Why senate Dems. MUST filibuster Gorsuch's consent.....

[Slade3200]

In all fairness Obama/dems were blasted for following the Constitution when he nominated a replacement for Scalia. The Constitution clearly granted Obama that power and obligation.

I'm no Obama fan, and I don't mind Trump's pick...but if we're going to pull the "follow the Constitution" card-we need to be consistent when we do. Obama's nomination should have went to a vote...why? Because that's what the Constitution says.

The Constitution gives no timeline either.

Scalia passed away in Obama's last year of Presidency. Based on the previous midterm elections, people were not happy with Democrat policies. Because we can't use midterms to determine the mood of the citizens, it was only right to allow us to make the decision of the next SC justice based on the presidential election.

This is different in that we as a country did decide on which way we want our country to go; particularly when it comes to the SC nomination.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency. Obama has done plenty of unconstitutional things...this however wasn't one of them.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency.

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

Where does it grant them that power? If they voted his nominee down (which is what I would have wanted mind you)-fine. But we need to follow the Constitution at ALL times, not just when it helps our political party/principles.

Where does it grant them that power?

Quote the relevant part of the Constitution, and I'll show you.

Stop with the word games, refusing to meet and vote for a year is complete bullshit and you know it. Flip the script and you'd be screaming your head off

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Constitution gives no timeline either.

Scalia passed away in Obama's last year of Presidency. Based on the previous midterm elections, people were not happy with Democrat policies. Because we can't use midterms to determine the mood of the citizens, it was only right to allow us to make the decision of the next SC justice based on the presidential election.

This is different in that we as a country did decide on which way we want our country to go; particularly when it comes to the SC nomination.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency. Obama has done plenty of unconstitutional things...this however wasn't one of them.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency.

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

Where does it grant them that power? If they voted his nominee down (which is what I would have wanted mind you)-fine. But we need to follow the Constitution at ALL times, not just when it helps our political party/principles.

Where does it grant them that power?

Quote the relevant part of the Constitution, and I'll show you.

Stop with the word games, refusing to meet and vote for a year is complete bullshit and you know it. Flip the script and you'd be screaming your head off

Yup, I'd be screaming my head off and the Senate still wouldn't be violating the Constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So in your mind a person who actually want to follow the constitution and do his Job correctly is unfit for the job of Chief Justice.... Never dawns on you idiot progressives that this is why you are losing elections does it?

In all fairness Obama/dems were blasted for following the Constitution when he nominated a replacement for Scalia. The Constitution clearly granted Obama that power and obligation.

I'm no Obama fan, and I don't mind Trump's pick...but if we're going to pull the "follow the Constitution" card-we need to be consistent when we do. Obama's nomination should have went to a vote...why? Because that's what the Constitution says.

The Constitution gives no timeline either.

Scalia passed away in Obama's last year of Presidency. Based on the previous midterm elections, people were not happy with Democrat policies. Because we can't use midterms to determine the mood of the citizens, it was only right to allow us to make the decision of the next SC justice based on the presidential election.

This is different in that we as a country did decide on which way we want our country to go; particularly when it comes to the SC nomination.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency. Obama has done plenty of unconstitutional things...this however wasn't one of them.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency.

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

Where does it grant them that power? If they voted his nominee down (which is what I would have wanted mind you)-fine. But we need to follow the Constitution at ALL times, not just when it helps our political party/principles.

I think by not having a vote is pretty much voting him down.

 

[Slade3200]

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency. Obama has done plenty of unconstitutional things...this however wasn't one of them.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency.

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

Where does it grant them that power? If they voted his nominee down (which is what I would have wanted mind you)-fine. But we need to follow the Constitution at ALL times, not just when it helps our political party/principles.

Where does it grant them that power?

Quote the relevant part of the Constitution, and I'll show you.

Stop with the word games, refusing to meet and vote for a year is complete bullshit and you know it. Flip the script and you'd be screaming your head off

Yup, I'd be screaming my head off and the Senate still wouldn't be violating the Constitution.

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found. Amendment coming soon... congress continues to be worthless

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency.

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

Where does it grant them that power? If they voted his nominee down (which is what I would have wanted mind you)-fine. But we need to follow the Constitution at ALL times, not just when it helps our political party/principles.

Where does it grant them that power?

Quote the relevant part of the Constitution, and I'll show you.

Stop with the word games, refusing to meet and vote for a year is complete bullshit and you know it. Flip the script and you'd be screaming your head off

Yup, I'd be screaming my head off and the Senate still wouldn't be violating the Constitution.

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found. Amendment coming soon... congress continues to be worthless

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found.

And?

Amendment coming soon...

Tell me more.

 

[Slade3200]

Where does it grant them that power? If they voted his nominee down (which is what I would have wanted mind you)-fine. But we need to follow the Constitution at ALL times, not just when it helps our political party/principles.

Where does it grant them that power?

Quote the relevant part of the Constitution, and I'll show you.

Stop with the word games, refusing to meet and vote for a year is complete bullshit and you know it. Flip the script and you'd be screaming your head off

Yup, I'd be screaming my head off and the Senate still wouldn't be violating the Constitution.

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found. Amendment coming soon... congress continues to be worthless

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found.

And?

Amendment coming soon...

Tell me more.

If the buttholes in congress are going to sit on their thumbs to avoid doing their jobs then leadership should better define the process to prevent them from this kind of obstruction. Put a time limit for nominations and better define the "advise/consent" processes. These Yahoos continue to embarrass themselves by acting like children, I guess we need to start treating them like children.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where does it grant them that power?

Quote the relevant part of the Constitution, and I'll show you.

Stop with the word games, refusing to meet and vote for a year is complete bullshit and you know it. Flip the script and you'd be screaming your head off

Yup, I'd be screaming my head off and the Senate still wouldn't be violating the Constitution.

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found. Amendment coming soon... congress continues to be worthless

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found.

And?

Amendment coming soon...

Tell me more.

If the buttholes in congress are going to sit on their thumbs to avoid doing their jobs then leadership should better define the process to prevent them from this kind of obstruction. Put a time limit for nominations and better define the "advise/consent" processes. These Yahoos continue to embarrass themselves by acting like children, I guess we need to start treating them like children.

You think you'll get an Amendment with a time limit? LOL!

 

[RASTAMEN]

Where does it grant them that power?

Quote the relevant part of the Constitution, and I'll show you.

Stop with the word games, refusing to meet and vote for a year is complete bullshit and you know it. Flip the script and you'd be screaming your head off

Yup, I'd be screaming my head off and the Senate still wouldn't be violating the Constitution.

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found. Amendment coming soon... congress continues to be worthless

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found.

And?

Amendment coming soon...

Tell me more.

If the buttholes in congress are going to sit on their thumbs to avoid doing their jobs then leadership should better define the process to prevent them from this kind of obstruction. Put a time limit for nominations and better define the "advise/consent" processes. These Yahoos continue to embarrass themselves by acting like children, I guess we need to start treating them like children.

The GOP sat on their for 8 years and didn't get anything while Obama was President. Why can't Dems do the same the next four years?????

 

[Slade3200]

Stop with the word games, refusing to meet and vote for a year is complete bullshit and you know it. Flip the script and you'd be screaming your head off

Yup, I'd be screaming my head off and the Senate still wouldn't be violating the Constitution.

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found. Amendment coming soon... congress continues to be worthless

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found.

And?

Amendment coming soon...

Tell me more.

If the buttholes in congress are going to sit on their thumbs to avoid doing their jobs then leadership should better define the process to prevent them from this kind of obstruction. Put a time limit for nominations and better define the "advise/consent" processes. These Yahoos continue to embarrass themselves by acting like children, I guess we need to start treating them like children.

The GOP sat on their for 8 years and didn't get anything while Obama was President. Why can't Dems do the same the next four years?????

As the rules are now they can, but that's a shitty way to run our government. Something's gotta change

 

[Slade3200]

Stop with the word games, refusing to meet and vote for a year is complete bullshit and you know it. Flip the script and you'd be screaming your head off

Yup, I'd be screaming my head off and the Senate still wouldn't be violating the Constitution.

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found. Amendment coming soon... congress continues to be worthless

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found.

And?

Amendment coming soon...

Tell me more.

If the buttholes in congress are going to sit on their thumbs to avoid doing their jobs then leadership should better define the process to prevent them from this kind of obstruction. Put a time limit for nominations and better define the "advise/consent" processes. These Yahoos continue to embarrass themselves by acting like children, I guess we need to start treating them like children.

You think you'll get an Amendment with a time limit? LOL!

I Think there should be. You don't? This BS is acceptable to you? Waste of time and our dollars

 

[RASTAMEN]

Yup, I'd be screaming my head off and the Senate still wouldn't be violating the Constitution.

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found. Amendment coming soon... congress continues to be worthless

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found.

And?

Amendment coming soon...

Tell me more.

If the buttholes in congress are going to sit on their thumbs to avoid doing their jobs then leadership should better define the process to prevent them from this kind of obstruction. Put a time limit for nominations and better define the "advise/consent" processes. These Yahoos continue to embarrass themselves by acting like children, I guess we need to start treating them like children.

The GOP sat on their for 8 years and didn't get anything while Obama was President. Why can't Dems do the same the next four years?????

As the rules are now they can, but that's a shitty way to run our government. Something's gotta change

The GOP proved it can be done and opened the door for the Dems to repeat the same strategy-behavior.

 

[Slade3200]

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found. Amendment coming soon... congress continues to be worthless

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found.

And?

Amendment coming soon...

Tell me more.

If the buttholes in congress are going to sit on their thumbs to avoid doing their jobs then leadership should better define the process to prevent them from this kind of obstruction. Put a time limit for nominations and better define the "advise/consent" processes. These Yahoos continue to embarrass themselves by acting like children, I guess we need to start treating them like children.

The GOP sat on their for 8 years and didn't get anything while Obama was President. Why can't Dems do the same the next four years?????

As the rules are now they can, but that's a shitty way to run our government. Something's gotta change

The GOP proved it can be done and opened the door for the Dems to repeat the same strategy-behavior.

With that logic we can just stay at a stalemate forever. Two wrongs don't make a right... you ever learn that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup, I'd be screaming my head off and the Senate still wouldn't be violating the Constitution.

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found. Amendment coming soon... congress continues to be worthless

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found.

And?

Amendment coming soon...

Tell me more.

If the buttholes in congress are going to sit on their thumbs to avoid doing their jobs then leadership should better define the process to prevent them from this kind of obstruction. Put a time limit for nominations and better define the "advise/consent" processes. These Yahoos continue to embarrass themselves by acting like children, I guess we need to start treating them like children.

You think you'll get an Amendment with a time limit? LOL!

I Think there should be. You don't? This BS is acceptable to you? Waste of time and our dollars

Political actions have political consequences.
It would be a waste of time, you'd never get such an amendment thru.

 

[mgh80]

In all fairness Obama/dems were blasted for following the Constitution when he nominated a replacement for Scalia. The Constitution clearly granted Obama that power and obligation.

I'm no Obama fan, and I don't mind Trump's pick...but if we're going to pull the "follow the Constitution" card-we need to be consistent when we do. Obama's nomination should have went to a vote...why? Because that's what the Constitution says.

The Constitution gives no timeline either.

Scalia passed away in Obama's last year of Presidency. Based on the previous midterm elections, people were not happy with Democrat policies. Because we can't use midterms to determine the mood of the citizens, it was only right to allow us to make the decision of the next SC justice based on the presidential election.

This is different in that we as a country did decide on which way we want our country to go; particularly when it comes to the SC nomination.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency. Obama has done plenty of unconstitutional things...this however wasn't one of them.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency.

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

Where does it grant them that power? If they voted his nominee down (which is what I would have wanted mind you)-fine. But we need to follow the Constitution at ALL times, not just when it helps our political party/principles.

I think by not having a vote is pretty much voting him down.

"Pretty much" isn't good enough when you're dealing with the Constitution. It's like being pregnant: you are either are or you aren't.

 

[mgh80]

In all fairness Obama/dems were blasted for following the Constitution when he nominated a replacement for Scalia. The Constitution clearly granted Obama that power and obligation.

I'm no Obama fan, and I don't mind Trump's pick...but if we're going to pull the "follow the Constitution" card-we need to be consistent when we do. Obama's nomination should have went to a vote...why? Because that's what the Constitution says.

The Constitution gives no timeline either.

Scalia passed away in Obama's last year of Presidency. Based on the previous midterm elections, people were not happy with Democrat policies. Because we can't use midterms to determine the mood of the citizens, it was only right to allow us to make the decision of the next SC justice based on the presidential election.

This is different in that we as a country did decide on which way we want our country to go; particularly when it comes to the SC nomination.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency. Obama has done plenty of unconstitutional things...this however wasn't one of them.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency.

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

Where does it grant them that power? If they voted his nominee down (which is what I would have wanted mind you)-fine. But we need to follow the Constitution at ALL times, not just when it helps our political party/principles.

Where does it grant them that power?

Quote the relevant part of the Constitution, and I'll show you.

In other words: you made a statement and can't back it up. Good job!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Constitution gives no timeline either.

Scalia passed away in Obama's last year of Presidency. Based on the previous midterm elections, people were not happy with Democrat policies. Because we can't use midterms to determine the mood of the citizens, it was only right to allow us to make the decision of the next SC justice based on the presidential election.

This is different in that we as a country did decide on which way we want our country to go; particularly when it comes to the SC nomination.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency. Obama has done plenty of unconstitutional things...this however wasn't one of them.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency.

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

Where does it grant them that power? If they voted his nominee down (which is what I would have wanted mind you)-fine. But we need to follow the Constitution at ALL times, not just when it helps our political party/principles.

Where does it grant them that power?

Quote the relevant part of the Constitution, and I'll show you.

In other words: you made a statement and can't back it up. Good job!

I said their action was Constitutional. You said it wasn't.
Post the relevant part and I'll point out your error.

 

[mgh80]

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency. Obama has done plenty of unconstitutional things...this however wasn't one of them.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency.

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

Where does it grant them that power? If they voted his nominee down (which is what I would have wanted mind you)-fine. But we need to follow the Constitution at ALL times, not just when it helps our political party/principles.

Where does it grant them that power?

Quote the relevant part of the Constitution, and I'll show you.

In other words: you made a statement and can't back it up. Good job!

I said their action was Constitutional. You said it wasn't.
Post the relevant part and I'll point out your error.

The Constitution restricts the power of the government...if the government does something that's not in the Constitution-it's unconstitutional, this isn't rocket science. The Constitution states what that the government is allowed to do for a reason, because if it stated what government can't do-the document would be millions of pages in length.

Again show me where the Constitution grants them the power to do so.

 

[Slade3200]

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found. Amendment coming soon... congress continues to be worthless

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found.

And?

Amendment coming soon...

Tell me more.

If the buttholes in congress are going to sit on their thumbs to avoid doing their jobs then leadership should better define the process to prevent them from this kind of obstruction. Put a time limit for nominations and better define the "advise/consent" processes. These Yahoos continue to embarrass themselves by acting like children, I guess we need to start treating them like children.

You think you'll get an Amendment with a time limit? LOL!

I Think there should be. You don't? This BS is acceptable to you? Waste of time and our dollars

Political actions have political consequences.
It would be a waste of time, you'd never get such an amendment thru.

So are you making excuses for these type of antics or would you support putting rules in place to stop the BS?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency.

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

Where does it grant them that power? If they voted his nominee down (which is what I would have wanted mind you)-fine. But we need to follow the Constitution at ALL times, not just when it helps our political party/principles.

Where does it grant them that power?

Quote the relevant part of the Constitution, and I'll show you.

In other words: you made a statement and can't back it up. Good job!

I said their action was Constitutional. You said it wasn't.
Post the relevant part and I'll point out your error.

The Constitution restricts the power of the government...if the government does something that's not in the Constitution-it's unconstitutional, this isn't rocket science. The Constitution states what that the government is allowed to do for a reason, because if it stated what government can't do-the document would be millions of pages in length.

Again show me where the Constitution grants them the power to do so.

2: 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, 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.

Nothing in there that says their action was improper.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Nothing like generalizations with no specific examples.

You'll have those "specific examples" soon enough.....but, of course, lacking objectivity, you'll revert to mindless approval.

This is killing you isn't it?...Ya know if you put up a qualified viable candidate none of this would be necessary...just to be clear, genitalia is not a qualification/credential.