Bush AG: "No question" Obama has "obligation" to fill the seat

Where is a vote required? Show it.
"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Without a vote they can't do the Consent part.

"by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"

They don't have to, as it's not required. All it says is that the president must HAVE the advice and consent of the Senate to forward his nomination, not that they must acquiesce to his demand, and consent to his choice. Same with treaties.
They must grant, or not, consent, which means a vote. That's all I said, dumbfuck.

Wow, you really ARE the top poster boy for our failed public school systems.

Consent is now defined - as it was then - as "permission for something to happen".

The Senate is under no obligation to grant it, anymore than they are obligated to ratify a treaty.
To grant, or not, consent they must vote.


NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
 
The moral of the story here? Sucks to be a liberal right now. :)
Not at all, since we are going to beat the GOP to death for not governing, something the American people are sick to death of. They are tired of do-nothing assholes.
Progressives never compromise, why should anyone else??
Getting along is over rated...
They don't have to compromise, they have to grant, or not, consent, which means voting.
 
"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Without a vote they can't do the Consent part.

"by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"

They don't have to, as it's not required. All it says is that the president must HAVE the advice and consent of the Senate to forward his nomination, not that they must acquiesce to his demand, and consent to his choice. Same with treaties.
They must grant, or not, consent, which means a vote. That's all I said, dumbfuck.

Wow, you really ARE the top poster boy for our failed public school systems.

Consent is now defined - as it was then - as "permission for something to happen".

The Senate is under no obligation to grant it, anymore than they are obligated to ratify a treaty.
To grant, or not, consent they must vote.


NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
They cannot consent without voting, and Advice and Consent are not optional. If they are then Obama doesn't need the Senate at all...
 
The moral of the story here? Sucks to be a liberal right now. :)
Not at all, since we are going to beat the GOP to death for not governing, something the American people are sick to death of. They are tired of paying for do-nothing assholes.

Not to mention that the SC is now 4-4.


I have to give you credit for one thing - you DO make me laugh... :banana2:
z8o64.jpg
 
The moral of the story here? Sucks to be a liberal right now. :)
Not at all, since we are going to beat the GOP to death for not governing, something the American people are sick to death of. They are tired of do-nothing assholes.
Progressives never compromise, why should anyone else??
Getting along is over rated...
They don't have to compromise, they have to grant, or not, consent, which means voting.
Why, there is no hurry.
Let the next president chose someone... Like this guy

3a4bb33697cc5b876b50240136ca5dba.jpg
 
The moral of the story here? Sucks to be a liberal right now. :)
Not at all, since we are going to beat the GOP to death for not governing, something the American people are sick to death of. They are tired of do-nothing assholes.
Progressives never compromise, why should anyone else??
Getting along is over rated...
They don't have to compromise, they have to grant, or not, consent, which means voting.


Sonny, you are assuming that it comes to the floor of the Senate. Remember how many votes good old gutter trash Reid never brought to the floor? Of course you do. Now, sonny, what goes around, comes around.

Lie on the floor, kick and scream. You'll no doubt feel better after your tantrum, :)
 
"by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"

They don't have to, as it's not required. All it says is that the president must HAVE the advice and consent of the Senate to forward his nomination, not that they must acquiesce to his demand, and consent to his choice. Same with treaties.
They must grant, or not, consent, which means a vote. That's all I said, dumbfuck.

Wow, you really ARE the top poster boy for our failed public school systems.

Consent is now defined - as it was then - as "permission for something to happen".

The Senate is under no obligation to grant it, anymore than they are obligated to ratify a treaty.
To grant, or not, consent they must vote.


NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
They cannot consent without voting, and Advice and Consent are not optional. If they are then Obama doesn't need the Senate at all...


They don't have to vote that is their right as the Senate.
Then Obama has to pick another nomination. This could go back and forth until the next President comes in.
 
They must grant, or not, consent, which means a vote. That's all I said, dumbfuck.

Wow, you really ARE the top poster boy for our failed public school systems.

Consent is now defined - as it was then - as "permission for something to happen".

The Senate is under no obligation to grant it, anymore than they are obligated to ratify a treaty.
To grant, or not, consent they must vote.


NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
They cannot consent without voting, and Advice and Consent are not optional. If they are then Obama doesn't need the Senate at all...


They don't have to vote that is their right as the Senate.
Then Obama has to pick another nomination. This could go back and forth until the next President comes in.


The limp-wristed liberals' sole argument is that it will make republicans "look bad". What they simply cannot get through their little pea brains is that America is LIVID at the present administration. We all understand that unless we rid ourselves of these clown "progressives" - we are done as a country and a society. They can't look beyond their ideology to see the absolute ASS WHOOPING that awaits them in November.

Pride goeth before a fall.
 
Barry Hussein probably has more "obligations" than sense. Does Alberto Gonzales's opinion carry more weight to the left because he was Bush's A.G.? That's a compliment to the Bush admin. anyway.
 
They must grant, or not, consent, which means a vote. That's all I said, dumbfuck.

Wow, you really ARE the top poster boy for our failed public school systems.

Consent is now defined - as it was then - as "permission for something to happen".

The Senate is under no obligation to grant it, anymore than they are obligated to ratify a treaty.
To grant, or not, consent they must vote.


NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
They cannot consent without voting, and Advice and Consent are not optional. If they are then Obama doesn't need the Senate at all...


They don't have to vote that is their right as the Senate.
Then Obama has to pick another nomination. This could go back and forth until the next President comes in.
Voting is their Constitutional duty, kids. And if they don't, say goodbye to the GOP Senate. They were going to lose it anyway but pulling this craps means it's gone, gone, gone...
 
He certainly has an obligation to nominate a replacement, whether or not that nominee "fills" the vacancy is pretty much out of his hands.


Just sayin'.
 
He does.

And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,
Sure. they can hold hearings and vote the nominee down. I don't have a problem with that. They can go to the American people and explain why the candidate is unacceptable. Not allowing hearings or a vote is not acceptable. This is an important seat that needs to be filled.
 
Wow, you really ARE the top poster boy for our failed public school systems.

Consent is now defined - as it was then - as "permission for something to happen".

The Senate is under no obligation to grant it, anymore than they are obligated to ratify a treaty.
To grant, or not, consent they must vote.


NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
They cannot consent without voting, and Advice and Consent are not optional. If they are then Obama doesn't need the Senate at all...


They don't have to vote that is their right as the Senate.
Then Obama has to pick another nomination. This could go back and forth until the next President comes in.


The limp-wristed liberals' sole argument is that it will make republicans "look bad". What they simply cannot get through their little pea brains is that America is LIVID at the present administration. We all understand that unless we rid ourselves of these clown "progressives" - we are done as a country and a society. They can't look beyond their ideology to see the absolute ASS WHOOPING that awaits them in November.

Pride goeth before a fall.
We may even have a Trump vs. Bernie election because people are livid at the establishment.
 
Wow, you really ARE the top poster boy for our failed public school systems.

Consent is now defined - as it was then - as "permission for something to happen".

The Senate is under no obligation to grant it, anymore than they are obligated to ratify a treaty.
To grant, or not, consent they must vote.


NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
They cannot consent without voting, and Advice and Consent are not optional. If they are then Obama doesn't need the Senate at all...


They don't have to vote that is their right as the Senate.
Then Obama has to pick another nomination. This could go back and forth until the next President comes in.
Voting is their Constitutional duty, kids. And if they don't, say goodbye to the GOP Senate. They were going to lose it anyway but pulling this craps means it's gone, gone, gone...
The voting pubs doesn't care...
There is nothing pressing, it can wait till the next president... Honey
 

Forum List

Back
Top