NYT Now Running Their Mouth On the Vacancy At The US Supreme Court

Opinion/Editorial

   Just brilliant now the morons at the editorial board of the New York Times now are trying to make a stink about the vacancy at the US Supreme Court since the death of the late great Constitutionalist Justice Antonin Scalia.
  The only reason why they are opining about this issue is because the high court heard it's last case apparently this past Wednesday and it gives them another reason to go into their usual bullshit reason to go into leftist attack mode.
  Their lead crap piece this morning "Rescue the Supreme Court From Limbo" they just want more left wing bile coming out of the 8 justice court.
  It begins "Eight justices heard oral arguments in the final case of the Supreme Court’s term on Wednesday. When will the court return to full strength?

That question is as urgent today as it was immediately after the death two and a half months ago of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the initial wave of outrage at the Senate Republicans’ hard-line refusal to consider replacing Justice Scalia has ebbed, making it that much easier for Republicans to keep the seat empty through the presidential election. If they succeed, the court will go nearly two terms, and possibly longer, without a ninth member.

The consequences of the impasse have been growing graver by the day. Already the justices have split 4 to 4 in two cases, leaving important legal issues unresolved. In one, the court failed to decide a major labor case involving the longstanding right of public-sector unions, which represent millions of American workers, to charge collective bargaining fees to nonmembers. By the term’s end in late June, it’s likely that several more cases will have ended in tie votes, including possibly the fights over abortion restrictions in Texas, access to birth control and President Obama’s executive actions on immigration."

  The only outrage is the outrage that you idiots at the NYT editorial board create and to your buddies at the alphabet soup media and as usual when the GOP does something right you have to include them.

 It goes on "It could get worse from here. So far, the justices’ docket for the term beginning in October is smaller than usual, and the eight-member court may hesitate before taking on high-profile cases on controversial topics that are more likely to result in split votes. Already, major cases involving restrictive voting laws in North Carolina and Texas, pharmacists who want the right to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions for religious reasons, and Mr. Obama’s efforts to reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants are before the court or could be soon. All could languish in legal limbo.Republicans haven’t been satisfied simply to hobble the court’s ability to function. In recent weeks, they have gone to remarkable lengths to impugn the integrity of the justices and thus the legitimacy of the court. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has attacked Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who delighted conservatives at his own confirmation hearings by comparing judges to umpires calling balls and strikes. But last month, Mr. Grassley, who should be spending his time scheduling confirmation hearings, instead lashed out at the chief justice, claiming that “a number of his votes have reflected political considerations, not legal ones” — presumably referring to Chief Justice Roberts’s two votes upholding aspects of the Affordable Care Act."

  Face it NYT your buddies aren't in control in the Senate save a few RINOs.

  It ends "Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, who is challenging Mr. Obama’s immigration actions, also complained about the court, saying that because it “has shed its clothing as being guardians of the law,” it “deserves to be swept up into the political process.”

None of this has anything to do with the qualifications of Mr. Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, whom conservatives have long praised as someone they would happily confirm. The battle is purely about ideological control of the court, which has had a conservative majority for decades.

How does the insanity end? If the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and Mr. Grassley hold to their promise not to give Judge Garland a hearing or a vote, it will probably take a president and Senate of the same party to nominate and confirm a new justice after Inauguration Day in January. But if the president and the Senate are of different parties, there is every reason to believe that the current blockade will continue indefinitely. If Donald Trump wins the White House, even Mr. Grassley admits that his Supreme Court nominee would be “a gamble.”Mr. Grassley and his fellow Republicans gambled that anger over their inaction would fade as the news cycle rolled on and the public’s attention turned to the presidential campaign. Maybe Republicans are willing to take such gambles because they believe they don’t have anything to lose. But the American people do."

  See what I put in red bold type OMG!!! hold the presses the NYT actually said something correct holy crap they can be correct once in a while.