Why do Trumpsters think Trump has been a success thus far if every other president has achieved...

[Wyatt earp]

Republicans violated the constitution by choosing not to even consider Obama's pick. Of course that also applies to any pick he would have chosen because they made it clear any choice Obama would have come up with would be blocked. The constitution dictates the senate must work with the president to choose a nominee.

So you claim the majority of the house and Senate violated the law?

Um no the senate did. They violated the constitution. Plain and simple.

They don't have to consider or confirm..cite the law because I was just reading upon it.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-22/nothing-unconstitutional-about-gops-stance-on-obamas-supreme-court-nomination?context=amp


.

Bily you are reading it wrong






Does the Senate Have to Act on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?




The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.




.

Um no there was no process at all by the senate working the president so they violated their duty.

They didn't violate nothing..




It does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.



.

 

[Billy000]

So you claim the majority of the house and Senate violated the law?

Um no the senate did. They violated the constitution. Plain and simple.

They don't have to consider or confirm..cite the law because I was just reading upon it.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-22/nothing-unconstitutional-about-gops-stance-on-obamas-supreme-court-nomination?context=amp


.

Bily you are reading it wrong






Does the Senate Have to Act on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?




The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.




.

Um no there was no process at all by the senate working the president so they violated their duty.

They didn't violate nothing..




It does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.



.

That is such rightwing bullshit lol

 

[IM2]

So you claim the majority of the house and Senate violated the law?

Um no the senate did. They violated the constitution. Plain and simple.

They don't have to consider or confirm..cite the law because I was just reading upon it.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-22/nothing-unconstitutional-about-gops-stance-on-obamas-supreme-court-nomination?context=amp


.

Bily you are reading it wrong






Does the Senate Have to Act on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?




The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.




.

Um no there was no process at all by the senate working the president so they violated their duty.

They didn't violate nothing..




It does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.



.

Actually they did violate the constitution.

 

[theHawk]

...major legislation in their first 100 days?

Keep in mind the GOP has full control of the government. Trump has accomplished NOTHING as far as major legislation while working with republicans in congress. Every other modern president at this point has some signature to speak of.

Now I know you Trumpsters like to delude yourselves by thinking Trump is accomplishing stuff with EOs, but it's not like that idiot had any part in composing them. He just signs them. Hell he needs visual aid pictures while he's reading anything put in front of him. Of course the hypocrisy of this is hilarious because anytime Obama signed an EO it was fascist!

Of course I can't blame Trump for not getting anything accomplished. He did go golfing 22 times costing the tax payers millions. He also tweet trolls other leaders like a 5 year old for no other reason than that he is an insecure, whiny, little bitch. His fatass just couldn't find the time.

Because he defeated Hillary Clinton. Automatically a successful President. SCOTUS confirmation on top of that, probably several more to come.
Withdrew us from TPP, Paris Agreement, has already brought many jobs back to the US. Proved the Hussein Regime was spying on him and his staff, and illegally outed one of his staff, while vindicating all the baseless "Russia collusion" conspiracies.

 

[Camp]

One thing no one can argue about, trump gave us our first immigrant soft core porn model as a first lady. He deserves credit for that accomplishment. In addition, he has told more lies in his first few months as President than any other President in history. Those are two accomplishments that as stated, no one can argue about.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Um no the senate did. They violated the constitution. Plain and simple.

They don't have to consider or confirm..cite the law because I was just reading upon it.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-22/nothing-unconstitutional-about-gops-stance-on-obamas-supreme-court-nomination?context=amp


.

Bily you are reading it wrong






Does the Senate Have to Act on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?




The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.




.

Um no there was no process at all by the senate working the president so they violated their duty.

They didn't violate nothing..




It does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.



.

Actually they did violate the constitution.

Prove that they did..




My third linkk on this



http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...al-to-consider-garland-undermines-rule-of-law




Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the roles the president and the Senate must play in the appointment process: "The President ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court." In Federalist Paper No. 66, Alexander Hamilton indicated that the Founding Fathers saw the Senate's role as determining whether the president's nominee is qualified for the court, not usurping or halting the nominating process itself: "There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President."

Senate Republicans, however, have not defeated the president's choice. Indeed, they have not disputed that Garland is qualified for this position. Instead, they have elected simply to bypass the process by refusing to start it —

 

[Billy000]

They don't have to consider or confirm..cite the law because I was just reading upon it.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-22/nothing-unconstitutional-about-gops-stance-on-obamas-supreme-court-nomination?context=amp


.

Bily you are reading it wrong






Does the Senate Have to Act on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?




The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.




.

Um no there was no process at all by the senate working the president so they violated their duty.

They didn't violate nothing..




It does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.



.

Actually they did violate the constitution.

Prove that they did..




My third linkk on this



Senate's refusal to consider Garland undermines rule of law




Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the roles the president and the Senate must play in the appointment process: "The President ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court." In Federalist Paper No. 66, Alexander Hamilton indicated that the Founding Fathers saw the Senate's role as determining whether the president's nominee is qualified for the court, not usurping or halting the nominating process itself: "There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President."

Senate Republicans, however, have not defeated the president's choice. Indeed, they have not disputed that Garland is qualified for this position. Instead, they have elected simply to bypass the process by refusing to start it —

Okay what you aren't getting is that this isn't about Garland - it's about the senate's refusal to do have ANY cooperation with Obama in an appointment. The section clearly states the senate must work with the president on the appointment process itself

 

[Wyatt earp]

Bily you are reading it wrong






Does the Senate Have to Act on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?




The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.




.

Um no there was no process at all by the senate working the president so they violated their duty.

They didn't violate nothing..




It does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.



.

Actually they did violate the constitution.

Prove that they did..




My third linkk on this



Senate's refusal to consider Garland undermines rule of law




Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the roles the president and the Senate must play in the appointment process: "The President ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court." In Federalist Paper No. 66, Alexander Hamilton indicated that the Founding Fathers saw the Senate's role as determining whether the president's nominee is qualified for the court, not usurping or halting the nominating process itself: "There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President."

Senate Republicans, however, have not defeated the president's choice. Indeed, they have not disputed that Garland is qualified for this position. Instead, they have elected simply to bypass the process by refusing to start it —

Okay what you aren't getting is that this isn't about Garland - it's about the senate's refusal to do have ANY cooperation with Obama in an appointment. The section clearly states the senate must work with the president on the appointment process itself

But no time table , only for a president when he gets a bill, he has 10 days to sign it or veto it...if he does nothing it becomes law


And again they simply bypassed the process by refusing to start it.

 

[Camp]

Unless trump had something to do with killing Scalia and making a vacancy on the court he really deserves no credit for filling the position. All he had to do was submit a name. It is ridiculous that people want to call his naming someone to replace the dead guy an accomplishment.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It was an accomplishment for him beating Hillary, because we would have had a left wing supreme Court..first time 40 years plus???.??




.

 

[Billy000]

Um no there was no process at all by the senate working the president so they violated their duty.

They didn't violate nothing..




It does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.



.

Actually they did violate the constitution.

Prove that they did..




My third linkk on this



Senate's refusal to consider Garland undermines rule of law




Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the roles the president and the Senate must play in the appointment process: "The President ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court." In Federalist Paper No. 66, Alexander Hamilton indicated that the Founding Fathers saw the Senate's role as determining whether the president's nominee is qualified for the court, not usurping or halting the nominating process itself: "There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President."

Senate Republicans, however, have not defeated the president's choice. Indeed, they have not disputed that Garland is qualified for this position. Instead, they have elected simply to bypass the process by refusing to start it —

Okay what you aren't getting is that this isn't about Garland - it's about the senate's refusal to do have ANY cooperation with Obama in an appointment. The section clearly states the senate must work with the president on the appointment process itself

But no time table , only for a president when he gets a bill, he has 10 days to sign it or veto it...if he does nothing it becomes law


And again they simply bypassed the process by refusing to start it.

You're wrong and you know it.

 

[IM2]

They didn't violate nothing..




It does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.



.

Actually they did violate the constitution.

Prove that they did..




My third linkk on this



Senate's refusal to consider Garland undermines rule of law




Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the roles the president and the Senate must play in the appointment process: "The President ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court." In Federalist Paper No. 66, Alexander Hamilton indicated that the Founding Fathers saw the Senate's role as determining whether the president's nominee is qualified for the court, not usurping or halting the nominating process itself: "There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President."

Senate Republicans, however, have not defeated the president's choice. Indeed, they have not disputed that Garland is qualified for this position. Instead, they have elected simply to bypass the process by refusing to start it —

Okay what you aren't getting is that this isn't about Garland - it's about the senate's refusal to do have ANY cooperation with Obama in an appointment. The section clearly states the senate must work with the president on the appointment process itself

But no time table , only for a president when he gets a bill, he has 10 days to sign it or veto it...if he does nothing it becomes law


And again they simply bypassed the process by refusing to start it.

You're wrong and you know it.

Actually he is 100 percent correct.