Republiacn Senators ask Obama to violate the Constitution!

evince said:
um

dear fucking racist sociopathic traitor to this nation,



the republican choice was seated in how many days?
Click to expand...

Hey stupid, show me where there is a timeline in the Constitution? Hey stupid, Bork was never seated and it was due to Democrats.
 
evince said:
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
Click to expand...

Is that why the Republicans have regained control of both houses SINCE Obama was elected?
 
CFM said:
Where is the timeline for which the Senate must act?
Click to expand...

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)

CFM said:
What it seems you're suggesting is that the Senate automatically confirm whomever Obama picks? Is that true?
Click to expand...

Is that what I said?

CFM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let's talk about Senate Republican's stated plan to absolutely refuse to bring any Obama nomination to a vote between now and next January.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Really?

They have?

Please list all the times a partisan Senate has sat on a nomination for 339 days.
Click to expand...

Show me where the Constitution has a timeline.

Let's talk about sitting on and not passing a budget with the Senate. Where's your outrage for that?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
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)



Is that what I said?



Let's talk about Senate Republican's stated plan to absolutely refuse to bring any Obama nomination to a vote between now and next January.
Click to expand...

You mean the it's OK when Democrats do something but Republicans better damn do it like Democrats demand? Fuck you pussy.
 
CFM said:
Let's talk about sitting on and not passing a budget with the Senate. Where's your outrage for that?
Click to expand...

and now we'll get to see how this and judicial appointments are NOT the same thing and that you're just trying to deflect away from a very serious constitutional crisis initiated by republicans
 
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...

or a Republican will get elected and a majority of voters will thank the Senate Republicans for helping us dodge a bullet.......
 
SmarterthanYou said:
moving the goal posts, typical. you KNOW what I'm referring to and all you have left is to try to play coy and pretend it's not the same? pffft
Click to expand...

No, it's not the same.

There is a WORLD of difference between not voting to confirm a President's nomination and admitting even before the first nominee has been announced that they will not allow ANY nomination to come up for a vote.

YOU know that...I know that.

Stop playing these idiotic word games.
 
CFM said:
You mean the it's OK when Democrats do something but Republicans better damn do it like Democrats demand? Fuck you pussy.
Click to expand...

And right on cue, here comes the invective!

Nothing screams "I can't defend my position" like having to resort to vulgarity and derision.

Thanks for confirming...(see what I did there?) the absolute weakness of your argument.

ROFL!!
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And right on cue, here comes the invective!

Nothing screams "I can't defend my position" like having to resort to vulgarity and derision.

Thanks for confirming...(see what I did there?) the absolute weakness of your argument.

ROFL!!
Click to expand...

Examples of Zippy's civil discourse:

ANOTHER JPP Rightie is a thin skinned crybaby.

He knows how full of shit he is

WOW...you are quite the crybaby!

Straight from the mind of the same sick fuck
 
ZappasGuitar said:
No, it's not the same.

There is a WORLD of difference between not voting to confirm a President's nomination and admitting even before the first nominee has been announced that they will not allow ANY nomination to come up for a vote.

YOU know that...I know that.

Stop playing these idiotic word games.
Click to expand...

LMFAO!
 
ZappasGuitar said:
No, it's not the same.

There is a WORLD of difference between not voting to confirm a President's nomination and admitting even before the first nominee has been announced that they will not allow ANY nomination to come up for a vote.

YOU know that...I know that.

Stop playing these idiotic word games.
Click to expand...

Yes, they shot themselves in the foot by not waiting until there was a nominee before saying they would refuse to appoint him/her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top