It's Official. No Obama nominee

[Faun]

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 understood what I said. Seems the problem understanding is all yours.

 

[Faun]

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

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

I don't like Obama.

I don't the GOP.

I still love the constitution.

What you say is true and the GOP in the senate should kicked in the balls.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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?"

You said it right here. Are how you capitalized and? If you didn't mean to highlight consent, then why did you put, "and", in all caps?

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

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You don't understand the GOP electorate.

The GOP electorate alone doesn't win elections. Perhaps you've forgotten that.

Done pretty good so far.....even took a senate seat in CO.

Ooooooo! One seat. I'm impressed!

No, they took several.

Did you not get the news that the democrats were in the minority ?

The seat in CO was a surprise to many......not that the GOP can do anything right.

They are just less stupid (at least in this case) than the democrats.

Both parties suck.

And you clearly don't have a clue.

I look forward to all those GOP Senate seats being up for grabs this year....particularly with the GOP Senate SIGNED statement of Doing Nothing.

So I guess you are impressed.

Good to know.

The GOP will have to have a miracle to save the senate......in 2016. Either way, it goes back to them (not a good thing in my mind) in 2018.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

You said their job isn't just to advise, by to consent.

 

[bodecea]

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.

They might....but then again, they are a written admission that those Senators have gone full partisan, refusing to even entertain any nominee the President puts forward.....sight unseen.

 

[jillian]

Exactly right! They're blocking Obama's commie agenda.

you know, it's getting really boring hearing idiots call things communism or socialism when they are too uneducated and ignorant to know what those economic concepts are.

moron... why don't' you just call him black which is really what you mean.

It's no mere coincidence that McConnell and the Republican Senators who are determined to not let Obama fulfill his Constitutional obligations are comprised of 8 out of 9 Senators from former slave states with the other three from states that were not yet admitted into the country when the confederacy seceded.

Nobody is stopping your fucking president from fulfilling his Constitutional obligation to NOMINATE a candidate.

Nominating a replacement isn't his only Constitutional obligation in this regard. With the Senate, he is also obligated to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court. They are denying a president from fulfilling his Constitutional responsibilities.

We are playing by the liberal playbook. Get used to it.

shut up lying loon. you freaks have done nothing but try to delegitimize this president for 7 years.

now go scream into your pillow.

 

[jillian]

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?

Republicans dominated the 2012 cycle?

only in rightwingnuthackworld

 

[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

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.

Your autocorrect doesn't have "faun" in it? Is that the story you're sticking with?

 

[Faun]

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.

I said exactly what I mean. You'll note, others understood even though you can't.

 

[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 etv

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.

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

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.

Your autocorrect doesn't have "faun" in it? Is that the story you're sticking with?

Here's the link to your comment...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 etv

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.

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

 

[bodecea]

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

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

You said their job isn't just to advise, by to consent.

so...you have a problem with the way the Constitution states it too? They say the SAME THING...."advise and consent". So you believe that the Constitution itself says "their job isn't just to advise, by [sic] to consent".

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

They might....but then again, they are a written admission that those Senators have gone full partisan, refusing to even entertain any nominee the President puts forward.....sight unseen.

Most Americans might be impressed with their decision.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

You said their job isn't just to advise, by to consent.

so...you have a problem with the way the Constitution states it too? They say the SAME THING...."advise and consent". So you believe that the Constitution itself says "their job isn't just to advise, by [sic] to consent".

Are you saying they're legally obligated to consent to any nominee?

Fuan says they have to consent.

 

[Faun]

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?"

You said it right here. Are how you capitalized and? If you didn't mean to highlight consent, then why did you put, "and", in all caps?

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

You're too fucking retarded.

That would be me highlighting the word, "AND". I didn't highlight the word, "consent."

Do you also need me to explain the implications of the word, "and," in that phrase? <smh>

 

[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, 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.

I said exactly what I mean. You'll note, others understood even though you can't.

No, they're crawfisin' for you...lol

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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?"

You said it right here. Are how you capitalized and? If you didn't mean to highlight consent, then why did you put, "and", in all caps?

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

You're too fucking retarded.

That would be me highlighting the word, "AND". I didn't highlight the word, "consent."

Do you also need me to explain the implications of the word, "and," in that phrase? <smh>

You're saying that the Senate MUST consent.

 

[jknowgood]

you know, it's getting really boring hearing idiots call things communism or socialism when they are too uneducated and ignorant to know what those economic concepts are.

moron... why don't' you just call him black which is really what you mean.

It's no mere coincidence that McConnell and the Republican Senators who are determined to not let Obama fulfill his Constitutional obligations are comprised of 8 out of 9 Senators from former slave states with the other three from states that were not yet admitted into the country when the confederacy seceded.

Nobody is stopping your fucking president from fulfilling his Constitutional obligation to NOMINATE a candidate.

Nominating a replacement isn't his only Constitutional obligation in this regard. With the Senate, he is also obligated to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court. They are denying a president from fulfilling his Constitutional responsibilities.

We are playing by the liberal playbook. Get used to it.

shut up lying loon. you freaks have done nothing but try to delegitimize this president for 7 years.

now go scream into your pillow.

Obama is an idiot who never should've been president, but it made you feel better for electing a black man. No other reason, so fuck off. President Trump will undo your mess.

 

[Faun]

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

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

You said their job isn't just to advise, by to consent.

so...you have a problem with the way the Constitution states it too? They say the SAME THING...."advise and consent". So you believe that the Constitution itself says "their job isn't just to advise, by [sic] to consent".

Are you saying they're legally obligated to consent to any nominee?

Fuan says they have to consent.

"Fuan?"