It's Official. No Obama nominee

[bodecea]

President Obama should present his choice to the Senate soon...Then the Ball is in their court as to whether they do their job or not.
We hear that every 4 years.

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.

Kindly note post #32...where I copy the pertinent paragraph in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2.

I will proceed from the assumption that you have some actual knowledge of the English language.

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

This, obviously, means the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate present is required in order for the president to make a valid, binding treaty. Without it, he cannot.

Do you agree, or disagree? If disagree, please indicate the specific language that is the basis of your disagreement.

"and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall APPOINT (my emphasis) Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT (my emphasis), and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law"

Again, obviously, the president may nominate at will, but may not appoint without, again, the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate present.

Do you agree, or disagree? If disagree, please indicate the specific language that is the basis of your disagreement.

"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."

States that Congress may permit the president to fill vacancies in the "inferior" offices noted in the phrase on his own, but is not required to do so. Irrelevant to the question at hand.

So, this is your proof of your contention? If so, please indicate where in the article and section to which you referred the Senate is required to take any advise and consent action on a presidential nominee.

Be specific.

What is to respond to...You are proving my point. It is their job....the section of the Constitution you have quoted shows that that is their job. If they do not do their job, why are they even getting paid?

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

Republican obstructionism is a good thing?

 

[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.

Republican obstructionism is a good thing?

Apparently they think so. I wonder what the rest of the country will think.

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

But whoever it is, they. don't. like. him/her, because Obama. Obama could nominate Jesus and they'd have something to cry about.

 

[my2¢]

It scares me when Republicans strategize, wouldn't be surprised if it blows up in our face. I didn't think the Democrats had reason to come out this November, now we've given them one.

 

[Obiwan]

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.

Republican obstructionism is a good thing?

Apparently they think so. I wonder what the rest of the country will think.

Actually, there is a poll out that shows blocking Obama's SC nominee won't hurt the Republicans...
Surprising Poll Results On Whether Senate Should Consider Obama Supreme Court Nominee | RedState

 

[Faun]

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.

Republican obstructionism is a good thing?

Apparently they think so. I wonder what the rest of the country will think.

Actually, there is a poll out that shows blocking Obama's SC nominee won't hurt the Republicans...
Surprising Poll Results On Whether Senate Should Consider Obama Supreme Court Nominee | RedState

View attachment 64579

That's one poll ... here's another ...

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters believe every person the president nominates to serve as a judge or in a government position should receive an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. That's up from 50% when we first asked this question in July 2013. Just 21% disagree, while another 21% are undecided.

Voters Say Senate Should Vote on All Presidential Nominees - Rasmussen Reports™​

 

[2aguy]

President Obama should present his choice to the Senate soon...Then the Ball is in their court as to whether they do their job or not.

This makes the 2016 election one of the 3 most critical in US history. The next 100 years of our nation will be shaped by this election and historians will point to it as a major shift in our courts and foreign policy.

We must get the numbers out to vote Republican in 2016.

We hear that every 4 years.

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.

You don't understand the Constitution do you....?

 

[2aguy]

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.

Republican obstructionism is a good thing?

Apparently they think so. I wonder what the rest of the country will think.

Actually, there is a poll out that shows blocking Obama's SC nominee won't hurt the Republicans...
Surprising Poll Results On Whether Senate Should Consider Obama Supreme Court Nominee | RedState

View attachment 64579

That's one poll ... here's another ...

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters believe every person the president nominates to serve as a judge or in a government position should receive an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. That's up from 50% when we first asked this question in July 2013. Just 21% disagree, while another 21% are undecided.

Voters Say Senate Should Vote on All Presidential Nominees - Rasmussen Reports™​

Yeah....and a majority voted obama into office.......they should be ignored as well.....

 

[paperview]

Let's see how those polls will shape up in the coming months as the issue is driven home how badly the GOP is fucking this up, and how the absence of a tiebreaker in important cases will throw back the decisions to the lower / circuit courts, which are by and large in blue hands.

 

[Nosmo King]

So Justice Scalia was admired for his strict adherence to the constitution. But the Republicans in the Senate have determined the constitutions wrong! They want us to believe that a President's term is only three years long!

What's it gonna be, Conservatives? Strict adherence to the constitution as Scalia championed, or this new misinterpretation the Senate Republicans want to sell you?

It must be hard to have to use your brain on this one.

 

[Faun]

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.

Republican obstructionism is a good thing?

Apparently they think so. I wonder what the rest of the country will think.

Actually, there is a poll out that shows blocking Obama's SC nominee won't hurt the Republicans...
Surprising Poll Results On Whether Senate Should Consider Obama Supreme Court Nominee | RedState

View attachment 64579

That's one poll ... here's another ...

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters believe every person the president nominates to serve as a judge or in a government position should receive an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. That's up from 50% when we first asked this question in July 2013. Just 21% disagree, while another 21% are undecided.

Voters Say Senate Should Vote on All Presidential Nominees - Rasmussen Reports™​

Yeah....and a majority voted obama into office.......they should be ignored as well.....

A majority voted Obama in to do his job. They will return in big numbers this year when Republicans try to prevent him from doing his job.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

But they aren't offering their Advice and Consent, now are they?

Since they aren't doing their duty, maybe Obama should just skip the part they are refusing to do?

Of course they giving advice and they advise that they aren't going to let Obama have his nominee.

That will require a down vote...and that's ok.

No, not required.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

They're doing their job by protecting the country from a tyrannical Supreme Court justice that will decide based on ideology vice the Constitution.

Um....You. don't.even.know.who.President Obama.would.nominate.

I'm sure he'll nominate a fellow communist.

Wrong on both counts.

How so?

President Obama isn't a Communist nor will he appoint one.

Wrong on both accounts.

 

[aris2chat]

There is a story, ABCnews.com.co , that Obama has tapped Rashad Hussain

The site is NOT ABCnews

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

I copied that from Bodecea's post. If it's bullshit, blame him...lol

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

There is a story, ABCnews.com.co , that Obama has tapped Rashad Hussain

The site is NOT ABCnews

The story is that Obama appointed Hussain via executive order.

Talk about ignoring the Constitution!...lol

 

[bodecea]

There is a story, ABCnews.com.co , that Obama has tapped Rashad Hussain

The site is NOT ABCnews

The story is that Obama appointed Hussain via executive order.

Talk about ignoring the Constitution!...lol

Right...sure he did.

 

[bodecea]

Um....You. don't.even.know.who.President Obama.would.nominate.

I'm sure he'll nominate a fellow communist.

Wrong on both counts.

How so?

President Obama isn't a Communist nor will he appoint one.

Wrong on both accounts.

Then, show us his Communist Party membership.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

There is a story, ABCnews.com.co , that Obama has tapped Rashad Hussain

The site is NOT ABCnews

The story is that Obama appointed Hussain via executive order.

Talk about ignoring the Constitution!...lol

Right...sure he did.

What about The Constitution, now, sport?

http://abcnews.com.co/obama-signs-executive-order-appoints-rashad-hussain-as-supreme-court-justice/