It's Official. No Obama nominee

[WildBillKelsoe]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

Yes...what Wild Bill seems to have trouble seeing is the clear difference between refusing to their job and even signing a statement to that effect.......and doing their job which INCLUDES the right to reject a nominee. The Senate did their job with Bork. They have a vote. The current GOP Senators have petulantly stated for the record that they refuse to even consider anyone that President Obama submits....not even a vote.

They are doing their job of checking and balancing by advising that they're not going to consider Obama's communist nominee.

 

[PredFan]

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 are ignorant of the constitution, no surprise since you lefties hate it so much. The Senate has NO duty to approve or even rule on a SCOTUS appointee within ANY time frame. They can take as long as they want to. FACT.

 

[bodecea]

cool. the loons just guaranteed a huge democratic turn out and a democratic senate and president.

You all have guaranteed that the last three cycles. How'd that turn out?...lol

you mean the two out of three where dems turned out in numbers...the races that were presidential races? this president never had coattails. the next one will.

you missing something here?

like i said... keep doing it.

No I mean every election cycle since Obama got elected. You know, where Republicans won elections, every time?

You mean the mid year elections where Dems don't show up?

You are aware that president Obama isn't running this time, right?

Also, if you knew anything besides talking smack as they say, you'd know that republicans have more sets to defend this time than Dems. The situation was reversed last time.

How many more excuses are you going to drag out of the closet?

Those are not excuses, those are demographic realities that are always taken into consideration by those who run elections.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Man! Insults are all you people have...lol

Can you possibly imagine how self defeating that is?

I'm not going to use vitriol when I explain, AGAIN, that there's NOTHING in the Constitution that requires the Senate to vote witin a certain time frame.

No, insults are not all we have. They merely accentuate why you can't comprehend what the Senate is doing is so wrong, it's never been done in 227 years since the U.S. Senate began convening.

Insults are all we ever hear from you people, so it has to be all you have. Its impossible for Liberals to make an argument without vitriol.

Maybe insults are all you hear, but there are also arguments being thrown at you. You just can't formulate a lucid response to the arguments so you focus on the insults, which is about all you can do. And maybe you're deaf to the insults from your side.

Insults are all that are there. You people can't have a polite conversation. Personally, I'm glad, because it shows everyone what you're about.

Where have I been insulting to you? Point it out and I will apologize.

Point out where I was referring to you. That post was directed at Fain.

 

[PredFan]

I'm still not convinced that our spineless senators can go for the rest of Obama's term without caving. They have caved on everything so far.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

You all have guaranteed that the last three cycles. How'd that turn out?...lol

you mean the two out of three where dems turned out in numbers...the races that were presidential races? this president never had coattails. the next one will.

you missing something here?

like i said... keep doing it.

No I mean every election cycle since Obama got elected. You know, where Republicans won elections, every time?

You mean the mid year elections where Dems don't show up?

You are aware that president Obama isn't running this time, right?

Also, if you knew anything besides talking smack as they say, you'd know that republicans have more sets to defend this time than Dems. The situation was reversed last time.

How many more excuses are you going to drag out of the closet?

Those are not excuses, those are demographic realities that are always taken into consideration by those who run elections.

How do you explain Republicans dominating every election cycle since Obama got elected?

 

[bodecea]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

Yes...what Wild Bill seems to have trouble seeing is the clear difference between refusing to their job and even signing a statement to that effect.......and doing their job which INCLUDES the right to reject a nominee. The Senate did their job with Bork. They have a vote. The current GOP Senators have petulantly stated for the record that they refuse to even consider anyone that President Obama submits....not even a vote.

They are doing their job of checking and balancing by advising that they're not going to consider Obama's communist nominee.

They are not checking or balancing anything. They are doing nothing.

What you seem to fail to see is that NO ONE here is saying they must approve whomever President Obama nominates....not at all....What we are saying is that their JOB is to vet any nominee the President puts forward and if that nominee is not to their satisfaction, reject him/her. That's how the system is set up...that's how the system worked Bork was brought forward...that's how the system worked when Abe Fortas was brought forward...that's how the system worked even when Scalia was brought forward years ago.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

Yes...what Wild Bill seems to have trouble seeing is the clear difference between refusing to their job and even signing a statement to that effect.......and doing their job which INCLUDES the right to reject a nominee. The Senate did their job with Bork. They have a vote. The current GOP Senators have petulantly stated for the record that they refuse to even consider anyone that President Obama submits....not even a vote.

They are doing their job of checking and balancing by advising that they're not going to consider Obama's communist nominee.

They are not checking or balancing anything. They are doing nothing.

What you seem to fail to see is that NO ONE here is saying they must approve whomever President Obama nominates....not at all....What we are saying is that their JOB is to vet any nominee the President puts forward and if that nominee is not to their satisfaction, reject him/her. That's how the system is set up...that's how the system worked Bork was brought forward...that's how the system worked when Abe Fortas was brought forward...that's how the system worked even when Scalia was brought forward years ago.

They're not allowing the Commie in Charge to appoint a communist ideologue to the court. And that's exactly what I want them to do.

 

[dannyboys]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

All's the current Senate has to do is vote down anyone that Obama nominates. You'll be crying about that, too.

That's not the point.
The point is the Senate has decided that the American voter must have the right to choose the next SCJ.
The voter will choose the next President/Senate/House. That's the way it should be.
I guarantee everyone if the shoe was on the different foot the DEMs would be doing the exact same thing.
"Sometimes you eat the bear. Sometimes the bear eats you".
At this point the DEMs are fucking apoplectic. They will do ANYTHING if they can just get the camel's nose under the tent by getting the REPs to 'just consider' Obama's nomination.
Never going to happen.

 

[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.

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 are ignorant of the constitution, no surprise since you lefties hate it so much. The Senate has NO duty to approve or even rule on a SCOTUS appointee within ANY time frame. They can take as long as they want to. FACT.

I am well acquainted with the U.S. Constitution...even in the small details such is it is the NAME of our Supreme Law of the Land and is always Capitalized.

You are correct that the Senate isn't FORCED to do its job by anything in the Constitution.....just like the Senate isn't FORCED to consider and pass Bills by the Constitution. But.....what does the voting population think of people who collect their paychecks...their substantial paychecks....for 6 years without doing their job? I guess we will find out...and I'm sure the Democratic Party is putting together political ads as we speak showing the American voter just how petulant and lazy the GOP Senators are. Again, I guess we will find out.

 

[bodecea]

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

Yes...what Wild Bill seems to have trouble seeing is the clear difference between refusing to their job and even signing a statement to that effect.......and doing their job which INCLUDES the right to reject a nominee. The Senate did their job with Bork. They have a vote. The current GOP Senators have petulantly stated for the record that they refuse to even consider anyone that President Obama submits....not even a vote.

They are doing their job of checking and balancing by advising that they're not going to consider Obama's communist nominee.

They are not checking or balancing anything. They are doing nothing.

What you seem to fail to see is that NO ONE here is saying they must approve whomever President Obama nominates....not at all....What we are saying is that their JOB is to vet any nominee the President puts forward and if that nominee is not to their satisfaction, reject him/her. That's how the system is set up...that's how the system worked Bork was brought forward...that's how the system worked when Abe Fortas was brought forward...that's how the system worked even when Scalia was brought forward years ago.

They're not allowing the Commie in Charge to appoint a communist ideologue to the court. And that's exactly what I want them to do.

Who is this "Commie in Charge" you are now going on about?

 

[bodecea]

Never in the history of this country has the Senate REFUSED to entertain the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. They are flat out refusing to do their job for 100% partisan reasons, and despite Democrats talking obstinate in the past, it has never actually been done. I'm not all that sure that the majority of the Republicans in this country are happy with what the Senate is doing, let alone the Democrats. Not at my diner, anyway.

Any presidential candidate who sticks to this obstructionist policy is showing that he has NO INTENTION of working with Democrats and will therefore, if elected, land us in the same mess we've had for the past 7 years of ultra partisan lack of cooperation. I don't care if the justice is a liberal or conservative, or even if the justice is approved by the senate, but if the Senate gets away with being this divisive, they deserve to pay big time.

The best part of what the GOP Senators did is they SIGNED a document stating their intentions. No one can deny it when it blows up in their faces.

 

[PredFan]

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 are ignorant of the constitution, no surprise since you lefties hate it so much. The Senate has NO duty to approve or even rule on a SCOTUS appointee within ANY time frame. They can take as long as they want to. FACT.

I am well acquainted with the U.S. Constitution...even in the small details such is it is the NAME of our Supreme Law of the Land and is always Capitalized.

You are correct that the Senate isn't FORCED to do its job by anything in the Constitution.....just like the Senate isn't FORCED to consider and pass Bills by the Constitution. But.....what does the voting population think of people who collect their paychecks...their substantial paychecks....for 6 years without doing their job? I guess we will find out...and I'm sure the Democratic Party is putting together political ads as we speak showing the American voter just how petulant and lazy the GOP Senators are. Again, I guess we will find out.

Just keeping you honest.

 

[Faun]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

It's 'party's' genius. For a Constitutional scholar you missed the part where no where in the Constitution does it mention anything about WHEN the Senate is obliged to consider a President's nomination. Ergo no Constitutional 'duty'.
Asshole.
Here's some nice bedtime reading:
McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS
Obama fucked himself with his 'superior "I'm smarter than everyone" bullshit attitude.
Big deal. He's just another LIB creep anyway.
The absolute most wonderful unbelievable part is that such a 'smart' LIB as him is going to go down in history as being personally responsible for having a Trump President. A REP Senate majority and House and in two Trump terms 5-6 REP SCJs on the bench for decades.
All because the stupid DEM negroes 'block-voted' in The First AA President.

While a time frame is not a constraint, the Constitution is clear that the president, with the Senate, work together to fill vacancies. Telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their Constitutional obligations violates the Constitution and the oath they swore to support the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

It's 'party's' genius. For a Constitutional scholar you missed the part where no where in the Constitution does it mention anything about WHEN the Senate is obliged to consider a President's nomination. Ergo no Constitutional 'duty'.
Asshole.
Here's some nice bedtime reading:
McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS
Obama fucked himself with his 'superior "I'm smarter than everyone" bullshit attitude.
Big deal. He's just another LIB creep anyway.
The absolute most wonderful unbelievable part is that such a 'smart' LIB as him is going to go down in history as being personally responsible for having a Trump President. A REP Senate majority and House and in two Trump terms 5-6 REP SCJs on the bench for decades.
All because the stupid DEM negroes 'block-voted' in The First AA President.

That's an interesting statement right there. I guess we know who Stormfront sends us.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

Yes...what Wild Bill seems to have trouble seeing is the clear difference between refusing to their job and even signing a statement to that effect.......and doing their job which INCLUDES the right to reject a nominee. The Senate did their job with Bork. They have a vote. The current GOP Senators have petulantly stated for the record that they refuse to even consider anyone that President Obama submits....not even a vote.

They are doing their job of checking and balancing by advising that they're not going to consider Obama's communist nominee.

They are not checking or balancing anything. They are doing nothing.

What you seem to fail to see is that NO ONE here is saying they must approve whomever President Obama nominates....not at all....What we are saying is that their JOB is to vet any nominee the President puts forward and if that nominee is not to their satisfaction, reject him/her. That's how the system is set up...that's how the system worked Bork was brought forward...that's how the system worked when Abe Fortas was brought forward...that's how the system worked even when Scalia was brought forward years ago.

They're not allowing the Commie in Charge to appoint a communist ideologue to the court. And that's exactly what I want them to do.

Who is this "Commie in Charge" you are now going on about?

Your Füerher

 

[dannyboys]

I'm still not convinced that our spineless senators can go for the rest of Obama's term without caving. They have caved on everything so far.

McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS
This time the REPs in the Senate have drawn a Red Line and NO REP Senator is going to commit political suicide and end any hope of ever being elected the fucking dog catcher if they cave. They won't get a job selling used cars in their hometown. No one can stand a fucking turncoat.
I'm convinced of this.

 

[Faun]

Exactly how retarded are you?? Oh wait, aren't you the idiot that fell for that scam news website about Obama filling this vacancy with an executive order?

At any rate, that resolution did not prevent any president from appointing A Supreme Court justice. If anything, it conformed with the Constitution since the President shall appoint Supreme Court justices WITH the advice and consent of the Senant. So that resolution, unlike what the Senate is doing now, was actually constitutional.

Man! Insults are all you people have...lol

Can you possibly imagine how self defeating that is?

I'm not going to use vitriol when I explain, AGAIN, that there's NOTHING in the Constitution that requires the Senate to vote witin a certain time frame.

No, insults are not all we have. They merely accentuate why you can't comprehend what the Senate is doing is so wrong, it's never been done in 227 years since the U.S. Senate began convening.

Insults are all we ever hear from you people, so it has to be all you have. Its impossible for Liberals to make an argument without vitriol.

Maybe insults are all you hear, but there are also arguments being thrown at you. You just can't formulate a lucid response to the arguments so you focus on the insults, which is about all you can do. And maybe you're deaf to the insults from your side.

Insults are all that are there. You people can't have a polite conversation. Personally, I'm glad, because it shows everyone what you're about.

No worries, you prove me right. Insults are all you hear.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

It's 'party's' genius. For a Constitutional scholar you missed the part where no where in the Constitution does it mention anything about WHEN the Senate is obliged to consider a President's nomination. Ergo no Constitutional 'duty'.
Asshole.
Here's some nice bedtime reading:
McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS
Obama fucked himself with his 'superior "I'm smarter than everyone" bullshit attitude.
Big deal. He's just another LIB creep anyway.
The absolute most wonderful unbelievable part is that such a 'smart' LIB as him is going to go down in history as being personally responsible for having a Trump President. A REP Senate majority and House and in two Trump terms 5-6 REP SCJs on the bench for decades.
All because the stupid DEM negroes 'block-voted' in The First AA President.

That's an interesting statement right there. I guess we know who Stormfront sends us.

Don't look now, but you just posted an insult.

I rest my case...lol

 

[bodecea]

No, insults are not all we have. They merely accentuate why you can't comprehend what the Senate is doing is so wrong, it's never been done in 227 years since the U.S. Senate began convening.

Insults are all we ever hear from you people, so it has to be all you have. Its impossible for Liberals to make an argument without vitriol.

Maybe insults are all you hear, but there are also arguments being thrown at you. You just can't formulate a lucid response to the arguments so you focus on the insults, which is about all you can do. And maybe you're deaf to the insults from your side.

Insults are all that are there. You people can't have a polite conversation. Personally, I'm glad, because it shows everyone what you're about.

Where have I been insulting to you? Point it out and I will apologize.

Point out where I was referring to you. That post was directed at Fain.

You said "you people"....so you really meant just one person? And who is Fain?