Republiacn Senators ask Obama to violate the Constitution!

Celticguy said:
S RES 334
Click to expand...

Which specifically applies to recess appointments.

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.
Click to expand...

Nomination to the Supreme Court by the President of the United States when the Senate is in session is not a recess appointment.
 
Jarod said:
NO, he is talking about a resolution from 1960 where the Senate asked Eisenhower not to make a recess appointment. It has nothing to do with election year appointments. They are grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

its called lying
 
Celticguy said:
They're in recess
Click to expand...

until Monday...


Nobody is talking about making a recess appointment. You know that.

Obama has said he will take his time and fulfill his Constitutional duty by making the appointment when Congress returns, something the Republicans have asked him not to do.
 
Obama shall nominate. The Senate shall Advise & Consent. Both have their separate powers.
at the end of the day POTUS wants a nomination passed - lame duck that he is.

at the end of the day the Senate wants to wait - being as POTUS is a lame duck. What do you think will happen? :rolleyes:

This is hardly a Constitutional crisis - it is however crass politics. "Elections have consequences" is the guiding principle.
 
anatta said:
Obama shall nominate. The Senate shall Advise & Consent. Both have their separate powers.
at the end of the day POTUS wants a nomination passed - lame duck that he is.

at the end of the day the Senate wants to wait - being as POTUS is a lame duck. What do you think will happen? :rolleyes:

This is hardly a Constitutional crisis - it is however crass politics. "Elections have consequences" is the guiding principle.
Click to expand...

The issue at hand is that there is no Constitutional comment regarding "lame duck appointments."

The President has a job to do and the Senate has a job to do, per the Constitution. As many have already said, a Presidential term is four years, not three, and "lame duck" or not, in a reasonable group of people, the jobs still have to get done.

While there is no specific time-frame provided for in the Constitution, an immediate notice of intent to refuse to do the job laid before them, as Mitch McConnell has done, brings questions about dereliction of Senatorial duty.

It is incredibly unfortunate that "dereliction of duty" is, in the US Code, a military charge. We have a legislature that has been engaging of dereliction of duty for literally years, and seem quite unable to do anything about it - aside from elect more people who will be dilatory in the duties they swore they would carry out.
 
The Republicans are attempting to make Obama's duty to appoint a judge appear as a Presidential override of majorities on the Hill. It's a very underhand tactic the stamp by which the GOP is now identified.

Foreign heads of state must view these antics from afar and dread having to associate with any Republican.
 
Now that you're all done ranting and enjoying your circle jerk....tell us WHO, SPECIFICALLY, told Obama to not nominate a new SC judge.....

and a link of course.....
 
NOVA said:
Now that you're all done ranting and enjoying your circle jerk....tell us WHO, SPECIFICALLY, told Obama to not nominate a new SC judge.....

and a link of course.....
Click to expand...

You're getting a tad demanding, aincha, for a fraudulent navy vet ?
 
Stelakh said:
The issue at hand is that there is no Constitutional comment regarding "lame duck appointments."

The President has a job to do and the Senate has a job to do, per the Constitution. As many have already said, a Presidential term is four years, not three, and "lame duck" or not, in a reasonable group of people, the jobs still have to get done.

While there is no specific time-frame provided for in the Constitution, an immediate notice of intent to refuse to do the job laid before them, as Mitch McConnell has done, brings questions about dereliction of Senatorial duty.

It is incredibly unfortunate that "dereliction of duty" is, in the US Code, a military charge. We have a legislature that has been engaging of dereliction of duty for literally years, and seem quite unable to do anything about it - aside from elect more people who will be dilatory in the duties they swore they would carry out.
Click to expand...
Congressional "dereliction of duty"
( and I use quotes because Congress is not required to do anything - obstructionism -as bad as it is - is a valid function of Congress) is inexact phrasing.
There is no duty to pass legislation in the Constitution. No time frame to hear a nomination either

As to judges, it is much the same, but I do agree asking ( but no way requiring) POTUS not to nominate impinges somewhat/tangentially on executive purview.
It's moot as POTUS will nominate.

So there is no dereliction of duty, no Constitutional crisis, no real impingement on executive powers, by the Seante not taking up
a nominee. SCOTUS has rules in place in case of tie decision.

It all goes back to electoral politics - the parties can and surely will use the vacancy as part of their campaigns
 
All of this faux outrage by liberals over the constitutional duties of Obama and congress lol. It's pretty amusing.

What was it, six years that the democrat led congress failed to do their constitutional duty and pass a budget? And do Obama and constitution even belong in the same sentence? I hardly know where to start with that one.

Scalia died in an election year. If congress drags their feet, there isn't much to be said about it as far as I'm concerned.

Except it's politics as usual.
 
leaningright said:
And I'm going to tell you that has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Nothing. I get so tired of this tired response to everything anti-Obama. How abou you ask the "cons" if they'd like for Ben Carson to appoint a judge? Maybe JJ Watts? Allen West? The "color of their skin" has so little to do with the real reason you would prefer Obama pick one and I would prefer any of those I mentioned to pick one. But you can't admit to that. Maybe you can't see it. But your sad refrain of "racism" as the reason we disagree is just getting old.
Click to expand...

If it is so obvious state it.
Also only an idiot would want Carson to appoint a supreme. Are you an idiot?
 
Stelakh said:
McConnell's announcement, hours after Justice Scalia's death and before President Obama had even the slightest chance to nominate anyone, shows the true depths to which Republicans will sink to in order to obstruct the normal operation of the government, and their intention to strong-arm the People into a government run by a single party.

We had a rubber-stamp Republican government. It's what took us into the worst recession since the Great Depression, got us into two illegal quagmire wars, gave birth to ISIS, destabilized the middle east beyond repair, and made the world a more dangerous place.

The idea is for the government to have checks and balances between its branches. Republican obstructionism and outright contempt for the Constitution and the People is exactly the kind of thing to watch if you're waiting to see a new Totalitarian state rise out of the Oligarchy that currently is (and used to be) the Republic that the US hasn't been for a long, long time.
Click to expand...

Tell it Sister.
 
Jarod said:
Article II Section 2.

The President shall nominate Judges of the supreme Court.


It does not say that the president should, can or might nominate Judges of the Supreme Court... it says SHALL..


Now you have the Republican leader of the Senate calling for Obama to chose not to appoint a judge. You have Republican canididates, including strict constructionists, and self described defenders of "original intent" saying that the President should NOT appoint a judge.


I thought they claimed to be the ones demanding the Constitution be followed.... Shows how full of SHIT they are.
Click to expand...

Article II also says the President shall faithfully execute the laws. When he refuses to enforce immigration laws to the point of issuing an EO after saying 22 times he didn't have the authority to do so, he violated the Constitutional duties of the office.

Keep kissing his ass and defending a criminal if you want.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
All of this faux outrage by liberals over the constitutional duties of Obama and congress lol. It's pretty amusing.

What was it, six years that the democrat led congress failed to do their constitutional duty and pass a budget? And do Obama and constitution even belong in the same sentence? I hardly know where to start with that one.

Scalia died in an election year. If congress drags their feet, there isn't much to be said about it as far as I'm concerned.

Except it's politics as usual.
Click to expand...

How many federal immigration laws has Obama failed to "faithfully execute"?
 
Jarod said:
I have to agree with you here. Its not the color of his skin.

It is the way the thinks and his priorities, which are generally indicative of the priorities of those who share his skin color. This is not racism, and to call it racism is, I believe harmful. Don't get me wrong, I believe there are plenty of racists who hate President Obama because of his skin color, but most hate him for his ideas. They treated President Clinton as badly as they treat President Obama. President shared many of the ideas and priorities of President Obama, and while Clinton is white, his politics are more closely shared by a larger percentage of African Americans.

Its the way of thinking they hate.


Opposing President Obama's nominee, before he names one, is the epitome of harmful politics, but its where we are as a nation today. Its clear this is not about the nominee, but the President himself.

It used to be that a nominee's qualifications to be a judge were what was important when comfirming on rejecting a proposed nominee, this Senate has done away with even the pretense of that. In my opinion it is the Constitutional obligation of the Senate to consider any nominee the president appoints. It is the obligation of the Senate to hold a vote, but it is not the obligation of the Senate to support the nominee or to vote for him/her.
Click to expand...

Bull fucking shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top