Obiwan
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2015
- 12,154
- 10,044
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why not wait until the election in 2016 to nominate a supreme court justice
- Thread starter SuperDemocrat
- Start date
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
- Dec 20, 2013
- 43,342
- 6,449
You forgot to post the part where they aren't doing their job. obama followed their advice? I doubt it.Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.
Well that is the argument of the GOP.
I don't see any 6th year Senators offering not to vote for their final year as Senator just to wait to see 'what the people' want.
Meanwhile- the people vote on the President every 4 years- and for a 4 year term- the people have spoken.
The President's job is to nominate a Supreme Court Justice- the Senate's job is to 'advise and consent'- it is the Senate that is refusing to to their job as per the U.S. Constitution.
He shall have Power,..... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ..... Judges of the supreme Court,
The President is doing his Constitutionally mandated job- the Senate is refusing to do their job.
And they elected a Republican majority in the Senate.....Who cares if it's an election year? Thats nothing more than an excuse. If Scalia had died 6 months ago they would have made some other excuse like the campaigns have already started. This is all nonsense and nothing more than Republicans not wanting Obama to have another Supreme Court pick and making lame excuses. McConnell says the American people should have a say. They DO have a say - they elected Obama for 8 years, not 7.
View attachment 68243
And that Republican Majority is choosing to not do its job under the Constitution.
They are refusing to hold hearings for purely political reasons.
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
- Dec 20, 2013
- 43,342
- 6,449
The people aren't complaining. Libtards are. Libtards are not "the people". LOL you guys are so full of yourselves!Yeah right--LOL We have seen the general public go bat shit crazy over Bernie Sanders a communist, and a maniac in Donald Trump. And you want to trust them with picking out a Supreme Court Justice.
I don't think so.
With such sentiments why trust the public with anything at all? Why even have democracy if the people can't handle it properly.
We don't elect Supreme Court Justices- we elect President's every 4 years- and they are President the entire 4 years- not just the first 3 years.
Why won't the GOP listen to the people?
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
- Dec 20, 2013
- 43,342
- 6,449
It's a political nomination.And they elected a Republican majority in the Senate.....Who cares if it's an election year? Thats nothing more than an excuse. If Scalia had died 6 months ago they would have made some other excuse like the campaigns have already started. This is all nonsense and nothing more than Republicans not wanting Obama to have another Supreme Court pick and making lame excuses. McConnell says the American people should have a say. They DO have a say - they elected Obama for 8 years, not 7.
View attachment 68243
And that Republican Majority is choosing to not do its job under the Constitution.
They are refusing to hold hearings for purely political reasons.
They ARE doing their job, Dumbass...Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.
Well that is the argument of the GOP.
I don't see any 6th year Senators offering not to vote for their final year as Senator just to wait to see 'what the people' want.
Meanwhile- the people vote on the President every 4 years- and for a 4 year term- the people have spoken.
The President's job is to nominate a Supreme Court Justice- the Senate's job is to 'advise and consent'- it is the Senate that is refusing to to their job as per the U.S. Constitution.
He shall have Power,..... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ..... Judges of the supreme Court,
The President is doing his Constitutionally mandated job- the Senate is refusing to do their job.
They told Obozo NO....
View attachment 68274
He shall have 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 Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
They told the President 'no'- they didn't offer advice- or consent
That is all right- the Party of Donald Trump hardly cares about the Constitution anymore anyway.
WorldWatcher
Gold Member
- Dec 28, 2010
- 12,477
- 4,642
Huh? That was confusing.
Don't know why you are confused.
1. Peach says the Senate was going to take up the nomination in November.
2. I post showing McConnell saying no they are not.
3. You respond with something about the White House which has no bearing on #1 and #2.
4. I post to you pointing out that #3 has nothing to do with #1 and #2.
Pretty straight forward.
>>>>
The people aren't complaining. Libtards are. Libtards are not "the people". LOL you guys are so full of yourselves!Yeah right--LOL We have seen the general public go bat shit crazy over Bernie Sanders a communist, and a maniac in Donald Trump. And you want to trust them with picking out a Supreme Court Justice.
I don't think so.
With such sentiments why trust the public with anything at all? Why even have democracy if the people can't handle it properly.
We don't elect Supreme Court Justices- we elect President's every 4 years- and they are President the entire 4 years- not just the first 3 years.
Why won't the GOP listen to the people?
By 'libtard' you mean the people who care about the United States Constitution?
I understand that offends you.
Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.
Obama can and should nominate someone
The Senate has no obligation to confirm and Obama is far short of the 60 votes needed
Yep- the GOP in the Senate could at least pretend it was going to follow the Constitution.
How so? If it's that's close then it isn't a matter of law. A good law student can figure out the law. What 4 to 4 means is that there aren't enough liberals on the bench to ram their ideology down our throats.========Because the constitution says the president is supposed to nominate supreme court justices and the congress is supposed to vote on that nomination. Do you really want to ignore the constitution to potentially have Trump nominate his sister?
I don't think their is any kind of time limit to nominating a supreme court juror or even a requirement. I think it just says that the president has that power to do so. And if we wait until the next election cycle then the president is still nominating someone and the congress will still be voting on it just like the constitution says. The only difference is that the people will have more of a say over who will get nominated because of the timing of Scalia's death.
In the mean time we have a court who isn't able to make a definitive ruling on anything.
Wrong again moose breath.
An 8 member court CAN make rulings and they will.
If they have tie vote then the ruling of the lower court that was appealed to them stands.
But if they vote 5-3 they can make NEW rulings and they likely will without Scalia acting as a roadblock.
A tie vote prevents the court from functioning as intended.
LOL......I love how Konservative Kooks like you call decisions you disapprove of 'ramming their ideology down your throats'- but are happy to embrace a 5 to 4 decision that overturns State laws you disapprove of.
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
- Nov 1, 2015
- 59,935
- 14,770
Who cares if it's an election year? Thats nothing more than an excuse. If Scalia had died 6 months ago they would have made some other excuse like the campaigns have already started. This is all nonsense and nothing more than Republicans not wanting Obama to have another Supreme Court pick and making lame excuses. McConnell says the American people should have a say. They DO have a say - they elected Obama for 8 years, not 7.
See "Biden Rule".
Huh? That was confusing.
Don't know why you are confused.
1. Peach says the Senate was going to take up the nomination in November.
2. I post showing McConnell saying no they are not.
3. You respond with something about the White House which has no bearing on #1 and #2.
4. I post to you pointing out that #3 has nothing to do with #1 and #2.
Pretty straight forward.
>>>>
For anyone but Iceweasel.
Obiwan
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2015
- 12,154
- 10,044
They aren't under any obligation to "consent" to whatever Obungles wants, so they withheld that consent....They ARE doing their job, Dumbass...Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.
Well that is the argument of the GOP.
I don't see any 6th year Senators offering not to vote for their final year as Senator just to wait to see 'what the people' want.
Meanwhile- the people vote on the President every 4 years- and for a 4 year term- the people have spoken.
The President's job is to nominate a Supreme Court Justice- the Senate's job is to 'advise and consent'- it is the Senate that is refusing to to their job as per the U.S. Constitution.
He shall have Power,..... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ..... Judges of the supreme Court,
The President is doing his Constitutionally mandated job- the Senate is refusing to do their job.
They told Obozo NO....
View attachment 68274
He shall have 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 Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
They told the President 'no'- they didn't offer advice- or consent
That is all right- the Party of Donald Trump hardly cares about the Constitution anymore anyway.
Deal with it....
You forgot to post the part where they aren't doing their job. obama followed their advice? I doubt it.Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.
Well that is the argument of the GOP.
I don't see any 6th year Senators offering not to vote for their final year as Senator just to wait to see 'what the people' want.
Meanwhile- the people vote on the President every 4 years- and for a 4 year term- the people have spoken.
The President's job is to nominate a Supreme Court Justice- the Senate's job is to 'advise and consent'- it is the Senate that is refusing to to their job as per the U.S. Constitution.
He shall have Power,..... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ..... Judges of the supreme Court,
The President is doing his Constitutionally mandated job- the Senate is refusing to do their job.
The Senate never offered advice- the President of the Senate specifically said that they would not be offering advice.
If the Senate doesn't vote on it- the Senate has offered no advice or consent.
Arizona Willie
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2015
- 1,064
- 220
========Because the supreme court nominee was democratically chosen by the people in 2012.Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.
Indeed, for Senate republicans to refuse to vote to confirm the president’s nominee is for them to disregard the will of the people, who through the democratic process reelected Obama to be president until January 20, 2017 – to execute his duties as president in accordance with the will of the majority of the American people until that time, including nominating justices to the Supreme Court.
As far as I know Obama will still be our President even after the November elections and then the Senate will bring up his nomination and vote on it.
Both are still doing their jobs.
Obama will only be President until January 20, 2016 ... just a couple of months and the raging righties will NOT consider anyone he nominates or has nominated.
When Bernie takes office they will DEMAND to wait 4 more years so they can get another chance to pack the Supreme Court with ultra right wingers.
They aren't under any obligation to "consent" to whatever Obungles wants, so they withheld that consent....They ARE doing their job, Dumbass...Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.
Well that is the argument of the GOP.
I don't see any 6th year Senators offering not to vote for their final year as Senator just to wait to see 'what the people' want.
Meanwhile- the people vote on the President every 4 years- and for a 4 year term- the people have spoken.
The President's job is to nominate a Supreme Court Justice- the Senate's job is to 'advise and consent'- it is the Senate that is refusing to to their job as per the U.S. Constitution.
He shall have Power,..... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ..... Judges of the supreme Court,
The President is doing his Constitutionally mandated job- the Senate is refusing to do their job.
They told Obozo NO....
View attachment 68274
He shall have 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 Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
They told the President 'no'- they didn't offer advice- or consent
That is all right- the Party of Donald Trump hardly cares about the Constitution anymore anyway.
Deal with it....
Oh I can 'deal with it'- I just enjoy pointing out that the GOP Senate can't be bothered to do their job under the Constitution.
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
- Dec 20, 2013
- 43,342
- 6,449
I'm happy for any adherance to law. The bench isn't where laws are to be written. That's the function of the legislative branch. Reason being the people have a say.How so? If it's that's close then it isn't a matter of law. A good law student can figure out the law. What 4 to 4 means is that there aren't enough liberals on the bench to ram their ideology down our throats.========I don't think their is any kind of time limit to nominating a supreme court juror or even a requirement. I think it just says that the president has that power to do so. And if we wait until the next election cycle then the president is still nominating someone and the congress will still be voting on it just like the constitution says. The only difference is that the people will have more of a say over who will get nominated because of the timing of Scalia's death.
In the mean time we have a court who isn't able to make a definitive ruling on anything.
Wrong again moose breath.
An 8 member court CAN make rulings and they will.
If they have tie vote then the ruling of the lower court that was appealed to them stands.
But if they vote 5-3 they can make NEW rulings and they likely will without Scalia acting as a roadblock.
A tie vote prevents the court from functioning as intended.
LOL......I love how Konservative Kooks like you call decisions you disapprove of 'ramming their ideology down your throats'- but are happy to embrace a 5 to 4 decision that overturns State laws you disapprove of.
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
- Nov 1, 2015
- 59,935
- 14,770
========Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.
Because the constitution says the president is supposed to nominate supreme court justices and the congress is supposed to vote on that nomination. Do you really want to ignore the constitution to potentially have Trump nominate his sister?
I don't think their is any kind of time limit to nominating a supreme court juror or even a requirement. I think it just says that the president has that power to do so. And if we wait until the next election cycle then the president is still nominating someone and the congress will still be voting on it just like the constitution says. The only difference is that the people will have more of a say over who will get nominated because of the timing of Scalia's death.
The ONLY reason Republicans are whining about people electing / nominating the next SCJ is because they hope they can pack the Supreme Court with ultra right wingers.
The Founding Fathers didn't play dat game homie.
The people ELECT their Senators whose job it is under the Constitution --- which righties claim to love ... until it doesn't fit their ideology --- to " advise and consent ".
They have already " advised " when they told Obama not to nominate anyone because they were refusing to do their job under the Constitution.
But he told them to shove it up their ass --- it was his job to nominate the next justice according to the Constitution and HE DID HIS JOB.
He even nominated a conservative --- not a big time liberal.
And still the Republicans refuse to do their job.
They should interview the nominee as has always been done in the past and then they are perfectly within their rights to vote no and show their ass again.
But they must vote on the nominee. The Constitution does not call for waiting another year to elect a new justice so that right wingers can pack the court with their fellow ideologues.
I suppose if a Democrat wins the Repubicans will DEMAND to wait 4 more years so they can have another chance to pack the court.
Right! Sure! Whatever you say!
[/sarcasm]
========Because the supreme court nominee was democratically chosen by the people in 2012.Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.
Indeed, for Senate republicans to refuse to vote to confirm the president’s nominee is for them to disregard the will of the people, who through the democratic process reelected Obama to be president until January 20, 2017 – to execute his duties as president in accordance with the will of the majority of the American people until that time, including nominating justices to the Supreme Court.
As far as I know Obama will still be our President even after the November elections and then the Senate will bring up his nomination and vote on it.
Both are still doing their jobs.
Obama will only be President until January 20, 2016 ... just a couple of months and the raging righties will NOT consider anyone he nominates or has nominated.
When Bernie takes office they will DEMAND to wait 4 more years so they can get another chance to pack the Supreme Court with ultra right wingers.
If Sanders or Clinton are elected, the nominees will be far more liberal- and younger.
Do I think that the GOP would use the same tactic for 4 years?
Certainly.
Arizona Willie
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2015
- 1,064
- 220
========Who cares if it's an election year? Thats nothing more than an excuse. If Scalia had died 6 months ago they would have made some other excuse like the campaigns have already started. This is all nonsense and nothing more than Republicans not wanting Obama to have another Supreme Court pick and making lame excuses. McConnell says the American people should have a say. They DO have a say - they elected Obama for 8 years, not 7.
See "Biden Rule".
The " Biden Rule " only exists in the minds of demented raging righties.
Biden suggested not confirming anyone BUT THE DEMS DID NOT DO IT -- IN FACT THEY CONFIRMED THE NOMINEE.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 651
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 392
- Replies
- 237
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 22
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 86
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8497
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 482
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-