Obama warns GOP of retaliation if Supreme Court nominee not confirmed

United Press International

During a visit to Chicago, President Barack Obama again called for the confirmation of his Supreme Court nominee choice, Merrick Garland, saying political bickering threatens the integrity of the high court.  Obama, speaking at the University of Chicago Law School where he taught for a decade, said the Republican attempt to block Garland could turn into gridlock that “would be a disaster for the courts,” indicating a slippery slope for future nominees. If a Republican wins the White House and makes a nomination, Democrats would rebuff the choice.

In his campaign to confirm Garland, Obama told the crowd of nearly 300 students, faculty and judges it would be a breakdown that would destroy the integrity and legitimacy of the federal judiciary.
“The notion the Democrats would then say, ‘Oh, well, we’ll just go along with that’ — that is inconceivable, right?” Obama said. “So now the Democrats say, well, you know, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. We’ll wait four more years, to see the next president who comes in.”.....

To Read More....

My Take - This man has no shame because his moral foundation is non-existent.  He's demanding the Republicans do what he refused to do when he was a senator.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander is right - and now it's coming to fruition.  I guess this is another "red line" do as I say or else Obamaism.  Jimmy Carter must smile every time he reads the newspaper.  He's no longer the dumbest man to ever occupy the White House....and the dumb distance between them grows exponentially.  One more thing - where in the Constitution does it say how many Supreme Court justices there should be?  Answer:  Nowhere!  Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate must have hearings for a nominee?  Answer:  Nowhere! 

The Senate make the rules for running the Senate - the Constituion is entirely silent on this except to say the Senate will "advise and consent".  And they can do that in any way they see fit - and this guy that's supposed to have been teaching Constitutional law at the Chicago School of Law should know that.....or does he? 

Hmmmmm, I wonder - What did Barry actually do for 12 years at the Chicago School of Law? A headlinepolitics writer noted:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement)

Well, Barry hasn't changed one bit!