the Scalia situation.

Taichiliberal said:
Where is your historical proof that the Dem party stated they would reject out of hand any nominee for the Scotus?
Click to expand...


Democrats told Reagan that he shouldn't pick a particular person or he would "face Senate trouble". Sounds like Democrats had already determined they would deny someone before that person was chosen.
 
They are really insane.....

Democrats do something, then the Republicans do the very same thing and its called obstruction....

Democrats say something, then a Republican says the very same thing and hes lying....

Democrats refuse to negotiate, so Republicans are labeled stubborn....
 
Last edited:
Nobody has said he "cannot" nominate. And they have simply used their Advisory role if they say he should not. Advise and Consent and scheduling of votes are all under the Senate's authority. There is nothing at all unconstitutional in the position of either the President or the Senate.
 
NOVA said:
They are really insane.....

Democrats do something, then the Republicans do the very same thing and is called obstruction....

Democrats say something, then a Republican says the very same thing and he lying....

Democrats refuse to negotiate, so Republicans are labeled stubborn....
Click to expand...

When Democrats do something they call it the will of the people. When Republicans do it they call it mob rule.
 
Taichiliberal said:
1. Since when does the opposition leadership declare BEFORE THE NOMINEE IS SUBMITTED that they will reject them? Historical reference, please.

2. Here's where I divorce you of the Bork mythology: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/06/AR2009060601800.html
Click to expand...

Not surprised you refuse to accept the Bork example. It's how you liars operate. It proves your side has done exactly what they now say is wrong. You can call it a "divorce" if you want, but that is still married to the Democrats.
 
evince said:
bork got a hearing you fucking idiot


your shit says he will refuse to place it on the docket
Click to expand...

Has anything happened yet? Calm your jets sweety.

You lefties say this helps you so you should be cheering McCuntell on

Have no fear he will execute another episode of Republican Failure Theatre and cave. Extinguish your tampon string
 
dear fucking asshole,


your shit said he would go against the constitution


we are saying hes an evil for saying that


you are puckering up and smooching his ass for it
 
NOVA said:
Here is your PROOF

During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “
when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about 19 more months remaining in his presidential term
Schumer’s suggested obstruction never came to pass, as no more vacancies opened during Bush’s presidency.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40l8JUAdA

Did Schumer say he would reject out of hand any Bush nominee......YES....TOTALLY PRE-EMPTIVE
There were no previous proposals or votes 'laid out' before Schumer's pre-emptive obstructionist threat....
You might want to boneup on facts before you shoot your big mouth off......you'd still be a fool but it wouldn't be as obvious....
Click to expand...

You have to excuse Chachi.
He suffers from liberal political blindness.
The chronology of his posts, provide the proof.
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Where is your historical proof that the Dem party stated they would reject out of hand any nominee for the Scotus?
Click to expand...

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Who cares? Evidently those who are desperately trying to defend the obstructionism of the GOP leadership. McConnell statements are Pre-emptive. Obama, and Schumer for that matter, have made their statements AFTER previous proposals and votes were laid out in the Congress and Senate. Big difference. If you can prove otherwise, please do.
Click to expand...




Here is your PROOF

During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “
when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about 19 more months remaining in his presidential term
Schumer’s suggested obstruction never came to pass, as no more vacancies opened during Bush’s presidency.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40l8JUAdA

Did Schumer say he would reject out of hand any Bush nominee......YES....TOTALLY PRE-EMPTIVE
There were no previous proposals or votes 'laid out' before Schumer's pre-emptive obstructionist threat....
You might want to boneup on facts before you shoot your big mouth off......you'd still be a fool but it wouldn't be as obvious....
Click to expand...

You might want to note that Chuck Schumer IS NOT the Senate Minority Leader....nor is he the party WHIP. He can advocate whatever he wants....it's the LEADERSHIP that sets the tone and makes the rules for the Party.

See Nova, you need to Pay Attention to details. So get back on your right wing blog sites and try and find in the last 60 years where the DEM leadership in the Senate PRE-EMPTIVELY stated that they would block any nomination from a lame duck GOP President BEFORE THE NOMINATION WAS SUBMITTED. I'll wait.
 
NOVA said:
I don't agree Thingy.....I defend my positions....unless I'm wrong, then I admit it....feel free to correct anything I post as fact that is not....not my opinions, of course.....

and I agree you 'usually' do see things objectively....and compared to your left wing friends, your somewhat more honest too.

So don't let TC punk shake you....you know the chronology of your posts will used on you.....:)
Click to expand...

:lies:
 
CFM said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Who cares? Evidently those who are desperately trying to defend the obstructionism of the GOP leadership. McConnell statements are Pre-emptive. Obama, and Schumer for that matter, have made their statements AFTER previous proposals and votes were laid out in the Congress and Senate. Big difference. If you can prove otherwise, please do.
Click to expand...


Before Bork was nominated by Reagan, Democrats in the Senate urged their leadership to create a "solid phalanx" for whomever Reagan named. Do you defend that obstructionism as they were preemptive.
Click to expand...

Provide documented evidence that the Dem leadership stated they would block ANY nominee by a GOP President BEFORE THE NAMES WERE SUBMITTED. Remember, Bork went through the process. Here's a quick synopsis of that event: http://crooksandliars.com/paul-rosenberg/borking-myth-self-inoculating-conse
 
CFM said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Where is your historical proof that the Dem party stated they would reject out of hand any nominee for the Scotus?
Click to expand...


Democrats told Reagan that he shouldn't pick a particular person or he would "face Senate trouble". Sounds like Democrats had already determined they would deny someone before that person was chosen.
Click to expand...

Valid, documented proof beyond your personal recollection, please.
 
Damocles said:
Nobody has said he "cannot" nominate. And they have simply used their Advisory role if they say he should not. Advise and Consent and scheduling of votes are all under the Senate's authority. There is nothing at all unconstitutional in the position of either the President or the Senate.
Click to expand...

did you even read the previous posts, Damo? I've clarified time and again that the GOP leadership is stating a PREEMPTIVE block against ANY NOMINEE by the President. This is unprecedented....at least in the last 60 years. That is NOT abiding by the letter or the spirit of the law by Constitution.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Can anyone point out where it states in the Constitution where the President is NOT permitted to submit appointments to the SCOTUS in the last year of his term in office. much less his second (and final) term?

And can anyone explain EXACTLY how the opposition to Bork is the same as the PRE-EMPTIVE declaration by the GOP leadership to block ANY nomination by the President?
Click to expand...

Can anyone show, while the President has the ability to appoint and the Senate has the power to confirm, a timeline in the Constitution for how quickly it is supposed to happen?


When Lewis Powell retired under Reagan's administration, Democrats made it clear that if Reagan nominated Bork, there would be a "fight". That's pre-emptive. They urged their party leader to form a "solid phalanx" against someone they deemed as an ideological extremist. Teddy Oh My Liver Kennedy went on TV and condemned Bork before any hearing had taken place. In other words, Teddy Drown 'Em Kennedy had already made up his mind before ever hearing one bit of information.
 
Taichiliberal said:
did you even read the previous posts, Damo? I've clarified time and again that the GOP leadership is stating a PREEMPTIVE block against ANY NOMINEE by the President. This is unprecedented....at least in the last 60 years. That is NOT abiding by the letter or the spirit of the law by Constitution.
Click to expand...

Not when the Democrats urged their leaders in the Senate to form a "solid phalanx" again anyone they believed was an ideological extremist that Reagan nominated. Are you claiming that is abiding by the spirit of the Constitution.

Hey dumbass, does the Senate saying he shouldn't prevent Obama from making a nomination? No it doesn't. Obama is using it to play politics. Let him nominate then when Republicans do what Democrats did to Bork, let's see how you twist it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top