Republiacn Senators ask Obama to violate the Constitution!

christiefan915 said:
Lol. You cons act like Scalia's seat is hereditary to conservatives. Your arguments couldn't be more pointless.
Click to expand...

/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!...........
 
Jarod said:
Yes, they shot themselves in the foot by not waiting until there was a nominee before saying they would refuse to appoint him/her.
Click to expand...

Who had Bush nominated, at the time that Schumer made his announcement in 2007??

I'll understand if you run away from this. :D
 
CFM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the JPP liberal circle jerk and hypocrisy methodology. :palm:
 
christiefan915 said:
<yawn> We've already had several threads saying Obama's [future] picks don't deserve it even though he hasn't made any picks.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jarod said:
Yup, they voted on Bork!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

And if the Republicans would vote up Obama's nominee in an obedient and timely fashion, the democrats would STILL Bork the next conservative nominee by a republican president.

They're absolutely shameless in their hypocrisy lol.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
And if the Republicans would vote up Obama's nominee in an obedient and timely fashion, the democrats would STILL Bork the next conservative nominee by a republican president.

They're absolutely shameless in their hypocrisy lol.
Click to expand...

Jarod's dumbass emphasizes shall but there are examples of where Democrats did the same thing they now say would be wrong.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
And if the Republicans would vote up Obama's nominee in an obedient and timely fashion, the democrats would STILL Bork the next conservative nominee by a republican president.

They're absolutely shameless in their hypocrisy lol.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jarod said:
Article II Section 2.

The President shall nominate Judges of the supreme Court.


It does not say that the president should, can or might nominate Judges of the Supreme Court... it says SHALL..


Now you have the Republican leader of the Senate calling for Obama to chose not to appoint a judge. You have Republican canididates, including strict constructionists, and self described defenders of "original intent" saying that the President should NOT appoint a judge.


I thought they claimed to be the ones demanding the Constitution be followed.... Shows how full of SHIT they are.
Click to expand...

Seems you don't recall what Chucky Schumer said about any Bush nominees in 2006 and what Democrats urged their leaders to do to whomever Reagan nominated in 1987. Maybe you do recall and, as the typical Liberal piece of shit, choose to believe it should be different when the black guy does it.
 
Jarod said:
Yup, they voted on Bork!
Click to expand...

Yup, Democrats has already decided they were going to vote no for whomever Reagan appointed. Same thing Chucky Schumer said about any Bush nominee. How quickly your forget or is it that you choose to do differently when it's one of yours doing the choosing.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, so it's OK if they just wait until there's a nomination and THEN they could have said it!! :good4u:


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Click to expand...

Would have been better if their goal is to wait for the next president.

Now if they oppose, the President has the built in argument... Its not because you don't think he is qualified, its because you are playing politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top