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.
Do not deflect. I don't want to hear about some other thing Obama did that you don't like. How do you feel about the Senate refusing to hold hearings on Obama's supreme court nominee?
Do not deflect. I don't want to hear about some other thing Obama did that you don't like. How do you feel about the Senate refusing to hold hearings on Obama's supreme court nominee?
Obama did nominate and nobody stopped him, he nominated Garland... confirmation is the Senate's constitutional right... why are you trying to interfere with that right...
The Senate has the Constitutional obligation to either confirm or reject. No timeframe is specified.
Only when the Senate confirms may a POTUS appoint.
Speculation on my part the if the outgoing POTUS was a Republican and the Senate majority was a Democrat majority, a similar delay would have occurred.
In my view, the Senate's inaction should be viewed as acquiescence, due to the fact they have not even held a hearing on his nomination. Garland should be sworn into the SCOTUS.
Do not deflect. I don't want to hear about some other thing Obama did that you don't like. How do you feel about the Senate refusing to hold hearings on Obama's supreme court nominee?
I suspect if Hillary won they would have confirmed him as quickly as they could, knowing he was as good as they were going to get. Now, I imagine they'll hold that hearing quickly and reject him. I just wish we could substitute him for that bat Sotomayor who thinks she should rule based on feelings.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Obama has the constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. He did that and nobody tried to stop him.
The Senate has the authority to confirm Supreme Court nominees, which they have chosen not to do yet.
This would hold sway if the Senate would EVENTUALLY hold confirmation hearings for Garland. They will not. This means that they effectively refused to grant Obama his constitutionally mandated powers.
Do not deflect. I don't want to hear about some other thing Obama did that you don't like. How do you feel about the Senate refusing to hold hearings on Obama's supreme court nominee?
You want to deny the populace who elected senators their rights?
Nobody denied him his right to nominate a candidate.
Maybe you should "Reid" the constitution!
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.
