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.
I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.
The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.
I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.
The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.
You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?
Everything in government is inherently partisan. The purpose of this particular process is to a) keep judicial seats filled so the government can adjudicate cases as promptly as possible; and b) provide the opportunity for checks and balances in filling those seats by including two branches of government in the process.I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.
The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.
You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?
seems to me that the process is NOT ENTIRELY PARTISAN--------right vs left-----
and no other way
Of course he should and will. He should nominate someone who has been confirmed by the GOP before. Then let the whining begin. How many GOP Senate seats are up for grabs out of the 24 up for re-election in 2016?
Ironically, it could be MUCH worse for republicans based on two (very probable) IFs......
IF, a democrat sits in the oval office in January 2017...and
IF, as it is very likely that the senate switches majority to the democrats....
THEN, a much, much more liberal nominee could wind up in the SCOTUS.
not likely to happen.------besides----I do not think the issue is LIBERAL VS
CONSERVATIVE----or "right" vs "left"-------I do believe that it is OBAMA
agenda vs sanity
Define "sanity", especially considerate the comments of late by Rubio, Cruz and Trump; plus recent comments by Obama.
An honest response is expected. Failure to elucidate on a statement leaves one no recourse but to chalk up your comment to be one more partisan statement based on bias or ignorance not facts.
oh !!!!! EXCUUUUSE MEEE!!!! I consider Obama's policies----sorta OFF on many levels-------but to simplify------his economic policy seems on the verge of
suicidal and his right to bear arms is a little screwy and his take on domestic
security.---(new York just took a hit ---loss of funds for homeland security programs)-----as does his foreign DO NOTHING policy. How does that connect
to THE SUPREME COURT?------all kinds of ways-------challenges to his
questionable health care program WOULD hit the supreme court ----challenges to
his war on a gun in the pocket would hit the supreme court------and challenges to
his immigration policies would also hit the supreme court--------when I come up with
more troubles, I will let you know
I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.
The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.
You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?
That's not a strawman and is in fact, entirely possible. A Republican could win the presidency and Democrats could win the Senate.I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.
The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.
You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?
No, I'm am not okay with that (your straw man is built with wet straw and you're without matches or a lighter).
I support letting POTUS act within the meaning of Art. II, sec 2 as well as the Senate. The former picks who he or she believes is capable of such a serious responsibility and the latter will vote up or down based on the ability of the nominee to render a sound and unbiased judgment based on the facts, since the issues are rarely elucidated clearly by COTUS.
I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.
The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.
You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?
Sounds like your pussy hurts??Of course he should and will. He should nominate someone who has been confirmed by the GOP before. Then let the whining begin. How many GOP Senate seats are up for grabs out of the 24 up for re-election in 2016?
Ironically, it could be MUCH worse for republicans based on two (very probable) IFs......
IF, a democrat sits in the oval office in January 2017...and
IF, as it is very likely that the senate switches majority to the democrats....
THEN, a much, much more liberal nominee could wind up in the SCOTUS.
not likely to happen.------besides----I do not think the issue is LIBERAL VS
CONSERVATIVE----or "right" vs "left"-------I do believe that it is OBAMA
agenda vs sanity
Define "sanity", especially considerate the comments of late by Rubio, Cruz and Trump; plus recent comments by Obama.
An honest response is expected. Failure to elucidate on a statement leaves one no recourse but to chalk up your comment to be one more partisan statement based on bias or ignorance not facts.
oh !!!!! EXCUUUUSE MEEE!!!! I consider Obama's policies----sorta OFF on many levels-------but to simplify------his economic policy seems on the verge of
suicidal and his right to bear arms is a little screwy and his take on domestic
security.---(new York just took a hit ---loss of funds for homeland security programs)-----as does his foreign DO NOTHING policy. How does that connect
to THE SUPREME COURT?------all kinds of ways-------challenges to his
questionable health care program WOULD hit the supreme court ----challenges to
his war on a gun in the pocket would hit the supreme court------and challenges to
his immigration policies would also hit the supreme court--------when I come up with
more troubles, I will let you know
You are expressing your opinion on issues of substance which have the allure of wedge issues which is the bread and butter for the New Right.
Economic policy is pretty much set by The FED, don't ya know, and The Congress. Seeking to renew, replace and repair our nations infrastructure is far from insane; not doing so prevents the creation of necessary jobs and allows for unsafe conditions to continue unabated.
Gun controls will one day come into effect, sane citizens see mass murder by gun as a problem, death by suicide a problem, death in a domestic situation a problem and death by accident - especially in children - to be a problem, and that includes many gun owners.
It makes more sense that the next president does the picking...What must be remembered is the obvious.....Obama was re-elected for a FOUR-year term...not a 3-year one; had Scalia died in early January of next year, I'd agree with republicans to let the next president nominate someone.
No, it doesn't since there is absolutely no reason to wait a year. Of Obama and a new Dem, the Justice would be roughly the same, meaning there is only a 33% chance that the Justice would be picked by the GOP, and the GOP still has to consent so any real dog won't make it.It makes more sense that the next president does the picking...What must be remembered is the obvious.....Obama was re-elected for a FOUR-year term...not a 3-year one; had Scalia died in early January of next year, I'd agree with republicans to let the next president nominate someone.
Barry deserves no such thing, he's a fuck up.No, it doesn't since there is absolutely no reason to wait a year. Of Obama and a new Dem, the Justice would be roughly the same, meaning there is only a 33% chance that the Justice would be picked by the GOP, and the GOP still has to consent so any real dog won't make it.It makes more sense that the next president does the picking...What must be remembered is the obvious.....Obama was re-elected for a FOUR-year term...not a 3-year one; had Scalia died in early January of next year, I'd agree with republicans to let the next president nominate someone.
I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.
The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.
You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?
It's their constitutional perogative to do so.
That's not a strawman and is in fact, entirely possible. A Republican could win the presidency and Democrats could win the Senate.I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.
The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.
You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?
No, I'm am not okay with that (your straw man is built with wet straw and you're without matches or a lighter).
I support letting POTUS act within the meaning of Art. II, sec 2 as well as the Senate. The former picks who he or she believes is capable of such a serious responsibility and the latter will vote up or down based on the ability of the nominee to render a sound and unbiased judgment based on the facts, since the issues are rarely elucidated clearly by COTUS.
And I'm not ok with Democrats acting like Republicans either. But I am remaining hopeful that someone on the right will answer my question.
I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.
The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.
You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?
It's their constitutional perogative to do so.
It is not. They have taken this oath, violated by McConnell almost immediately after the notification of the death of Justice Scalia:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
No, I don't believe it is actually. It's one thing to deny a nominee based on the issues held by the nominee. It's entirely another thing to deny any nominee based on the issues held by the president.I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.
The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.
You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?
It's their constitutional perogative to do so.
wrycatcher's a guy. Sounds more like you fantasize about manginas.Sounds like your pussy hurts??Ironically, it could be MUCH worse for republicans based on two (very probable) IFs......
IF, a democrat sits in the oval office in January 2017...and
IF, as it is very likely that the senate switches majority to the democrats....
THEN, a much, much more liberal nominee could wind up in the SCOTUS.
not likely to happen.------besides----I do not think the issue is LIBERAL VS
CONSERVATIVE----or "right" vs "left"-------I do believe that it is OBAMA
agenda vs sanity
Define "sanity", especially considerate the comments of late by Rubio, Cruz and Trump; plus recent comments by Obama.
An honest response is expected. Failure to elucidate on a statement leaves one no recourse but to chalk up your comment to be one more partisan statement based on bias or ignorance not facts.
oh !!!!! EXCUUUUSE MEEE!!!! I consider Obama's policies----sorta OFF on many levels-------but to simplify------his economic policy seems on the verge of
suicidal and his right to bear arms is a little screwy and his take on domestic
security.---(new York just took a hit ---loss of funds for homeland security programs)-----as does his foreign DO NOTHING policy. How does that connect
to THE SUPREME COURT?------all kinds of ways-------challenges to his
questionable health care program WOULD hit the supreme court ----challenges to
his war on a gun in the pocket would hit the supreme court------and challenges to
his immigration policies would also hit the supreme court--------when I come up with
more troubles, I will let you know
You are expressing your opinion on issues of substance which have the allure of wedge issues which is the bread and butter for the New Right.
Economic policy is pretty much set by The FED, don't ya know, and The Congress. Seeking to renew, replace and repair our nations infrastructure is far from insane; not doing so prevents the creation of necessary jobs and allows for unsafe conditions to continue unabated.
Gun controls will one day come into effect, sane citizens see mass murder by gun as a problem, death by suicide a problem, death in a domestic situation a problem and death by accident - especially in children - to be a problem, and that includes many gun owners.
There's nothing which permits them to deny the president his obligation to pick a replacement.I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.
The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.
You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?
It's their constitutional perogative to do so.
It is not. They have taken this oath, violated by McConnell almost immediately after the notification of the death of Justice Scalia:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
There's nothing that forces Congres to confirm a presidential nominee.
I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.
The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.
You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?
It's their constitutional perogative to do so.
It is not. They have taken this oath, violated by McConnell almost immediately after the notification of the death of Justice Scalia:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
There's nothing that forces Congres to confirm a presidential nominee.
