PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #61
They will care, very, very soon, dirtbag.
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 currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Bush AG: "No question" Obama has "obligation" to fill the seat
- Thread starter hazlnut
- Start date
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,894
- 1,940
- Banned
- #62
I love it when you talk dirty to me... BabeThey will care, very, very soon, dirtbag.The voting pubs doesn't care...Voting is their Constitutional duty, kids. And if they don't, say goodbye to the GOP Senate. They were going to lose it anyway but pulling this craps means it's gone, gone, gone...They cannot consent without voting, and Advice and Consent are not optional. If they are then Obama doesn't need the Senate at all...NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
They don't have to vote that is their right as the Senate.
Then Obama has to pick another nomination. This could go back and forth until the next President comes in.
There is nothing pressing, it can wait till the next president... Honey
Na, no one gives a shit...
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #63
Gonna look like this, kids. 57-42: Poll: Should Obama appoint a new Supreme Court justice?
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #64
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,894
- 1,940
- Banned
- #65
Waiting for the next president makes more sense...Gonna look like this, kids. 57-42: Poll: Should Obama appoint a new Supreme Court justice?
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #66
No, it doesn't since there is absolutely no reason to wait a year. Of Obama and a new Dem, the Justice would be roughly the same, meaning there is only a 33% chance that the Justice would be picked by the GOP, and the GOP still has to consent so any real dog won't make it.Waiting for the next president makes more sense...Gonna look like this, kids. 57-42: Poll: Should Obama appoint a new Supreme Court justice?
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,894
- 1,940
- Banned
- #67
Barry has shitty judgment, kinda like his free throws.No, it doesn't since there is absolutely no reason to wait a year. Of Obama and a new Dem, the Justice would be roughly the same, meaning there is only a 33% chance that the Justice would be picked by the GOP, and the GOP still has to consent so any real dog won't make it.Waiting for the next president makes more sense...Gonna look like this, kids. 57-42: Poll: Should Obama appoint a new Supreme Court justice?
There is nothing pressing, an 8 person court functions just fine.
Na, it makes more sense to wait...
Obama had an obligation to follow that oath he took when he assumed office too.
All Obama has to do is nominate George W Bush and the nomination process can proceed quickly.
Appoint away.Gonna look like this, kids. 57-42: Poll: Should Obama appoint a new Supreme Court justice?
Ain't gettn approved.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #70
He will, and we'll see. Gonna be all kinds of hell to pay if they don't, starting with 12 GOP senators updating their resumes.Appoint away.Gonna look like this, kids. 57-42: Poll: Should Obama appoint a new Supreme Court justice?
Ain't gettn approved.
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,163
- 1,830
He has an obligation to nominate someone but the senate has no obligation to ratify a nominee
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #72
No, they are required to consent, or not, which means a ----------------------------------------V O T E.He has an obligation to nominate someone but the senate has no obligation to ratify a nominee
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,163
- 1,830
No, they are required to consent, or not, which means a ----------------------------------------V O T E.He has an obligation to nominate someone but the senate has no obligation to ratify a nominee
Yeah but when?
You know as well as I do that anything can be dragged out for a loooong time
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #74
So, you want them not to do their jobs?No, they are required to consent, or not, which means a ----------------------------------------V O T E.He has an obligation to nominate someone but the senate has no obligation to ratify a nominee
Yeah but when?
You know as well as I do that anything can be dragged out for a loooong time
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,163
- 1,830
Yes the less congress does the better it is for all of usSo, you want them not to do their jobs?No, they are required to consent, or not, which means a ----------------------------------------V O T E.He has an obligation to nominate someone but the senate has no obligation to ratify a nominee
Yeah but when?
You know as well as I do that anything can be dragged out for a loooong time
Yeah, the Republican landslides have been because Chicago Jesus is not rubber stamped for everything he does.He will, and we'll see. Gonna be all kinds of hell to pay if they don't, starting with 12 GOP senators updating their resumes.Appoint away.Gonna look like this, kids. 57-42: Poll: Should Obama appoint a new Supreme Court justice?
Ain't gettn approved.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #77
Glad you like paying people, to do nothing...Yes the less congress does the better it is for all of usSo, you want them not to do their jobs?No, they are required to consent, or not, which means a ----------------------------------------V O T E.He has an obligation to nominate someone but the senate has no obligation to ratify a nominee
Yeah but when?
You know as well as I do that anything can be dragged out for a loooong time
B. Kidd
Diamond Member
He has an obligation to nominate someone but the senate has no obligation to ratify a nominee
(I'm ba-a-a-ck!........
......). And both positions are constitutionally sound.........so-o-o, it'll be a pleasure to watch liberal heads explode all year long as there will be no Obie appointment confirmation..........
.
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,163
- 1,830
Glad you like paying people, to do nothing...Yes the less congress does the better it is for all of usSo, you want them not to do their jobs?No, they are required to consent, or not, which means a ----------------------------------------V O T E.He has an obligation to nominate someone but the senate has no obligation to ratify a nominee
Yeah but when?
You know as well as I do that anything can be dragged out for a loooong time
When congress acts it costs us all a fucking hell of a lot more than their salaries do
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #80
Rubber-stamping means you actually offered to get out the stamps, and they are not. Up or Down? No vote and we will send a bunch of them packing.Yeah, the Republican landslides have been because Chicago Jesus is not rubber stamped for everything he does.He will, and we'll see. Gonna be all kinds of hell to pay if they don't, starting with 12 GOP senators updating their resumes.Appoint away.Gonna look like this, kids. 57-42: Poll: Should Obama appoint a new Supreme Court justice?
Ain't gettn approved.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 233
- Replies
- 102
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 130
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 6K
- Views
- 1M
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 97
- Replies
- 85
- Views
- 219
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8247
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 476
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-