Justice Samuel Alito (R) files concurrence with Mitch McConnell on Supreme Court vacancy

[babylonsister]

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/24/1490279/-Justice-Samuel-Alito-R-files-with-Mitch-McConnell-on-Supreme-Court-vacancy?detail=facebook

Justice Samuel Alito (R) files concurrence with Mitch McConnell on Supreme Court vacancy
By Joan McCarter
Wednesday Feb 24, 2016 · 9:36 AM EST


In a phenomenally inappropriately political statement, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito agrees with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that it's no big deal to prevent President Obama from filling the vacant seat left by Antonin Scalia's death.

"We will deal with it," Alito told an audience at Georgetown Law, pointing out that there is nothing in the Constitution that specifies the size of the court. […]

Asked specifically for his opinion on what kind of candidate should be sought as a replacement, Alito demurred.

"We don't choose our colleagues. The presidents choose the justices and the judges and the Senate confirms them," Alito said, adding, "I have enough trouble with the questions that I have to decide."

Yes, Justice Alito, presidents choose and the Senate confirms. And sitting Supreme Court justices stay the hell out of it. Or they should. Unless they're Justice Scalia or Alito or Thomas who have no problem politicking from—and even while off—the bench.

[onecaliberal]

1. What in the FUCKING HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CincyDem]

2. And we're surprised why?

This guy has been a piece of shit from long long before he was inflicted on the country by Shrub.

He politicized the State of the Union through his visual disagreement with BHO and had been at the soul of some of the worst decisions (and dissents) that we have ever seen.

F him.

That is all.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. What did he file?

And where did he file it?

He was asked a question and he answered. Nothing political there, unless there is another link that shows something different.

[treestar]

4. i don't think he could "file" anything

there is no case before the court.

[pintobean]

5. Dupe. And no, he didn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027635546

[onenote]

6. wildly misleading

He was not asked whether he agrees with the repub strategy. He was asked whether the Court can cope with having eight members. And the answer is, of course, yes. There is no Constitutional requirement that the Court have a full complement of nine members. And in fact the Court has coped with having eight members in the past. By law, it has a quorum to act if it has only six members.

Much ado about nothing.