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.
Yeah reread it as obviously you don't understand what it states.
Specifically highlight the section for everyone that states the Senate is compelled to take any action on any nominations by POTUS.
Yes, yes, we all know how the Republicans in the Senate are redefining 228 years of precedent to suddenly declare that Article II, Section 2 in the Constitution now means something completely different than it had in the preceding centuries. There is even a poster on here on C-D who is insisting that the word "advise" in the Constitution really means that the Senate compiles a list of nominees to send the president and he must choose from among them, only.
Amazing how things that have worked for two plus centuries for every other president suddenly no longer apply for this president.
And you wonder why Republicans are viewed as the party of obstructionists? Wonder no more.
Blocking Dear Leader and his jerk off supporters is their job.
Absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that says they have to take up any nomination.
If this worthless POS of a Leader that we call President had done HIS frigging job this wouldn't be happening.
Assuming that is correct they should try to use some common sense rather than continuing to be the party of no.
Also something to think about, they will have 3 justices in their 80's in the next term so the next president could get a total of 4 appointments if they follow through on this which will likely be Hillary Clinton.
It will be interesting to watch the contortions if Obama nominates a judge particularly Jane Kelly from Grassley's home state, she was approved by 96-0 and highly recommended by Grassley and now he won't even let her go to the floor.
Many of the others were approved by near unanimous margins, so what's their argument other than now we hate Obama?
Assuming that is correct they should try to use some common sense rather than continuing to be the party of no.
Also something to think about, they will have 3 justices in their 80's in the next term so the next president could get a total of 4 appointments if they follow through on this which will likely be Hillary Clinton.
It will be interesting to watch the contortions if Obama nominates a judge particularly Jane Kelly from Grassley's home state, she was approved by 96-0 and highly recommended by Grassley and now he won't even let her go to the floor.
Many of the others were approved by near unanimous margins, so what's their argument other than now we hate Obama?
They'll probably roll out tapes of Biden, Reid and Obama himself being obstructionists when Republicans have nominated Supreme Court Justices only to be shut down by Democrats. You guys can play the game as long as you hold all the cards, but when you don't you start crying about it. Too bad. Suck it up.
They'll probably roll out tapes of Biden, Reid and Obama himself being obstructionists when Republicans have nominated Supreme Court Justices only to be shut down by Democrats. You guys can play the game as long as you hold all the cards, but when you don't you start crying about it. Too bad. Suck it up.
Well there is a difference in threatening to do something and then actually following though, maybe this is just a threat we see if the GOP crazy meter is spiking very shortly. I don't recall any supreme court justices being completely shut down by democrats under a sitting president, maybe you have an example.
$853,000,000 settlement -- “Growing political uncertainties due to recent events within the Supreme Court and increased likelihood
for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class action suits have changed Dow’s risk assessment of the situation,†Dow wrote.
Some key people hope to get reelected and may realize that McConnell's toxic stand costs careers.
And you know - career politicians. Seems they enjoy being employed.
Rather than learning anything from any of this, we'll hear:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad
If this worthless of a Leader that we call President had done HIS frigging job this wouldn't be happening.
Well stated by both Lindsey Graham and Elizabeth Warren. Looks like the president is close to a nomination so we will see if they are crazy enough to continue down this path.
Exactly. The GOP has created a situation where Obama is going to nominate someone that they previously approved with no objections for a lower court position. Had they not said a word he would have likely chosen someone they could substantially vote against. Now they have no cover for the naked obstructionism and pettiness.
Pat Toomey is also likely to lose his seat over this as well. 52% of PA voters said they would likely vote against him if he blocked the SC nomination.
We'll know in September and October just how important a SC nominee is to voters.
The nightmare for the R's would be 8 months of hearings and rejecting liberal nominees. They'd be accused of opposing everyone based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc..
The R's still have time to reverse their approach if it backfires politically when Obama nominates someone.
BTW, Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were unanimously approved for their Appellate Court appointments. SC nominees typically receive more scrutiny than when they were ok'd for a lower court.
As our esteemed VP once said:
"It is easy to see why the Senate has subjected nominees to the Supreme Court to more exacting standards than nominees to the lower courts, for as the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court dictates the judicial precedents that all lower courts are bound to respect. But as the only court of no appeal, the Supreme Court itself is the only court with unreviewable power to change precedents. Thus, only the Senate can guard the guardians--by attempting to engage and gage the philosophies of Justices before placing them on the Court."
Blocking Dear Leader and his jerk off supporters is their job.
Absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that says they have to take up any nomination.
If this worthless of a Leader that we call President had done HIS frigging job this wouldn't be happening.
No, it's not their job to block. But why wait. Would they rather have Hillary make the nomination They are looking pretty bad when they say they won't even consider any nomination. They just may find themselves out of the senate
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.
They are looking pretty bad when they say they won't even consider any nomination. They just may find themselves out of the senate
