Obama to Announce Supreme Court Nominee at 11 a.m. Today

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Founding Fathers put the Senate in place to stop the likes of Obama from behaving like a fucking Monarch.
Who was it that crowed: "Elections have consequences"?
Guess our 'Monarch-Lite' forgot that Senators are also elected.

So your saying that Obama doesn't have the right to nominate anybody? Or you are just blowing your racist shit again?

Obama has the 'right' to nominate a fucking dog turd. It's in the Constitution right?
The Senate, according to the Constitution has the 'right' when and if they want to consider Obama's dog turd.
If Obama hadn't been such a fucking asshole from day one the way he habitually bypassed and ignored Congress and the Senate then he may have been able to put his choice on the SC.

your kidding yourself if you think that the republicans would have ever been decent and willing to work with the president. in fact, your main criticism of him is born out of republican intransigence.

You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.

why do you think recess appointments exist?

Why do you think the Senate can stay in session?

 

[Skylar]

The Senate—which is a co-equal branch of government—has every right NOT to confirm

They aren't required to confirm, they are required to vote.

Really?

What proviso requires a vote

The senate has already ADVICED the POTUS that they will not CONSENT. What am I missing?

The Senate must give Advice and Consent (up or down) to the President as required by the Constitution. That means a vote, which is how they do such a thing unless you'd like them all to sit down to tea together?

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Yeah, but Democrats and Obama have demonstrated the constitution (to them) is like the 'Pirates Code'....more like guidelines than actually rules / laws, capable of being ignored as it suits them.

Actually the Constitution (1787-1935) was abolished by FDR.

Says who?

Under fascism we only have those liberties the powers-that-be decide that we can have

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini

I don't think fascism means what you think it means.

 

[easyt65]

The Senate is fully within its rights to vet the guy and vote him up or down. That is what the Democrats did with conservative nominees

So now we have gone from the liberal declaration that the Senate MUST / HAS TO vote to 'it is fully within their rights to vet and vote'...but they don't HAVE to .

Thanks for admitting you were wrong. I mean if you actually meant they HAD to, that would mean Harry Reid was guilty of heinous obstruction of the people's / U.S. business and failure / refusal to do his job by blocking all that legislation coming from the House.

 

[dcbl]

It's a mistake. Garland is actually a very good appointment. McConnell was an idiot to come out a half hour after Scalia's death and declare that he would not allow any nominee to be considered. Now he's going to shoot himself in the foot a second time by allowing his ego to stand in his way.

I have been thinking about that and agree with you re: McConnell

I really don't know anything about Garland, so I couldn't say whether he is "good" or "bad"

But on the surface, he does not seem overly pernicious

IF you and others are correct about Trump losing badly and us losing the Senate as well, we may be well served to accept this nominee over what would likely be some one much worse next January...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Founding Fathers put the Senate in place to stop the likes of Obama from behaving like a fucking Monarch.
Who was it that crowed: "Elections have consequences"?
Guess our 'Monarch-Lite' forgot that Senators are also elected.

So your saying that Obama doesn't have the right to nominate anybody? Or you are just blowing your racist shit again?

Obama has the 'right' to nominate a fucking dog turd. It's in the Constitution right?
The Senate, according to the Constitution has the 'right' when and if they want to consider Obama's dog turd.
If Obama hadn't been such a fucking asshole from day one the way he habitually bypassed and ignored Congress and the Senate then he may have been able to put his choice on the SC.

your kidding yourself if you think that the republicans would have ever been decent and willing to work with the president. in fact, your main criticism of him is born out of republican intransigence.

You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.

They have a Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies

They have Constitutional authority to do so in their own good time.

 

[Contumacious]

They aren't required to confirm, they are required to vote.

Really?

What proviso requires a vote

The senate has already ADVICED the POTUS that they will not CONSENT. What am I missing?

The Senate must give Advice and Consent (up or down) to the President as required by the Constitution. That means a vote, which is how they do such a thing unless you'd like them all to sit down to tea together?

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Yeah, but Democrats and Obama have demonstrated the constitution (to them) is like the 'Pirates Code'....more like guidelines than actually rules / laws, capable of being ignored as it suits them.

Actually the Constitution (1787-1935) was abolished by FDR.

Says who?

Under fascism we only have those liberties the powers-that-be decide that we can have

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini

I don't think fascism means what you think it means.

Well , let's not debate semantics

That system of government wherein the government subscribes to :

...The State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

 

[easyt65]

If he has violated the Constitution or rule of law....prosecute him
Republicans hold the Congress. Acting as the president does not violate the law

No, but violating the Constitution, Refusing to enforce the law, being found in contempt by a court of law for disobeying the court's orders...those, which he has done, are violations of the law.

 

[Skylar]

Really?

What proviso requires a vote

The senate has already ADVICED the POTUS that they will not CONSENT. What am I missing?

The Senate must give Advice and Consent (up or down) to the President as required by the Constitution. That means a vote, which is how they do such a thing unless you'd like them all to sit down to tea together?

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Yeah, but Democrats and Obama have demonstrated the constitution (to them) is like the 'Pirates Code'....more like guidelines than actually rules / laws, capable of being ignored as it suits them.

Actually the Constitution (1787-1935) was abolished by FDR.

Says who?

Under fascism we only have those liberties the powers-that-be decide that we can have

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini

I don't think fascism means what you think it means.

Well , let's not debate semantics

And by 'semantics', you mean fascism being utterly different than our system of government?

And and you've completely abandoned the 'constitution was disbanded by FDR' horseshit?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So your saying that Obama doesn't have the right to nominate anybody? Or you are just blowing your racist shit again?

Obama has the 'right' to nominate a fucking dog turd. It's in the Constitution right?
The Senate, according to the Constitution has the 'right' when and if they want to consider Obama's dog turd.
If Obama hadn't been such a fucking asshole from day one the way he habitually bypassed and ignored Congress and the Senate then he may have been able to put his choice on the SC.

your kidding yourself if you think that the republicans would have ever been decent and willing to work with the president. in fact, your main criticism of him is born out of republican intransigence.

You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.

They have a Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies

They have Constitutional authority to do so in their own good time.

How many years is their "own good time"? If one year is okay why not two, or four, or ten?

What would an Originalist say? Let's just skip over that part? If the Senate can't manage a vote for one guy within one year, there's no reason they should even exist.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Senate—which is a co-equal branch of government—has every right NOT to confirm

In and of itself, your statement is correct, but both the Executive and the Judicial are also co-equal branches. The Senate, upon receiving a named nominee for a SCOTUS appointment, is required to perform their Constitutional requirements under existing Senate rules and perform the hearings, and if necessary after the Senate Committee vote, put the appointee to an up or down confirmation vote.

The Senate Judicial Committee and the Senate as a whole violate the check and balances set into the Constitution by sitting on their collective hands and obstructing the other two branches for purely partisan reasons. Anyone who believes that is a proper thing for the GOP Senate to do by setting an Unconstitutional precedent is nothing more than a partisan hack with no regard for the rule of law and the Constitution!

 

[Contumacious]

They aren't required to confirm, they are required to vote.

Really?

What proviso requires a vote

The senate has already ADVICED the POTUS that they will not CONSENT. What am I missing?

The Senate must give Advice and Consent (up or down) to the President as required by the Constitution. That means a vote, which is how they do such a thing unless you'd like them all to sit down to tea together?

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Yeah, but Democrats and Obama have demonstrated the constitution (to them) is like the 'Pirates Code'....more like guidelines than actually rules / laws, capable of being ignored as it suits them.

Actually the Constitution (1787-1935) was abolished by FDR.

Says who?

Under fascism we only have those liberties the powers-that-be decide that we can have

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini

I don't think fascism means what you think it means.

Those of us who

are not narcotized

those of us who are not parasites

those of us who are not socialists, berners , government supremacists


.those of us who believe that Capitalism, the free market and individual rights

that's who

 

[Skylar]

Really?

What proviso requires a vote

The senate has already ADVICED the POTUS that they will not CONSENT. What am I missing?

The Senate must give Advice and Consent (up or down) to the President as required by the Constitution. That means a vote, which is how they do such a thing unless you'd like them all to sit down to tea together?

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Yeah, but Democrats and Obama have demonstrated the constitution (to them) is like the 'Pirates Code'....more like guidelines than actually rules / laws, capable of being ignored as it suits them.

Actually the Constitution (1787-1935) was abolished by FDR.

Says who?

Under fascism we only have those liberties the powers-that-be decide that we can have

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini

I don't think fascism means what you think it means.

Those of us who

are not narcotized

those of us who are not parasites

those of us who are not socialists, berners , government supremacists


.those of us who believe that Capitalism, the free market and individual rights

that's who

So....just random word salad now.

It doesn't take much to reduce you to gibbering, does it?

 

[bendog]

Mitch McConnell is blocking a vote in the Senate, and the rubes are supporting that obstruction.

Any one of them who whined about Democrats blocking votes is a hypocrite.

It will get worse

Republicans claim they want "the next President to decide" See what happens when Hillary wins and Republicans try to rush through Obama's pick rather than risk who Hillary picks

They are also setting a new precedent. One which will one day snap right back into their slackjawed faces.

The precedent they are setting is that the Senate can say...The Supreme Court does not matter
Let it be gridlocked for 15 months. Let it remain at 4-4

Once filling Supreme Court vacancies is no longer a priority, what keeps the Dems from waiting 2 years to fill a vacancy?

Well, it won't be two years, but if there's gop potus 3 years into a term, and a dem maj senate, bet your buptukass that there won't be hearings let alone a vote.

 

[easyt65]

IF you and others are correct about Trump losing badly and us losing the Senate as well, we may be well served to accept this nominee over what would likely be some one much worse next January...

From what I have read so far he Garland is very liberal regarding the 2nd amendment and gun ownership. I disagree that it is better to go ahead and certify as a Justice the guy who is going to go in, overturn Scalia's opinion, and help strip Americans of their gun rights.

You don't give ground when the fight hasn't even started, in hopes of appeasing the enemy or in hopes that you don't get your ass kicked later. You fight. If this guy is the guy they say he is, who might just do what they say he will do, people need to wake the hell up and get in the fight instead of shrinking back and handing our rights to the libs on a silver platter.

 

[Skylar]

IF you and others are correct about Trump losing badly and us losing the Senate as well, we may be well served to accept this nominee over what would likely be some one much worse next January...

From what I have read so far he Garland is very liberal regarding the 2nd amendment and gun ownership. I disagree that it is better to go ahead and certify as a Justice the guy who is going to go in, overturn Scalia's opinion, and help strip Americans of their gun rights.

And when did Merrick vote against, say....Heller.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Obama has the 'right' to nominate a fucking dog turd. It's in the Constitution right?
The Senate, according to the Constitution has the 'right' when and if they want to consider Obama's dog turd.
If Obama hadn't been such a fucking asshole from day one the way he habitually bypassed and ignored Congress and the Senate then he may have been able to put his choice on the SC.

your kidding yourself if you think that the republicans would have ever been decent and willing to work with the president. in fact, your main criticism of him is born out of republican intransigence.

You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.

They have a Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies

They have Constitutional authority to do so in their own good time.

How many years is their "own good time"? If one year is okay why not two, or four, or ten?

I see you are bordering on understanding a salient point. Congratulations.

What would an Originalist say?

What I just said.

 

[rightwinger]

So your saying that Obama doesn't have the right to nominate anybody? Or you are just blowing your racist shit again?

Obama has the 'right' to nominate a fucking dog turd. It's in the Constitution right?
The Senate, according to the Constitution has the 'right' when and if they want to consider Obama's dog turd.
If Obama hadn't been such a fucking asshole from day one the way he habitually bypassed and ignored Congress and the Senate then he may have been able to put his choice on the SC.

your kidding yourself if you think that the republicans would have ever been decent and willing to work with the president. in fact, your main criticism of him is born out of republican intransigence.

You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.

They have a Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies

They have Constitutional authority to do so in their own good time.

And that is where the problem lies...

Up until now, "in their own good time" meant 3-6 months and actively vetting the Presidents nominee

Republicans are asking for 15 or more months to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. What happens if Trump wins and Democrats look to wait two years to approve his nominee?

 

[Contumacious]

The Senate must give Advice and Consent (up or down) to the President as required by the Constitution. That means a vote, which is how they do such a thing unless you'd like them all to sit down to tea together?

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Yeah, but Democrats and Obama have demonstrated the constitution (to them) is like the 'Pirates Code'....more like guidelines than actually rules / laws, capable of being ignored as it suits them.

Actually the Constitution (1787-1935) was abolished by FDR.

Says who?

Under fascism we only have those liberties the powers-that-be decide that we can have

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini

I don't think fascism means what you think it means.

Well , let's not debate semantics

And by 'semantics', you mean fascism being utterly different than our system of government?

And and you've completely abandoned the 'constitution was disbanded by FDR' horseshit?

I have already proven that FDR abolished the Constitution and adopted fascism as our socioeconomic system

The definition of fascism as used by Mussolini and most people here on planet earth has been provided to you but you refused to accept it.


If a country, such as the US, has those elements identified then it is fascist , but you may choose to call it system X. It doesn't matter.


.

 

[Siete]

whats new? RW's have been whining about everything under the sun for almost 8 years so why not this too?

 

[Contumacious]

IF you and others are correct about Trump losing badly and us losing the Senate as well, we may be well served to accept this nominee over what would likely be some one much worse next January...

From what I have read so far he Garland is very liberal regarding the 2nd amendment and gun ownership. I disagree that it is better to go ahead and certify as a Justice the guy who is going to go in, overturn Scalia's opinion, and help strip Americans of their gun rights.

And when did Merrick vote against, say....Heller.

He is NOT going to get a second chance.

Not gonna happen.