- Nov 14, 2011
- 121,410
- 67,404
- 2,635
"Which part of the Senate must approve them don't you understand."Which part of the Senate must approve them don't you understand. Lame duck Obama wasn't gonna get approval for any nomination, but at least the GOP didn't use Character Assassination like the Dems did with Kav.................Which was a disgrace to watch.Dayum, you're fucking stupid.You argued with someone saying that it is in this quoted string.Dumbfuck, where did I ever say otherwise?Read your own link, he NOMINATES and then IF the Senate Agrees he appoints your own link says so."You don't appoint a Supreme Court Justice you nominate them and the Senate decides rather or not to confirm them."
Why do you dumbshits post about things you clearly know nothing about?? Of course the Constitution states a president appoints replacements....
Article II, Section 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.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Th president nominates potential candidates and if the Senate approves of them, the president appoints them.
"The Senate Majority leader also has the power to decide rather or not to give a nominee a hearing was what was done with Merrick Garland purely political no question"
No one is denying the Senate Majority Leader has that power. The argument is that he abused that power to prevent a Liberal justice from being added to the Supreme Court. Which that same Senate Majority Leader now says he won't do if trump is faced with the exact same circumstances Obama faced. In other words, the excuses he gave back in 2016.... a president shouldn't get to appoint replacements during an election year ... and ... the people should get to decide which president nominates replacements ... was all just a lie.
So why shouldn't Democrats return the favor now and abuse any power granted them by the people and the Constitution; to return the favor...?
"Lets not forget the Democrats were willing to consider doing the same thing during the Presidency of both George H.W. Bush and George W Bush if they would have followed through we will never no as no seat opened up on the court during an election year during their Presidenicy."
That's utter bullshit. What Republicans did was to deny a duly elected sitting president his Constitutional power to appoint a replacement for nearly an entire year of his presidency.
No Democrat ever suggested that with Bush. What Biden did suggest was to delay, not deny, confirmation hearings until after the election should a seat have opened within a few months, not a year, prior to the election.
This is what I said...
Th president nominates potential candidates and if the Senate approves of them, the president appoints them.
... what part of that does your deformed brain inform you is inconsistent with the Constitution?
Dumbfuck, what part of that did I get wrong...?
"Th president nominates potential candidates and if the Senate approves of them, the president appoints them." ~ Faun