Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

[Billy_Kinetta]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

You and your dear leader are always befuddled by anything dealing with the Constitution. The dear leader can nominate anyone he wants, then the Senate can schedule hearings at their leisure, there are no time limits placed on either constitutionally. So he can play all the word games he pleases, it means nothing.

No, I'm pretty sure it is yet another example of how repubs work for themselves and have no interest at all in governing for the American people.

Keep in mind that the DNC is rigging the delegate process to favor Clinton over Sanders. That must really suck for Sanders supporters. I imagine it's because the DNC only works for themselves, and for whom they want to win. It's sad you don't realize it.

I believe Sanders will tell the party to remedy the delegate rigging, or face him as an independent candidate.

The fact that the influential leftist-rag SALON is humming the funeral march for the Clinton campaign will add a little ammo.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

If people that are elected to actually work and do the job hired for don't do it, what good are they? When I hire someone that doesn't want to work for what they get paid they don't work there anymore.

Republicans in Congress though look at paychecks from taxpayers as welfare. No reason to work when they can do nothing and get paid $150,000 or more a year.
The government isn't meant to be a tool to beat other humans over the head with or whine and throw tantrums when it doesn't go your way.

The Republican party is dead.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Constitution ALSO does not say we need to select a Justice based on legal experience and years on the bench as a judge, etc. The Constitution is silent on the qualifications for a judge.

I would go by the CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVT SERVICE
ethics-commission.net
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

If the President and Senate can find a candidate who recognizes political beliefs and will not approve any law or ruling that favors one political belief or faith based bias over another, but puts the Constitution first and remains neutral where ALL people of ALL beliefs, creeds, and parties are included and represented equally, then that would be a fair person to fill the tiebreaking position.

If it's going to be more rightsided or leftsided politics, I would say NO to any such candidate who can't either resolve such beliefs or separate them from govt and keep the conflicts to the individuals and parties to work out.

Personally I think former prosecutor Chris Christie fits that bill. As a republican governor of a Blue state he seems to be responsive to the needs and desires of his democrat constituency.. But is Christie moderate enough to support Obama's crowing achievement, Obamacare? Maintaining Obamacare would be the central consideration for any one nominated by the President. But he is wise enough to understand that someone like Christie is the only viable chance he has to get his nominee approved by the top heavy republican Senate. If Christie's apparent affinity for the democrat base of his home state plays any part of any future role as a USSC Justice, I would definitely put him near the top of my short list of people who could have any chance of confirmation such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and John Kasich!

Dear JQPublic1
I would like to see concerned citizens from all parties put together a Constitutional forum to discuss
these things. We need to pick a Justice and/or expand the Justice system to allow more conflict resolution
and equal input from all sides to RESOLVE issues and not put the decisions in the hands of Judges to decide any issue of BELIEFS for the entire nation which is not what they are supposed to do. Technically anything that isn't for govt to decide, the Justices and Judges should kick that out of court and back to the legislatures to fix in writing. They aren't supposed to rule in ways that use the Judiciary to "create laws from the bench" due to failure of the legislatures to resolve conflicts and establish policies that reflect the consent of the people.

The representation of the people is supposed to be on the Congressional and legislative level.
but when that is lost to bipartisan politics, then it gets kicked to the Judiciary to make rulings
or gets so lost in bureaucracy, the President takes to issues Executive Order to bypass the deadlock or backlog.

No -- we need Constitutional Justices who will kick back biased or bad laws back to the legislators and make them do their job instead of trying to rewrite or adjudicate for them and for the people.

If we need to have open dialogue on this process to get it shifted back to the legislatures and the states, and quit pushing conflicts up to courts and judges to legislate that way, that's why I would like to see a Constitutional type conference system set up to address issues of beliefs that are tying up legislation in 50/50 deadlocks BECAUSE beliefs are involved that neither side will or should compromise, much less be forced to by govt. No more!

BTW with Christie he lost me on his campaign to ban conversion therapy WITHOUT making a distinction with the voluntary and effective reparative/healing therapy.

If he doesn't recognize spiritual healing and the impact this has on major issues, from health care to the prison system and how we treat criminal illness as a curable diseases,
then his judgment is lacking.

I would want to see what he does with this information, and how that changes his outlook,
before assessing his judgment. If people don't have equal knowledge about how spiritual healing works,
it isn't fair to judge how they respond to conflicts and their vision of public policy and justice
that could totally change if they knew the extent to which people can completely change, and relations as well.

Maybe he would be a fair person.
But for him to go off and take the side of banning without considering all the information and knowledge out there, that showed to me he might be reactionary to the point of leaving out key factors critical to making a fully informed decision. So I'd have to see what kind of response and decisions he'd make GIVEN complete information first.

Thanks, JQPublic1
I think I will suggest to my Tea Party, Constitutionalist and Christian / Veteran Party contacts
that we go ahead and call to set up Constitutional conference and networks state by state, party by party,
to discuss ALL concerns about issues that normally end up in the hands of Judges and Supreme Court Justices.

Try to work these out ourselves, and in that process, we can assess which leaders among us can moderate and mediate conflict resolution, which ones are fair enough to serve as Judges who WON'T impose their opinions
but will seek consensus and/or separation on issues of beliefs that otherwise divide the nation by creed instead of including, representing and protecting the creeds, interests and consent of all people equally regardless of party or religious affiliation, and certainly not imposing one belief/creed over others by manipulating majority rule.

We could end up restructuring a more interactive Peace and Justice Department,
similar to what the progressives are pushing with their idea of creating a Cabinet level Peace Department.
I suggested to expand the Justice Dept to provide conflict resolution assistance, training and services instead of creating a new position, just add more mediation and access to help with a consensus based decision process as an equal alternative under the Justice system.

So why not set up a model and use this issue as the focus of discussion and conferencing
to address grievances, concerns and conflicts over what we want or don't want coming out of the Justice system with the current political division over beliefs.

Let's do it. Let's find out what it really does take to settle these issues.
Resolve as much as we can, then take our solutions and talking points of agreement,
and feed that to the govt officials on all levels and in all branches of govt to end the deadlocks
that occur when these issues aren't resolved in advance but get fed through the system
in the form of contested and biased laws and rulings (garbage in, garbage out).

Just an observation, I'm glad you weren't writing the Bill of Rights. Would be longer than war and peace.

Edit a little and I will read.

Dear IsaacNewton
If people agreed to follow the
* Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment on equal protection of the laws
* The Code of Ethics for Govt Service [all posted on http://www.ethics-commission.net]
* local police policies and procedures for due process of laws
* and whatever conflict resolution or grievance process that the local schools in each district can use to educate, train and assist local communities in managing their own populations,

Then I wouldn't have to "keep explaining over and over" why these principles are essential to practice ourselves, first, before expecting govt to uphold these same standards consistently.

People would be too busy solving their own problems, as their own contribution to govt,
and redressing their own grievances directly between the parties affected.

The only reason I have to say anything is
people aren't focused on solutions, but just
blaming problems on opposing groups.

Believe me, IsaacNewton
I equally welcome the day people follow WHAT'S ALREADY WRITTEN
and I don't have to say a thing.

Cant argue with the idea people should be more compromising and figure things out for themselves. The first thing I think should be voted down by referendum is gerrymandering. No party should be allowed to do this. It is a disgusting perversion of democracy.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

If people that are elected to actually work and do the job hired for don't do it, what good are they?

Indeed. I am a natural born citizen, a voter and a constituent. I voted to have a Senate majority with whom I generally agree in order to block Obama at every turn possible, as did the other voters who in the majority voted with the same intent.

That, therefore, is their job. So far they have been rather bad at it.

Advice and consent is a restriction applied to the Executive branch, not a requirement of the Senate. It merely means that the Executive branch cannot perform certain actions without the advice and consent of the Senate. It is in no way required that the Senate give it.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

If people that are elected to actually work and do the job hired for don't do it, what good are they?

Indeed. I am a natural born citizen, a voter and a constituent. I voted to have a Senate majority with whom I generally agree in order to block Obama at every turn possible, as did the other voters who in the majority voted with the same intent.

That, therefore, is their job. So far they have been rather bad at it.

Advice and consent is restriction applied to the Executive branch, not a requirement of the Senate. It merely means that the Executive branch cannot perform certain actions without the advice and consent of the Senate. It is in no way required that the Senate give it.

Ahhh. So a political party is free to stop the government's business forever for political purposes.

One party represents the people, one party represents the party. Republicans are not Americans anymore, they are the US version of the Communist Party. In their minds nothing happens unless they say it will.

Easy, if you don't want to participate in the democracy the founders set up, which is built entirely on forced compromise, then get out.

American government and American society doesn't work for you any more, fine. Find another.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

You and your dear leader are always befuddled by anything dealing with the Constitution. The dear leader can nominate anyone he wants, then the Senate can schedule hearings at their leisure, there are no time limits placed on either constitutionally. So he can play all the word games he pleases, it means nothing.

No, I'm pretty sure it is yet another example of how repubs work for themselves and have no interest at all in governing for the American people.

Keep in mind that the DNC is rigging the delegate process to favor Clinton over Sanders. That must really suck for Sanders supporters. I imagine it's because the DNC only works for themselves, and for whom they want to win. It's sad you don't realize it.

How does the DNC do that? The delegates choose who to support not the DNC.

Superdelegates Help Clinton Expand Her Lead Despite NH Loss

You're going to have to do better than that.

CNN’s Tapper Challenges DNC Chair To Explain ‘Rigged’ Superdelegate System [VIDEO]

Un-Democratic Party: DNC Chair Says Superdelegates Ensure Elites Don't Have to Run 'Against Grassroots Activists'

Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists”

Jake Tapper’s interview with the DNC Chair on superdelegates and the train wreck that followed - Hot Air

 

[OKTexas]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

If people that are elected to actually work and do the job hired for don't do it, what good are they?

Indeed. I am a natural born citizen, a voter and a constituent. I voted to have a Senate majority with whom I generally agree in order to block Obama at every turn possible, as did the other voters who in the majority voted with the same intent.

That, therefore, is their job. So far they have been rather bad at it.

Advice and consent is restriction applied to the Executive branch, not a requirement of the Senate. It merely means that the Executive branch cannot perform certain actions without the advice and consent of the Senate. It is in no way required that the Senate give it.

Ahhh. So a political party is free to stop the government's business forever for political purposes.

One party represents the people, one party represents the party. Republicans are not Americans anymore, they are the US version of the Communist Party. In their minds nothing happens unless they say it will.

Easy, if you don't want to participate in the democracy the founders set up, which is built entirely on forced compromise, then get out.

American government and American society doesn't work for you any more, fine. Find another.

What partisan hackery, the founders established a republican form of government, with checks and balances. You're just getting pissy because those checks actually work as intended.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You can't withhold consent without actually going through the process. Dissent is given with a no vote not by inaction.

Of course you can. And of course, the Senate can. That is entirely within its powers, as established in the Constitution.

Simply obstructing the appointment process shared by the Senate and President by the Senate abrogating their sworn Constitutional duties is to figuratively wipe ones ass with that founding document regardless which faction might be involved in a given session of Congress.

The Senate cannot do that lawfully under the provision of Article II § 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which clearly states, "... and he [the President, sic] 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

"Advise and consent" denote ACTION by the Senate, which is the very antithesis of INACTION! Your assertion that the Senate would be, "...entirely within its powers, as established in the Constitution...." to carry out none of their responsibilities is without merit or foundation in law.

 

[JQPublic1]

Certain factions among us have combed the Internet looking for anything to marginalize the talents, qualifications and ethics of President Obama. Don't worry, I am not going to write long boring rebuttals to the long boring written harangues deposited here to disparage a successful two term president.

Instead,I will call upon people who actually saw and commented on Obama's intelligence and his abilities. Here is an excerpt and link to comments from one of his academic mentors.

Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, author of a comprehensive new book, Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution, says Barack Obama was an amazing law student.

During a broad discussion on Tuesday with The Fiscal Times about some of the most significant cases to come before the Roberts court and how those decisions may profoundly alter American life, Tribe reflected on the president as a young man.

Obama was his research assistant for two-and-a-half years at Harvard Law School where Tribe has taught for four decades.

How Barack Obama Amazed His Harvard Law Professor

Yeah....tribe is fishing for that opening on the Supreme Court for himself........not exactly a non biased source........

And I suppose your sources are non biased? Hardly. And I can't give credence to your "assumption" that Tribe is trying to brown nose his way into being a nominee without even a modicum of evidence.

 

[JQPublic1]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

Are you forgetting the Senate still is a bipartisan entity that has a significant minority of Democrats on board. They can make life miserable for republican's trying to pass other legislation. Check and balance measure in the Senate go even deeper than most laymen can imagine. Here is one example:

The best parliamentary tool for Senate Democrats is the motion to discharge. Although Democrats will only have a few narrow windows in which they can make their motions to discharge, this particular parliamentary tool allows them to gum up the works and force Republicans to take votes on a matter that is directly related to the Supreme Court vacancy. Rather than just generally obstructing the Senate’s daily business–for example, disrupting Defense funding bills or popular tax relief packages–as part of a larger temper tantrum, the motion to discharge gives Democrats the ability to stay on message.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

If people that are elected to actually work and do the job hired for don't do it, what good are they?

Indeed. I am a natural born citizen, a voter and a constituent. I voted to have a Senate majority with whom I generally agree in order to block Obama at every turn possible, as did the other voters who in the majority voted with the same intent.

That, therefore, is their job. So far they have been rather bad at it.

Advice and consent is restriction applied to the Executive branch, not a requirement of the Senate. It merely means that the Executive branch cannot perform certain actions without the advice and consent of the Senate. It is in no way required that the Senate give it.

Ahhh. So a political party is free to stop the government's business forever for political purposes.

One party represents the people, one party represents the party. Republicans are not Americans anymore, they are the US version of the Communist Party. In their minds nothing happens unless they say it will.

Easy, if you don't want to participate in the democracy the founders set up, which is built entirely on forced compromise, then get out.

American government and American society doesn't work for you any more, fine. Find another.

What partisan hackery, the founders established a republican form of government, with checks and balances. You're just getting pissy because those checks actually work as intended.

You reject American democracy. You are attempting to say the founders would approve of one party shutting down the government perpetually for political purposes.

They constructed the Constitution with the exact opposite intent. Their whole purpose was to construct a country that relied on forced compromise for the very fact that they know there are groups of people that will eventually demand they get their way like children, so the Constitution was constructed to force compromise.

Republicans have given up on American democracy.

 

[OKTexas]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

If people that are elected to actually work and do the job hired for don't do it, what good are they?

Indeed. I am a natural born citizen, a voter and a constituent. I voted to have a Senate majority with whom I generally agree in order to block Obama at every turn possible, as did the other voters who in the majority voted with the same intent.

That, therefore, is their job. So far they have been rather bad at it.

Advice and consent is restriction applied to the Executive branch, not a requirement of the Senate. It merely means that the Executive branch cannot perform certain actions without the advice and consent of the Senate. It is in no way required that the Senate give it.

Ahhh. So a political party is free to stop the government's business forever for political purposes.

One party represents the people, one party represents the party. Republicans are not Americans anymore, they are the US version of the Communist Party. In their minds nothing happens unless they say it will.

Easy, if you don't want to participate in the democracy the founders set up, which is built entirely on forced compromise, then get out.

American government and American society doesn't work for you any more, fine. Find another.

What partisan hackery, the founders established a republican form of government, with checks and balances. You're just getting pissy because those checks actually work as intended.

You reject American democracy. You are attempting to say the founders would approve of one party shutting down the government perpetually for political purposes.

They constructed the Constitution with the exact opposite intent. Their whole purpose was to construct a country that relied on forced compromise for the very fact that they know there are groups of people that will eventually demand they get their way like children, so the Constitution was constructed to force compromise.

Republicans have given up on American democracy.

I think the founder would be wondering why most of you regressives haven't been hung for treason yet. But that's just my opinion and I'm entitled to it, just as you are entitled to yours.

 

[JQPublic1]

If people that are elected to actually work and do the job hired for don't do it, what good are they?

Indeed. I am a natural born citizen, a voter and a constituent. I voted to have a Senate majority with whom I generally agree in order to block Obama at every turn possible, as did the other voters who in the majority voted with the same intent.

That, therefore, is their job. So far they have been rather bad at it.

Advice and consent is restriction applied to the Executive branch, not a requirement of the Senate. It merely means that the Executive branch cannot perform certain actions without the advice and consent of the Senate. It is in no way required that the Senate give it.

Ahhh. So a political party is free to stop the government's business forever for political purposes.

One party represents the people, one party represents the party. Republicans are not Americans anymore, they are the US version of the Communist Party. In their minds nothing happens unless they say it will.

Easy, if you don't want to participate in the democracy the founders set up, which is built entirely on forced compromise, then get out.

American government and American society doesn't work for you any more, fine. Find another.

What partisan hackery, the founders established a republican form of government, with checks and balances. You're just getting pissy because those checks actually work as intended.

You reject American democracy. You are attempting to say the founders would approve of one party shutting down the government perpetually for political purposes.

They constructed the Constitution with the exact opposite intent. Their whole purpose was to construct a country that relied on forced compromise for the very fact that they know there are groups of people that will eventually demand they get their way like children, so the Constitution was constructed to force compromise.

Republicans have given up on American democracy.

I think the founder would be wondering why most of you regressives haven't been hung for treason yet. But that's just my opinion and I'm entitled to it, just as you are entitled to yours.

A Texan talking of treason and then having the audacity to dream of dispatching those who don't agree with you by an insinuation of hanging? Given your state's role in the civil war. I would have thought you would be less inclined to voice the word "treason" in regards to people who champion democracy and equality.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters
Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

You and your dear leader are always befuddled by anything dealing with the Constitution. The dear leader can nominate anyone he wants, then the Senate can schedule hearings at their leisure, there are no time limits placed on either constitutionally. So he can play all the word games he pleases, it means nothing.

No, I'm pretty sure it is yet another example of how repubs work for themselves and have no interest at all in governing for the American people.

Keep in mind that the DNC is rigging the delegate process to favor Clinton over Sanders. That must really suck for Sanders supporters. I imagine it's because the DNC only works for themselves, and for whom they want to win. It's sad you don't realize it.

How does the DNC do that? The delegates choose who to support not the DNC.

Superdelegates Help Clinton Expand Her Lead Despite NH Loss

You're going to have to do better than that.

CNN’s Tapper Challenges DNC Chair To Explain ‘Rigged’ Superdelegate System [VIDEO]

Un-Democratic Party: DNC Chair Says Superdelegates Ensure Elites Don't Have to Run 'Against Grassroots Activists'

Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists”

Jake Tapper’s interview with the DNC Chair on superdelegates and the train wreck that followed - Hot Air

No I don't. The DNC is not rigging anything in favor of Clinton. The existing system has been in place since 84.

 

[OKTexas]

Indeed. I am a natural born citizen, a voter and a constituent. I voted to have a Senate majority with whom I generally agree in order to block Obama at every turn possible, as did the other voters who in the majority voted with the same intent.

That, therefore, is their job. So far they have been rather bad at it.

Advice and consent is restriction applied to the Executive branch, not a requirement of the Senate. It merely means that the Executive branch cannot perform certain actions without the advice and consent of the Senate. It is in no way required that the Senate give it.

Ahhh. So a political party is free to stop the government's business forever for political purposes.

One party represents the people, one party represents the party. Republicans are not Americans anymore, they are the US version of the Communist Party. In their minds nothing happens unless they say it will.

Easy, if you don't want to participate in the democracy the founders set up, which is built entirely on forced compromise, then get out.

American government and American society doesn't work for you any more, fine. Find another.

What partisan hackery, the founders established a republican form of government, with checks and balances. You're just getting pissy because those checks actually work as intended.

You reject American democracy. You are attempting to say the founders would approve of one party shutting down the government perpetually for political purposes.

They constructed the Constitution with the exact opposite intent. Their whole purpose was to construct a country that relied on forced compromise for the very fact that they know there are groups of people that will eventually demand they get their way like children, so the Constitution was constructed to force compromise.

Republicans have given up on American democracy.

I think the founder would be wondering why most of you regressives haven't been hung for treason yet. But that's just my opinion and I'm entitled to it, just as you are entitled to yours.

A Texan talking of treason and then having the audacity to dream of dispatching those who don't agree with you by an insinuation of hanging? Given your state's role in the civil war. I would have thought you would be less inclined to voice the word "treason" in regards to people who champion democracy and equality.

You funny.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Hilarious!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

You are in error, but among a large number following blindly parroting what they are told from the masters of the echo chambers of the extreme right!

The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

Do any of you neo-barb conservatives know what is written in the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2? The Senate Judiciary Committee must ACT to fulfill their Constitutional requirement of "advised and consent".

That is Grassley conducting his committee to do the necessary hearings and an up-down vote at some point after receiving a nominee's name. In the case of the proposed appointee's being found "worthy" that person fate passes out of committee, to the full Senate for an up-down conformation vote. Any obstruction before that point is UN-FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL save that of a filibuster!

Now the Senate GOP standard bearers have to be aware that they might, just might be working seven days a week 12 hours a day from the end of the summer recess until the third week in January 2017 if the President decides he wants to call a Special Session of the Senate so they will have the time to "advise and consent" properly because the Senate GOP obstructionists are not going to have any recesses before January.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

If people that are elected to actually work and do the job hired for don't do it, what good are they?

Indeed. I am a natural born citizen, a voter and a constituent. I voted to have a Senate majority with whom I generally agree in order to block Obama at every turn possible, as did the other voters who in the majority voted with the same intent.

That, therefore, is their job. So far they have been rather bad at it.

Advice and consent is a restriction applied to the Executive branch, not a requirement of the Senate. It merely means that the Executive branch cannot perform certain actions without the advice and consent of the Senate. It is in no way required that the Senate give it.

Ahhh. So a political party is free to stop the government's business forever for political purposes.

No, the Senate is entitled to exercise powers granted it under the Constitution as a co-equal branch of government.

Republicans are not Americans anymore, they are the US version of the Communist Party.

You truly are a jester. Comical substitution will not fly in this instance. It seems in the real world the Communists openly support the Democrats. Reference CPUSA. It's nearly a twin to the DNC site.

Try a little meat tenderizer on that dense skull of yours. One day, when you know what you are talking about, we can revisit this matter. You have a bit of studying to do. Ta.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Do any of you neo-barb conservatives know what is written in the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2? The Senate Judiciary Committee must ACT to fulfill their Constitutional requirement of "advised and consent".

Feel free to post the requirement. FYI, I'm no conservative.

Do you comprehend by use of the English language what "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" means.

Obviously not.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

Are you forgetting the Senate still is a bipartisan entity that has a significant minority of Democrats on board. They can make life miserable for republican's trying to pass other legislation. Check and balance measure in the Senate go even deeper than most laymen can imagine. Here is one example:

The best parliamentary tool for Senate Democrats is the motion to discharge. Although Democrats will only have a few narrow windows in which they can make their motions to discharge, this particular parliamentary tool allows them to gum up the works and force Republicans to take votes on a matter that is directly related to the Supreme Court vacancy. Rather than just generally obstructing the Senate’s daily business–for example, disrupting Defense funding bills or popular tax relief packages–as part of a larger temper tantrum, the motion to discharge gives Democrats the ability to stay on message.

Shrug. It's well past time for an honest dust-up.