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.
Ted Cruz, a member of the majority party said he would filibuster if he needs to to keep Obama's nominees from getting placed on the Supreme Court.They're not like the democrats of GW's day, who used the filibuster to prevent votes on his picks.Yes, it's on them -- to neglect their Constitutional responsibilities.It's his job to nominate, that's pretty much the extent of it. If Congress doesn't want to play ball, it's on them.Desperate? That's his job.========
Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.
However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.
Sure, he could do exactly that if he wanted to show the people just how desperate he is to get another justice appointed and how scared he is that the next president will be a Republican. He does have quite the large ego.
There is no Constitutional requirement for a Senator to approve ANY nominee. I will state confidently that a Senator could go an entire career and NEVER vote to confirm a single appointee. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please post it.And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.
How do you think that will play out with the electorate?
Keep in mind, a poll of likely voters has already come out indicating that my a margin of 58% to 21%, respondents feel the Senate should vote on every nominee put up by the president.
Who do you think cares about your position? We're debated what Republicans say they plan on doing, not what you think they should do.Perhaps I have not explained my position. Hearings SHOULD be held, and votes SHOULD be taken. It ticked me off when democrats blocked hearings and votes on Bush's minority picks to the bench, and Republicans shouldn't do it either. If they have the votes to reject, they should hold the votes and reject them. I also firmly believe the Republican leadership will cave to Obama again, as they have always done in the past.And there's your confusion. This isn't about voting to reject. This is about refusing to vote.They don't have to confirm anyone they don't want to confirm. Heck, if you listen to the democrats of GW's day, they don't even have to hold hearing or votes. What I said is true, a Senator can go an entire career voting to reject, not confirm, every single appointee and not violate the Constitution.================
Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.
However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.
And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.
Bullshit, there is no constitutional mandate that the senate must vote on or approve any nominee. Just as there was no constitutional mandate that required Reid to call a vote on the 300+ house passed bills that he sat on for years.
Schumer said the exact same thing about Bush nominees and you liberfools praised him for it. you are the biggest hypocrites on earth.
Gawd are you ignorant.
It IS written in the Constitution that the President has the DUTY to nominate a replacement Justice and the Senate ADVISES AND CONFIRMS. Right now they are giving him advice ( bad advice ) telling him to not nominate ANYONE because hey will deny his nominees and saying he should wait until after the next election so they GET ANOTHER CHANCE TO PUT A CONSERVATIVE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO WILL ABSOLUTELY NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.
Declaring they will abdicate the Constitutional responsibilities of the office they hold is "grandstanding?"Political grandstanding. Obama's ego is too big to not do it, and the Republicans are too chicken to follow through. As for the Constitution, who's afraid of violating that old thing any more? Certainly not the current political class in DC.McConnell said they wouldn't consider any nominee Obama puts up. Some Republicans, not wanting to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities, even implored Obama to shirk his by not even putting one up.They'll hold votes. They're not like the democrats of GW's day, who used the filibuster to prevent votes on his picks. In fact, they're so squishy the'll probably give Obama every pick he wants.Yes, it's on them -- to neglect their Constitutional responsibilities.It's his job to nominate, that's pretty much the extent of it. If Congress doesn't want to play ball, it's on them.Desperate? That's his job.
How do you think that will play out with the electorate?
Keep in mind, a poll of likely voters has already come out indicating that my a margin of 58% to 21%, respondents feel the Senate should vote on every nominee put up by the president.
Perhaps you should read the post to which I was responding. It's enlightening. I'm pointing out that fearful raving and ranting that Republicans might actually dare to oppose The Fragile One is a pointless endeavor. Simmer down, they'll hold hearings and votes.Who do you think cares about your position? We're debated what Republicans say they plan on doing, not what you think they should do.Perhaps I have not explained my position. Hearings SHOULD be held, and votes SHOULD be taken. It ticked me off when democrats blocked hearings and votes on Bush's minority picks to the bench, and Republicans shouldn't do it either. If they have the votes to reject, they should hold the votes and reject them. I also firmly believe the Republican leadership will cave to Obama again, as they have always done in the past.And there's your confusion. This isn't about voting to reject. This is about refusing to vote.They don't have to confirm anyone they don't want to confirm. Heck, if you listen to the democrats of GW's day, they don't even have to hold hearing or votes. What I said is true, a Senator can go an entire career voting to reject, not confirm, every single appointee and not violate the Constitution.========Bullshit, there is no constitutional mandate that the senate must vote on or approve any nominee. Just as there was no constitutional mandate that required Reid to call a vote on the 300+ house passed bills that he sat on for years.
Schumer said the exact same thing about Bush nominees and you liberfools praised him for it. you are the biggest hypocrites on earth.
Gawd are you ignorant.
It IS written in the Constitution that the President has the DUTY to nominate a replacement Justice and the Senate ADVISES AND CONFIRMS. Right now they are giving him advice ( bad advice ) telling him to not nominate ANYONE because hey will deny his nominees and saying he should wait until after the next election so they GET ANOTHER CHANCE TO PUT A CONSERVATIVE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO WILL ABSOLUTELY NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.
Wait, don't tell me you think they're being serious? I mean, blocking votes on appointees is something democrats do.Declaring they will abdicate the Constitutional responsibilities of the office they hold is "grandstanding?"Political grandstanding. Obama's ego is too big to not do it, and the Republicans are too chicken to follow through. As for the Constitution, who's afraid of violating that old thing any more? Certainly not the current political class in DC.McConnell said they wouldn't consider any nominee Obama puts up. Some Republicans, not wanting to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities, even implored Obama to shirk his by not even putting one up.They'll hold votes. They're not like the democrats of GW's day, who used the filibuster to prevent votes on his picks. In fact, they're so squishy the'll probably give Obama every pick he wants.Yes, it's on them -- to neglect their Constitutional responsibilities.It's his job to nominate, that's pretty much the extent of it. If Congress doesn't want to play ball, it's on them.
How do you think that will play out with the electorate?
Keep in mind, a poll of likely voters has already come out indicating that my a margin of 58% to 21%, respondents feel the Senate should vote on every nominee put up by the president.
Is that what plays to their base? Shirking their fucking job?
Was the will of the American people observed when Judge Bork was nominated?
YES !!!! (unless the entire country has turned racist and fascist)
What usually happens when Cruz filibusters something? They wait until he's done, then proceed to do what they intended to do in the first place. What ARE they teaching in government schools today?Ted Cruz, a member of the majority party said he would filibuster if he needs to to keep Obama's nominees from getting placed on the Supreme Court.They're not like the democrats of GW's day, who used the filibuster to prevent votes on his picks.Yes, it's on them -- to neglect their Constitutional responsibilities.It's his job to nominate, that's pretty much the extent of it. If Congress doesn't want to play ball, it's on them.Desperate? That's his job.Sure, he could do exactly that if he wanted to show the people just how desperate he is to get another justice appointed and how scared he is that the next president will be a Republican. He does have quite the large ego.
There is no Constitutional requirement for a Senator to approve ANY nominee. I will state confidently that a Senator could go an entire career and NEVER vote to confirm a single appointee. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please post it.
How do you think that will play out with the electorate?
Keep in mind, a poll of likely voters has already come out indicating that my a margin of 58% to 21%, respondents feel the Senate should vote on every nominee put up by the president.
And Cruz is no Democrat.
Now where does that leave your diatribe?
Sell stupid elsewhere...Wait, don't tell me you think they're being serious? I mean, blocking votes on appointees is something democrats do.Declaring they will abdicate the Constitutional responsibilities of the office they hold is "grandstanding?"Political grandstanding. Obama's ego is too big to not do it, and the Republicans are too chicken to follow through. As for the Constitution, who's afraid of violating that old thing any more? Certainly not the current political class in DC.McConnell said they wouldn't consider any nominee Obama puts up. Some Republicans, not wanting to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities, even implored Obama to shirk his by not even putting one up.They'll hold votes. They're not like the democrats of GW's day, who used the filibuster to prevent votes on his picks. In fact, they're so squishy the'll probably give Obama every pick he wants.Yes, it's on them -- to neglect their Constitutional responsibilities.
How do you think that will play out with the electorate?
Keep in mind, a poll of likely voters has already come out indicating that my a margin of 58% to 21%, respondents feel the Senate should vote on every nominee put up by the president.
Is that what plays to their base? Shirking their fucking job?
You understand the difference between considering a nominee versus not even considering them, don't you?Was the will of the American people observed when Judge Bork was nominated?
YES !!!! (unless the entire country has turned racist and fascist)
OK, then you won't mind if anyone Obama nominates is "borked" will you?
OK, then you won't mind if anyone Obama nominates is "borked" will you?
Ted Cruz says he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia
Wow, you sound like you actually believe your own tripe. Both Romney and Trump employ and pay thousands of people billions of dollars and you want to complain about that. Why don't you dig a little deeper than campaign ads on Soptic's wife before you sound even more foolish than normal?
Romney did what he was supposed to do as a company that took over ailing companies and either stopped the bleeding or put it to rest before it bled out. When he stopped the bleeding, he saved many jobs. When the option was to put it to rest, he did what was going to happen anyway. They did not perform unfriendly takeovers. They bought companies up for sale that were marketplace viable but poorly run. Spin it anyway you want....but when they bought companies, they bought them to profit....no argument here.....some were not salvageable...and if they could not save them, certainly the original ownership that got them in trouble couldn't save them. That whole Joe Soptic's wife dying story was spun and designed to fool the simple minded voter.....I guess...and no disrespect meant.....like you.
Vera Coking lost her house because she knew it was a goldmine ad opted to hold out for as much as she can get. When Trump offered her a very solid market price, she held out for more. She took a gamble....and she lost. Again, that story was spun for the simplest of minds...those that put no thought into it and simply went with what made them feel "superior" to the evil successful business man. Are you one of them?
You understand the difference between considering a nominee versus not even considering them, don't you?Was the will of the American people observed when Judge Bork was nominated?
YES !!!! (unless the entire country has turned racist and fascist)
OK, then you won't mind if anyone Obama nominates is "borked" will you?
No, no you don't.
How about the difference between rejecting one nominee versus rejecting any nominees?
No, you don't understand that either.
How about the difference between rejecting a nominee based on their record and their position on the issues versus rejecting all nominees because the president only has a year remaining in his term?
No, you don't understand that either.
after 100 years the company Joe Soptic was working for was failing. That is why it was up on the blocks. Whether Bain bought it or not, its future was limited.Romney did what he was supposed to do as a company that took over ailing companies and either stopped the bleeding or put it to rest before it bled out. When he stopped the bleeding, he saved many jobs. When the option was to put it to rest, he did what was going to happen anyway. They did not perform unfriendly takeovers. They bought companies up for sale that were marketplace viable but poorly run. Spin it anyway you want....but when they bought companies, they bought them to profit....no argument here.....some were not salvageable...and if they could not save them, certainly the original ownership that got them in trouble couldn't save them. That whole Joe Soptic's wife dying story was spun and designed to fool the simple minded voter.....I guess...and no disrespect meant.....like you.
The company Joe Soptic worked for had been around for 100 years. Romney and Bain looted it to leverage other buyouts.
Hey, guy you try selling this Mormon Bloodsucker 4 years ago, and no one bought it then.
Stuck on the spin.Vera Coking lost her house because she knew it was a goldmine ad opted to hold out for as much as she can get. When Trump offered her a very solid market price, she held out for more. She took a gamble....and she lost. Again, that story was spun for the simplest of minds...those that put no thought into it and simply went with what made them feel "superior" to the evil successful business man. Are you one of them?
Yes, I do feel VASTLY superior to rich cocksuckers who cheate little old ladies out of their homes.
OK, then you won't mind if anyone Obama nominates is "borked" will you?
I think....that even in the remaining brain cells you may have....you'd agree that you CANNOT nominate someone to the supreme court who had openly stated that he was against women's rights....I think that even most republicans thought that Bork was a flake.....But, do go on....
OK, then you won't mind if anyone Obama nominates is "borked" will you?
I think....that even in the remaining brain cells you may have....you'd agree that you CANNOT nominate someone to the supreme court who had openly stated that he was against women's rights....I think that even most republicans thought that Bork was a flake.....But, do go on....
================They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.========He will nominate someone and the GOP need to understand that they need to fill that vacancy before November or it will look bad on their part for being too Partisan and Hostile.
Just fill the vacancy and pick another battle to stand your ground on.
The Republican Party is 100% in violation of the Constitution in demanding that Obama wait and not nominate a replacement until after the election in order for them to have ANOTHER chance at getting a Republican President WHO ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.
Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.
However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.
And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.
Bullshit, there is no constitutional mandate that the senate must vote on or approve any nominee. Just as there was no constitutional mandate that required Reid to call a vote on the 300+ house passed bills that he sat on for years.
Schumer said the exact same thing about Bush nominees and you liberfools praised him for it. you are the biggest hypocrites on earth.
Gawd are you ignorant.
It IS written in the Constitution that the President has the DUTY to nominate a replacement Justice and the Senate ADVISES AND CONFIRMS. Right now they are giving him advice ( bad advice ) telling him to not nominate ANYONE because hey will deny his nominees and saying he should wait until after the next election so they GET ANOTHER CHANCE TO PUT A CONSERVATIVE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO WILL ABSOLUTELY NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.
