It's Official. No Obama nominee

[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.



>>>>

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.

Umm... it's never been that way in 227 years while there was an open seat on the Supreme Court.

 

[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.

You know their job is to advise AND consent, not just advise, right?

Oh, so now you're falsely claiming that the Senate MUST accept any nominee and followed that up with an insult?

Two words: Robert Bork

Nope...he didn't say that at all....nice try at twisting his words.

What did he mean, then?

 

[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.

You said it yourself, there are no time constraints. Thank you.

Moron, this isn't about time constraints.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You said it yourself, there are no time constraints. Thank you.

There are no time constraints....elected officials can sit there and do nothing for their entire term.....there are no time constraints. BUT....how do the voters feel about them sitting there and doing nothing. Aye, that's the rub.

This American citizen wants the Senate to block any nominee that Obama puts up.

See how that works?

I wonder how many other voting American citizens feel the same way you do. That's really the question.....and the answer that the GOP Senators may be facing.

 

[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.

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.

You said it yourself, there are no time constraints. Thank you.

Moron, this isn't about time constraints.

Another insult...lol

What's it about, then?

 

[Faun]

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.

Consider yourself wrong again.

Oh, so now, the Senate can't vote down a nominee?...lol

They always could. What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

You said it yourself, there are no time constraints. Thank you.

There are no time constraints....elected officials can sit there and do nothing for their entire term.....there are no time constraints. BUT....how do the voters feel about them sitting there and doing nothing. Aye, that's the rub.

This American citizen wants the Senate to block any nominee that Obama puts up.

See how that works?

I wonder how many other voting American citizens feel the same way you do. That's really the question.....and the answer that the GOP Senators may be facing.

You're right, it is the question the dems are facing.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

Consider yourself wrong again.

Oh, so now, the Senate can't vote down a nominee?...lol

They always could. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You just said they cant, by highlighting, "consent". Why else would you highlight consent?

 

[bodecea]

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.

You know their job is to advise AND consent, not just advise, right?

Oh, so now you're falsely claiming that the Senate MUST accept any nominee and followed that up with an insult?

Two words: Robert Bork

Nope...he didn't say that at all....nice try at twisting his words.

What did he mean, then?

He was using the EXACT words that are in the Constitution. You know, that document that is the Supreme Law of the Land? Heard of it? When the U.S. Constitution says "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; 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....

DO you think the Constitution was claiming that the Senate MUST accept any nominee?

 

[Faun]

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.

You said it yourself, there are no time constraints. Thank you.

Moron, this isn't about time constraints.

Another insult...lol

What's it about, then?

Holyfuckingshit!

Why do you cry endlessly about being called a moron when you are one?

How many times must you be informed? This is about the Senate not doing their job; as well as, for the first time in U.S. history, denying a president of their Constitutional obligations; as well as, for the first time in U.S. history, shutting down the confirmation process.

Holyfuckingshit!

No wonder you fell for that fake news story about Obama appointing a replacement with an executive order. You are completely fucking brain-dead.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

You know their job is to advise AND consent, not just advise, right?

Oh, so now you're falsely claiming that the Senate MUST accept any nominee and followed that up with an insult?

Two words: Robert Bork

Nope...he didn't say that at all....nice try at twisting his words.

What did he mean, then?

He was using the EXACT words that are in the Constitution. You know, that document that is the Supreme Law of the Land? Heard of it? When the U.S. Constitution says "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; 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....

DO you think the Constitution was claiming that the Senate MUST accept any nominee?

I'm sorta waiting for him to tell us, instead of you doing it for him.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You said it yourself, there are no time constraints. Thank you.

There are no time constraints....elected officials can sit there and do nothing for their entire term.....there are no time constraints. BUT....how do the voters feel about them sitting there and doing nothing. Aye, that's the rub.

This American citizen wants the Senate to block any nominee that Obama puts up.

See how that works?

I wonder how many other voting American citizens feel the same way you do. That's really the question.....and the answer that the GOP Senators may be facing.

You're right, it is the question the dems are facing.

The Dems are not the ones who put their names to a paper pledging to do nothing for the next 11 months even before President Obama submitted one name to them.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

You said it yourself, there are no time constraints. Thank you.

Moron, this isn't about time constraints.

Another insult...lol

What's it about, then?

Holyfuckingshit!

Why do you cry endlessly about being called a moron when you are one?

How many times must you be informed? This is about the Senate not doing their job; as well as, for the first time in U.S. history, denying a president of their Constitutional obligations; as well as, for the first time in U.S. history, shutting down the confirmation process.

Holyfuckingshit!

No wonder you fell for that fake news story about Obama appointing a replacement with an executive order. You are completely fucking brain-dead.

Like I said, insults are all there are...lol

Case closed on that...lol

 

[Faun]

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.

You know their job is to advise AND consent, not just advise, right?

Oh, so now you're falsely claiming that the Senate MUST accept any nominee and followed that up with an insult?

Two words: Robert Bork

Nope, I never said that. Don't hold me responsible for your reading comprehension problems.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Consider yourself wrong again.

Oh, so now, the Senate can't vote down a nominee?...lol

Of course they can. And they often do. What Faun (not Fain) is saying is that he will not be crying about that as you claim he would be......btw, that's not an insult, is it?

Picking on my spelling is an attack. Keep proving my Point.

But, Faun--autocorrect doesn't recognize Fuan--is saying that the Senate MUST consent.

Picking on your spelling is an attack? Are you serious? Really? Are you serious?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

You said it yourself, there are no time constraints. Thank you.

There are no time constraints....elected officials can sit there and do nothing for their entire term.....there are no time constraints. BUT....how do the voters feel about them sitting there and doing nothing. Aye, that's the rub.

This American citizen wants the Senate to block any nominee that Obama puts up.

See how that works?

I wonder how many other voting American citizens feel the same way you do. That's really the question.....and the answer that the GOP Senators may be facing.

You're right, it is the question the dems are facing.

The Dems are not the ones who put their names to a paper pledging to do nothing for the next 11 months even before President Obama submitted one name to them.

Those signatures on that paper might WIN votes. The dems might be wishing their names were on that paper, too.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You know their job is to advise AND consent, not just advise, right?

Oh, so now you're falsely claiming that the Senate MUST accept any nominee and followed that up with an insult?

Two words: Robert Bork

Nope, I never said that. Don't hold me responsible for your reading comprehension problems.

Careful....whatever you do, don't pick on his spelling....that is considered an attack.

 

[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.

You know their job is to advise AND consent, not just advise, right?

Oh, so now you're falsely claiming that the Senate MUST accept any nominee and followed that up with an insult?

Two words: Robert Bork

Nope, I never said that. Don't hold me responsible for your reading comprehension problems.

Don't insult me because you can't say what you mean.

 

[Faun]

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.

Consider yourself wrong again.

Oh, so now, the Senate can't vote down a nominee?...lol

They always could. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You just said they cant, by highlighting, "consent". Why else would you highlight consent?

Where did I highlight, "consent?"

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

You know their job is to advise AND consent, not just advise, right?

Oh, so now you're falsely claiming that the Senate MUST accept any nominee and followed that up with an insult?

Two words: Robert Bork

Nope, I never said that. Don't hold me responsible for your reading comprehension problems.

Careful....whatever you do, don't pick on his spelling....that is considered an attack.

You people can't resist making it personal.