Bush AG: "No question" Obama has "obligation" to fill the seat

[PaintMyHouse]

If this situation was reversed, quite simply, the Democraps would be taking the same tack. But it isn't, they ain't, so they is hawg-tied!!!

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

What's your point?

My point is the job of the Senate is to vote, up or down, on whomever the nominee is.

No, that isn't their job.

Yes, it is. Read the fucking Constitution, the one Scalia defended.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gonna look like this, kids. 57-42: Poll: Should Obama appoint a new Supreme Court justice?

Waiting for the next president makes more sense...

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.

There really is no reason to wait. However, I do believe we should use Obama's advice when confirming any nominee.


Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. Floor Statement

TOPIC: Confirmations
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Floor Statement on the Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr.
Complete Text

First off, let me congratulate Senators Specter and Leahy for moving yet another confirmation process along with a civility that speaks well of the Senate.

As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I'm deeply troubled.

Obama Speech - Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. Floor Statement- Complete Text

Mark

So, was there a vote? Yes or no?

Yes. Like I stated, I believe they have an obligation to vote. BUT, they also have an obligation to keep the SCOTUS balanced if they can.

Mark

Nice, but not part of their job.

 

[ZackB]

Yeah, but Gonzales is a fucking beaner who should have never been appointed in the first place. He is just trying to keep the doors open for all his amigos and la familia.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

If this situation was reversed, quite simply, the Democraps would be taking the same tack. But it isn't, they ain't, so they is hawg-tied!!!

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

What's your point?

My point is the job of the Senate is to vote, up or down, on whomever the nominee is.

No, that isn't their job.

Were you homeschooled by Poly Chica?

 

[80zephyr]

Waiting for the next president makes more sense...

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.

There really is no reason to wait. However, I do believe we should use Obama's advice when confirming any nominee.


Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. Floor Statement

TOPIC: Confirmations
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Floor Statement on the Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr.
Complete Text

First off, let me congratulate Senators Specter and Leahy for moving yet another confirmation process along with a civility that speaks well of the Senate.

As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I'm deeply troubled.

Obama Speech - Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. Floor Statement- Complete Text

Mark

So, was there a vote? Yes or no?

Yes. Like I stated, I believe they have an obligation to vote. BUT, they also have an obligation to keep the SCOTUS balanced if they can.

Mark

Nice, but not part of their job.

Of course it is. What part of advise are you having trouble with?

Mark

 

[mikegriffith1]

Uh, go read the Constitution. The president has an obligation to nominate a candidate, and the Senate has every right under the Constitution to either ignore the nomination or vote him up or down.

The last time the American people got to vote, they gave REPUBLICANS a historic landslide victory and increased their control in the House and gave them control of the Senate.

 

[Timmy]

If this situation was reversed, quite simply, the Democraps would be taking the same tack. But it isn't, they ain't, so they is hawg-tied!!!

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

What's your point?

My point is the job of the Senate is to vote, up or down, on whomever the nominee is.

No, that isn't their job.

Yes, it is. Read the fucking Constitution, the one Scalia defended.

How ironic. When it comes to replacing a strict constitutionalist , the republicans want to ignore the constitution .

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

What's your point?

My point is the job of the Senate is to vote, up or down, on whomever the nominee is.

No, that isn't their job.

Yes, it is. Read the fucking Constitution, the one Scalia defended.

How ironic. When it comes to replacing a strict constitutionalist , the republicans want to ignore the constitution .

They aren't. You are.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

There really is no reason to wait. However, I do believe we should use Obama's advice when confirming any nominee.


Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. Floor Statement

TOPIC: Confirmations
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Floor Statement on the Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr.
Complete Text

First off, let me congratulate Senators Specter and Leahy for moving yet another confirmation process along with a civility that speaks well of the Senate.

As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I'm deeply troubled.

Obama Speech - Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. Floor Statement- Complete Text

Mark

So, was there a vote? Yes or no?

Yes. Like I stated, I believe they have an obligation to vote. BUT, they also have an obligation to keep the SCOTUS balanced if they can.

Mark

Nice, but not part of their job.

Of course it is. What part of advise are you having trouble with?

Mark

The part where they don't because they want their party to pick instead of the one in power.

 

[80zephyr]

There really is no reason to wait. However, I do believe we should use Obama's advice when confirming any nominee.


Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. Floor Statement

TOPIC: Confirmations
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Floor Statement on the Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr.
Complete Text

First off, let me congratulate Senators Specter and Leahy for moving yet another confirmation process along with a civility that speaks well of the Senate.

As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I'm deeply troubled.

Obama Speech - Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. Floor Statement- Complete Text

Mark

So, was there a vote? Yes or no?

Yes. Like I stated, I believe they have an obligation to vote. BUT, they also have an obligation to keep the SCOTUS balanced if they can.

Mark

Nice, but not part of their job.

Of course it is. What part of advise are you having trouble with?

Mark

The part where they don't because they want their party to pick instead of the one in power.

There is no one in power. Obama is not a dictator, and if the senate believes that an unbalanced court would be a mistake, they are obligated to act.

Mark

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course the president has the obligation to fill the vacancy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So, was there a vote? Yes or no?

Yes. Like I stated, I believe they have an obligation to vote. BUT, they also have an obligation to keep the SCOTUS balanced if they can.

Mark

Nice, but not part of their job.

Of course it is. What part of advise are you having trouble with?

Mark

The part where they don't because they want their party to pick instead of the one in power.

There is no one in power. Obama is not a dictator, and if the senate believes that an unbalanced court would be a mistake, they are obligated to act.

Mark

Obama is in power. For another year. Their job is to vote, up or down, and they are promising to not do thier fucking job.

 

[Unkotare]

Yeah, but Gonzales is a fucking beaner who should have never been appointed in the first place. He is just trying to keep the doors open for all his amigos and la familia.

No ethnic slur for Cruz?

 

[LeftofLeft]

He does.

And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,

So long as they act with good intentions. As it stands, they are saying they will block anyone just cause it's obama .

And these are the same people who claim obama doesn't follow the constitution .

Keeping with the Schumer model..... show us the Liberal voice in 2007 saying not to block anyone because it was Bush and to stand on principle and process? You Liberals are determine to have it cut both ways yet are simply showing US once again how full of shit you are.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He does.

And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,

So long as they act with good intentions. As it stands, they are saying they will block anyone just cause it's obama .

And these are the same people who claim obama doesn't follow the constitution .

Keeping with the Schumer model..... show us the Liberal voice in 2007 saying not to block anyone because it was Bush and to stand on principle and process? You Liberals are determine to have it cut both ways yet are simply showing US once again how full of shit you are.

Hmm, was there a vote, yes or no?

I've asked this several times, and they always run away...

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what

Harry reid held up or flat out refused to bring lots of things to the floor of the senate for a vote

Turnabout is fair play

Those are bills, not Supreme Court appointments, dumbass.

Doesn't matter

You don't think Reid would do the same thing if the roles were reversed?

If you do you're even more of a retard than I thought and that's saying something

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Past performance is no guarantee of future results

Since you are happy to pay Congress to do nothing, your opinion is of no value.

Like I said I'd happily my my few cents for salaries because every single stupid new law and regulation costs me far far more

I guess you don't understand the concept of a loss leader

You lose money on something in order to make a lot more money somewhere else

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what

Harry reid held up or flat out refused to bring lots of things to the floor of the senate for a vote

Turnabout is fair play

Those are bills, not Supreme Court appointments, dumbass.

Doesn't matter

You don't think Reid would do the same thing if the roles were reversed?

If you do you're even more of a retard than I thought and that's saying something

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Past performance is no guarantee of future results

Since you are happy to pay Congress to do nothing, your opinion is of no value.

And you can't seem to understand that it's not 1988 anymore

 

[Skull Pilot]

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

What's your point?

My point is the job of the Senate is to vote, up or down, on whomever the nominee is.

No, that isn't their job.

Yes, it is. Read the fucking Constitution, the one Scalia defended.

How ironic. When it comes to replacing a strict constitutionalist , the republicans want to ignore the constitution .

They'll do it legally by using every trick in the book to delay the process or they'll flat out reject any nominee
There is no super majority unless at least 14 republicans break ranks

Now that might have happened any other time but we less than 9 months away from an election

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of course the president has the obligation to fill the vacancy.

But the senate has no obligation to accept his nominee

 

[CowboyTed]

Those are bills, not Supreme Court appointments, dumbass.

Doesn't matter

You don't think Reid would do the same thing if the roles were reversed?

If you do you're even more of a retard than I thought and that's saying something

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Past performance is no guarantee of future results

Since you are happy to pay Congress to do nothing, your opinion is of no value.

Quit your bitch'n...
The vast majority of Americans don't give two shits if it sits vacant for a bit, there is nothing pressing. Anyway, comrade asshat does not need anymore picks. Barry's judgement sucks ass...

And yet the man Obama is replacing would totally disagree with you..

Scaila was a constitutionalist and therefore would have insisted in the President performing his job. Don't worry the President will despite the GOP asking that they ignore their responsibility.

If you had your way you wouldn't want any Dem PResident appointing any SC Justice ever...