When they opposed a nominee after he was nominated?
Republiacn Senators ask Obama to violate the Constitution!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
When they opposed a nominee after he was nominated?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
yep...
It doesn't matter what BS excuse they try to feed their constituents and voters in general.
They laid bare the partisan hate in their hearts and made their true feelings known when their first statement was that they'd be stonewalling ANY candidate Obama might nominate.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Thanks for confirming what I said about your kind.
I choose to call you what you are. It proves your weakness when you deny the truth. If you want to do things like I said, it's your business. Don't whine when you're called on it.
Since no timeline is listed in the Constitution for confirming appointments, what duty is being ignored? Are you saying it should be done WHEN you want it done? If so, run for the Senate.
You mean like Senate Democrats did with Robert Bork thinking he would be the nominee and planning to create a wall when it actually happened? Like it said, you have no problem when your side does it only when someone does the same thing.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
They actually did that to Bork. I not surprised you think he was confirmed. Retard. The difference is you think what happened to Bork was OK and not doing something on your timeline is wrong.
I asked you earlier to show me a timeline in the Constitution where the Senate has a set date by which to do something. Still looking for it from you. Do you have it yet? Keep looking. You're stupid enough to do so.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Bullshit...one lie after another.
There was no stonewalling of Bork, Bork was nominated.
His nomination was rejected by the nominating committee by a vote of 9-5.
Two weeks later, his confirmation was rejected by the full Senate 42-58.
Ted Cruz has SWORN he absolutely will filibuster ANY nominee Obama tries to bring up for a vote.
Y?
Yup, they voted on Bork!
Before Reagan ever nominated anyone, senate Democrats urged their party leaders to form a "solid phalanx" against WHOMEVER Reagan appointed. Those Senator warned Reagan that if he nominated Robert Bork there would be a fight. That means Democrats had already said they would stonewall. Ted Kennedy's drunk ass came on TV and condemned the nomination with in hour of it being made. In other words, Kennedy has already decided he was voting NO before any hearings took place. To you, that was OK. That Senate has a Democrat majority if I recall correctly and I do. They refused to approve Reagan's nominee. You expect Republicans to simply accept whomever Obama picks. If you say otherwise, you're a liar.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Doesn't matter. Bork didn't deserve to be a justice.
Ted Kennedy's drunk ass went on the Senate floor within an hour of the nomination and condemned it. Senate Democrats urged their leader to form a "solid phalanx" against whomever Reagan nominated. Do you think those Senators were unbiased or had they already made up their minds?
It does and your opinion about Bork means nothing since you mean nothing.
Whomever Obama picks doesn't deserve it. See how that works hypocrite.
christiefan915
Catalyst
LMFAO
Just last week Zappasguitar proclaimed that when I said his comments were bullshit, that it showed I could not hold a civil conversation, and had nothing but petty insults and derision and that it also showed my position was weak because I resorted to vulgar insults.
LMFAO
That is not true, Obama said he would filibuster.
Has that been done here?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
and you shot yourself in the foot by claiming they said they wouldn't even vote on him....