Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[Faun]

You understand the difference between considering a nominee versus not even considering them, don't 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.

What is your point? I understand perfectly that the Senate has the duty to reject or accept any nominee. If they don't like his haircut they can vote no and they have fulfilled their constitutional duty. Is that too difficult for you?

Thanks for confirming you truly don't understand what is wrong with what Republicans say they want to do.

Wasn't necessary, but thanks just the sane.

Perhaps you will tell me what ALL Republicans say they want to do. The last one I read about was Sen Grassley who plans to give any SC nominee hearings in his committee. Thanks for confirming that you don't keep up with current events.

You understand the difference between considering a nominee versus not even considering them, don't 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.

What is your point? I understand perfectly that the Senate has the duty to reject or accept any nominee. If they don't like his haircut they can vote no and they have fulfilled their constitutional duty. Is that too difficult for you?

Thanks for confirming you truly don't understand what is wrong with what Republicans say they want to do.

Wasn't necessary, but thanks just the sane.

Perhaps you will tell me what ALL Republicans say they want to do. The last one I read about was Sen Grassley who plans to give any SC nominee hearings in his committee. Thanks for confirming that you don't keep up with current events.

“As the White House shifts its vetting of potential Supreme Court nominees into high gear, the handling of that nomination is set to rest largely with the 82-year-old chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles E. Grassley.
Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a Washington Post op-ed published Friday, co-authored with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), that the Senate should “withhold its consent” for anyone President Obama nominates to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
But in earlier public comments, Grassley did not rule out holding hearings or votes on the nominee — which have emerged as points of division for Senate Republicans determined to block an Obama nominee but also blunt political attacks that could threaten their majority in November.
“Take it a step at a time,” Grassley told Iowa reporters on Tuesday.”
Sen. Grassley lies at center of Senate’s Supreme Court drama

Only two Republicans matter in this context -- McConnell and Cruz. Even if the Judiciary Committee reviews Obama's nominees and reports them to the Senate, McConnell will do everything in his power to prevent an up/down vote by the full Senate. Should the Senate get past McConnell's wall of obstruction and call for a vote, Cruz is going to filibuster it.

So what? Reid did the same thing for years. He sat on 300 house passed bills and never let one come to a vote in the senate. Sorry, but pay back sucks. And, your messiah Obozo the great filibustered Alitos nomination. Why was that OK?

The unrelated derailment thread is over there -->

 

[regent]

If the Senate delayed their vote approving an Obama nomination and then Hillary wins the
general and sweeps in some Democrat senators, then Hillary nominated Obama for the Court and all would be hunky dory. Judge Obama, what a scenario for a Republican strategy.

 

[Faun]

Sell stupid elsewhere...

Ted Cruz says he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia

Speaking of "stupid."

President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.

White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee

Your comment about Democrats blocking Republicans' nominees is moronic because Bush still appointed a Supreme Court justice despite Obama's filibuster.

Holyfuck, are you rightwingers retarded.

The nomination went through because the dems didn't have the votes, had they had the votes they would have blocked the nomination.

Great. So now the argument is IF Democrats had prevented a president from appointing a Supreme Court justice, then what Republicans are about to do would have a precedent?

NO, I am saying if Obama had his way he would have blocked the nomination, now he is saying he was sorry.

But he didn't have his way. How about dealing with reality instead of what ifs?

Even worse for this line of reasoning, no one is arguing it's wrong to reject a nominee. What's being argued is that it's wrong to reject ALL nominees by a president with close to a year remaining in his presidency.

 

[Faun]

Sell stupid elsewhere...

Ted Cruz says he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia

Speaking of "stupid."

President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.

White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee

Your comment about Democrats blocking Republicans' nominees is moronic because Bush still appointed a Supreme Court justice despite Obama's filibuster.

Holyfuck, are you rightwingers retarded.

The nomination went through because the dems didn't have the votes, had they had the votes they would have blocked the nomination.

Great. So now the argument is IF Democrats had prevented a president from appointing a Supreme Court justice, then what Republicans are about to do would have a precedent?

Its politics, dipshit. They all play the same games. Grow up.

Everything they do is politics. Some acts though are reprehensible. Like subverting the Constitution as the Republican-led Senate says they will do if Obama nominates anyone.

 

[Staidhup]

The President can elect all the candidates for Supreme court his hart desires, just don't expect the GOP to act any different then he and his cronies did in the past. There is no time line in the process, ask any democrat, they established the doctrine of discontent.

 

[Redfish]

Speaking of "stupid."

President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.

White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee

Your comment about Democrats blocking Republicans' nominees is moronic because Bush still appointed a Supreme Court justice despite Obama's filibuster.

Holyfuck, are you rightwingers retarded.

The nomination went through because the dems didn't have the votes, had they had the votes they would have blocked the nomination.

Great. So now the argument is IF Democrats had prevented a president from appointing a Supreme Court justice, then what Republicans are about to do would have a precedent?

Its politics, dipshit. They all play the same games. Grow up.

Everything they do is politics. Some acts though are reprehensible. Like subverting the Constitution as the Republican-led Senate says they will do if Obama nominates anyone.

Duh, subverting the constitution????????????? are you fricken kidding me. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi gave that phrase a whole new meaning.

But NO, a liberal Obama SC nominee will not get a senate vote, deal with it.

 

[Faun]

Your comment about Democrats blocking Republicans' nominees is moronic because Bush still appointed a Supreme Court justice despite Obama's filibuster.

Holyfuck, are you rightwingers retarded.

The nomination went through because the dems didn't have the votes, had they had the votes they would have blocked the nomination.

Great. So now the argument is IF Democrats had prevented a president from appointing a Supreme Court justice, then what Republicans are about to do would have a precedent?

Its politics, dipshit. They all play the same games. Grow up.

Everything they do is politics. Some acts though are reprehensible. Like subverting the Constitution as the Republican-led Senate says they will do if Obama nominates anyone.

Duh, subverting the constitution????????????? are you fricken kidding me. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi gave that phrase a whole new meaning.

But NO, a liberal Obama SC nominee will not get a senate vote, deal with it.

Your failed diversion aside, the Constitution does not provide an avenue for the Senate to deny a president their Constitutional privilege of seating a replacement SC justice. That doesn't translate into the Senate has to confirm whomever a president nominates but it does preclude them from denying every nominee because they don't want the current president to get to pick the replacement.

 

[Redfish]

The nomination went through because the dems didn't have the votes, had they had the votes they would have blocked the nomination.

Great. So now the argument is IF Democrats had prevented a president from appointing a Supreme Court justice, then what Republicans are about to do would have a precedent?

Its politics, dipshit. They all play the same games. Grow up.

Everything they do is politics. Some acts though are reprehensible. Like subverting the Constitution as the Republican-led Senate says they will do if Obama nominates anyone.

Duh, subverting the constitution????????????? are you fricken kidding me. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi gave that phrase a whole new meaning.

But NO, a liberal Obama SC nominee will not get a senate vote, deal with it.

Your failed diversion aside, the Constitution does not provide an avenue for the Senate to deny a president their Constitutional privilege of seating a replacement SC justice. That doesn't translate into the Senate has to confirm whomever a president nominates but it does preclude them from denying every nominee because they don't want the current president to get to pick the replacement.

So they should waste time with hearings and a vote for a nominee who has zero chance of being confirmed? Why?

I get it, then the dems can whine and scream "obstructionists" or "racists" is the candidate is a minority. The GOP's in the senate understand the game very well, they watched Reid play it successfully for years.

 

[Faun]

Great. So now the argument is IF Democrats had prevented a president from appointing a Supreme Court justice, then what Republicans are about to do would have a precedent?

Its politics, dipshit. They all play the same games. Grow up.

Everything they do is politics. Some acts though are reprehensible. Like subverting the Constitution as the Republican-led Senate says they will do if Obama nominates anyone.

Duh, subverting the constitution????????????? are you fricken kidding me. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi gave that phrase a whole new meaning.

But NO, a liberal Obama SC nominee will not get a senate vote, deal with it.

Your failed diversion aside, the Constitution does not provide an avenue for the Senate to deny a president their Constitutional privilege of seating a replacement SC justice. That doesn't translate into the Senate has to confirm whomever a president nominates but it does preclude them from denying every nominee because they don't want the current president to get to pick the replacement.

So they should waste time with hearings and a vote for a nominee who has zero chance of being confirmed? Why?

I get it, then the dems can whine and scream "obstructionists" or "racists" is the candidate is a minority. The GOP's in the senate understand the game very well, they watched Reid play it successfully for years.

How does an unknown person get rejected unless the obstructionist Republican Senate decides ahead of time they will not let the current president pick the next replacement?

 

[Freewill]

Great. So now the argument is IF Democrats had prevented a president from appointing a Supreme Court justice, then what Republicans are about to do would have a precedent?

Its politics, dipshit. They all play the same games. Grow up.

Everything they do is politics. Some acts though are reprehensible. Like subverting the Constitution as the Republican-led Senate says they will do if Obama nominates anyone.

Duh, subverting the constitution????????????? are you fricken kidding me. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi gave that phrase a whole new meaning.

But NO, a liberal Obama SC nominee will not get a senate vote, deal with it.

Your failed diversion aside, the Constitution does not provide an avenue for the Senate to deny a president their Constitutional privilege of seating a replacement SC justice. That doesn't translate into the Senate has to confirm whomever a president nominates but it does preclude them from denying every nominee because they don't want the current president to get to pick the replacement.

So they should waste time with hearings and a vote for a nominee who has zero chance of being confirmed? Why?

I get it, then the dems can whine and scream "obstructionists" or "racists" is the candidate is a minority. The GOP's in the senate understand the game very well, they watched Reid play it successfully for years.

the left forgets where the term Borked comes from.

 

[HenryBHough]

Your comment about Democrats blocking Republicans' nominees is moronic because Bush still appointed a Supreme Court justice despite Obama's filibuster.

Holyfuck, are you rightwingers retarded.

Retarded?

And you with Alzheimer's?

Apparently since you don't remember who borked Bork!

Or was it simply that there was no responsible adult handy to 'splain it to you?

 

[Faun]

Its politics, dipshit. They all play the same games. Grow up.

Everything they do is politics. Some acts though are reprehensible. Like subverting the Constitution as the Republican-led Senate says they will do if Obama nominates anyone.

Duh, subverting the constitution????????????? are you fricken kidding me. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi gave that phrase a whole new meaning.

But NO, a liberal Obama SC nominee will not get a senate vote, deal with it.

Your failed diversion aside, the Constitution does not provide an avenue for the Senate to deny a president their Constitutional privilege of seating a replacement SC justice. That doesn't translate into the Senate has to confirm whomever a president nominates but it does preclude them from denying every nominee because they don't want the current president to get to pick the replacement.

So they should waste time with hearings and a vote for a nominee who has zero chance of being confirmed? Why?

I get it, then the dems can whine and scream "obstructionists" or "racists" is the candidate is a minority. The GOP's in the senate understand the game very well, they watched Reid play it successfully for years.

the left forgets where the term Borked comes from.

Which of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the Republicans who are saying they will not allow Obama to pick the next SC justice.

 

[Faun]

Your comment about Democrats blocking Republicans' nominees is moronic because Bush still appointed a Supreme Court justice despite Obama's filibuster.

Holyfuck, are you rightwingers retarded.

Retarded?

And you with Alzheimer's?

Apparently since you don't remember who borked Bork!

Or was it simply that there was no responsible adult handy to 'splain it to you?

See post #672

 

[JoeB131]

Any potential nominee proposed by Our Kenyan Emperor owes it to his/her/its family to "Google" ROBERT BORK before agreeing to being properly vetted. "Properly" according to the way The Democrat Party has shown it must be done.

Robert Bork got hearings and a vote.

Robert Bork was voted down because he had some downright crazy views even Republicans couldn't support and he did Nixon's dirty work on the "Saturday Night Massacre" when two AG's RESIGNED rather than fire a special prosecutor.

The problem with Bork as that Reagan didn't properly vet him, and in the end, even REPUBLICANS voted against him.

 

[kaz]

Some Republicans, not wanting to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities, even implored Obama to shirk his by not even putting one up.

Who? Liberals keep repeating that yet none of you have been able to back it up

 

[TooTall]

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.

Declaring they will abdicate the Constitutional responsibilities of the office they hold is "grandstanding?"

Is that what plays to their base? Shirking their fucking job?

Wait, don't tell me you think they're being serious? I mean, blocking votes on appointees is something democrats do.

Sell stupid elsewhere...

Ted Cruz says he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia

Speaking of "stupid."

President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.

White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee

Your comment about Democrats blocking Republicans' nominees is moronic because Bush still appointed a Supreme Court justice despite Obama's filibuster.

Holyfuck, are you rightwingers retarded.

Speaking of retarded, didn't you just post this?

"Only two Republicans matter in this context -- McConnell and Cruz. Even if the Judiciary Committee reviews Obama's nominees and reports them to the Senate, McConnell will do everything in his power to prevent an up/down vote by the full Senate. Should the Senate get past McConnell's wall of obstruction and call for a vote, Cruz is going to filibuster it."

 

[TooTall]

Speaking of "stupid."

President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.

White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee

Your comment about Democrats blocking Republicans' nominees is moronic because Bush still appointed a Supreme Court justice despite Obama's filibuster.

Holyfuck, are you rightwingers retarded.

The nomination went through because the dems didn't have the votes, had they had the votes they would have blocked the nomination.

Great. So now the argument is IF Democrats had prevented a president from appointing a Supreme Court justice, then what Republicans are about to do would have a precedent?

NO, I am saying if Obama had his way he would have blocked the nomination, now he is saying he was sorry.

But he didn't have his way. How about dealing with reality instead of what ifs?

Even worse for this line of reasoning, no one is arguing it's wrong to reject a nominee. What's being argued is that it's wrong to reject ALL nominees by a president with close to a year remaining in his presidency.

Zero nominees have been rejected so far.

 

[Faun]

Some Republicans, not wanting to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities, even implored Obama to shirk his by not even putting one up.

Who? Liberals keep repeating that yet none of you have been able to back it up

It was said at the beginning of the debate on CBS by Kasich and Rubio just hours after Scalia's death was announced.

The CBS News Republican debate transcript, annotated

 

[TooTall]

Some Republicans, not wanting to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities, even implored Obama to shirk his by not even putting one up.

Who? Liberals keep repeating that yet none of you have been able to back it up

It was said at the beginning of the debate on CBS by Kasich and Rubio just hours after Scalia's death was announced.

The CBS News Republican debate transcript, annotated

I don't want to hear any more whining from Obama or his sheep.

"During his brief time in the Senate, President Obama himself played a key role in the Democratic filibuster campaign, helping lead the effort to block the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit. Then-Senator Obama also joined Democrat colleagues in voting to filibuster the judicial nominations of Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Samuel Alito."

 

[Faun]

Some Republicans, not wanting to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities, even implored Obama to shirk his by not even putting one up.

Who? Liberals keep repeating that yet none of you have been able to back it up

It was said at the beginning of the debate on CBS by Kasich and Rubio just hours after Scalia's death was announced.

The CBS News Republican debate transcript, annotated

I don't want to hear any more whining from Obama or his sheep.

"During his brief time in the Senate, President Obama himself played a key role in the Democratic filibuster campaign, helping lead the effort to block the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit. Then-Senator Obama also joined Democrat colleagues in voting to filibuster the judicial nominations of Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Samuel Alito."

Imbecile, those seats were filled by Bush.

Do you even know what the issue is? It appears not.