Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

[SassyIrishLass]

awwwww the fraud and the fruit are butt hurt.

 

[jillian]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

You and your dear leader are always befuddled by anything dealing with the Constitution. The dear leader can nominate anyone he wants, then the Senate can schedule hearings at their leisure, there are no time limits placed on either constitutionally. So he can play all the word games he pleases, it means nothing.

so much hack so little time.

he is hardly befuddled. he is "amused" at what morons you idiots are.

but maybe he should speak slower and use smaller words so you understand him.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

They will be in violation of the law.

That's your opinion. Now shush, you're a bother

you first, hack.

Buzz off ya daffy fraud. Again, you contribute nothing and somehow think your middle school one liners constitutes something other than middle school insults.

quiet, skank

Middle school, step it up Ms "Barrister" ROFLMAO

 

[jillian]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters
Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

What it means has changed.

If it has, such changes are completely illegal.

False the constitution was never meant to be a static document.
Jefferson suggested that a new one by drafted every 12 years to keep pace with the changes in the country.

So go draft a new one. Until then, the amendment process is the only legal process available to make changes. All other changes are by their nature illegal.

really? interesting. it hasn't been viewed that way since marbury v madison (look it up, you'll learn something).

constitutional construction is about interpretation. the words "DUE process" have no meaning absent interpretation. "UNREASONABLE search and seizure" has no meaning absent interpretation. "EQUAL protection" has no meaning absent interpretation. do you really think if these things were that easy, you'd have a 5-4 court ever? every one of those people is smarter than you....whether you agree with their pov or not. and THEY don't agree on the words.

but *you* and the pretend constitutionalist brigade... *you* know what it means.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

What it means has changed.

If it has, such changes are completely illegal.

False the constitution was never meant to be a static document.
Jefferson suggested that a new one by drafted every 12 years to keep pace with the changes in the country.

Also the supreme court has judicial review through case law so this simple fact blows the hell out of the loserterians idea of it being static.

False. swing and a miss!
Who or what are the loserterians other than one of a countless number of meaningless slogans?

Then I guess gay marriage and roe vrs wade is unconstitutional.

 

[OKTexas]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

What it means has changed.

No it hasn't, that's why it was written down in the first place. Article 5 is the only legitimate way to change it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Loserterians are liberterians when it comes to economics and social conservatives on social issues.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

he is "amused" at what morons you idiots are.

Perhaps he will be equally amused when the 115th Congress cuts the Secret Service budget for former presidents as an necessary public expense.

 

[jillian]

he is "amused" at what morons you idiots are.

Perhaps he will be equally amused when the 115th Congress cuts the Secret Service budget for former presidents as an necessary public expense.

are you threatening the life of a president, dearie?

insane much?

 

[OKTexas]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

What is so bad about it? The only thing you seem to care about is the rich taking all the wealth in this country and your bible morality being forced on everyone.

And you like most regressives could care less about what the Constitution says unless it suits you.

 

[OKTexas]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

That's part of his job.

So is the faithful execution of our laws, why should he worry about what the Constitution says about his job at this late date, he hasn't given a crap about it so far.

 

[OKTexas]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

They will be in violation of the law.

LOL WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

What it means has changed.

If it has, such changes are completely illegal.

False the constitution was never meant to be a static document.
Jefferson suggested that a new one by drafted every 12 years to keep pace with the changes in the country.

So go draft a new one. Until then, the amendment process is the only legal process available to make changes. All other changes are by their nature illegal.

really? interesting. it hasn't been viewed that way since marbury v madison (look it up, you'll learn something).

constitutional construction is about interpretation. the words "DUE process" have no meaning absent interpretation. "UNREASONABLE search and seizure" has no meaning absent interpretation. "EQUAL protection" has no meaning absent interpretation. do you really think if these things were that easy, you'd have a 5-4 court ever? every one of those people is smarter than you....whether you agree with their pov or not. and THEY don't agree on the words

Then perhaps they should consult an 18th Century English dictionary.

Because a thing "is" does not make it legal. Marbury v. Madison was the 1st fuck-up, as it made the SCOTUS are greater-than-equal branch of government against the co-equal model devised by the Founders.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,"
- (Henry VI, Act IV, Scene II)

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

he is "amused" at what morons you idiots are.

Perhaps he will be equally amused when the 115th Congress cuts the Secret Service budget for former presidents as an necessary public expense.

are you threatening the life of a president, dearie?

insane much?

How would cutting SS protection be considered threatening the life of a former president, munchkin?

Would you argue that he cannot afford to provide his own security?

 

[OKTexas]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

You and your dear leader are always befuddled by anything dealing with the Constitution. The dear leader can nominate anyone he wants, then the Senate can schedule hearings at their leisure, there are no time limits placed on either constitutionally. So he can play all the word games he pleases, it means nothing.

so much hack so little time.

he is hardly befuddled. he is "amused" at what morons you idiots are.

but maybe he should speak slower and use smaller words so you understand him.

It's pretty damn simple, the boy has been bitch slapped over his so called understanding of the Constitution unanimously by the supreme court. The mother fucker has show zero respect for it to this point, and this current little rant just demonstrates his total hypocrisy. BTW, how many justices, that he said were fully qualified to sit on the bench, did he himself try to filibusterer? Can you count to two?

 

[OKTexas]

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

What it means has changed.

If it has, such changes are completely illegal.

False the constitution was never meant to be a static document.
Jefferson suggested that a new one by drafted every 12 years to keep pace with the changes in the country.

So go draft a new one. Until then, the amendment process is the only legal process available to make changes. All other changes are by their nature illegal.

really? interesting. it hasn't been viewed that way since marbury v madison (look it up, you'll learn something).

constitutional construction is about interpretation. the words "DUE process" have no meaning absent interpretation. "UNREASONABLE search and seizure" has no meaning absent interpretation. "EQUAL protection" has no meaning absent interpretation. do you really think if these things were that easy, you'd have a 5-4 court ever? every one of those people is smarter than you....whether you agree with their pov or not. and THEY don't agree on the words.

but *you* and the pretend constitutionalist brigade... *you* know what it means.

Maybe they should have invested in a freaking dictionary.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only thing you seem to care about is the rich taking all the wealth in this country and your bible morality being forced on everyone.

No, we're concerned about the Constitution being upheld. That means the Senate is exercising its right under the "with advice and consent of the Senate" part of the nominating process, as in refusing to give its advice or consent. Deal with it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

The court can't go a year without a justice.

Yes it can. And it would go a year without a ninth Justice if it were a Republican nominating a conservative justice in the face of Democratic majorities in both houses.

So... let's drop the hypocrisy. You know Democrats tried and failed to filibuster Justice Alito, and then there was Chuck Schumer.

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

Interesting how none of you liberals are condemning him for this very same behavior.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The only thing you seem to care about is the rich taking all the wealth in this country and your bible morality being forced on everyone.

No, we're concerned about the Constitution being upheld. That means the Senate is exercising its right under the "with advice and consent of the Senate" part of the nominating process. Deal with it.

The Senate has no obligation to give "advice and consent", but the Executive branch nomination cannot proceed without it.

It's called "separation of powers". Tough titty.

It's not the way I would handle the affair, but then I'm not the Majority Leader.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Senate has no obligation to give "advise and consent"

And by that I mean refusing to give its advice or consent.