NSFW: Samantha Bee Rips 'Rule' to Stop Obama From Replacing Scalia

Samantha Bee has a thing or two to say about the alleged constitutional crisis following the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

For starters, there isn’t one.

The host of TBS’ Full Frontal pulled out the manual for such crises — aka the Constitution of the United States — on Monday night to point out that President Barack Obama is fully authorized to appoint Scalia’s replacement should he choose to do so during his last year in office.

Oh, and that alleged Strom Thurmond “rule” that challenges Obama’s right? Press play and you’ll see where that falls on a larger list of “rules,” somewhere alongside “He who smelt it, dealt it” and such.

Watch the explicit segment above, then weigh in below. 

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

41 Comments
  1. Red says:

    No mention of the fact that Chuck Schumer [Dem] tried to prevent the exiting republican president from making a similar appointment and pressed for waiting until the next POTUS was inaugurated? Now the shoe is on the other foot and he thinks Obama should make the appointment? Politics are evil and two faced.

    • David4 says:

      When was that?

      One democrat saying they should wait is different than EVERY rupubliKKKan trying to block a presidential right for a year. More so when Mitch himself voted for a SC judge in Reagan’s last year and said in 2005 that it’s a president’s right and the senate pretty much does nothing.

      But let’s not get the f word get in the way made up BS, facts (oh no I said it!) be darned.

      Also Schumer is an idiot, I have met him. He’s more of a robot than Rubio.

      • Schumer said 2007 that Bush should no longer be able to offer any replacements for the SCOTUS for the remainder of his term because of his previous selections.
        If democrats didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any at all.

        • peterwdawson says:

          Both shoes are on the wrong feet really, since now a party that dismissed a rule wants to invoke it and a party that tried to invoke it wants to dismiss it. Democrat, Republican… it’s just a rule both sides only invoke when it’s convenient. Of course it’s also a misnomer since it’s not a rule, it’s at best a guideline, which again, doesn’t even apply in this situation.

      • iceblast says:

        You do understand that the Democrats created the KKK, and the Republican were made to defeat slavery.

        • Temperance says:

          No, mostly because no one understands that. And even if it was so, the Republicans of 2016 are essentially the SS compared to the Republicans of 1954. If you look at the platforms, the Republicans of 1954 were somewhere between Sanders and Clinton in philosophy. The GOP since Reagan looks quite a lot like the Taliban – ultra-extremist whackjobs across the board.

      • Temperance says:

        Yes, Shumer is a douche. Rubio, however, doesn’t even have an 80IQ. Seriously, he’s a dolt.

    • Temperance says:

      Actually, Shumer (as one of a small number of Dems at the time) had specific, legitimate concerns about that candidate – which I’ll point out, IS THEIR JOB. And guess what? Neither he, nor any of the Dems, tried TO BLOCK the nomination. Totally different thing.

  2. ninamags says:

    Wow! She’s brutal. She’s right as well.

    I didn’t know the channel allowed all that cussing! I need to add this show to my dvr.

  3. This is hilarious !!! I need to add this to my DVR list also. At least I can laugh at this ridiculous election year without crying.

  4. Irishpatch says:

    Man she is killing it!! So, so funny!!

  5. Allie says:

    that was awesome

  6. BarryFlash says:

    Of course, Obama can nominate a new Supreme Court Justice. Of course, the Republican Senate can reject that nominee. That is the Senate’s right in the Constitution.

    • lauren says:

      Yeah, that’s not the point (if one actually watched the the video). The Thurmund Rule says Obama shouldn’t even be allowed to nominate someone.

      • BarryFlash says:

        I watched the video! I feel dirty afterwards. Her opinions are terrible! Again, Obama has every right to nominate someone and he will. The Senate has every right to reject that person and they will.

        • DavidJ says:

          Yeah they have the right to reject that person, but traditionally that’s because they’ve found that person to be *unqualified* in some way. This will be rejecting someone simply for political reasons, because they don’t want Obama nominating anyone.

          Never mind the fact that if it were a Republican in office they wouldn’t waste a SECOND trying to get another conservative justice in there before the clock runs out.

          • Christine says:

            Let’s not try to act like the situation would be any different if there was a republican president and a democratic majority in congress. Politics and government have become a hot mess, and yes that includes both political parties

          • c-mo says:

            Christine is correct and it’s already happened…Chuck Schumer (Amy’s cousin) attempted to block Bush’s nominee back in 2007, apparently that was fine…

          • David4 says:

            People really don’t like facts here.

            Democrats have never blocked together to say they would block ANYONE the sitting president would pick, in fact it has never happened in the 225+ history of the Constitution.

        • Temperance says:

          Yes, I know it’s hard to deal with someone that makes sense… you’ll deprogram eventually.

      • HAP says:

        First off, the so-called Thurmond rule is not written into law. It was one man’s opinion, and has been cited by others over time. But Thurmond state the window was the last 6 months of a presidency. Revisit this in July.

      • Temperance says:

        There is no ‘Thurmon rule’ , and historically, no one’s been following it even if there were.

    • Anna says:

      Rejecting a specific nominee that they don’t think is qualified is completely different from blocking any nominee no matter their qualifications because they don’t think the president should appoint someone else. Mitch McConnell is running around saying that Obama shouldn’t appoint anyone at all, not that he shouldn’t appoint someone unqualified.

      • Mary says:

        Mitch McConnell is another old Senile man who should be booted out of office. Like I always say Term for Congress and Senate. If this isn’t an example of why we need new blood in these seats, nothing is.

  7. LEP says:

    TVLine – since when did you become a political site? I come here to indulge in getting information about my favorite shows. There are plenty of places where politics can be discussed. Really wish this wasn’t one of them.

    • BarryFlash says:

      This site is very political and very very liberal.

      • LEP says:

        Usually, it’s been in their commentary or slant of a story, not in “full frontal display.” Feel like it started becoming overt when they began doing debate coverage. It is dismaying to me that politics now permeate everything. You can’t get away from it. Story lines on TV shows. Facebook posts. I have my own political thoughts, and I share them in discussions on sites dedicated to that purpose. I have a strict “no politics on FB” policy, because it was making friends mad at each other. You likely wouldn’t have those same conversations face-to-face. Anyway, like I said, I come here because of the stories about shows I enjoy. More and more it seems like one more place where you can’t escape politics. In my opinion, that’s a shame.

      • Temperance says:

        Actually, it’s not very political, and highly centrist. If you have swallowed the latest right-wing brainwash, you probably don’t realize just how ultra-extreme the GOP today really is. It’s a great thing we have the internet so you can verify that.

    • ninamags says:

      Umm, isn’t her new show ON TELEVISION???? They are providing snippets of a new show, like they do with many others. The content of said snippet happens to be political in nature.
      Last I checked TVLine was a site with ALL things tv related.

      If you are familiar at all with Ms. Bee, you know her slant on all things political. So, why did you bother to watch the clip?

  8. John Davis says:

    As usual, only way ‪Republicans‬ can win anything is by cheating.

  9. maregolden says:

    In my opinion, the reason they will block Obama on this is the same reason they have blocked Obama as much as possible on everything else. The republican senate is a “good ole boys white man club” and they did not want a black president.

    • Angela says:

      It’s especially funny because conservatives talks all the time about following the Constitution to the letter-the whole “strict Constitution” thing. But apparently if it might not benefit them, then it’s okay for them to try and stop Obama from doing something that he is perfectly allowed to do as president. Go, hypocrisy.

    • Lucifer says:

      It’s funny how everything is because Obama is black, but what was the reasoning Democrats were constantly trying to prevent Bush and undermine him? Not to mention the majority of the media not only was extremely critical of him during his presidency, but they even blame him for Obama’s mistakes as president. Politics is a dirty game and there is no such thing as a “good” side, not anymore.

    • Temperance says:

      Actually, that’s just a side benefit. The billionaire masters of the GOP told them to block everything because, after the economic crash of 2010, conditions were prefect for their maximal cash extraction from the poor and middle class. That’s really all that mattered.

  10. Mike Q says:

    The real precedent here is 1960 where a (Democratic) Congress passed a Senate resolution stating that the sitting president (Eisenhower) shouldn’t make any nominations. It’s completely applicable to the present situation and, in the senate, a Senate Resolution is a precedent for future action.