Justice Obama??? Why not?

[PredFan]

Because he hates America and the Constitution.

Unlike the Republican senate who love the constitution. At least the second amendment. Not so much the second article, where the Founding fathers tried to give the senate a say in the selection of a supreme court justice. Something they want to pervert in holding the supreme court hostage for political reasons.Why John McCain wants to leave the Supreme Court hanging
Ted Cruz Suggests Senate Republicans May Leave Supreme Court Spot Vacant

Your opinions, and that's all that was, have no hold over reality. There is nothing in the constitution that requires them to act on a nominee. They are not doing it for political reasons, they are doing it because the appointee is a left wing radical nutjob.

 

[forkup]

Because he hates America and the Constitution.

Unlike the Republican senate who love the constitution. At least the second amendment. Not so much the second article, where the Founding fathers tried to give the senate a say in the selection of a supreme court justice. Something they want to pervert in holding the supreme court hostage for political reasons.Why John McCain wants to leave the Supreme Court hanging
Ted Cruz Suggests Senate Republicans May Leave Supreme Court Spot Vacant

the entire supreme court is "political reasons" Why do you think they never appoint people for Constitutional reasons and hang on "political reasons?"

Really? You think it is all the same? In the history of the United States I've never heard, refusing to confirm or even give a hearing or just plain meet with a supreme court justice because they don't like the person who is doing the selecting. Garland was never judged on his merits, they just refused to meet with him. And now the Republicans are saying that they will keep on doing it when they lose the election. Can you honestly claim that that was what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to "advise and consent"? Are you that dishonest?

 

[TNHarley]

Because he hates America and the Constitution.

Unlike the Republican senate who love the constitution. At least the second amendment. Not so much the second article, where the Founding fathers tried to give the senate a say in the selection of a supreme court justice. Something they want to pervert in holding the supreme court hostage for political reasons.Why John McCain wants to leave the Supreme Court hanging
Ted Cruz Suggests Senate Republicans May Leave Supreme Court Spot Vacant

the entire supreme court is "political reasons" Why do you think they never appoint people for Constitutional reasons and hang on "political reasons?"

Really? You think it is all the same? In the history of the United States I've never heard, refusing to confirm or even give a hearing or just plain meet with a supreme court justice because they don't like the person who is doing the selecting. Garland was never judged on his merits, they just refused to meet with him. And now the Republicans are saying that they will keep on doing it when they lose the election. Can you honestly claim that that was what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to "advise and consent"? Are you that dishonest?

LOL so you can sit there and claim you know what is in my head and consider that honest? Give me a break.
Garland wants guns gone. That's all that needs to be said. He is an activist and he wouldn't be there for the Constitution. Period.
You cant trample over constitutional rights then think you have a shot of actually being in the SC.
Would you hire a bank teller that previously robbed businesses or other banks?

 

[Faun]

Even Breitbart entertains the strong possibility......Obama to replace Sclaia's seat?


‘Justice Obama’ – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court

..........it is conceivable that if Hillary Clinton is elected 45th president of the United States she could nominate the 44th president to the Supreme Court. For starters, it is perfectly legal, and President Obama would not be the first former president to hold the title of Justice.

'Justice Obama' – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court - Breitbart

The Senate would sit on their hands.

Won't matter if Democrats win control of the Senate. If Republicans try to filibuster, Democrats pull the nuclear option.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why not?

A love of country, humanity, justice, the constitution, and all that is good.

 

[Faun]

Even Breitbart entertains the strong possibility......Obama to replace Sclaia's seat?


‘Justice Obama’ – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court

..........it is conceivable that if Hillary Clinton is elected 45th president of the United States she could nominate the 44th president to the Supreme Court. For starters, it is perfectly legal, and President Obama would not be the first former president to hold the title of Justice.

'Justice Obama' – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court - Breitbart

If Clinton wins, the cons will confirm Obama's pic for SCOTUS to keep her from making him a Justice....especially if they lose the senate too.

If Obama's gonna be Hillary's nominee for the Supreme Court, he simply won't appoint Garland. The seat will remain open for him to fill -- if he wants it.

 

[forkup]

Because he hates America and the Constitution.

Unlike the Republican senate who love the constitution. At least the second amendment. Not so much the second article, where the Founding fathers tried to give the senate a say in the selection of a supreme court justice. Something they want to pervert in holding the supreme court hostage for political reasons.Why John McCain wants to leave the Supreme Court hanging
Ted Cruz Suggests Senate Republicans May Leave Supreme Court Spot Vacant

the entire supreme court is "political reasons" Why do you think they never appoint people for Constitutional reasons and hang on "political reasons?"

Really? You think it is all the same? In the history of the United States I've never heard, refusing to confirm or even give a hearing or just plain meet with a supreme court justice because they don't like the person who is doing the selecting. Garland was never judged on his merits, they just refused to meet with him. And now the Republicans are saying that they will keep on doing it when they lose the election. Can you honestly claim that that was what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to "advise and consent"? Are you that dishonest?

LOL so you can sit there and claim you know what is in my head and consider that honest? Give me a break.
Garland wants guns gone. That's all that needs to be said. He is an activist and he wouldn't be there for the Constitution. Period.
You cant trample over constitutional rights then think you have a shot of actually being in the SC.
Would you hire a bank teller that previously robbed businesses or other banks?

I see you didn't answer the question. Do you claim that this is what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to 'advise and consent'? I see that as usual only the second amendment is important. Btw you don't know what his position guns is and what's more his position on guns isn't the reason congress isn't confirming him. By their own admission it is because they " want the people to decide" read ( we don't like Obama) a position they are changing now they realise the probably won't like "the people's", decision. So again, do you feel congress is acting with the Founding fathers in mind?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why not?

A love of country, humanity, justice, the constitution, and all that is good.

He openly voiced contempt for the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Even Breitbart entertains the strong possibility......Obama to replace Sclaia's seat?


‘Justice Obama’ – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court

..........it is conceivable that if Hillary Clinton is elected 45th president of the United States she could nominate the 44th president to the Supreme Court. For starters, it is perfectly legal, and President Obama would not be the first former president to hold the title of Justice.

'Justice Obama' – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court - Breitbart

The Senate would sit on their hands.

Won't matter if Democrats win control of the Senate. If Republicans try to filibuster, Democrats pull the nuclear option.

An unlikely event this cycle.

 

[TNHarley]

Because he hates America and the Constitution.

Unlike the Republican senate who love the constitution. At least the second amendment. Not so much the second article, where the Founding fathers tried to give the senate a say in the selection of a supreme court justice. Something they want to pervert in holding the supreme court hostage for political reasons.Why John McCain wants to leave the Supreme Court hanging
Ted Cruz Suggests Senate Republicans May Leave Supreme Court Spot Vacant

the entire supreme court is "political reasons" Why do you think they never appoint people for Constitutional reasons and hang on "political reasons?"

Really? You think it is all the same? In the history of the United States I've never heard, refusing to confirm or even give a hearing or just plain meet with a supreme court justice because they don't like the person who is doing the selecting. Garland was never judged on his merits, they just refused to meet with him. And now the Republicans are saying that they will keep on doing it when they lose the election. Can you honestly claim that that was what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to "advise and consent"? Are you that dishonest?

LOL so you can sit there and claim you know what is in my head and consider that honest? Give me a break.
Garland wants guns gone. That's all that needs to be said. He is an activist and he wouldn't be there for the Constitution. Period.
You cant trample over constitutional rights then think you have a shot of actually being in the SC.
Would you hire a bank teller that previously robbed businesses or other banks?

I see you didn't answer the question. Do you claim that this is what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to 'advise and consent'? I see that as usual only the second amendment is important. Btw you don't know what his position guns is and what's more his position on guns isn't the reason congress isn't confirming him. By their own admission it is because they " want the people to decide" read ( we don't like Obama) a position they are changing now they realise the probably won't like "the people's", decision. So again, do you feel congress is acting with the Founding fathers in mind?

He doesn't like guns. He has been shot down by the Supreme Court because of some bullshit he was trying to get through. It is his political history. Read it
IDK, I cant find where they EVER mentioned it. I cant be honest and say I know what other people are thinking hint hint

 

[nat4900]

He's too much of an attention whore to want to be locked up in a court room. He wants to tour and listen to Democrat zombies scream like he's a rock star.

Obama wants to act like Scalia?? Who knew?

 

[forkup]

Unlike the Republican senate who love the constitution. At least the second amendment. Not so much the second article, where the Founding fathers tried to give the senate a say in the selection of a supreme court justice. Something they want to pervert in holding the supreme court hostage for political reasons.Why John McCain wants to leave the Supreme Court hanging
Ted Cruz Suggests Senate Republicans May Leave Supreme Court Spot Vacant

the entire supreme court is "political reasons" Why do you think they never appoint people for Constitutional reasons and hang on "political reasons?"

Really? You think it is all the same? In the history of the United States I've never heard, refusing to confirm or even give a hearing or just plain meet with a supreme court justice because they don't like the person who is doing the selecting. Garland was never judged on his merits, they just refused to meet with him. And now the Republicans are saying that they will keep on doing it when they lose the election. Can you honestly claim that that was what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to "advise and consent"? Are you that dishonest?

LOL so you can sit there and claim you know what is in my head and consider that honest? Give me a break.
Garland wants guns gone. That's all that needs to be said. He is an activist and he wouldn't be there for the Constitution. Period.
You cant trample over constitutional rights then think you have a shot of actually being in the SC.
Would you hire a bank teller that previously robbed businesses or other banks?

I see you didn't answer the question. Do you claim that this is what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to 'advise and consent'? I see that as usual only the second amendment is important. Btw you don't know what his position guns is and what's more his position on guns isn't the reason congress isn't confirming him. By their own admission it is because they " want the people to decide" read ( we don't like Obama) a position they are changing now they realise the probably won't like "the people's", decision. So again, do you feel congress is acting with the Founding fathers in mind?

He doesn't like guns. He has been shot down by the Supreme Court because of some bullshit he was trying to get through. It is his political history. Read it
IDK, I cant find where they EVER mentioned it. I cant be honest and say I know what other people are thinking hint hint

Lol, I'll help.What did the founders think about the idea of political parties, and how did America come to have a two-party system? - Quora. You are welcome.

 

[nat4900]

Too some but I see more of a Jimmy Carter type wanting to do community service ( after a period of time off ) and being more on the Diplomatic Stage where he can influence the world with his ideas...

Yes, I can see that as well;.....and to support your assertion, I view Obama as a convincing motivational speaker and savvy diplomat.....So, let me revise my contention that Obama "may" accept a SCOTUS nomination toward the end of Clinton's term in office......LOL

 

[kaz]

He's too much of an attention whore to want to be locked up in a court room. He wants to tour and listen to Democrat zombies scream like he's a rock star.

Obama wants to act like Scalia?? Who knew?

Scalia was followed by screaming Republicans treating him like a rock star like Obama? Do you suffer frequently from delusions?

 

[Faun]

Even Breitbart entertains the strong possibility......Obama to replace Sclaia's seat?


‘Justice Obama’ – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court

..........it is conceivable that if Hillary Clinton is elected 45th president of the United States she could nominate the 44th president to the Supreme Court. For starters, it is perfectly legal, and President Obama would not be the first former president to hold the title of Justice.

'Justice Obama' – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court - Breitbart

The Senate would sit on their hands.

Won't matter if Democrats win control of the Senate. If Republicans try to filibuster, Democrats pull the nuclear option.

An unlikely event this cycle.

All depends on how much Democrats want Obama on that bench.

 

[nat4900]

Won't matter if Democrats win control of the Senate. If Republicans try to filibuster, Democrats pull the nuclear option.

In fairness, when the "nuclear option" was agreed upon by both parties, the option EXCLUDED SCOTUS nominees; however, given McConnell's stubbornness to even hold hearings on Garland, senate democrats may opt to change that agreement and all it would take is a simple majority to make that happen.

Bear in mind that it is almost a certainty that at least 4 additional democrats will be sworn in as senators.......that number PLUS the VP vote, will conservatively (pardon the expression) constitute a simple majority.

 

[nat4900]

If Obama's gonna be Hillary's nominee for the Supreme Court, he simply won't appoint Garland. The seat will remain open for him to fill -- if he wants it.

With the holiday season and winter recess approaching, I don't think there's enough time left for hearing on Garland.....besides, McConnell would have to drastically reverse himself from his previous stance and that could prove embarrassing.

 

[TNHarley]

the entire supreme court is "political reasons" Why do you think they never appoint people for Constitutional reasons and hang on "political reasons?"

Really? You think it is all the same? In the history of the United States I've never heard, refusing to confirm or even give a hearing or just plain meet with a supreme court justice because they don't like the person who is doing the selecting. Garland was never judged on his merits, they just refused to meet with him. And now the Republicans are saying that they will keep on doing it when they lose the election. Can you honestly claim that that was what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to "advise and consent"? Are you that dishonest?

LOL so you can sit there and claim you know what is in my head and consider that honest? Give me a break.
Garland wants guns gone. That's all that needs to be said. He is an activist and he wouldn't be there for the Constitution. Period.
You cant trample over constitutional rights then think you have a shot of actually being in the SC.
Would you hire a bank teller that previously robbed businesses or other banks?

I see you didn't answer the question. Do you claim that this is what the founding fathers had in mind when they asked congress to 'advise and consent'? I see that as usual only the second amendment is important. Btw you don't know what his position guns is and what's more his position on guns isn't the reason congress isn't confirming him. By their own admission it is because they " want the people to decide" read ( we don't like Obama) a position they are changing now they realise the probably won't like "the people's", decision. So again, do you feel congress is acting with the Founding fathers in mind?

He doesn't like guns. He has been shot down by the Supreme Court because of some bullshit he was trying to get through. It is his political history. Read it
IDK, I cant find where they EVER mentioned it. I cant be honest and say I know what other people are thinking hint hint

Lol, I'll help.What did the founders think about the idea of political parties, and how did America come to have a two-party system? - Quora. You are welcome.

Lol what do political parties have to do with this certain section of the Constitution?

 

[Meathead]

Even Breitbart entertains the strong possibility......Obama to replace Sclaia's seat?


‘Justice Obama’ – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court

..........it is conceivable that if Hillary Clinton is elected 45th president of the United States she could nominate the 44th president to the Supreme Court. For starters, it is perfectly legal, and President Obama would not be the first former president to hold the title of Justice.

'Justice Obama' – Why President Hillary Could Nominate the Former President to the Supreme Court - Breitbart

He'd probably like that since he's tired of being Putin's whipping boy, but he's done enough for the country already.

 

[easyt65]

The very 1st thing Obama did when he entered office as President was to declare he would NOT enforce existing law in the United States...

DISQUALIFIED!