Little piece of info before evryone goes nuts if Repubs reject Obama SCOTUS appt.

[jon_berzerk]

Voting against isn't the problem, not allowing a vote is.

You mean like Harry Reid repeatedly refused to allow votes to the floor?? Like that?

exactly like that

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And BTW - how many know that when this EXACT SAME SITUATION OCCURRED IN 2007 - Democrats came out and said the same thing as Repubs are saying now.
So...it was ok to block then, but now now???

It's never okay for the Senate not to do its job. Clear now?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...Obama voted against both Bush appointees...so...yeah

yup exactly

No, because a vote was held, and they are promising not to hold a vote. Got it now?

 

[candycorn]

...Obama voted against both Bush appointees...so...yeah

So the Senate has had hearings in the past to consider the President's appointments? Novel idea.

 

[jon_berzerk]

...Obama voted against both Bush appointees...so...yeah

yup exactly

No, because a vote was held, and they are promising not to hold a vote. Got it now?

hey did you figure out if the prezbo can make his recess appointment now

--LOL

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You mean like Harry Reid repeatedly refused to allow votes to the floor?? Like that?

On a Supreme Court Justice? No...

So appointing a SCOTUS Justice is more important than passing laws?...so...refusing votes because you are afraid you will lose the vote is ok?

That's the game of politics in the Senate, but this is far beyond politics. This could cause a serious crisis, that a deadlocked SC cannot respond to.

And not bringing up bills for a vote is constitutional, while not granting Advice and Consent is not.

Ohhhh...so if Democrats do it - it is "part of the game"...but if Repubs do it....well...it is just unbelievable?

It's part of the game when they do it, and they do, but not for a fucking Supreme Court Justice.

But in 2007 Dem leaders were saying the same thins as McConnel....just wanting to clear this up...

 

[iamwhatiseem]

...Obama voted against both Bush appointees...so...yeah

yup exactly

No, because a vote was held, and they are promising not to hold a vote. Got it now?

Pheh....a few said that...just like in 2007.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...Obama voted against both Bush appointees...so...yeah

yup exactly

No, because a vote was held, and they are promising not to hold a vote. Got it now?

Pheh....a few said that...just like in 2007.

Was a vote held, yes or no?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

And BTW - what happened to Obama "carefully considering....in due time..."???
WHite House said he will name an appointee in a few days...so...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

On a Supreme Court Justice? No...

So appointing a SCOTUS Justice is more important than passing laws?...so...refusing votes because you are afraid you will lose the vote is ok?

That's the game of politics in the Senate, but this is far beyond politics. This could cause a serious crisis, that a deadlocked SC cannot respond to.

And not bringing up bills for a vote is constitutional, while not granting Advice and Consent is not.

Ohhhh...so if Democrats do it - it is "part of the game"...but if Repubs do it....well...it is just unbelievable?

It's part of the game when they do it, and they do, but not for a fucking Supreme Court Justice.

But in 2007 Dem leaders were saying the same thins as McConnel....just wanting to clear this up...

Was a vote held, yes or no?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And BTW - what happened to Obama "carefully considering....in due time..."???
WHite House said he will name an appointee in a few days...so...

Do you think they weren't already thinking of someone, dumbfuck?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

...Obama voted against both Bush appointees...so...yeah

yup exactly

No, because a vote was held, and they are promising not to hold a vote. Got it now?

Pheh....a few said that...just like in 2007.

Was a vote held, yes or no?

Yes it was...and who is to say it won't npw?
You are going nuts now...what is the difference?
Pub leaders say it should be next President and threatening a block....Dems said same thing in 2007. What's the diff?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

And BTW - what happened to Obama "carefully considering....in due time..."???
WHite House said he will name an appointee in a few days...so...

Do you think they weren't already thinking of someone, dumbfuck?

Why would they?
And BTW - thank you...you just showed the stuff you are made of by calling me crude names.
Umad Bro?

 

[rightwinger]

...Obama voted against both Bush appointees...so...yeah

So you have no problem allowing Obama the same courtesy of a vote?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And BTW - what happened to Obama "carefully considering....in due time..."???
WHite House said he will name an appointee in a few days...so...

Do you think they weren't already thinking of someone, dumbfuck?

Why would they?
And BTW - thank you...you just showed the stuff you are made of by calling me crude names.
Umad Bro?

Nine very important old men and women, one of whom could announce their retirement or die at any moment? Wake the fuck up!

 

[rightwinger]

And BTW - what happened to Obama "carefully considering....in due time..."???
WHite House said he will name an appointee in a few days...so...

So that means Republicans will have 11 whole months to make a decision that normally takes 3-4 months

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Voting against isn't the problem, not allowing a vote is.

Miguel Estrada agrees. No vote.

No vote = no GOP Senate, after January.

No vote. January will take care of itself.

If they don't vote, January will never matter to them as many of them will be out of work. 24 who have seats to defend and by pulling this half of them can be beaten.

They get paid to do a job, they are refusing to do.

We'll just have to worry about that in January.
I'm sure the Dem Senate candidates will get several hundred extra votes if the Republicans refuse Obama's left wing nominee a vote.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Voting against isn't the problem, not allowing a vote is.

You mean like Harry Reid repeatedly refused to allow votes to the floor?? Like that?

On a Supreme Court Justice? No...

So appointing a SCOTUS Justice is more important than passing laws?...so...refusing votes because you are afraid you will lose the vote is ok?

That's the game of politics in the Senate, but this is far beyond politics. This could cause a serious crisis, that a deadlocked SC cannot respond to.

And not bringing up bills for a vote is constitutional, while not granting Advice and Consent is not.

This could cause a serious crisis,

Gosh, that's awful.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Voting against isn't the problem, not allowing a vote is.

You mean like Harry Reid repeatedly refused to allow votes to the floor?? Like that?

On a Supreme Court Justice? No...

So appointing a SCOTUS Justice is more important than passing laws?...so...refusing votes because you are afraid you will lose the vote is ok?

That's the game of politics in the Senate, but this is far beyond politics. This could cause a serious crisis, that a deadlocked SC cannot respond to.

And not bringing up bills for a vote is constitutional, while not granting Advice and Consent is not.

And not bringing up bills for a vote is constitutional, while not granting Advice and Consent is not.

What's the time limit on that grant?

 

[JQPublic1]

If one of the "liberal" justices died would the republicans still be so adamant about snubbing the president's nominee? That could happen in the next 10 months or so. Then there would be 7 Justices. An odd number is the goal, so I guess 7 would be MORE desirable than 8!