It's Official. No Obama nominee

[OnePercenter]

More deception to distract from real problems; wage disparity and the attempt to kill the middle class.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

He can take his choice and shove it up his islamic ass.

Nope.....you have no say in the matter. You are powerless even with your 214 IQ.

President Obama will do his job and appoint a Justice. Then it will be up to the Senate to do its job and either approve or reject that appointment. If they do nothing, then they fail to do their job as per the Constitution.

Please post the applicable constitutional article/section/paragraph that confirms your statement in regards to the Senate.

You first!

You on drugs? I made no statement in regards to the Senate in response to bodecea's mistatement, but merely asked for her constitutional confirmation.

Can you produce specific documents or where in the constitution where it states that Congress has the authority to hinder the president's nominee and I don't mean a reading in of something the constitution doesn't say but you wish it did

Until you can do that you have no credible argument.

Run along, boy. Get yourself educated. Congress may exercise its authority whether it hinders the president or not.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

He can take his choice and shove it up his islamic ass.

Nope.....you have no say in the matter. You are powerless even with your 214 IQ.

President Obama will do his job and appoint a Justice. Then it will be up to the Senate to do its job and either approve or reject that appointment. If they do nothing, then they fail to do their job as per the Constitution.

Please post the applicable constitutional article/section/paragraph that confirms your statement in regards to the Senate.

You first!

You on drugs? I made no statement in regards to the Senate in response to bodecea's mistatement, but merely asked for her constitutional confirmation.

And what "misstatement" did I make?

This one:

"President Obama will do his job and appoint a Justice. Then it will be up to the Senate to do its job and either approve or reject that appointment. If they do nothing, then they fail to do their job as per the Constitution."

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Faun]

I don't have to pretend. It's very obvious. The Original Intent was for the Senate to give Advice and Consent. They, like stubborn children, are doin

It says "and with the Advise and Consent". That means they give their permission. It is not mandated by the President.

Exactly...which means the Senate has a job to do. They don't do their job...not even to turn down a nominee....well, that's gonna make for some sweet political ads.

Their job is to represent the American people.

Yes. Their job isn't to sit in a corner and pout.

It would be funny if President Obama put Robert Bork forward.....

The people voted the Republicans into the majority, to defend us from Obama's communist agenda.

Sorry, but you don't speak for all the folks who voted Republican in 2014.

 

[daws101]

You totally skipped the part that says, "shall nominate".

Really? post what and where she missed it.

It goes in order, almost poetry...

"President shall nominate", the Congress will, "advise and consent", then the nominee becomes an appointee. Its right there in The Constitution.

Post the actual doc not your memorized version please.
I'm not saying you aren't correct but if you can post a link or a page.

I copied it exactly from my pocket Constitution. He's welcome to post a link to the Constitution to prove me wrong.

It's right here. Are you willfully ignoring it?

he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall APPOINT

Link please.

 

[the_human_being]

I do think President Trump will appoint good middle of the road honorable people with zero political bias to the bench when he takes office. Great men such as Judge Roy Moore and David Dukes.

Your RW choices, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Aint democracy great? Don't you just love it to pieces? LOL!!

 

[bodecea]

Nope.....you have no say in the matter. You are powerless even with your 214 IQ.

President Obama will do his job and appoint a Justice. Then it will be up to the Senate to do its job and either approve or reject that appointment. If they do nothing, then they fail to do their job as per the Constitution.

Please post the applicable constitutional article/section/paragraph that confirms your statement in regards to the Senate.

You first!

You on drugs? I made no statement in regards to the Senate in response to bodecea's mistatement, but merely asked for her constitutional confirmation.

And what "misstatement" did I make?

This one:

"President Obama will do his job and appoint a Justice. Then it will be up to the Senate to do its job and either approve or reject that appointment. If they do nothing, then they fail to do their job as per the Constitution."

That is a correct statement.

 

[bodecea]

I do think President Trump will appoint good middle of the road honorable people with zero political bias to the bench when he takes office. Great men such as Judge Roy Moore and David Dukes.

Your RW choices, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Aint democracy great? Don't you just love it to pieces? LOL!!

I do love democracy. I'm not a fan of theocracies or the KKK...Isn't that grand?!

 

[the_human_being]

More deception to distract from real problems; wage disparity and the attempt to kill the middle class.

 

[daws101]

Nope.....you have no say in the matter. You are powerless even with your 214 IQ.

President Obama will do his job and appoint a Justice. Then it will be up to the Senate to do its job and either approve or reject that appointment. If they do nothing, then they fail to do their job as per the Constitution.

Please post the applicable constitutional article/section/paragraph that confirms your statement in regards to the Senate.

You first!

You on drugs? I made no statement in regards to the Senate in response to bodecea's mistatement, but merely asked for her constitutional confirmation.

Can you produce specific documents or where in the constitution where it states that Congress has the authority to hinder the president's nominee and I don't mean a reading in of something the constitution doesn't say but you wish it did

Until you can do that you have no credible argument.

Run along, boy. Get yourself educated. Congress may exercise its authority whether it hinders the president or not.

May being the key word.
Your response is a non answer.

 

[the_human_being]

I do think President Trump will appoint good middle of the road honorable people with zero political bias to the bench when he takes office. Great men such as Judge Roy Moore and David Dukes.

Your RW choices, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Aint democracy great? Don't you just love it to pieces? LOL!!

I do love democracy. I'm not a fan of theocracies or the KKK...Isn't that grand?!

You're a member of BLM though, correct?

 

[bodecea]

I do think President Trump will appoint good middle of the road honorable people with zero political bias to the bench when he takes office. Great men such as Judge Roy Moore and David Dukes.

Your RW choices, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Aint democracy great? Don't you just love it to pieces? LOL!!

I do love democracy. I'm not a fan of theocracies or the KKK...Isn't that grand?!

You're a member of BLM though, correct?

The Bureau of Land Management? No, I am not.

 

[norwegen]

Good for the Senate. It's doing the right thing.

If the Senate had confidence that Obama would do his job and nominate candidates or the kinds of candidates that the Senate would advise him to select, then maybe this issue wouldn't be so contentious.

Obama, knowing that the Senate has the final authority on the selection, will not pick pick one that the Senate would consent to. He's an obstructionist.

 

[bodecea]

Good for the Senate. It's doing the right thing.

If the Senate had confidence that Obama would do his job and nominate candidates or the kinds of candidates that the Senate would advise him to select, then maybe this issue wouldn't be so contentious.

Obama, knowing that the Senate has the final authority on the selection, will not pick pick one that the Senate would consent to. He's an obstructionist.

President Obama.hasn't.even.nominated.anyone.yet.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I would not draw any conclusions at this point.

The Republican Senate can make this claim until they're blue in the face, but anyone trusting them would be foolish.
I'm not going to assume anything until Obama is actually out of office.

I would agree with you normally. In this case though the REP Senators have put their political careers on the line. And they all know it.
None of them is going to cave now.
The GOP backroom boys have guaranteed that if any of them lose their seat as a result of voting against even considering an Obama nominee that Senator will be financially and politically well taken care of. They are in a no-lose situation.

I look forward to the Democrats putting up Political Ads showing the U.S. Constitution and pointing out that the Republican Senators are not doing the job they were elected to do. If they don't like a President Obama appointment, vote him/her down. Then they ARE doing their job. Everyone remember the last time the Republicans shut down the Government?

They are doing their job. It's called keep Obama from getting another liberal seated on the Supreme Court.

 

[norwegen]

Good for the Senate. It's doing the right thing.

If the Senate had confidence that Obama would do his job and nominate candidates or the kinds of candidates that the Senate would advise him to select, then maybe this issue wouldn't be so contentious.

Obama, knowing that the Senate has the final authority on the selection, will not pick pick one that the Senate would consent to. He's an obstructionist.

President Obama.hasn't.even.nominated.anyone.yet.

You're very perceptive.

 

[OnePercenter]

More deception to distract from real problems; wage disparity and the attempt to kill the middle class.

View attachment 64573

Person A is female
Person B is male

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Please post the applicable constitutional article/section/paragraph that confirms your statement in regards to the Senate.

You first!

You on drugs? I made no statement in regards to the Senate in response to bodecea's mistatement, but merely asked for her constitutional confirmation.

And what "misstatement" did I make?

This one:

"President Obama will do his job and appoint a Justice. Then it will be up to the Senate to do its job and either approve or reject that appointment. If they do nothing, then they fail to do their job as per the Constitution."

That is a correct statement.

So respond to #199.

 

[bodecea]

I would not draw any conclusions at this point.

The Republican Senate can make this claim until they're blue in the face, but anyone trusting them would be foolish.
I'm not going to assume anything until Obama is actually out of office.

I would agree with you normally. In this case though the REP Senators have put their political careers on the line. And they all know it.
None of them is going to cave now.
The GOP backroom boys have guaranteed that if any of them lose their seat as a result of voting against even considering an Obama nominee that Senator will be financially and politically well taken care of. They are in a no-lose situation.

I look forward to the Democrats putting up Political Ads showing the U.S. Constitution and pointing out that the Republican Senators are not doing the job they were elected to do. If they don't like a President Obama appointment, vote him/her down. Then they ARE doing their job. Everyone remember the last time the Republicans shut down the Government?

They are doing their job. It's called keep Obama from getting another liberal seated on the Supreme Court.

President Obama.hasn't.even.nominated.anyone.yet.