Republiacn Senators ask Obama to violate the Constitution!

CFM said:
Yup, the Senate Democrats urged their leaders to oppose WHOMEVER Reagan nominated. They used the term "solid phalanx" as the guide the Democrat leaders were to follow and it didn't matter who Reagan named. Interesting they did it BEFORE Reagan named anyone.
Click to expand...

Lie, but you see, even if it were true... the senators were on record with their vote and they had to live or die by it in front of the voters.

What the Republicans proposed in this situation was to prevent a vote so then, individual senators would be free to go to the voters and say that they did not agree with voting down the nominee, but they could not help it, there was no vote.
 
I Love America said:
Exactly. The democrat party plays for keeps. It is time our side does the same.

Here is how the democrat party game works

1) they take some extraordinary move to get their way (reconciliation for Obamacare, filibustering judicial nominees, etc)
2) then when they find themselves in a position to get stabbed by their own said they say "well two wrongs don't make a right"

Bottom line is this. I really don't know what is going to happen. If I had to guess based on recent history, McCuntell will make token efforts but eventually cave

If the GOP in the Senate caves on this, they are finished as a party.
Click to expand...

What party has filibustered more judicial nominees? I think you already know the answer.... its not even close.
 
CFM said:
Yup, the Senate Democrats urged their leaders to oppose WHOMEVER Reagan nominated. They used the term "solid phalanx" as the guide the Democrat leaders were to follow and it didn't matter who Reagan named. Interesting they did it BEFORE Reagan named anyone.
Click to expand...

Chuck Schumer said they SHOULD.

Ted Cruz said he WOULD.

There's a BIG difference between the two words...not that I'd expect another JPP dim bulb to understand.
 
before Scalias body was cold McConnal said he would go against the constitution to prevent the peoples choice from being made
 
I Love America said:
Exactly. The democrat party plays for keeps. It is time our side does the same.

Here is how the democrat party game works

1) they take some extraordinary move to get their way (reconciliation for Obamacare, filibustering judicial nominees, etc)
2) then when they find themselves in a position to get stabbed by their own said they say "well two wrongs don't make a right"

Bottom line is this. I really don't know what is going to happen. If I had to guess based on recent history, McCuntell will make token efforts but eventually cave

If the GOP in the Senate caves on this, they are finished as a party.
Click to expand...

Some would say they already are.

Not to drag Trump into it [even as I do lol] but the republican rank and file has understood this for some time. You can't put a gentlemanly Romney up against the Democrats---and absolutely certainly not against the Clintons, because they will tear the gentleman up and spit him out. The democrats don't play nice or fair.

Neither does The Donald. Not saying I'm going to vote for him but I totally get why his numbers are so good.

That said, all of the posturing by the board liberals over Scalia's replacement is just more of the same. If the shoe was on the other foot they'd be singing a different tune.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Chuck Schumer said they SHOULD.

Ted Cruz said he WOULD.

There's a BIG difference between the two words...not that I'd expect another JPP dim bulb to understand.
Click to expand...

should
SHo͝od,SHəd/Submit
verb
1.
used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

would
wo͝od,wəd,(ə)d/Submit
verb
1.
past of will1, in various senses.
"he said he would be away for a couple of days"
2.
(expressing the conditional mood) indicating the consequence of an imagined event or situation.

Zippy fail! :)
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/wooosh.......right past the head of the person who still thinks she deserves a liberal justice to replace Scalia.......after all, if God didn't want Chrispie to have a liberal justice he would have kept Scalia alive till next January, right........liberals are entitled to a liberal justice because he died NOW!...........
Click to expand...

You cons think you deserve another con justice and you're making fun of me? You guys have been running around like chickens ever since the news was announced. You guys didn't even have the class to hold out until the body was in the ground.
 
CFM said:
Same thing Senate Democrats did when Lewis Powell retired in 1987. Those Democrats urged their leaders to form what they called a "solid phalanx" against WHOMEVER Reagan nominated. Reagan hadn't made any picks unless you can tell me someone has the name of "whomever". That means the Democrats were going to block Reagan's FUTURE pick even though he hadn't made any. They had already decided Reagan's picks didn't deserve and none had been made.

Typical Liberal hypocrite. What it amounts to is you think the black President should name anyone he wants and it should automatically be done. You can either admit it or be a liar.
Click to expand...

Did reagan nominate a replacement, did the Senate hold hearings, and was the nominee confirmed? Your argument is stupid. You're not comparing apples to apples.
 
christiefan915 said:
You cons think you deserve another con justice and you're making fun of me? You guys have been running around like chickens ever since the news was announced. You guys didn't even have the class to hold out until the body was in the ground.
Click to expand...

don't pretend you didn't get a tingle up your leg with the thought of replacing the most conservative justice with a tail wagger.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top