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

[nat4900]

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

You'll look less of a fool

Stupid response as usual......
Kennedy was confirmed after a senate fight...this does NOT mean that any democrat told Reagan that he could NOT nominate him as McConnell is telling Obama not to do....

Here, I'll make it simple for your half brain to understand.....

The controversy here is NOT about the senate's prerogative to reject a nominee.....Rather, the controversy is about your moronic ilk telling Obama to not even nominate someone.

Find a grown up to explain the difference to you.

 

[bripat9643]

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

You'll look less of a fool

Stupid response as usual......
Kennedy was confirmed after a senate fight...this does NOT mean that any democrat told Reagan that he could NOT nominate him as McConnell is telling Obama not to do....

Here, I'll make it simple for your half brain to understand.....

The controversy here is NOT about the senate's prerogative to reject a nominee.....Rather, the controversy is about your moronic ilk telling Obama to not even nominate someone.

Find a grown up to explain the difference to you.

No one has told Obama not to nominate someone, dumbass.

 

[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.

How long did it take to confirm Bork?

Doesnt' count,


Ancient History.

 

[g5000]

A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body.

- Publius​

 

[g5000]

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

You'll look less of a fool

Stupid response as usual......
Kennedy was confirmed after a senate fight...this does NOT mean that any democrat told Reagan that he could NOT nominate him as McConnell is telling Obama not to do....

Here, I'll make it simple for your half brain to understand.....

The controversy here is NOT about the senate's prerogative to reject a nominee.....Rather, the controversy is about your moronic ilk telling Obama to not even nominate someone.

Find a grown up to explain the difference to you.

No one has told Obama not to nominate someone, dumbass.

Oh yes they have, dumbass.

There have been SEVERAL topics on this forum started by rubes parroting what they have heard on their favorite propaganda channels about the "precedent" of a "lame duck President" appointing someone.

Furthermore, before Scalia's body was even cold, Mitch McConnell told the world that Obama should not bother since he, McConnell, is going to obstruct ANY nomination.

You really are willfully blind sometimes.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

You'll look less of a fool

Stupid response as usual......
Kennedy was confirmed after a senate fight...this does NOT mean that any democrat told Reagan that he could NOT nominate him as McConnell is telling Obama not to do....

Here, I'll make it simple for your half brain to understand.....

The controversy here is NOT about the senate's prerogative to reject a nominee.....Rather, the controversy is about your moronic ilk telling Obama to not even nominate someone.

Find a grown up to explain the difference to you.

I can see you didn't look it up.

Here, since you can't seem to operate Google, I'll help.

"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on June 27, 1987, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him,"

Think you can fit that somewhere in the quarter of the brain you use?

(If I have half a brain, you obviously only use a quarter of yours)

 

[g5000]

Hence, in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight.

- Publius​

 

[Eaglewings]

This couldn't come at a better time...

 

[bendog]

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

Nominated on 11-11-87. 3 days of hearings commencing on 12-14-87. Confirmed 97-0 on 2-3-88.

 

[nat4900]

nothing in the Constitution says the Senate has to hold a hearing.

In other words.....where in the Constitution does it say that an elected official needs to do ANY work?

Since there is no such "requirement", then GOP senators can simply stay home and play with their private parts.

 

[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

Nominated on 11-11-87. 3 days of hearings commencing on 12-14-87. Confirmed 97-0 on 2-3-88.

Was Kennedy Reagans first choice?

 

[bripat9643]

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

You'll look less of a fool

Stupid response as usual......
Kennedy was confirmed after a senate fight...this does NOT mean that any democrat told Reagan that he could NOT nominate him as McConnell is telling Obama not to do....

Here, I'll make it simple for your half brain to understand.....

The controversy here is NOT about the senate's prerogative to reject a nominee.....Rather, the controversy is about your moronic ilk telling Obama to not even nominate someone.

Find a grown up to explain the difference to you.

No one has told Obama not to nominate someone, dumbass.

Oh yes they have, dumbass.

There have been SEVERAL topics on this forum started by rubes parroting what they have heard on their favorite propaganda channels about the "precedent" of a "lame duck President" appointing someone.

Furthermore, before Scalia's body was even cold, Mitch McConnell told the world that Obama should not bother since he, McConnell, is going to obstruct ANY nomination.

You really are willfully blind sometimes.

Please quote someone saying Obama should not nominate a replacement for Scalia.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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 is it so fucking hard for you Lefties to understand that McConnell is well within his rights to say that.

Are you so ignorant of The Constitution that you don't know what free speech is?

"We have a right to debate and disagree with any administration". Remember who said that?

 

[nat4900]

How long did it take to confirm Bork?

First, nitwit, Bork was NEVER confirmed.

Beside that, Bork was openly AGAINST civil rights legislation, AGAINST voting rights, and AGAINST women's rights and AGAINST the ACLU......Finally, Bork was part of the so-called Saturday Night Massacre siding with Nixon.

 

[bripat9643]

nothing in the Constitution says the Senate has to hold a hearing.

In other words.....where in the Constitution does it say that an elected official needs to do ANY work?

Since there is no such "requirement", then GOP senators can simply stay home and play with their private parts.

Yes, they could do that. However, I don't think they would get reelected. On the other hand, if any Republican votes to confirm some commie Obama nomination to the court, he is going to get primaried out of his seat.

 

[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 .

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.

Nowhere in The Constitution does it require Congress to confirm a nominee. They're perfectly within their constitutional authority to vote that person out of the running.

 

[Slyhunter]

Nominate Neal Boortz.

 

[bripat9643]

How long did it take to confirm Bork?

First, nitwit, Bork was NEVER confirmed.

Beside that, Bork was openly AGAINST civil rights legislation, AGAINST voting rights, and AGAINST women's rights and AGAINST the ACLU......Finally, Bork was part of the so-called Saturday Night Massacre siding with Nixon.

Yes, that's right, he was never confirmed. So the time it took for his confirmation is infinity.

Bork was against certain aspects of that legislation that anyone with a brain would also be against. And anyone should be against the leftwing ACLU which was created to defend communists.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

How long did it take to confirm Bork?

First, nitwit, Bork was NEVER confirmed.

Beside that, Bork was openly AGAINST civil rights legislation, AGAINST voting rights, and AGAINST women's rights and AGAINST the ACLU......Finally, Bork was part of the so-called Saturday Night Massacre siding with Nixon.

Right, he was never confirmed. Great job at illustrating his point.

 

[g5000]

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

You'll look less of a fool

Stupid response as usual......
Kennedy was confirmed after a senate fight...this does NOT mean that any democrat told Reagan that he could NOT nominate him as McConnell is telling Obama not to do....

Here, I'll make it simple for your half brain to understand.....

The controversy here is NOT about the senate's prerogative to reject a nominee.....Rather, the controversy is about your moronic ilk telling Obama to not even nominate someone.

Find a grown up to explain the difference to you.

No one has told Obama not to nominate someone, dumbass.

Oh yes they have, dumbass.

There have been SEVERAL topics on this forum started by rubes parroting what they have heard on their favorite propaganda channels about the "precedent" of a "lame duck President" appointing someone.

Furthermore, before Scalia's body was even cold, Mitch McConnell told the world that Obama should not bother since he, McConnell, is going to obstruct ANY nomination.

You really are willfully blind sometimes.

Please quote someone saying Obama should not nominate a replacement for Scalia.

McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under Obama

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said

There’s ample precedent for rejecting lame duck supreme court nominees




The Unprecedented 'Precedent'

"It has been over 80 years since a lame duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice," Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said in the Republican presidential debate Saturday night; "We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year," Texas Sen. Ted Cruz echoed.

Take your hands off your eyes, willfully blind monkey!