Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Sorry - I meant to ask: do you support that idea, Yurt?
SCOTUS... a good idea
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
No.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
you acknowledge raising your white flag? How good of you. You proved you cannot comprehend what is written, best you go on playing with finger paints and eating paste. That is about all you are good for.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The very fact that you continue to resort to straw men shows that you are not right.
No one stated he should 'pretend he is Republican'. Again... thank you for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not intelligent enough to comprehend the OP article.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
What Lorax fails to comprehend is that the author stated quite clearly he DID NOT EXPECT OBAMA OR ANY PRESIDENT TO DO IT.
Lorax has shown that he is now like Desh. Too retarded to hold a conversation.
Lorax has shown that he is now like Desh. Too retarded to hold a conversation.
there is absolutely no reason why obama should have to wait. appointing judges is in his job description. It happened in his term. I do not agree with conservatives that have come up with some bizarre idea that a president with 1/8th of his time left shouldn't nominate a supreme court justice. the people already voted for him in 2012 knowing partially he might have the opportunity to nom someone. so that question has already been answered.
The senate just needs to nut up and block and deny if they have a problem. But delaying a nomination is completely nonsensical.
The senate just needs to nut up and block and deny if they have a problem. But delaying a nomination is completely nonsensical.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Agreed. If Obama puts up someone they do not approve of, they can block him/her. The topic of this thread was more of a what if Obama took another path. We all know that in reality the scenario in the OP is unlikely for anyone of either party that sits in the WH. It was meant to promote discussion on the idea. But idiots like Lorax insisted on derailing the discussion.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
What difference does that make?
It is all of a sudden a great idea because the hack author realizes that no President in his right mind would or should do it?
The problem of the article is that it's looking for the President to go with a nominee he would likely not consider were it not for petulant obstructionism from the opposing party.
The suggestion, then, is not "compromise" but "cave," and that just doesn't work. The idea is silly on its face. I think that's were it just falls flat.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO... except that it isn't about obstructionism from the opposing party. That is simply your biased bullshit. The fact that the two parties have refused to work with each other, refused to compromise with each other is precisely what the author was talking about.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Again, you have proven yourself incapable of understanding. Your head is clearly too far up Obama's ass.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Hmmmm.
Such an intellectual response.
ROFL at the Super Hypocrite.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
More default lameness from SF.
Stop spinning. You've had a rough couple of days. The idea in the OP's article is preposterous (which the author seems to realize). But thanks for posting it.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
More stupidity from poor little Thing. You have been taken to the wood shed on two threads and you still pretend you are 'winning'. Quite comical in your idiocy.
You again prove you missed the point of the OP.
I'm speechless.
That's what happens when you put things in your mouth you should put there.
You mean like the Democrats did when they thought Reagan would nominate Robert Bork and they urged their Senate leaders to create a "solid phalanx" against anyone Reagan nominated?
As long as republicans are stymieing an Obama nomination I guarantee there will be pro forma sessions this entire year. And Obama appointing a conservative? I laugh.
So you just want to completely ignore the other parts of the "appointment" process??, like "...with the Advice and Consent of the Senate..."??
Of course he does, he wants a rubber stamp for liberals and a filibuster for conservatives. He sometimes sounds reasonable, but not always.
Blocking is blocking whether it is by simply not voting on it until after November 8th or voting it down. If they vote it down they'll likely have to do it repeatedly as he'll just continue to nominate people.
They can't stop him from nominating somebody. That's silly. All he has to do is say: This guy/gal! and boom it's a nomination... I just say delay a vote until after the election and then vote. That's about it.
