Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Republicans continue to whine.......Democrats do it too!
Alito and Thomas were approved by the Democrats. They are both arch conservatives. They both gave conservatives a 5-4 edge in the court
Republicans are refusing to even allow Obama to fill a vacant seat regardless of who he picks. They are outraged that he would pick a liberal even more so that it would give the liberals a 5-4 advantage
Can you see the difference?
Clearly...Obama himself agreed to filibuster one appointment, and voted against BOTH. Now that he is President he says it is the Senates job to up/down vote...when before it was OK to filibuster.
So yeah
Republicans continue to whine.......Democrats do it too!
Alito and Thomas were approved by the Democrats. They are both arch conservatives. They both gave conservatives a 5-4 edge in the court
Republicans are refusing to even allow Obama to fill a vacant seat regardless of who he picks. They are outraged that he would pick a liberal even more so that it would give the liberals a 5-4 advantage
Can you see the difference?
Clearly...Obama himself agreed to filibuster one appointment, and voted against BOTH. Now that he is President he says it is the Senates job to up/down vote...when before it was OK to filibuster.
So yeah
As is the right of any Senator
What is not a right is to demand that a President not make an appointment and that some as yet undetermined candidate is better suited to make the appointment
How bout we do this...Republicans continue to whine.......Democrats do it too!
Alito and Thomas were approved by the Democrats. They are both arch conservatives. They both gave conservatives a 5-4 edge in the court
Republicans are refusing to even allow Obama to fill a vacant seat regardless of who he picks. They are outraged that he would pick a liberal even more so that it would give the liberals a 5-4 advantage
Can you see the difference?
Clearly...Obama himself agreed to filibuster one appointment, and voted against BOTH. Now that he is President he says it is the Senates job to up/down vote...when before it was OK to filibuster.
So yeah
As is the right of any Senator
What is not a right is to demand that a President not make an appointment and that some as yet undetermined candidate is better suited to make the appointment
Hmm....so pray tell what is the end result difference between filibuster (block a vote purposefully) and block a vote purposefully.
And BTW - Reid is the king of blocking votes.
As I said before it is the job of Senate to vote, I am against the Senate blocking ANY votes for political reasons...something they do consistently. My point is the hypocrisy of Obama.
Was this before or after he plotted with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayres to overthrow the federal government and indoctrinate our children with Islamic propaganda, while giving top secret information to the soviets....just askin?Naturally, the media has censored this factoid from the past.
First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process
may 30 2009 On January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.
On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on "This Week" that he would "be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly."
How bout we do this...Republicans continue to whine.......Democrats do it too!
Alito and Thomas were approved by the Democrats. They are both arch conservatives. They both gave conservatives a 5-4 edge in the court
Republicans are refusing to even allow Obama to fill a vacant seat regardless of who he picks. They are outraged that he would pick a liberal even more so that it would give the liberals a 5-4 advantage
Can you see the difference?
Clearly...Obama himself agreed to filibuster one appointment, and voted against BOTH. Now that he is President he says it is the Senates job to up/down vote...when before it was OK to filibuster.
So yeah
As is the right of any Senator
What is not a right is to demand that a President not make an appointment and that some as yet undetermined candidate is better suited to make the appointment
Hmm....so pray tell what is the end result difference between filibuster (block a vote purposefully) and block a vote purposefully.
And BTW - Reid is the king of blocking votes.
As I said before it is the job of Senate to vote, I am against the Senate blocking ANY votes for political reasons...something they do consistently. My point is the hypocrisy of Obama.
Treat Obama's nominee the same way that Alito was treated
How bout we do this...Republicans continue to whine.......Democrats do it too!
Alito and Thomas were approved by the Democrats. They are both arch conservatives. They both gave conservatives a 5-4 edge in the court
Republicans are refusing to even allow Obama to fill a vacant seat regardless of who he picks. They are outraged that he would pick a liberal even more so that it would give the liberals a 5-4 advantage
Can you see the difference?
Clearly...Obama himself agreed to filibuster one appointment, and voted against BOTH. Now that he is President he says it is the Senates job to up/down vote...when before it was OK to filibuster.
So yeah
As is the right of any Senator
What is not a right is to demand that a President not make an appointment and that some as yet undetermined candidate is better suited to make the appointment
Hmm....so pray tell what is the end result difference between filibuster (block a vote purposefully) and block a vote purposefully.
And BTW - Reid is the king of blocking votes.
As I said before it is the job of Senate to vote, I am against the Senate blocking ANY votes for political reasons...something they do consistently. My point is the hypocrisy of Obama.
Treat Obama's nominee the same way that Alito was treated
Which is what is happening now.
Like I said before, I believe what you are seeing now is posturing...just like in 2007...difference is Obama was the one wanting to block votes before (twice) and voted against both.
At least Obama knew who he was objecting to!Oh snap!!!!
Well....all you tranny fucking libs can fuck off now. Obama dished it out as a Senator. Now he can take it.
He knew who he was objecting to!How bout we do this...Republicans continue to whine.......Democrats do it too!
Alito and Thomas were approved by the Democrats. They are both arch conservatives. They both gave conservatives a 5-4 edge in the court
Republicans are refusing to even allow Obama to fill a vacant seat regardless of who he picks. They are outraged that he would pick a liberal even more so that it would give the liberals a 5-4 advantage
Can you see the difference?
Clearly...Obama himself agreed to filibuster one appointment, and voted against BOTH. Now that he is President he says it is the Senates job to up/down vote...when before it was OK to filibuster.
So yeah
As is the right of any Senator
What is not a right is to demand that a President not make an appointment and that some as yet undetermined candidate is better suited to make the appointment
Hmm....so pray tell what is the end result difference between filibuster (block a vote purposefully) and block a vote purposefully.
And BTW - Reid is the king of blocking votes.
As I said before it is the job of Senate to vote, I am against the Senate blocking ANY votes for political reasons...something they do consistently. My point is the hypocrisy of Obama.
Treat Obama's nominee the same way that Alito was treated
Which is what is happening now.
Like I said before, I believe what you are seeing now is posturing...just like in 2007...difference is Obama was the one wanting to block votes before (twice) and voted against both.
He knew who he was objecting to!How bout we do this...Clearly...Obama himself agreed to filibuster one appointment, and voted against BOTH. Now that he is President he says it is the Senates job to up/down vote...when before it was OK to filibuster.
So yeah
As is the right of any Senator
What is not a right is to demand that a President not make an appointment and that some as yet undetermined candidate is better suited to make the appointment
Hmm....so pray tell what is the end result difference between filibuster (block a vote purposefully) and block a vote purposefully.
And BTW - Reid is the king of blocking votes.
As I said before it is the job of Senate to vote, I am against the Senate blocking ANY votes for political reasons...something they do consistently. My point is the hypocrisy of Obama.
Treat Obama's nominee the same way that Alito was treated
Which is what is happening now.
Like I said before, I believe what you are seeing now is posturing...just like in 2007...difference is Obama was the one wanting to block votes before (twice) and voted against both.
He knew who he was objecting to!How bout we do this...Clearly...Obama himself agreed to filibuster one appointment, and voted against BOTH. Now that he is President he says it is the Senates job to up/down vote...when before it was OK to filibuster.
So yeah
As is the right of any Senator
What is not a right is to demand that a President not make an appointment and that some as yet undetermined candidate is better suited to make the appointment
Hmm....so pray tell what is the end result difference between filibuster (block a vote purposefully) and block a vote purposefully.
And BTW - Reid is the king of blocking votes.
As I said before it is the job of Senate to vote, I am against the Senate blocking ANY votes for political reasons...something they do consistently. My point is the hypocrisy of Obama.
Treat Obama's nominee the same way that Alito was treated
Which is what is happening now.
Like I said before, I believe what you are seeing now is posturing...just like in 2007...difference is Obama was the one wanting to block votes before (twice) and voted against both.
It does matter! My only objection on this SC thing is that Republicans are saying no before having an appointee to object to!He knew who he was objecting to!How bout we do this...As is the right of any Senator
What is not a right is to demand that a President not make an appointment and that some as yet undetermined candidate is better suited to make the appointment
Hmm....so pray tell what is the end result difference between filibuster (block a vote purposefully) and block a vote purposefully.
And BTW - Reid is the king of blocking votes.
As I said before it is the job of Senate to vote, I am against the Senate blocking ANY votes for political reasons...something they do consistently. My point is the hypocrisy of Obama.
Treat Obama's nominee the same way that Alito was treated
Which is what is happening now.
Like I said before, I believe what you are seeing now is posturing...just like in 2007...difference is Obama was the one wanting to block votes before (twice) and voted against both.
Keep digging...eventually in 20-30 years you will hit on something that matters!!
Republicans continue to whine.......Democrats do it too!
Alito and Thomas were approved by the Democrats. They are both arch conservatives. They both gave conservatives a 5-4 edge in the court
Republicans are refusing to even allow Obama to fill a vacant seat regardless of who he picks. They are outraged that he would pick a liberal even more so that it would give the liberals a 5-4 advantage
Can you see the difference?
Clearly...Obama himself agreed to filibuster one appointment, and voted against BOTH. Now that he is President he says it is the Senates job to up/down vote...when before it was OK to filibuster.
So yeah
As is the right of any Senator
What is not a right is to demand that a President not make an appointment and that some as yet undetermined candidate is better suited to make the appointment
Hmm....so pray tell what is the end result difference between filibuster (block a vote purposefully) and block a vote purposefully.
And BTW - Reid is the king of blocking votes.
As I said before it is the job of Senate to vote, I am against the Senate blocking ANY votes for political reasons...something they do consistently. My point is the hypocrisy of Obama.
he wasn't filibustered, they new he wouldn't be filibustered, with only 25 people making the statement against Alito....it would take 60 votes to filibuster any contender, if I am not mistaken?
They KNEW he would not be filibustered....before they attempted it.
Republicans are refusing to even allow Obama to fill a vacant seat regardless of who he picks.
Treat Obama's nominee the same way that Alito was treated
[
It does matter! My only objection on this SC thing is that Republicans are saying no before having an appointee to object to!
Obama's amnesty of 5 million illegals proves he has no understanding of the law and the constitution and thus any candidate he picks will certainly be unqualified.Republicans are refusing to even allow Obama to fill a vacant seat regardless of who he picks.
Obama does not have authority to FILL a vacant seat. He can merely nominate someone and then the senate has an obligation to decide if the candidate is qualified. Unfortunately for you, obama's amnesty of 5 million illegals proves he has no understanding of the law and the constitution and thus any candidate he picks will certainly be unqualified. THINK, hater.
he wasn't filibustered, they new he wouldn't be filibustered, with only 25 people making the statement against Alito....it would take 60 votes to filibuster any contender, if I am not mistaken?
They KNEW he would not be filibustered....before they attempted it.
