Republiacn Senators ask Obama to violate the Constitution!

PostmodernProphet said:
and if they do not approve of the selection they advise him to find someone else and deny the consent......its not like it hasn't happened a dozen times already in the history of our country......
Click to expand...

There is a difference between denying consent and stating before there's even a nominee that they will not consider one.

You're right. It has happened dozens of times already, and it shouldn't happen, ever, regardless of which party is being the asshole.

This is about our elected officials playing party games and not doing what's best for the country.

If I could get paid a minimum of $174,000.00 a year to sit on my ass and do nothing (as this and the previous House/Senate have done), I STILL wouldn't do it, because the job is the job. If they're not willing to do it, they shouldn't be there.
 
party over country


they hate this government


they want it torn asunder




they say it right out loud

shrink shrink shrink


that is the only thing they want


they just keep trying to starve and torture it to death
 
Stelakh said:
There is a difference between denying consent and stating before there's even a nominee that they will not consider one.
Click to expand...
the only difference would be in realizing its a waste of time to wonder if he will nominate someone they don't like.......we all know he will nominate someone they don't like.....
 

Immediately after Sen. McConnell's statement, Sen. Chuck Schumer, (D-NY), the many who will replace Harry Reid as the Democrats' leader in the Senate in January, 2017, started threatening Sen. McConnell and Senate Republicans, saying that they'll pay a political price for their obstructionism. Sen. Schumer said "The American people don’t like this obstructionism ... a lot of the mainstream Republicans are going to say: ‘I may not follow this.'"


That's a striking departure from what Sen. Schumer said when George W. Bush was president. Back then, Sen. Schumer said "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we prove that they are not. So, in conclusion, in the end, these three questions provide the foundation for how we ensure that the court reflects what America wants rather than a diminishing clique of conservative ideologues wish for. There's no doubt we were hoodwinked."


Sen. Schumer is a politician playing to the public. That's what politicians do. He's trying to pressure Republicans into confirming an Obama nominee later this year. His wording is interesting. First, when Sen. Schumer talks about mainstream judges, he's hoping to find judges interested in legislating from the bench. That's who President Obama has nominated thus far. There's no reason to think that he'll deviate from that pattern.


Notice, too, that Sen. Schumer talked about "a diminishing clique of conservative ideologues." Sen. Schumer's wording isn't accidental. It's intentional. Sen. Schumer's intent is to portray any justice like Justice Scalia or Justice Alito as outside the political mainstream. Justice Scalia understood what he fought for. He understood he wasn't a super-legislator. His first responsibility was to the Constitution, not to the people.



How soon liberals forget that they did this all the time...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Bio Boy? Sounds like a Marvel Super Hero character from a Swamp Thing episode. I kinda like it. :)

Faster than a speeding enzyme.

More powerful than a mitochondria.

Able to leap synapses at an action potential.

He's an allele! He's a genome! He's the missing link!

It's Bio Boy! :)
Click to expand...

Except Swamp Thing is from the DC comic universe.

MAN-Thing is from Marvel.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the only difference would be in realizing its a waste of time to wonder if he will nominate someone they don't like.......we all know he will nominate someone they don't like.....
Click to expand...

No, the difference is, come next November if the Senate still hasn't confirmed a nominee, the public will know it's because Senate Republicans refused to do their job in good faith and put partisan politics before We The People.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
No, the difference is, come next November if the Senate still hasn't confirmed a nominee, the public will know it's because Senate Republicans refused to do their job in good faith and put partisan politics before We The People.
Click to expand...

ROFL, like both parties haven't done that for decades........what faux outrage ROFL
 
ZappasGuitar said:
No, the difference is, come next November if the Senate still hasn't confirmed a nominee, the public will know it's because Senate Republicans refused to do their job in good faith and put partisan politics before We The People.
Click to expand...

Where is the timeline for which the Senate must act?

What it seems you're suggesting is that the Senate automatically confirm whomever Obama picks? Is that true?

Let's talk about Robert Bork and the Senate Democrats asking their leader to form a "solid phalanx" against what they called a ideological extremist suspecting Bork would be nominated.
 
um

dear fucking racist sociopathic traitor to this nation,



the republican choice was seated in how many days?
 
CFM said:
So you can't show a timeline? Since there isn't one, it means not following the one you want can't be fucking the system.
Click to expand...

Here's a timeline:


Elena Kagan: 87 days (May 10, 2010, to Aug. 5, 2010)

Sonia Sotomayor: 66 days (June 1, 2009, to Aug. 6, 2009)

Samuel A. Alito Jr.: 82 days (Nov. 10, 2005, to Jan. 31, 2006)

John G. Roberts Jr.: 62 days (July 29, 2005, to Sept. 29, 2005)

Stephen Breyer: 73 days (May 17, 1994, to July 29, 1994)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 50 days (June 14, 1993, to August 3, 1993)

Clarence Thomas: 99 days (July 8, 1991, to Oct. 15, 1991)

David H. Souter: 69 days (July 25, 1990, to Oct. 2, 1990)

Anthony M. Kennedy: 65 days (Nov. 30, 1987, to Feb 3, 1988)

Antonin Scalia: 85 days (June 24, 1986, to Sept. 17, 1986)

A timeline covering the number of DAYS it took to confirm each of the last SCOTUS nominations going back 30 years.

Let's all sit back and relish in partisan Righties trying to justify an unsuccessful THREE HUNDRED FORTY ONE DAY confirmation...

ROFL!
 
The president puts up a nominee which is his responsibility and the congress debates it and then either approves or denies it. In my opinion it's not unconstitutional to delay the process since there isn't a time line stated and it's not unconstitutional to ask the president to wait since there is not a time limit. I don't think the republicans should just put their fingers in their ears and stomp their feet but they certainly don't have to rush to approve or deny a candidate.
 
this countrys voters are already punishing the republican party for their hate of this countrys system



they stand in the way of the peoples choices.




they stop the country from working if they dont get all the power
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top