Why is it okay for the Obamas to Campaign for Hillary on Our Tax Dollars?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, this entire thread is an example of "pathetic whiny cry baby comments get you nowhere"...
Regardless of your (unsolicited and irrelevant) philosophical views about filling the Supreme Court vacancies... it is the Congress' duty to provide a timely hearing for all of the presidential judicial appointees. It's not a question of "confirmation", as Congress has failed even to initiate the process, in contravention to its Constitutional duties. So it's ironic that Obama's detractors haven't addressed the GOP Congress and its failure to perform the simplest and most neutral of tasks.
I really didn't think it was going to be necessary to explain this.
Not whiny cry baby. Maybe a speech or two and a endorsement. Okay, we can deal with that. But sending a whole entourage to campaign for her is non-sense. He needs to be doing his duty as president. Go fix Russian relations, go work on Ukraine. Stop worrying about your party losing power.
Actually, this entire thread is an example of "pathetic whiny cry baby comments get you nowhere"...
Regardless of your (unsolicited and irrelevant) philosophical views about filling the Supreme Court vacancies... it is the Congress' duty to provide a timely hearing for all of the presidential judicial appointees. It's not a question of "confirmation", as Congress has failed even to initiate the process, in contravention to its Constitutional duties. So it's ironic that Obama's detractors haven't addressed the GOP Congress and its failure to perform the simplest and most neutral of tasks.
I really didn't think it was going to be necessary to explain this.
My philosophical view is a plain text reading. How dare I!
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
They have a duty to vote on the nomination - not to automatically confirm if there is a reasonable basis for not doing so, but not to ignore their constitutional obligation to act on the President's nomination rather than leave a vacant seat on the bench for months out of political gamesmanship.
No such duty exists. Not a word in the text of the Constitution says or implies the Senate must vote on a nomination. It actually says the President should seek the advice of the Senate though we have rolled that into the confirmation process. Don't like it then change it.
Quote:
and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:
My philosophical view is a plain text reading. How dare I!
No such duty exists. Not a word in the text of the Constitution says or implies the Senate must vote on a nomination. It actually says the President should seek the advice of the Senate though we have rolled that into the confirmation process. Don't like it then change it.
The President can't make the appointment without the advice and consent of the Senate per the Constitution. They are refusing to do anything, leaving him unable to make the appointment to fill the opening. So yes, there is more than an implication that the Senate has an obligation to act - one way or the other - on a nomination put forward by the President.
The photo caption from the second link:
"President Bush is accompanied by Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., before Bush boards Air Force One at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, after Bush attended a private campaign fundraising event for McCain in Phoenix, Ariz., Tuesday, May 27, 2008."
I think it's very funny that Republicans have spent the last eight years insulting President Obama and Michelle Obama. If they were so unappealing, why are they complaining that they are campaigning for Hillary? One would think they would consider that a bonus? Trump complains as well. Guess President Obama and Michelle Obama are more appealing than Republicans care to admit.
The main reason that Bush wasn't out there actively stumping for McCain was that his approval ratings were in the 20s, vs. Obama's being in the mid-high 50s. If Bush's ratings weren't in the toilet, he would have been out there on Air Force One trying to keep a Republican in the White House.
George H.W. Bush was nominated in 1988, he was the sitting Vice President. Reagan did appear at some events with him and gave a high-profile speech at the Republican convention in 1988 .
George H.W. Bush had lost to Clinton in '92 because he was not conservative enough. He appeared at a few events with Dole but not playing a major role.
Bill and Hillary Clinton played some role campaigning for John Kerry in 2004, but not a major role.
2008, of course, Bill Clinton campaigned heavily for his wife
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
