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.
How would you know about balls...you're a liberal...BUT besides the obvious, the hypocrisy of the left on this matter, after all the video's in monumental!It doesn't take balls to be a pussy, quite the opposite. If they had real balls they stand up for themselvesBuncha pussysThis is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....
Yes,saying FUCK YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!
And what do you say to those who don't play for the right or left? Those who condem the actions from dems in the past and the GOP current tantrum?How would you know about balls...you're a liberal...BUT besides the obvious, the hypocrisy of the left on this matter, after all the video's in monumental!It doesn't take balls to be a pussy, quite the opposite. If they had real balls they stand up for themselvesBuncha pussysThis is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....
Yes,saying FUCK YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!
And what do you say to those who don't play for the right or left? Those who condem the actions from dems in the past and the GOP current tantrum?How would you know about balls...you're a liberal...BUT besides the obvious, the hypocrisy of the left on this matter, after all the video's in monumental!It doesn't take balls to be a pussy, quite the opposite. If they had real balls they stand up for themselvesBuncha pussysThis is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....
Yes,saying FUCK YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!
How am I being stupid? You make no sense. If these were executives in a business they would be fired so fast for pulling this crapVetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?So what progress is being crippled?
Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?
It's not a business, it is a government institution. Can you show us the timeline the Senate has to follow when a judge is nominated?The Senate's spheres of responsibilities in this case turn on the Constitutional stipulation " to advise and consent." That the republican majority would abrogate the Constitutional requirement in that way is offensive not only to me but to to all who elected Obama to do his job. Do the Republicans Senators really have the right to ignore the "advise and consent" stipulation? I don't think they do but we don't know for sure. After all, no precedent has been set. This hasn't happened in our entire history until now. Personally, I think Obama ought to bring this before the evenly divided court and hope that Roberts will come through again.Well, YOU WERE wrong when you said the Dems did it to the Pubs. I am not interested in anecdotal reasons as to why the Dems didn't do it. BTW the Pubs have a chance to break Reid's record on this singe appointment if only they would do their jobs.It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.
Obama's nomination was one that he thought the Senate would have to do some soul searching to refuse. He should have nominated a Black male Democrat since Thomas is just Scalia in Blackface. The president chose a White male with outstanding credentials showing that once again he was trying to meet the Senate more than half way...much to the chagrin of his Black constituency. Still, this unprecedented refusal to vet by the Senate continues with impunity.
No, the Dems have NEVER done the same to the Pubs. You cannot show me where the Democrats have ever refused to vet a nominee. They might have voted against confirmation or filibustered,but they engaged in the process as ordained by the Constitution. They have never refused to vet or conduct a hearing on USSC nominees.
Nice try but go back to square one and try again.
That's because when the Democrats tried to do so they didn't have the votes to sustain. Nevertheless I think Reid holds the record on blocked judicial nominees. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
The Senates job, within their constitutional realm, is whatever they vote it to be within the rules. They have the right to do nothing. Sorry if this offends you.
They also have a right as defined by the constitution to show up to work for only one day a year. Maybe they should all just do that too.Well, YOU WERE wrong when you said the Dems did it to the Pubs. I am not interested in anecdotal reasons as to why the Dems didn't do it. BTW the Pubs have a chance to break Reid's record on this singe appointment if only they would do their jobs.It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.
Obama's nomination was one that he thought the Senate would have to do some soul searching to refuse. He should have nominated a Black male Democrat since Thomas is just Scalia in Blackface. The president chose a White male with outstanding credentials showing that once again he was trying to meet the Senate more than half way...much to the chagrin of his Black constituency. Still, this unprecedented refusal to vet by the Senate continues with impunity.
No, the Dems have NEVER done the same to the Pubs. You cannot show me where the Democrats have ever refused to vet a nominee. They might have voted against confirmation or filibustered,but they engaged in the process as ordained by the Constitution. They have never refused to vet or conduct a hearing on USSC nominees.
Nice try but go back to square one and try again.
That's because when the Democrats tried to do so they didn't have the votes to sustain. Nevertheless I think Reid holds the record on blocked judicial nominees. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
The Senates job, within their constitutional realm, is whatever they vote it to be within the rules. They have the right to do nothing. Sorry if this offends you.
I don't think anybody is arguing that the president should decide when the congress holds the hearing. It is their job to do it, and they are refusing to do it, plan and simple. The fact the constitution doesn't define a time period is a weak argument. The constitution also says that congress need to only meet once a year on January 3, should the members of congress only show up to work one day a year? That's what the constitution says, right? Bunch of idiotsCongress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?So what progress is being crippled?
Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?
He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution
Obama's already got his winky slammed in the door (9-0 vote) for assuming that he, not congress, has the authority to declare when the senate is in recess. (See National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning). You now purport that he has the right to decide when congress chooses to advise and consent? We have checks and balances. Obama just got checked.
I hope it plays out and congress does their job. I've been shaking my head for weeks at this posturing by the GOP to not even consider a nominee. It blows my mind and I still haven't heard a sensible justification.Give it a freaking chance. Hussein only nominated him the day before yesterday. On the surface it seems that the judge might be a moderate but rumors persist that he holds unconstitutional personal bias against the 2nd Amendment. Let it play out.
It is your opinion only. I believe that President Obama did a fine job over the last 7 years. Certainly better than the President before him.I agree, spite is the purpose behind the stand off... Not this "Leave it up to the people" BS. This attitude is whats spinning our government down the drain.Obama will be denied the opportunity to put another justice on the SCOTUS, he could nominate God and it will be request denied, out of spite!
The word you are searching for is 'consequences' as in, Obama behaves like an ass for the last 7 years and now there are consequences.
Bork and Thomas were vetted, all the democrats are asking is that any nominee named by Obama be vetted as provided by the Advise and Consent Decree of the Constitution .Ignoring the Constitution is not an option and I expect this might end up in court.Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?So what progress is being crippled?No, that is also part of the problem
Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?
He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution
That's fine. File a lawsuit, and prove it to everyone in the court system. If you can actually make the case, and take it to court, do so. Otherwise, it's just opinion.
And maybe you are right. Was the destruction of Robert Bork right? Was the attempted disembowment of Clarence Thomas right?
Who said this..... "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?" - Florynce Kennedy, a left wing feminist.
As far as I can tell, the left wing is who turned judge appointment into a political ram rod. Was it not FDR who threatened to pack the court to get whatever he wanted, and magically the court suddenly started agreeing with whatever was passed?
You people haven't cared what the constitution says anyway. Where is social security, and medicare, given as a power of the Federal Government? Not there. Does not exist. So lets end those first, and then we'll deal with whether the Senate must agree to an Obama appointment.
Bork and Thomas were vetted, all the democrats are asking is that any nominee named by Obama be vetted as provided by the Advise and Consent Decree of the Constitution .Ignoring the Constitution is not an option and I expect this might end up in court.Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?So what progress is being crippled?
Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?
He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution
That's fine. File a lawsuit, and prove it to everyone in the court system. If you can actually make the case, and take it to court, do so. Otherwise, it's just opinion.
And maybe you are right. Was the destruction of Robert Bork right? Was the attempted disembowment of Clarence Thomas right?
Who said this..... "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?" - Florynce Kennedy, a left wing feminist.
As far as I can tell, the left wing is who turned judge appointment into a political ram rod. Was it not FDR who threatened to pack the court to get whatever he wanted, and magically the court suddenly started agreeing with whatever was passed?
You people haven't cared what the constitution says anyway. Where is social security, and medicare, given as a power of the Federal Government? Not there. Does not exist. So lets end those first, and then we'll deal with whether the Senate must agree to an Obama appointment.
Actually if they had balls they would have the hearing and deny the recommendation (they hold the majority in the Senate and should have no problem doing this). As it stands, they just look like a bunch of idiots sitting on their thumbs.Buncha pussysThis is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....
Yes,saying FUCK YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!
Actually if they had balls they would have the hearing and deny the recommendation (they hold the majority in the Senate and should have no problem doing this). As it stands, they just look like a bunch of idiots sitting on their thumbs.Buncha pussysThis is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....
Yes,saying FUCK YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!
You didn't cite the case that shows that a broad refusal to vet ANY presidential nominee by the Senate ( not Congress) has been ruled as valid and stands as a precedent. We aren't talking about inferior officers such as those mentioned in your example, we are talking about primary officers of the Supreme Court where advising =(after vetting) and Consent=(with concurrence of a Senate majority contingent upon qualification) is the ONLY option. The very words of the Constitution do not contain a provision for ignoring the vetting process of a primary federal officer.I don't think anybody is arguing that the president should decide when the congress holds the hearing. It is their job to do it, and they are refusing to do it, plan and simple. The fact the constitution doesn't define a time period is a weak argument. The constitution also says that congress need to only meet once a year on January 3, should the members of congress only show up to work one day a year? That's what the constitution says, right? Bunch of idiotsCongress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?
Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?
He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution
Obama's already got his winky slammed in the door (9-0 vote) for assuming that he, not congress, has the authority to declare when the senate is in recess. (See National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning). You now purport that he has the right to decide when congress chooses to advise and consent? We have checks and balances. Obama just got checked.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that Congressional refusal to vote on an Presidential appointment amounts to a refusal of consent. They are doing their job. Your problem with them is that you want Republicans to open themselves up to scrutiny. The Republicans are obviously playing politics and your pissed that they haven't given the Democrats as large as an opportunity to play politics. Fat Chance.
But hey, Why doesn't Obama nominate the most Conservative qualified justice he can find? That will surely get the Senate to act. Thats, in part, how Kennedy got on the court.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these guys are paid salary, not hourly wages. Where do you get that we would be saving millions of dollars if they sat around and did their job instead of not doing it?Actually if they had balls they would have the hearing and deny the recommendation (they hold the majority in the Senate and should have no problem doing this). As it stands, they just look like a bunch of idiots sitting on their thumbs.Buncha pussysThis is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....
Yes,saying FUCK YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!
Perhaps to you they do, to me it looks like they are saving the taxpayer perhaps millions of $'s for a shame hearing that everyone knows the ending to!
Bork and Thomas were vetted, all the democrats are asking is that any nominee named by Obama be vetted as provided by the Advise and Consent Decree of the Constitution .Ignoring the Constitution is not an option and I expect this might end up in court.Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?
Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?
He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution
That's fine. File a lawsuit, and prove it to everyone in the court system. If you can actually make the case, and take it to court, do so. Otherwise, it's just opinion.
And maybe you are right. Was the destruction of Robert Bork right? Was the attempted disembowment of Clarence Thomas right?
Who said this..... "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?" - Florynce Kennedy, a left wing feminist.
As far as I can tell, the left wing is who turned judge appointment into a political ram rod. Was it not FDR who threatened to pack the court to get whatever he wanted, and magically the court suddenly started agreeing with whatever was passed?
You people haven't cared what the constitution says anyway. Where is social security, and medicare, given as a power of the Federal Government? Not there. Does not exist. So lets end those first, and then we'll deal with whether the Senate must agree to an Obama appointment.
Again, what are the time constraints that are put on the Senate in the
Constitution?
Didn't you already see a USMB rightwinger post one of their latest made-up lies about the nominee? That he's somehow anti-second amendment. No proof whatsoever to back it up, but somehow they just know he is. Somehow.What have they accused him of before?Give it a freaking chance. Hussein only nominated him the day before yesterday. On the surface it seems that the judge might be a moderate but rumors persist that he holds unconstitutional personal bias against the 2nd Amendment. Let it play out.
Sure, give them a little time so they can check out his birth certificate, or investigate whether he caused the Benghazi tragedy. They are right wingers. They'll make up some silly thing to accuse him of. They always have before.
They make up accusations. That's what they do. He hasn't been in their sights before, but made up accusations are SOP for the right.
When will the country not be divided in the future? Who's going to bring them together?Thank you for demonstrating their hypocrisy AGAIN!!!!! We had a gazillion threads already about this. They've been whining about this since Scalia's passing... WTF?????I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??
If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?
Maybe Joe Biden could explain it to you, Obama and the leftist media then:
Biden in 1992, if there was an opening on the Supreme Court, HW should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
I'm not whining about anything you stupid bitch. I agree with Biden in 1992 and I agree with the Republicans now. The Supreme Court doesn't give a shit about the law, they have a lifetime political appointment. Our country is too divided to be filling Supreme Court seats in the environment.
You're the whining hypocrite. Where do you think Biden was wrong exactly?
The neoconservative Republican party has been crying, wailing and moaning about Obama winning since 2008. They won't stop now.Thank you for demonstrating their hypocrisy AGAIN!!!!! We had a gazillion threads already about this. They've been whining about this since Scalia's passing... WTF?????I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??
If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?
Maybe Joe Biden could explain it to you, Obama and the leftist media then:
Biden in 1992, if there was an opening on the Supreme Court, HW should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
I'm not whining about anything you stupid bitch. I agree with Biden in 1992 and I agree with the Republicans now. The Supreme Court doesn't give a shit about the law, they have a lifetime political appointment. Our country is too divided to be filling Supreme Court seats in the environment.
You're the whining hypocrite. Where do you think Biden was wrong exactly?
So ignore the constitution and ignore we already voted on who should select the next justice. Obama won, stop crying.
