What could be the reason for a president...constitutionally...choosing a SC nominee?

[WildBillKelsoe]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

Chosen by the president and confirmed acceptable by the Congress is The manner of checks and balances that The Founders built into THE Constitution.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

If they believe Obama's choice is not a good one, then their duty is to not confirm him. I can't imagine Obama nominating anyone who isn't intent on destroying the Constitution.

HE HASNT MADE A CHOICE !!!! Shows you who's just to blame for all the gridlock doesn't it . The GOP won't even pretend to be on the up and up .

No one is stopping him. Why do you people keep pushing that bullshit?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

They should just rubberstamp whoever he nominates?

Nope .

As it stands , they are rubber stamping "no".

And falls under, "executing their duties".

I want them to deny any Liberal that Obama throws up for the job.

 

[deltex1]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

He was elected by the people. Then he was reelected by those same morons. Over the eight years it has dawned on said morons that the man is a fucking disaster. His presser today the latest confirmation. He's a talker...a fantasizer...not a doer. So he should not be honored by an affirming vote of the Senate. He will no doubt nominate a qualified person....qualified to rule in a manner pleasing to morons. And the Senate will vote no thanks......bruh.

 

[nat4900]

All the right wing morons on this thread were OK when the supreme court was a 5-4 right leaning one.......Now that "the witch is dead" the tables may shift..either now (unlikely with the GOP clowns in the senate) or later next year when the senate's majority shifts......

 

[OKTexas]

All the right wing morons on this thread were OK when the supreme court was a 5-4 right leaning one.......Now that "the witch is dead" the tables may shift..either now (unlikely with the GOP clowns in the senate) or later next year when the senate's majority shifts......

Only way it will matter is if the republicans lose 15 seats and the white house, I don't see that happening.

 

[blackhawk]

Very good impersonation of a parrot.

What is the SENATES role in the process?


(BTW, since when it the Senate not a part of Congress? )

Go play with your gun down in your basement...You're not worth the keystrokes....BYE

Can't answer the question, or afraid too?

President nominates.

What is the Senates role?

Afraid to the op likes to forget the Senate also has role in the Supreme Court process at least when the President is a Democrat.

 

[blackhawk]

I guess the left wing morons on this board forgot when Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer back in 2007 proposed trying to block any Supreme Court nominations from George W Bush if a seat became vacant because they didn't want to see the court stay right leaning. Now I will be fair and honest and admit the Bush administration was saying the same things then the Obama administration is now but no one on the left should be trying to act all high and mighty on this subject when they were more than willing to do whatever it took to stop a Bush nomination as the Republicans are now with an Obama one.

 

[g5000]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Am I the only one who has read the Federalist Papers?

The Federalist #76

The Federalist #77

 

[bripat9643]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

If they believe Obama's choice is not a good one, then their duty is to not confirm him. I can't imagine Obama nominating anyone who isn't intent on destroying the Constitution.

HE HASNT MADE A CHOICE !!!! Shows you who's just to blame for all the gridlock doesn't it . The GOP won't even pretend to be on the up and up .

We already know what kind of choice he'll make.

 

[nat4900]

We already know what kind of choice he'll make.

No one would ever "accuse" you of having an ounce of objectivity (not to mention much intelligence.)

 

[nat4900]

Bottom line to this latest controversy is this.......The republican-led congress (the legislative branch) is insisting on doing NOTHING......and, likewise, urging
that NOTHING be done by the executive branch which would then lead for the judicial branch doing NOTHING.

Now, my friends, define "anarchy".....

 

[hazlnut]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

Good faith.

The people working in congress don't know what that means.

Take away their Cadillac health care and freeze their salaries if they can't confirm a qualified candidate in 60 days. It used to take 10 days. What joke this country has become. Senator is not a job, it's game.

 

[Auld Phart]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

Good faith.

The people working in congress don't know what that means.

Take away their Cadillac health care and freeze their salaries if they can't confirm a qualified candidate in 60 days. It used to take 10 days. What joke this country has become. Senator is not a job, it's game.

It used to take 10 days.

It used to take 10- days?

it took 14 months from the time Reagan named his first nominee to the time his third nominee was confirmed.

Remember the make up of HIS senate?

 

[nat4900]

Chosen by the president and confirmed acceptable by the Congress is The manner of checks and balances that The Founders built into THE Constitution.

Why is it so fucking hard for you right wingers to understand that the above is NOT what we are disputing....

What is being disputed is the fact that morons like McConnell want for the president to not even nominate someone to save senate republicans the embarrassment of rejecting, obfuscating and stalling ANY of Obama's nominees in front of the voters who will soon have to make a decision on 1/3 of the senate.

 

[Auld Phart]

Chosen by the president and confirmed acceptable by the Congress is The manner of checks and balances that The Founders built into THE Constitution.

Why is it so fucking hard for you right wingers to understand that the above is NOT what we are disputing....

What is being disputed is the fact that morons like McConnell want for the president to not even nominate someone to save senate republicans the embarrassment of rejecting, obfuscating and stalling ANY of Obama's nominees in front of the voters who will soon have to make a decision on 1/3 of the senate.

Why dont' you read up on Reagans nominees, especially when replacing Justice Lewis Powell?

You'll look less of a fool

 

[bripat9643]

We already know what kind of choice he'll make.

No one would ever "accuse" you of having an ounce of objectivity (not to mention much intelligence.)

I gave a totally objective assessment. All we have to do to know what kind of justice he will choose is look at the choices he already made: two lesbian Marxists.

 

[bripat9643]

Bottom line to this latest controversy is this.......The republican-led congress (the legislative branch) is insisting on doing NOTHING......and, likewise, urging
that NOTHING be done by the executive branch which would then lead for the judicial branch doing NOTHING.

Now, my friends, define "anarchy".....

Which just goes to show that "anarchy" is a good thing. The less we are governed, the better.

 

[bripat9643]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

Good faith.

The people working in congress don't know what that means.

Take away their Cadillac health care and freeze their salaries if they can't confirm a qualified candidate in 60 days. It used to take 10 days. What joke this country has become. Senator is not a job, it's game.

How long did it take to confirm Bork?

 

[bripat9643]

Chosen by the president and confirmed acceptable by the Congress is The manner of checks and balances that The Founders built into THE Constitution.

Why is it so fucking hard for you right wingers to understand that the above is NOT what we are disputing....

What is being disputed is the fact that morons like McConnell want for the president to not even nominate someone to save senate republicans the embarrassment of rejecting, obfuscating and stalling ANY of Obama's nominees in front of the voters who will soon have to make a decision on 1/3 of the senate.

He's free to nominate anyone he wants. Republicans can't do a thing about that. However, nothing in the Constitution says the Senate has to hold a hearing.