Obama Now Has the Power to Appoint 93 Federal Judges

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

Elections do have consequences. I fought against them being elected, but we can't scream it's unfair when the people elected them. There is no evidence that he rigged any election. If people vote for a totalitarian in sheeps clothing, that's what we get. At least until we have a time to correct that decision.

The only Senator who had a questionable election to my knowledge is Senator Franken. Thankfully the people will have a chance to correct that next year.

The people could NOT vote for a Totalitarian because one would have to ignore constitutional principles and laws. The people would have to change the constitution for that to happen.

But Senator Franken's election, fraudulent?

 

[BlindBoo]

Obama just committed an unprecedented tyranny.

This represents a ridiculous power grab from one of the most tyrannical administrations in US History.

Just deserts for the unprecedented obstructionism. Now if only the dems can take the House. Republican's are really gonna whine then.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So the fact that Obama used the IRS to block Tea Party and other Conservative groups is ok with you? It's not rigging an election?

Simple truth: not a fact

 

[P@triot]

Rotty keeps repeating the same old thing while totally ignoring anything factual that others post. Yet others continually feed him

[MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION], buddy, you have to stop crying because I own you with facts. Either accept the facts, or just move on. But listening to you cry because you're ignorant of your own government (and scared that the people might take away your government table scraps some day and - God forbid - make you be a big boy and provide for yourself) is just pitiful.

The facts are the facts. I'm sorry that you don't like them. I am. But Obama, Biden, and Reid cried like little bitches (like you are doing now) that the "nuclear option" was wrong. It's a fact. It's on video.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obama just committed an unprecedented tyranny.

This represents a ridiculous power grab from one of the most tyrannical administrations in US History.

Just deserts for the unprecedented obstructionism. Now if only the dems can take the House. Republican's are really gonna whine then.

except there is no tyranny, unprecedented or not

 

[Avatar4321]

Where did this brilliant synopsis come from?

My mind. You may not think much of my politics, but I am not an idiot.

I also don't see the point in complaining about Democrats doing something I think Republicans should have done a decade ago. If they had, perhaps we wouldn't have so many openings here for Obama to nominate people.

And there you have it folks. Because he wanted Republicans to take authoritarian power, he's ok with the Dumbocrats doing it...

Problem is no one has taken authoritarian power. The Constitutionally clearly only requires a majority vote to advise and consent to the President's judicial nominees. I hardly see how requiring a majority vote like the Constitution requires is authoritarian when the fillibuster of judicial nominees didn't start until recently and that is precisely how it's occured for the past 200+ years before then.

I want neither party to take authoriatian power. I want them both to FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. The Constitution does not require a super majority of the Senate to consent to a Judicial nominee.

And it's completely ridiculous to see people on the right who wanted this done under Bush complaining now that the Democrats are doing it. We knew they were going to do it the second they had power and yet we didn't change it when we could to get good conservative judges on the bench.

 

[bripat9643]

So the fact that Obama used the IRS to block Tea Party and other Conservative groups is ok with you? It's not rigging an election?

Simple truth: not a fact

It is a fact.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama just committed an unprecedented tyranny.

This represents a ridiculous power grab from one of the most tyrannical administrations in US History.

Just deserts for the unprecedented obstructionism. Now if only the dems can take the House. Republican's are really gonna whine then.

such a sheep who will sell us all out for a party

some sad people you are

 

[P@triot]

Republicans, this is where you need to grow up and compromise.

That is, give a list of some judges and executive appointees to Obama, and offer to work with Obama on his nominees if he'll grant you some of yours.

Remember, the Democrats don't have to oblige you. But they would, if you simply stopped acting like crybabies and adopted a spirit of bipartisan compromise.

But if acting like grownups is too much to ask from you, so be it. If that is your choice, you get the nothing that you've asked for and so richly deserve.

Remember, you Republicans attempted to subvert the Constitution by removing the president's powers to make appointments. And you're actually proud of that near-treason. So why should any loyal American _not_ consider you to be traitors? As far as decent Americans go, y'all are on citizenship probation, assumed to be disloyal to the Constitution until you prove otherwise with good behavior.

In 5 years of being president, Barack Obama has not "compromised" one time. Not once. In fact, the ONE time he was FORCED to compromise (ie the Sequester), he reneged on:

President Obama's Predictable Budget: More Spending, More Tax Increases - Forbes

Did you read the article [MENTION=39072]mamooth[/MENTION]? If so, please let me be the first one to say "welcome to REALITY mamooth"! You're going to love it here! It's a much more interesting place than liberal fantasy land...

Obama and "compromise"....

 

[P@triot]

My mind. You may not think much of my politics, but I am not an idiot.

I also don't see the point in complaining about Democrats doing something I think Republicans should have done a decade ago. If they had, perhaps we wouldn't have so many openings here for Obama to nominate people.

And there you have it folks. Because he wanted Republicans to take authoritarian power, he's ok with the Dumbocrats doing it...

Problem is no one has taken authoritarian power. The Constitutionally clearly only requires a majority vote to advise and consent to the President's judicial nominees. I hardly see how requiring a majority vote like the Constitution requires is authoritarian when the fillibuster of judicial nominees didn't start until recently and that is precisely how it's occured for the past 200+ years before then.

I want neither party to take authoriatian power. I want them both to FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. The Constitution does not require a super majority of the Senate to consent to a Judicial nominee.

And it's completely ridiculous to see people on the right who wanted this done under Bush complaining now that the Democrats are doing it. We knew they were going to do it the second they had power and yet we didn't change it when we could to get good conservative judges on the bench.

Really idealist?!? The filibuster started "recently"? I didn't realize 225 years was "recent"

 

[Avatar4321]

As usual Avatar - you spew nonsensical idealism.

The whole notion of "election have consequences" is the radial nazi left-wing narrative that since they were elected, they have dictatorial power.

Sorry, our REPUBLIC (not democracy - REPUBLIC) was specifically designed to protect against that type of idiocy. We have a Constitution which limits the power of the president, the House, the Senate, and the rest of the federal government - and no election (consequences or otherwise) changes that fact.

Obama doesn't get fast-track this nation into marxism simply because he rigged an election. Doesn't work that way chief. Sorry.

I am very aware that we are a Republic. And that the Constitution doesn't require a super majority from the Senate to confirm judges.

Elections do have consequences. I fought against them being elected, but we can't scream it's unfair when the people elected them. There is no evidence that he rigged any election. If people vote for a totalitarian in sheeps clothing, that's what we get. At least until we have a time to correct that decision.

The only Senator who had a questionable election to my knowledge is Senator Franken. Thankfully the people will have a chance to correct that next year.

Really Avatar?

So the fact that Obama used the IRS to block Tea Party and other Conservative groups is ok with you? It's not rigging an election?

And the fact that Obama LIED about the unemployment numbers to make the people believe he was doing a better job than he actually was is ok with you? It's not rigging an election?

Really Avatar? Wow. Come on, give us some of your more idealism...

You mean a politician lied to get power?!?! That's never happened before. And he used his political influence to stall his enemies?!?! really?

You do realize that just because a politician is a slimebag doesn't mean they have rigged anything. Anyone paying attention before the election was aware of all his corruption. People still voted him in. Is that their fault or the people's fault?

To answer your question. No politicians lying and being corrupt to obtain and keep power is not alright to me. But we cannot change the outcome of an election. All we can do is try to wake up the people and get things right with ourselves, our families, and our God. And work our butts off to get someone better in office.

Bad people get into power. The solution is to win elections with good people instead. Stop pretending there are no consequences to the people making bad decisions in electing their leaders and start fixing the people. We need to organize in the cities. We can't keep writing them off or we will never have power. We need to work at uniting people and not simply complaining about the corruption going on. yes put it out. But do something to fix it.

We are getting what we deserve. I seriously don't want what's coming. But I am not going to complain about the consequences when we all knew what was at stake.

 

[Avatar4321]

...

Elections do have consequences. I fought against them being elected, but we can't scream it's unfair when the people elected them. There is no evidence that he rigged any election. If people vote for a totalitarian in sheeps clothing, that's what we get. At least until we have a time to correct that decision.

The only Senator who had a questionable election to my knowledge is Senator Franken. Thankfully the people will have a chance to correct that next year.

The people could NOT vote for a Totalitarian because one would have to ignore constitutional principles and laws. The people would have to change the constitution for that to happen.

But Senator Franken's election, fraudulent?

Yes. votes mysteriously appearing in the trunk of someones car is certainly questionable.

 

[Avatar4321]

And there you have it folks. Because he wanted Republicans to take authoritarian power, he's ok with the Dumbocrats doing it...

Problem is no one has taken authoritarian power. The Constitutionally clearly only requires a majority vote to advise and consent to the President's judicial nominees. I hardly see how requiring a majority vote like the Constitution requires is authoritarian when the fillibuster of judicial nominees didn't start until recently and that is precisely how it's occured for the past 200+ years before then.

I want neither party to take authoriatian power. I want them both to FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. The Constitution does not require a super majority of the Senate to consent to a Judicial nominee.

And it's completely ridiculous to see people on the right who wanted this done under Bush complaining now that the Democrats are doing it. We knew they were going to do it the second they had power and yet we didn't change it when we could to get good conservative judges on the bench.

Really idealist?!? The filibuster started "recently"? I didn't realize 225 years was "recent"

I didn't realize you were going to pretend the filibuster is the same as the filibuster of judicial nominees. If you can't be honest about what others are saying, you probably shouldn't be talking.

 

[P@triot]

My mind. You may not think much of my politics, but I am not an idiot.

I also don't see the point in complaining about Democrats doing something I think Republicans should have done a decade ago. If they had, perhaps we wouldn't have so many openings here for Obama to nominate people.

And there you have it folks. Because he wanted Republicans to take authoritarian power, he's ok with the Dumbocrats doing it...

Problem is no one has taken authoritarian power. The Constitutionally clearly only requires a majority vote to advise and consent to the President's judicial nominees. I hardly see how requiring a majority vote like the Constitution requires is authoritarian when the fillibuster of judicial nominees didn't start until recently and that is precisely how it's occured for the past 200+ years before then.

I want neither party to take authoriatian power. I want them both to FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. The Constitution does not require a super majority of the Senate to consent to a Judicial nominee.

And it's completely ridiculous to see people on the right who wanted this done under Bush complaining now that the Democrats are doing it. We knew they were going to do it the second they had power and yet we didn't change it when we could to get good conservative judges on the bench.

Hey, tell us again how you're going to stop unconstitutional action such as Obamacare with your "grass roots effort"?

Oh - and don't forget to add that part where the Dumbocrats consider you an enemy of the state and use the IRS to block your "grass roots efforts" and harass you.

The second most annoying thing about Dumbocrats (behind their lazy appeal to communism) is their immature and fuck'n annoying idealism. I had no idea there were people on the right just as fuck'n immature and idiotic. I thought the whole "sit-around-the-camp-fire-singing-kumbaya" was strictly a liberal hippie thing

 

[rightwinger]

So the fact that Obama used the IRS to block Tea Party and other Conservative groups is ok with you? It's not rigging an election?

Simple truth: not a fact

It is a fact.

Do tell....how did he "block" them?

 

[P@triot]

I am very aware that we are a Republic. And that the Constitution doesn't require a super majority from the Senate to confirm judges.

Elections do have consequences. I fought against them being elected, but we can't scream it's unfair when the people elected them. There is no evidence that he rigged any election. If people vote for a totalitarian in sheeps clothing, that's what we get. At least until we have a time to correct that decision.

The only Senator who had a questionable election to my knowledge is Senator Franken. Thankfully the people will have a chance to correct that next year.

Really Avatar?

So the fact that Obama used the IRS to block Tea Party and other Conservative groups is ok with you? It's not rigging an election?

And the fact that Obama LIED about the unemployment numbers to make the people believe he was doing a better job than he actually was is ok with you? It's not rigging an election?

Really Avatar? Wow. Come on, give us some of your more idealism...

You mean a politician lied to get power?!?! That's never happened before. And he used his political influence to stall his enemies?!?! really?

You do realize that just because a politician is a slimebag doesn't mean they have rigged anything. Anyone paying attention before the election was aware of all his corruption. People still voted him in. Is that their fault or the people's fault?

To answer your question. No politicians lying and being corrupt to obtain and keep power is not alright to me. But we cannot change the outcome of an election. All we can do is try to wake up the people and get things right with ourselves, our families, and our God. And work our butts off to get someone better in office.

Bad people get into power. The solution is to win elections with good people instead. Stop pretending there are no consequences to the people making bad decisions in electing their leaders and start fixing the people. We need to organize in the cities. We can't keep writing them off or we will never have power. We need to work at uniting people and not simply complaining about the corruption going on. yes put it out. But do something to fix it.

We are getting what we deserve. I seriously don't want what's coming. But I am not going to complain about the consequences when we all knew what was at stake.

I guarantee you NOT one single vote cast for him was done by someone who knew he had falsified the unemployment numbers or believed he had instructed the IRS to block his opposition.

Now tell us again about your "grass roots effort". I mean, you've done such a bang up job of protecting the republic so far with it Avatar. You've really gotten out there and convinced the people....

 

[NYcarbineer]

That monkey jabber was not an answer. The question is:

If the President and a majority in the Senate should not have the power to appoint and approve judges,

who should?

good post


but wasting your time with this bozo

Obama has the power to appoint judges.

The Republicans in the Senate have the power to filibuster a bad appointment.

That's how the system works, stupid. Which part of that don't you understand.

You're ignorance of the U.S. government (mixed with you desire to be a lazy parasite who mooches off of his fellow citizen) does not change the fact that the Republican's have the power to filibuster.

Would you like to try again? Would you like to try a new narrative that actually holds up?

lol, they don't have that power now do they?

 

[Avatar4321]

So the fact that Obama used the IRS to block Tea Party and other Conservative groups is ok with you? It's not rigging an election?

Simple truth: not a fact

Denying it doesn't mean you are right. Especially when the evidence is overwhelming

 

[JakeStarkey]

"We need to stop ceding states over to the left" and right, so that we stop electing extremists in both parties. We need Senators to work together.

 

[P@triot]

Simple truth: not a fact

It is a fact.

Do tell....how did he "block" them?

[MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] illustrating once again that he is one of the most uninformed individuals in the U.S. Ignorance is bliss, right RW? You'll just keep goose-stepping as the party tells you (right into the the showers and ovens even ).

He instructed the IRS to hold up all requests for any non-profit status of a conservative organization. Without knowing their tax status (and thus whether or not they would have to pay taxes), they couldn't move forward with their organizations (if you accept $10 million in donations, use it all for your cause, then find out later you owe $4 million in taxes that you don't have - you go to prison, asshole).

Do tell....how the fuck are you this ignorant that you somehow manage to miss these national stories?!?!