Scalia question

[Billy_Kinetta]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

Change your Tampon if you're on your period. The people voted in the last election overwhelmingly for the right, exactly because of obama. And congress doesn't have to rubber stamp his pick. Sorry.

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

No. The idea that we circumvent the U.S. constitution based on polls or the results of other elections is ridiculous.

Obama is the sitting POTUS.

What parts of the Constitution are being circumvented? Be specific.

 

[Papageorgio]

All the Republicans had to do, is keep their mouths shut, let the president appoint a justice and then not approve of the justice's appointment....

INSTEAD THEY ARE MAKING A CIRCUS out of this....

Where none of us ever again will believe justices make their decisions on merit and the COTUS....

You are horrible, horrible Americans and hate this nation.

Ooohhhhhhhhh the drama!

 

[Iceweasel]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

Change your Tampon if you're on your period. The people voted in the last election overwhelmingly for the right, exactly because of obama. And congress doesn't have to rubber stamp his pick. Sorry.

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

No. The idea that we circumvent the U.S. constitution based on polls or the results of other elections is ridiculous.

Obama is the sitting POTUS.

Where does the Constitution demand congress rubber stamp the nomination? And why is it that the Constitution is a living breathing document whenever liberals want to stretch it but written in stone when they don't?

 

[WinterBorn]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

Change your Tampon if you're on your period. The people voted in the last election overwhelmingly for the right, exactly because of obama. And congress doesn't have to rubber stamp his pick. Sorry.

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

he also lost about 5 million voters between his first and second election

And who is it that nominates Supreme Court justices? The sitting POTUS. Who is the sitting POTUS?

 

[Papageorgio]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

Change your Tampon if you're on your period. The people voted in the last election overwhelmingly for the right, exactly because of obama. And congress doesn't have to rubber stamp his pick. Sorry.

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

he also lost about 5 million voters between his first and second election

And who is it that nominates Supreme Court justices? The sitting POTUS. Who is the sitting POTUS?

And who confirms or rejects the nominee?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

Change your Tampon if you're on your period. The people voted in the last election overwhelmingly for the right, exactly because of obama. And congress doesn't have to rubber stamp his pick. Sorry.

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

he also lost about 5 million voters between his first and second election

And who is it that nominates Supreme Court justices? The sitting POTUS. Who is the sitting POTUS?

What is stopping him from nominating his choice?

 

[jon_berzerk]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

Change your Tampon if you're on your period. The people voted in the last election overwhelmingly for the right, exactly because of obama. And congress doesn't have to rubber stamp his pick. Sorry.

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

he also lost about 5 million voters between his first and second election

And who is it that nominates Supreme Court justices? The sitting POTUS. Who is the sitting POTUS?

no one is stopping him from nominating anyone

come on you are smarter then this

 

[peach174]

This is the sort of crap that has screwed the American people at every turn.

If you disagree with a specific thing Obama has done, I respect that. I don't care for much of what he has done.

But this idea that every action must be opposed, regardless of whether it is good for the people or not, is insanity.

This is EXACTLY why Trump and Sanders are hijacking the presidential race. People don't like it--watch out, super conservatives. I have been entirely open, up to now, in considering a Republican as my vote for president in November. I absolutely, positively will NOT vote for any candidate who opposes even considering the president's nomination. I'm only one, but I'm not alone. I DO NOT SEE why a nominee can't be considered and voted down, if not acceptable.

Luckily Republicans can't win. Voters will see them for what they are. We welcome scalias timing.

Right now the DNC is plotting away

Maybe Republicans have some good ideas, but their attitude sucks at the moment.

Add independents to that.

What have independents got to do with it?

Their attitude sucks too.

 

[Papageorgio]

Change your Tampon if you're on your period. The people voted in the last election overwhelmingly for the right, exactly because of obama. And congress doesn't have to rubber stamp his pick. Sorry.

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

he also lost about 5 million voters between his first and second election

And who is it that nominates Supreme Court justices? The sitting POTUS. Who is the sitting POTUS?

no one is stopping him from nominating anyone

come on you are smarter then this

The Republicans are stopping him, they got inside his head.

Lol!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

he also lost about 5 million voters between his first and second election

And who is it that nominates Supreme Court justices? The sitting POTUS. Who is the sitting POTUS?

no one is stopping him from nominating anyone

come on you are smarter then this

The Republicans are stopping him, they got inside his head.

Lol!

--LOL

 

[sealybobo]

This is the sort of crap that has screwed the American people at every turn.

If you disagree with a specific thing Obama has done, I respect that. I don't care for much of what he has done.

But this idea that every action must be opposed, regardless of whether it is good for the people or not, is insanity.

This is EXACTLY why Trump and Sanders are hijacking the presidential race. People don't like it--watch out, super conservatives. I have been entirely open, up to now, in considering a Republican as my vote for president in November. I absolutely, positively will NOT vote for any candidate who opposes even considering the president's nomination. I'm only one, but I'm not alone. I DO NOT SEE why a nominee can't be considered and voted down, if not acceptable.

Luckily Republicans can't win. Voters will see them for what they are. We welcome scalias timing.

Right now the DNC is plotting away

As long as the Senate stays in session the fucking DNC can 'plot' all they want. There is ZERO they can do to circumvent the US CONSTITUTION. ZERO!
You really believe the REP voters waiting to elect a REP President are going to somehow have a problem with the REP controlled Senate upholding the Constitution?
Wise up.
Don't forget the number of declared LIB voters in the 18-35 demographic will NEVER turn out to vote for Cankles the female enabler for Bill Clinton's years of sexual predation against innocent females. When Clinton gets handed the nomination 95% of this demographic are going to stay home. A small percent of them will vote for Trump.
The DNC is totally fucked now.
They are going to have to watch President Trump put 3 of 4 radical young Conservatives on the SC. The REP controlled Senate will gleefully rubber stamp Trump's nominees.
Aside: I hear Debbie's days are now numbered. BTW. I give her one month left from today before she jumps instead of being publicly pushed.
SHE was the MAIN driving force behind doing whatever was necessary to get Hillary the nomination. She fucked up big-time in the opinion of a LOT of very powerful DNC backroom boys and girls.
They wanted Biden. He was willing privately. It was Debbie who basically told him to back off.
The original ticket was going to be Biden with 'Pocahontas' Warren as running mate.
Trump will be President for two terms. The Senate and Congress and SC will be fucking wall-to-wall REPS for at least a decade.
By then the LIBs will have changed their name as often as a crack whore changes her panties.

We will nominate a justice who is a moderate and if your side objects you'll have to explain why. I welcome the conversation.

The stakes have never been higher and I feel confident.

How do you know that Obama will pick a moderate?

If he doesn't the person won't get approved.

And history tells me Obama ain't a liberal. Now Bernie, that's a liberal.

 

[dannyboys]

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court NomineesThe Federalist‎

The question isn't whether the Senate can vote to reject a nominee, of course they can.

The question is should the Senate sit on it's ass for a year and do nothing with nominiees. Giving the Dem's political fodder to blast GOP candidates helping put Hillary in the White House and posibilty sifting control of the Senate to the Dems. Then you have Hillary making both nomination with a friendly liberal Senate.

You can bet if Hillary wins, the Ginsburg will send in her notice of retirement and then Hillary gets to make two back to back appointments.


>>>>

You have to consider that there are millions hard-core REP voters and possibly many Independents who under no circumstance what to see Obama but a LIB SGJ on the bench. They see everything Obama has done in office as an attack on REP values. These voters are going to be delighted to watch the Senate be far too 'busy busy busy' to even put any Obama nomination on a discussion schedule until after the next inauguration day.
It will all come down to which party wins the election. As it stands now the Sanders supporters will never in a million years turn out to vote for Hillary after the DNC hands the nomination to Hillary. The DNC and Hillary has totally alienated the entire 18-35 DEM voter demographic and they won't get them back as long as Hillary is the nomination.
Meaning Trump and his majority REP Senate will put the next 3-4 young SGJs on the bench for the next five decades.

 

[sealybobo]

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court NomineesThe Federalist‎

The question isn't whether the Senate can vote to reject a nominee, of course they can.

The question is should the Senate sit on it's ass for a year and do nothing with nominiees. Giving the Dem's political fodder to blast GOP candidates helping put Hillary in the White House and posibilty sifting control of the Senate to the Dems. Then you have Hillary making both nomination with a friendly liberal Senate.

You can bet if Hillary wins, the Ginsburg will send in her notice of retirement and then Hillary gets to make two back to back appointments.


>>>>

You have to consider that there are millions hard-core REP voters and possibly many Independents who under no circumstance what to see Obama but a LIB SGJ on the bench. They see everything Obama has done in office as an attack on REP values. These voters are going to be delighted to watch the Senate be far too 'busy busy busy' to even put any Obama nomination on a discussion schedule until after the next inauguration day.
It will all come down to which party wins the election. As it stands now the Sanders supporters will never in a million years turn out to vote for Hillary after the DNC hands the nomination to Hillary. The DNC and Hillary has totally alienated the entire 18-35 DEM voter demographic and they won't get them back as long as Hillary is the nomination.
Meaning Trump and his majority REP Senate will put the next 3-4 young SGJs on the bench for the next five decades.

We will block them. No wait. Lol

 

[dannyboys]

The Constitution gives the Senate the right to reject Presidential appointments. Anyone who wants to whine about how unfair this is can take it up with James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and/or George Washington.

Rejecting a nominee is different than sitting on our ass for a year.


>>>>

Come on pal. It amounts to same thing in this case. The Senate is going to 'run out the clock' meaning the same thing as outright rejecting Obama's nomination.

 

[dannyboys]

Obama has since day one refused to work with the Senate. He has been very openly dismissive of the REP Congressmen and women and to the REP Senators.
WHAT FUCKING GOES AROUND COMES AROUND OBAMA!

Nope, quite the opposite, the Republicans refused to work with the president and vowed not to work with the president before he was even inaugurated....

That's right. It was a year and a half before lowered himself Obama met with the REP Congressional chairman in person. That Obama REALLY 'reached out' didn't he.

 

[sealybobo]

Obama has since day one refused to work with the Senate. He has been very openly dismissive of the REP Congressmen and women and to the REP Senators.
WHAT FUCKING GOES AROUND COMES AROUND OBAMA!

Nope, quite the opposite, the Republicans refused to work with the president and vowed not to work with the president before he was even inaugurated....

That's right. It was a year and a half before lowered himself Obama met with the REP Congressional chairman in person. That Obama REALLY 'reached out' didn't he.

Thought we were getting along with Paul Ryan.

Is this still about the civil war?

 

[WorldWatcher]

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court NomineesThe Federalist‎

The question isn't whether the Senate can vote to reject a nominee, of course they can.

The question is should the Senate sit on it's ass for a year and do nothing with nominiees. Giving the Dem's political fodder to blast GOP candidates helping put Hillary in the White House and posibilty sifting control of the Senate to the Dems. Then you have Hillary making both nomination with a friendly liberal Senate.

You can bet if Hillary wins, the Ginsburg will send in her notice of retirement and then Hillary gets to make two back to back appointments.


>>>>

You have to consider that there are millions hard-core REP voters and possibly many Independents who under no circumstance what to see Obama but a LIB SGJ on the bench. They see everything Obama has done in office as an attack on REP values. These voters are going to be delighted to watch the Senate be far too 'busy busy busy' to even put any Obama nomination on a discussion schedule until after the next inauguration day.
It will all come down to which party wins the election. As it stands now the Sanders supporters will never in a million years turn out to vote for Hillary after the DNC hands the nomination to Hillary. The DNC and Hillary has totally alienated the entire 18-35 DEM voter demographic and they won't get them back as long as Hillary is the nomination.
Meaning Trump and his majority REP Senate will put the next 3-4 young SGJs on the bench for the next five decades.

The hard core voters aren't in question as they don't decide elections. It's the 20% voting block in the middle that will shift that actually decide elections. The GOP being seen as childish and obstructionist can push them to voting for Hillary in the general. Then she gets to make not only the Scalia appointment but you can bank on Ginsburg retiring shortly thereafter and she will appoint a second.

I'd rather have a moderate now make it through Senate confirmation and then a shot at a Republican in the White House with a Republican Senate then the GOP acting like children and ending up with a Democrat in the White House with a Democrat Senate.


>>>>

 

[Care4all]

Obama has since day one refused to work with the Senate. He has been very openly dismissive of the REP Congressmen and women and to the REP Senators.
WHAT FUCKING GOES AROUND COMES AROUND OBAMA!

Nope, quite the opposite, the Republicans refused to work with the president and vowed not to work with the president before he was even inaugurated....

That's right. It was a year and a half before lowered himself Obama met with the REP Congressional chairman in person. That Obama REALLY 'reached out' didn't he.

They refused to meet with him...he even invited them to dinner...

 

[dannyboys]

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court NomineesThe Federalist‎

The question isn't whether the Senate can vote to reject a nominee, of course they can.

The question is should the Senate sit on it's ass for a year and do nothing with nominiees. Giving the Dem's political fodder to blast GOP candidates helping put Hillary in the White House and posibilty sifting control of the Senate to the Dems. Then you have Hillary making both nomination with a friendly liberal Senate.

You can bet if Hillary wins, the Ginsburg will send in her notice of retirement and then Hillary gets to make two back to back appointments.


>>>>

You have to consider that there are millions hard-core REP voters and possibly many Independents who under no circumstance what to see Obama but a LIB SGJ on the bench. They see everything Obama has done in office as an attack on REP values. These voters are going to be delighted to watch the Senate be far too 'busy busy busy' to even put any Obama nomination on a discussion schedule until after the next inauguration day.
It will all come down to which party wins the election. As it stands now the Sanders supporters will never in a million years turn out to vote for Hillary after the DNC hands the nomination to Hillary. The DNC and Hillary has totally alienated the entire 18-35 DEM voter demographic and they won't get them back as long as Hillary is the nomination.
Meaning Trump and his majority REP Senate will put the next 3-4 young SGJs on the bench for the next five decades.

We will block them. No wait. Lol

The Senate won't even consider an OBOMINATION! (You all can use my new word LOL). Much oo busy busy busy this year.
No Rep Senator is politically suicidal. There will be much gnashing on teeth and hair pulling and screaming by the fucking LIBs. It will be hilarious to watch.
What a perfect metaphor for a political party led by a vaguely gay pajama-boy Socialist 'community organizer' wimp who ended up with the opportunity to install a radical LIB SGJ and couldn't 'getterdone'.

 

[dannyboys]

Obama has since day one refused to work with the Senate. He has been very openly dismissive of the REP Congressmen and women and to the REP Senators.
WHAT FUCKING GOES AROUND COMES AROUND OBAMA!

Nope, quite the opposite, the Republicans refused to work with the president and vowed not to work with the president before he was even inaugurated....

That's right. It was a year and a half before lowered himself Obama met with the REP Congressional chairman in person. That Obama REALLY 'reached out' didn't he.

They refused to meet with him...he even invited them to dinner...

Link?