Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This link disagrees with your conclusion and provides details. It also goes back further than 80 years. I have been able to find nothing from an objective source (or otherwise) that indicates what you claim about Presidents voluntarily withholding a nomination as some kind of tradition or any other reason.The Republicans have to, in effect, say "we aren't going to let the president exercise his Constitutional powers, we reserve those powers to Congress".
This of course is a breech of the separation of powers between the branches of government. The president should just start nominating whoever he wants immediately and make them hold hearings and reject them one after the other. The Republicans seem to love holding hearings and holding useless votes over and over so let's line em up and let these anti-American anti-democracy losers do what they want to do so it is recorded and in plain view for the entire country.
If the Republicans do try to block this appointment then the Democrats should simply not work with them on anything. ANYTHING. In Congress. Vote down everything the Republican'ts want to do.
Cons this is what you seem to want so I say the Democrats should shove it down your throats until their fingers find your colon.
For the least eighty years a lame duck president has not submitted a nominee for the Supreme Court. As a lifetime appointment all have decided it was best to have the soon to be president make that choice. A Democrat could win and their agenda might need interpretation through the court as well. It is a time honored approach and a very practical one too.
You sound desperate IsaccNewton, scared out of your mind.
Perhaps you can provide a link that counters this one?
scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
This link disagrees with your conclusion and provides details. It also goes back further than 80 years. I have been able to find nothing from an objective source (or otherwise) that indicates what you claim about Presidents voluntarily withholding a nomination as some kind of tradition or any other reason.The Republicans have to, in effect, say "we aren't going to let the president exercise his Constitutional powers, we reserve those powers to Congress".
This of course is a breech of the separation of powers between the branches of government. The president should just start nominating whoever he wants immediately and make them hold hearings and reject them one after the other. The Republicans seem to love holding hearings and holding useless votes over and over so let's line em up and let these anti-American anti-democracy losers do what they want to do so it is recorded and in plain view for the entire country.
If the Republicans do try to block this appointment then the Democrats should simply not work with them on anything. ANYTHING. In Congress. Vote down everything the Republican'ts want to do.
Cons this is what you seem to want so I say the Democrats should shove it down your throats until their fingers find your colon.
For the least eighty years a lame duck president has not submitted a nominee for the Supreme Court. As a lifetime appointment all have decided it was best to have the soon to be president make that choice. A Democrat could win and their agenda might need interpretation through the court as well. It is a time honored approach and a very practical one too.
You sound desperate IsaccNewton, scared out of your mind.
Perhaps you can provide a link that counters this one?
scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
The link does no such thing. The three presidents for the last 80 years in question are Eisenhower (nominated in his first term confirmed in his second); F Roosevelt (same deal between terms 2 and 3); Reagan (between first and terms).
You used a blog?
You know that's a steaming pile of manure, right?And if the president were republican you'd support moving ahead with the nomination.
The fact remains there's no sound, rational reason why the president shouldn't make the nomination, and there's no sound, rational reason why the Senate shouldn't confirm that nomination.
That you and others on the partisan right perceive the president belonging to the 'wrong' party as reason to not nominate a replacement is neither sound nor rational – in fact, it's ridiculous and unwarranted.
1. Tradition of not nominating a Supreme Court Justice during the last year; no federal court appointments in the last eight months either.
2. It is withheld to help the future president uphold their policies, which could be his party.
3. The future president represents the future will of the people and a new Justice rules into that future.
Is there something that makes Kennedy's appointment different?
You know that's a steaming pile of manure, right?And if the president were republican you'd support moving ahead with the nomination.
The fact remains there's no sound, rational reason why the president shouldn't make the nomination, and there's no sound, rational reason why the Senate shouldn't confirm that nomination.
That you and others on the partisan right perceive the president belonging to the 'wrong' party as reason to not nominate a replacement is neither sound nor rational – in fact, it's ridiculous and unwarranted.
1. Tradition of not nominating a Supreme Court Justice during the last year; no federal court appointments in the last eight months either.
2. It is withheld to help the future president uphold their policies, which could be his party.
3. The future president represents the future will of the people and a new Justice rules into that future.
Of course not. If it were she would have posted some kind of proof or other.You know that's a steaming pile of manure, right?And if the president were republican you'd support moving ahead with the nomination.
The fact remains there's no sound, rational reason why the president shouldn't make the nomination, and there's no sound, rational reason why the Senate shouldn't confirm that nomination.
That you and others on the partisan right perceive the president belonging to the 'wrong' party as reason to not nominate a replacement is neither sound nor rational – in fact, it's ridiculous and unwarranted.
1. Tradition of not nominating a Supreme Court Justice during the last year; no federal court appointments in the last eight months either.
2. It is withheld to help the future president uphold their policies, which could be his party.
3. The future president represents the future will of the people and a new Justice rules into that future.
It certainly is not.
The Republicans have to, in effect, say "we aren't going to let the president exercise his Constitutional powers, we reserve those powers to Congress".
This of course is a breech of the separation of powers between the branches of government. The president should just start nominating whoever he wants immediately and make them hold hearings and reject them one after the other. The Republicans seem to love holding hearings and holding useless votes over and over so let's line em up and let these anti-American anti-democracy losers do what they want to do so it is recorded and in plain view for the entire country.
If the Republicans do try to block this appointment then the Democrats should simply not work with them on anything. ANYTHING. In Congress. Vote down everything the Republican'ts want to do.
Cons this is what you seem to want so I say the Democrats should shove it down your throats until their fingers find your colon.
For the least eighty years a lame duck president has not submitted a nominee for the Supreme Court. As a lifetime appointment all have decided it was best to have the soon to be president make that choice. A Democrat could win and their agenda might need interpretation through the court as well. It is a time honored approach and a very practical one too.
You sound desperate IsaccNewton, scared out of your mind.
It's been posted already.
By the highly respected SCOTUSblog, which the furball shrugged off as a blog.
Ah yes the old "we've covered this already" dodge. Still a dodge.It's been posted already.
By the highly respected SCOTUSblog, which the furball shrugged off as a blog.
LOL!! Remember when Democrats filibustered all of Bush's nominations? Yeah you're a stinking partisan hypocrite hack.The Republicans have to, in effect, say "we aren't going to let the president exercise his Constitutional powers, we reserve those powers to Congress".
This of course is a breech of the separation of powers between the branches of government. The president should just start nominating whoever he wants immediately and make them hold hearings and reject them one after the other. The Republicans seem to love holding hearings and holding useless votes over and over so let's line em up and let these anti-American anti-democracy losers do what they want to do so it is recorded and in plain view for the entire country.
If the Republicans do try to block this appointment then the Democrats should simply not work with them on anything. ANYTHING. In Congress. Vote down everything the Republican'ts want to do.
Cons this is what you seem to want so I say the Democrats should shove it down your throats until their fingers find your colon.
For the least eighty years a lame duck president has not submitted a nominee for the Supreme Court. As a lifetime appointment all have decided it was best to have the soon to be president make that choice. A Democrat could win and their agenda might need interpretation through the court as well. It is a time honored approach and a very practical one too.
You sound desperate IsaccNewton, scared out of your mind.
LOL Fear just courses through your bloodstream doesn't it. Conservatives have a love affair with fear going on and you think everyone else does as well. Its yours alone Porky, own it.
We had an election and this president was elected. He is granted the powers in the Constitution to select Supreme Court nominees and the opposing political party isn't granted the power to stall the executive branch's power indefinitely.
If the Gopp tries to delay this for a year then the Democrats should tell them no matter what you want to do we will block it.
Indefinitely.
This is what you cons want I say shove it down your throat. You people are 8 year old children who cry like Kanye West when you don't get your way.
And if the president were republican you'd support moving ahead with the nomination.
The fact remains there's no sound, rational reason why the president shouldn't make the nomination, and there's no sound, rational reason why the Senate shouldn't confirm that nomination.
That you and others on the partisan right perceive the president belonging to the 'wrong' party as reason to not nominate a replacement is neither sound nor rational – in fact, it's ridiculous and unwarranted.
1. Tradition of not nominating a Supreme Court Justice during the last year; no federal court appointments in the last eight months either.
2. It is withheld to help the future president uphold their policies, which could be his party.
3. The future president represents the future will of the people and a new Justice rules into that future.
LOL Fear just courses through your bloodstream doesn't it. Conservatives have a love affair with fear going on and you think everyone else does as well. Its yours alone Porky, own it.
We had an election and this president was elected. He is granted the powers in the Constitution to select Supreme Court nominees and the opposing political party isn't granted the power to stall the executive branch's power indefinitely.
If the Gopp tries to delay this for a year then the Democrats should tell them no matter what you want to do we will block it.
Indefinitely.
This is what you cons want I say shove it down your throat. You people are 8 year old children who cry like Kanye West when you don't get your way.
How does one withdraw one who was confirmed in an election year? Oh right, they don't.It's been posted already.
By the highly respected SCOTUSblog, which the furball shrugged off as a blog.
You apparently missed my references to the three instances cited, all of which were done by presidents who could serve another term. F. Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan. Had they lost the election, the nominations would have been withdrawn.
And if the president were republican you'd support moving ahead with the nomination.
The fact remains there's no sound, rational reason why the president shouldn't make the nomination, and there's no sound, rational reason why the Senate shouldn't confirm that nomination.
That you and others on the partisan right perceive the president belonging to the 'wrong' party as reason to not nominate a replacement is neither sound nor rational – in fact, it's ridiculous and unwarranted.
1. Tradition of not nominating a Supreme Court Justice during the last year; no federal court appointments in the last eight months either.
2. It is withheld to help the future president uphold their policies, which could be his party.
3. The future president represents the future will of the people and a new Justice rules into that future.
Bullshit. Show us in the Constitution where that is mandated.
How does one withdraw one who was confirmed in an election year? Oh right, they don't.It's been posted already.
By the highly respected SCOTUSblog, which the furball shrugged off as a blog.
You apparently missed my references to the three instances cited, all of which were done by presidents who could serve another term. F. Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan. Had they lost the election, the nominations would have been withdrawn.
It's been posted already.
By the highly respected SCOTUSblog, which the furball shrugged off as a blog.
You apparently missed my references to the three instances cited, all of which were done by presidents who could serve another term. F. Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan. Had they lost the election, the nominations would have been withdrawn.
OK. So if you call something "bullshit" then it's proof that it is.It's been posted already.
By the highly respected SCOTUSblog, which the furball shrugged off as a blog.
You apparently missed my references to the three instances cited, all of which were done by presidents who could serve another term. F. Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan. Had they lost the election, the nominations would have been withdrawn.
Let's go back to what you said:
1. Tradition of not nominating a Supreme Court Justice during the last year; no federal court appointments in the last eight months either.
2. It is withheld to help the future president uphold their policies, which could be his party.
3. The future president represents the future will of the people and a new Justice rules into that future.
1. There is no tradition. Certainly not for a full year.
2. Bullshit
3. Bullshit.
LOL Fear just courses through your bloodstream doesn't it. Conservatives have a love affair with fear going on and you think everyone else does as well. Its yours alone Porky, own it.
We had an election and this president was elected. He is granted the powers in the Constitution to select Supreme Court nominees and the opposing political party isn't granted the power to stall the executive branch's power indefinitely.
If the Gopp tries to delay this for a year then the Democrats should tell them no matter what you want to do we will block it.
Indefinitely.
This is what you cons want I say shove it down your throat. You people are 8 year old children who cry like Kanye West when you don't get your way.
Hillary is the one trying to scare women into voting for her.
The Senate confirms or denies, live with it.
Interesting your answer to stalling is stalling. Bravo! Ya sacred little turd.
LOL!! Remember when Democrats filibustered all of Bush's nominations? Yeah you're a stinking partisan hypocrite hack.The Republicans have to, in effect, say "we aren't going to let the president exercise his Constitutional powers, we reserve those powers to Congress".
This of course is a breech of the separation of powers between the branches of government. The president should just start nominating whoever he wants immediately and make them hold hearings and reject them one after the other. The Republicans seem to love holding hearings and holding useless votes over and over so let's line em up and let these anti-American anti-democracy losers do what they want to do so it is recorded and in plain view for the entire country.
If the Republicans do try to block this appointment then the Democrats should simply not work with them on anything. ANYTHING. In Congress. Vote down everything the Republican'ts want to do.
Cons this is what you seem to want so I say the Democrats should shove it down your throats until their fingers find your colon.
For the least eighty years a lame duck president has not submitted a nominee for the Supreme Court. As a lifetime appointment all have decided it was best to have the soon to be president make that choice. A Democrat could win and their agenda might need interpretation through the court as well. It is a time honored approach and a very practical one too.
You sound desperate IsaccNewton, scared out of your mind.
LOL Fear just courses through your bloodstream doesn't it. Conservatives have a love affair with fear going on and you think everyone else does as well. Its yours alone Porky, own it.
We had an election and this president was elected. He is granted the powers in the Constitution to select Supreme Court nominees and the opposing political party isn't granted the power to stall the executive branch's power indefinitely.
If the Gopp tries to delay this for a year then the Democrats should tell them no matter what you want to do we will block it.
Indefinitely.
This is what you cons want I say shove it down your throat. You people are 8 year old children who cry like Kanye West when you don't get your way.
It's been posted already.
By the highly respected SCOTUSblog, which the furball shrugged off as a blog.
You apparently missed my references to the three instances cited, all of which were done by presidents who could serve another term. F. Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan. Had they lost the election, the nominations would have been withdrawn.
Let's go back to what you said:
1. Tradition of not nominating a Supreme Court Justice during the last year; no federal court appointments in the last eight months either.
2. It is withheld to help the future president uphold their policies, which could be his party.
3. The future president represents the future will of the people and a new Justice rules into that future.
1. There is no tradition. Certainly not for a full year.
2. Bullshit
3. Bullshit.
