.

Now what about the Harry Reid footage about the Senate voting on the nominee?

Reid: No Duty To Give Nominees A Vote Sen. Harry Reid: “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”

So you are an obstructionist now Steven? I wonder why?

That's what they'd like you to believe Ron. What do you think about Apple v. FBI?

It is not what I believe Steven, are you on the side of the obstructionist?

Neil Cavuto, Joe Scarborough, not even Donald Trump has got it right. Only Judge Napolitano. It will be a question for the Supreme Court, and all you can talk about is obstructionism Ron?

Steven,

I asked you a clear and direct question to you and now, you want to run and hide behind Neil Cavuto, Joe Scarborough and even Donald Trump. What part of Steven, are YOU that you don't understand.

My question to you is: Steven, are you on the side of the obstructionist?

I'm on the side of letting the next President make the nomination. You call that obstructionism. I call it good governance. BTW, Joe Biden made the same recommendation in 1992. Check it out.

And let me know when you want to talk about why the President is wrong about Apple too.

It took you to long to step up for what you truly believe Steven, why is that?

Go back and read my second comment on this blog Ron. It didn't take me long at all.

Steven,

The First time I asked you, are you on the side of the obstructionist was Monday, February 22nd 2016 at 12:50PM. Then you put a classic side step and a funky twist move on me and said "That's what they'd like you to believe Ron." Steven this was the chance to say that you are on the side of these obstructionist but no, you wanted to change the subject. My question to you is: Steven, are you on the side of the obstructionist?

The second time that I asked you on Monday, February 22nd 2016 at 4:49PM, was you on the side of the obstructionist, you ran behind the skirt tales of Neil Cavuto, Joe Scarborough and even Donald Trump, until I confronted you and made this critical statement to you,, " What part of Steven, are YOU, that you don't understand." My question to you is: Steven, are you on the side of the obstructionist?

Now still side stepping, you finally said YOUR WORDS: "I'm on the side of letting the next President make the nomination.You call that obstructionism. I call it good governance." After saying all that, you ran to your time machine and got in it and went back in time some 24 years to find Joe Biden. Keep in mind, you still wanted to hurry away from your statement, to change these hot words you said, on to the President of Apple as a diversion.

Steven, in your last statement after I said this to you It took you to long to step up for what you truly believe Steven, why is that? you said: Go back and read my second comment on this blog Ron. It didn't take me long at all.

BULL 💩!!! look at what I had to go through to get you to admit that you too are a obstructionist and don't think that this President have the obligation to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in his last year in office like his predecessor, Ronald Reagan.

Steven, is it because this President is a Black Man? or that he is incompetent to make such a decision or let the people decide?

Ron, it's because he believes the Constitution is a living document whereas I'm with Scalia that it stands as written. So yes Ron, I support any attempt to OBSTRUCT the false view of that so-called Constitutional lawyer, Barack Obama.

Back to the subject. Where in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 are the words that Agnes reposted from the President's bully pulpit, whitehouse.gov, that the Senate is to "confirm" his nominee? He twists the Constitution in plain sight but you go along with it. Why is that Ron?

Pocket Edition of the original Constitution of the United States (with Index), and Declaration of Independence.

The National Center for Constitutional Studies has printed a special edition copy of The Constitution of the United States that has been proofed word for word against the original Constitution housed in the Archives in Washington, D.C. It is identical in spelling, capitalization and punctuation.



This 48-page pocket sized booklet contains The Constitution of the United States (including The Bill of Rights and Amendments 11-27) and The Declaration of Independence. Its dimensions are 3.25" X 6.5".



On the front cover of this pocket Constitution there is a four-color picture of George Washington holding a quill in his hand, inviting each of us to pledge our support for and commitment to The Constitution of the United States by maintaining and promoting its standard of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

About the Author
Founding Fathers of the United States (also known as the Framers, Fathers of Our Country, or the Founders) are the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution, or otherwise participated in the American Revolution as leaders of the Patriots.

http://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Constitution-...

WHAT!!! it's because he believes the Constitution is a living document whereas I'm with Scalia that it stands as written. STEVEN it is the LAW OF THE LAND and you too stand in the way of the peoples choice to be heard.

NO! Steven, it is the right of the Senate to do their job and hold hearings and give a UP or Down vote on the Presidents nominee but your boys vowed not to do anything when it comes to filling the vacancy on The Supreme Court under President Obama's watch, not to do their jobs in which the people of The United States send them to congress to do.

You are OK with that?

Steven,

You stand with the obstructionist because he (President Obama) believes the Constitution is a living document, Well let us take a look at what that term means:

Living Constitution

In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.

Please read it Ron, it will only cost you $0.99, and a little time.

Steven,

What do you mean "not in the sense that the President wants you to believe?

If it is, then who is the arbiter, isn't that what we're talking about? The people of The United States.

Something's missing from my comments Ron. But the Senate judiciary committee just said it won't take up the nomination.

I see what you mean, I apologize because this happened on my blog. Is this your response to the question I asked you Steve? There you go again! I asked Steven, What do you mean "not in the sense that the President wants you to believe? What sense are you talking about? Now this is the second time.

Sorry Ron, I need to connect my comment with what I was responding to. Please repost it.

I don't blame you for running away from that subject Steven since you claim to be a obstructionist. What do you mean about being a obstructionist?

It means the President is to nominate with the consent of of the Senate, and the Senate has made clear the President doesn't have their consent. Bill O'Reilly agrees with me it's the President's own fault.

His fault for what Steven?

For not following the Constitution Ron. Do a search on "obama constitution" and you will find an abundance of evidence, such as

Obama Violates Constitution -- Let Us Count the Ways, 2015 Edition
National Review › article › obama-violat...
Dec 23, 2015 - President Obama's Top Ten Constitutional Violations of 2015 · fullscreen. (Alex Wong/Getty).

after announcing the immigration “guidance” on dreamers, Obama came out and said: “I just took an action to change the law.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mornin...

@ Deacon,

..."N.Y. TIMES QUOTATION OF THE DAY -- MITCH MCCONNELL, on his insistence that Obama not put forth a nominee to replace Scalia: "This nomination will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the polls." 2-col. lead of the paper, "G.O.P. SENATORS SAY OBAMA COURT PICK WILL BE SHUNNED: Republicans on Judiciary Committee Vow Confirmation Hearings Won't Be Held," by David Herszenhorn http://nyti.ms/1VDLGsf


Steve is correct that Mitch McConnell wants to make sure that Pres. Obama goes slowly in electing a person to replace Scalia. The President has a pretty hard task when it comes to trying to find someone to fill Mr. Scalia's shoes.

..."His 2008 opinion for the court in favor of gun rights was his crowning moment in more than 30 years on the bench.

"President (Obama) and first lady extend their deepest condolences to Justice Scalia's family," principal deputy press secretary Eric Schultz said in a statement.

Scalia was a strong advocate for privacy in favoring restrictions on police searches and protections for defendants' rights.

But he also voted consistently to let states outlaw abortions, to allow a closer relationship between government and religion, to permit executions and to limit lawsuits."...

It looks like the President may do the right thing after all.

But he's still wrong about Apple.

Mitch McConnell never did give a hoot about President Obama And who is he to give the president that orders. Has no respect for the president or have no respect for the office of president. Rich McConnell actions is unprecedented in the history of the U.S.

Would your boss go for you tell him that you will not to your job for the next 11 months any you expect to be paid in full as if you was doing your job. I would how far you will get with that idea? Not far.

As a citizen of the United States, you should be mad as hell at Mitch McConnell actions not to hear the people's voice which overwhelmingly voted for President Obama, not once but twice. The people of United States I have been put on hold once more by the structure obstructuralist republican Party.

As it turns out Ron, Hillary agrees with Mitch. But you are not really saying Barack is Mitch's boss?

The President is the boss and not Mitchy!

That's the problem with the Democrats, you all are really Monarchists.