the Scalia situation.

evince said:
your party is in full revolt


your nonstop traitor fest is fucking over
Click to expand...

Oh please. Are you actually going to claim that the republicans are the only ones ignoring the US Constitution and screwing the American people?

BOTH parties should be brought up on charges of treason.
 
patriot66 said:
He can nominate anyone he wants, they will not go through, although I would bring them up for the hearings and let Cruz have at them, or Rand, or anyone with any knowledge of the constitution. See there is a little thing called reaping what you sew. Back in 2007 Shumer said any nominee sent up from Bush would be sent packing, that was full 18 months before Bush's term was up, Obama joined a Filibuster of Alito, and then there was Bork. Cry me a river.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/
http://founderscode.com/what-about-obama-and-schumer-the-alito-filibuster/
Click to expand...

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 Historical reference, please.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
 
cawacko said:
by Obama filibustering and not allowing Alioto to come up for a vote? That's killing the Republican Party? Obama is really Machiavellian huh?
Click to expand...

Ahh, the proposal was already put out. Did Obama state pre-emptively that he would reject any and all GOP proposals/candidates? Nope.
 
Thing1 said:
This is really what I'd call a "hack test," desh. If you really see a huge difference between McConnell and previous words and actions by Schumer and Obama (among others), it's 100% that you're a hack.

There just isn't a way around that. You'll support Democrats for things that you think are traitorous when done by Republicans. Couldn't be more clear.
Click to expand...

What a stupid retort....you don't even address the questions in the OP!
 
I Love America said:
Obama is free to nominate anyone he wants. Not much different than a party saying a budget is dead on arrival. What is funny is that the democrat party has been playing games with judges since Bork. Now they act SHOCKED. SHOCKED I SAY. When it comes back on them
Click to expand...

For your education: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?64833-the-Scalia-situation&p=1551811#post1551811 And remember, the budget battle was AFTER several proposals and discussions.
 
Thing1 said:
Who cares what the timing of it was?

What he said is not discernibly different from what Schumer said, or certain the filibuster that Obama supported.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thing1 said:
I don't think the Republicans are doing the right thing. But they're politicians, and they're doing the political thing. I hold no illusions whatsoever that Dems in their position wouldn't do the exact same thing (and we have historical proof of that).

What I do hope is that this backfires on the GOP come election time. It's somewhat offensive to me that they're trying to frame this as anything other than cynical & political.
Click to expand...

Where is your historical proof that the Dem party stated they would reject out of hand any nominee for the Scotus?
 
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...

Taichiliberal said:
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....
 
Taichiliberal said:
For your education: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?64833-the-Scalia-situation&p=1551811#post1551811 And remember, the budget battle was AFTER several proposals and discussions.
Click to expand...

Taichiliberal said:
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...

Thingy took the slap down from TCAsshole without even a fight.....did he scare you Thingy ?.....
 
NOVA said:
Thingy took the slap down from TCAsshole without even a fight.....did he scare you Thingy ?.....
Click to expand...

Nah - I don't feel a need to defend my position. I'm seeing things objectively.

Your posts are hilarious though, because you're such a right-wing hack - you'd be posting the same thing as Taichi if the situation was reversed.
 
Thing1 said:
Nah - I don't feel a need to defend my position. I'm seeing things objectively.

Your posts are hilarious though, because you're such a right-wing hack - you'd be posting the same thing as Taichi if the situation was reversed.
Click to expand...

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.....:)
 
Taichiliberal said:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top