Screw You Harry Reid

[Camp]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

No, its not. Obama actually did it himself.

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


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.


Mark

That is not a rational comparison. What point are you attempting to convey?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Reid has done gone senile as bernie. What a bunch of loonbats.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

A 55 year old resolution is neither law nor binding; Reid and the president are correct, Obama is at liberty to put forward the nomination, the Senate will respond as it sees fit.

Of course it isn't binding, but it shows the hypocrisy. When the show is on the other foot, they do the same thing. Schumer made the same argument in 2007.

No one is saying the president can't do his constitutional duty and nominate someone. The senate can do their constitutional duty of advise and consent and deny his nomination. In other words, it is standard constitutional operating procedure, not the obstructionism the left and the media are claiming. For Reid, calling someone obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. The man has no shame.

Precisely.

 

[kwc57]

"We are entering uncharted waters in the history of the U.S. system of checks and balances, with potentially momentous consequences. Having gridlocked the Senate for years, Republicans now want to gridlock the Supreme Court with a campaign of partisan sabotage aimed at denying the president’s constitutional duty to pick nominees.

Republicans should not insult the American people’s intelligence by pretending there is historical precedent for what they are about to do. There is not."

Reid to GOP: For the good of the country, stop your nakedly partisan obstruction

Remember Harry Reid? The guy who singlehandedly brought the government to a grinding halt for 2 years by killing almost 400 bipartisan bills. The guy who cost the Democrats control of the Senate because of killing almost 400 bills and no one running for reelection could point to any accomplishment made as a result. Yeah, that Harry Reid, partisan obstructionist extraordinaire. He has the gall to once again project his actions on Republicans and say that their actions are unprecedented. The guy who killed 400 bills and gridlocked the government for 2 years. Fuck you Harry Reid and that old nag Pelosi that you rode in on. The lying sack of shit needs to take his drool bucket and go home and vegetate.

In addition to his own partisan obstructionism, he's lying about no precedent. The Senate Dems in 1960 passed a resolution against election year supreme court appointments.

Blog: Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments

poor winger.... you really should stop stamping your feet. why should the next president have four nominations just so you wingers can do what you've tried to do to this president for seven years?

you should probably get over it.

me? I think you're going to be so sorry when record numbers of dems come out to vote in November over this just to kick your obstructive butts.

Perhaps if Obama wanted consideration from the legislative branch over the last 7 years, he could have reciprocated in kind. Even Reid, Pelosi and the other Dems in Congress complained about Obama's aloofness and snubbing them. A president can ask for all he wants, but there is deal making, compromising, negotiations and agreements in the process. You don't just get to decree something and then "stamp your feet" and say you'll go around that mean old Congress because they don't agree with your wonderful insight. Obama is reaping what he sowed. He has been since almost day one. He was just too stupid to understand he had to give to get.

 

[80zephyr]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

No, its not. Obama actually did it himself.

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


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.


Mark

That is not a rational comparison. What point are you attempting to convey?

What isn't rational about it? The charge was that it was unprecedented to challenge the president, and not the nominee. Since Obama mentioned no nominee, he was clearly talking about the president.

Mark

 

[kwc57]

Harry is correct

It is unprecedented to suggest that a sitting President does not have a right to select a Supreme Court nominee in his last year of office

You have a little bullshit in the corner of your mouth.

 

[Camp]

A 55 year old resolution is neither law nor binding; Reid and the president are correct, Obama is at liberty to put forward the nomination, the Senate will respond as it sees fit.

Of course it isn't binding, but it shows the hypocrisy. When the show is on the other foot, they do the same thing. Schumer made the same argument in 2007.

No one is saying the president can't do his constitutional duty and nominate someone. The senate can do their constitutional duty of advise and consent and deny his nomination. In other words, it is standard constitutional operating procedure, not the obstructionism the left and the media are claiming. For Reid, calling someone obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. The man has no shame.

Can you explain how a non-binding resolution suggesting the Senate should advise President Eisenhower not to make any additional recess appointments to the SCOTUS after already making two such appointments, is related even remotely to the current situation?

 

[kwc57]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

Wipe your mouth again. There's still some bullshit in the corner.

 

[Camp]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

No, its not. Obama actually did it himself.

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


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.


Mark

That is not a rational comparison. What point are you attempting to convey?

What isn't rational about it? The charge was that it was unprecedented to challenge the president, and not the nominee. Since Obama mentioned no nominee, he was clearly talking about the president.

Mark

He was speaking at the confirmation hearing for Judge Alito and he mentioned him in the last sentence, which is highlight in black.

 

[kwc57]

A 55 year old resolution is neither law nor binding; Reid and the president are correct, Obama is at liberty to put forward the nomination, the Senate will respond as it sees fit.

Of course it isn't binding, but it shows the hypocrisy. When the show is on the other foot, they do the same thing. Schumer made the same argument in 2007.

No one is saying the president can't do his constitutional duty and nominate someone. The senate can do their constitutional duty of advise and consent and deny his nomination. In other words, it is standard constitutional operating procedure, not the obstructionism the left and the media are claiming. For Reid, calling someone obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. The man has no shame.

Can you explain how a non-binding resolution suggesting the Senate should advise President Eisenhower not to make any additions recess appointments to the SCOTUS after already making two such appointments, is related even remotely to the current situation?

Beyond both telling a sitting president that he shouldn't make a nomination in his final year.......I can't think of.

 

[Camp]

A 55 year old resolution is neither law nor binding; Reid and the president are correct, Obama is at liberty to put forward the nomination, the Senate will respond as it sees fit.

Of course it isn't binding, but it shows the hypocrisy. When the show is on the other foot, they do the same thing. Schumer made the same argument in 2007.

No one is saying the president can't do his constitutional duty and nominate someone. The senate can do their constitutional duty of advise and consent and deny his nomination. In other words, it is standard constitutional operating procedure, not the obstructionism the left and the media are claiming. For Reid, calling someone obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. The man has no shame.

Can you explain how a non-binding resolution suggesting the Senate should advise President Eisenhower not to make any additions recess appointments to the SCOTUS after already making two such appointments, is related even remotely to the current situation?

Beyond both telling a sitting president that he shouldn't make a nomination in his final year.......I can't think of.

Do you not recognize a difference in a recess appointment and one that requires advice and consent?

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

No, its not. Obama actually did it himself.

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


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.


Mark

Where does Obama say that Bush should not be allowed to make the appointment and that we should wait for the next president (turned out to be Obama) to make such an important appointment

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

Wipe your mouth again. There's still some bullshit in the corner.

Please explain

 

[80zephyr]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

No, its not. Obama actually did it himself.

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


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.


Mark

That is not a rational comparison. What point are you attempting to convey?

What isn't rational about it? The charge was that it was unprecedented to challenge the president, and not the nominee. Since Obama mentioned no nominee, he was clearly talking about the president.

Mark

He was speaking at the confirmation hearing for Judge Alito and he mentioned him in the last sentence, which is highlight in black.

And? His statement is clearly aimed at the president, not his nominee.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

No, its not. Obama actually did it himself.

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


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.


Mark

Where does Obama say that Bush should not be allowed to make the appointment and that we should wait for the next president (turned out to be Obama) to make such an important appointment

Obama states that Bush should be able to make the appointment ONLY IF it agrees with the view of the senate.

But, that was not the question.

Mark

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

No, its not. Obama actually did it himself.

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


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.


Mark

Where does Obama say that Bush should not be allowed to make the appointment and that we should wait for the next president (turned out to be Obama) to make such an important appointment

Obama states that Bush should be able to make the appointment ONLY IF it agrees with the view of the senate.

But, that was not the question.

Mark

Show where Obama says we should wait for the next president to take office

 

[Sun Devil 92]

A 55 year old resolution is neither law nor binding; Reid and the president are correct, Obama is at liberty to put forward the nomination, the Senate will respond as it sees fit.

See how the far left drones claim something to be irrelevant, but to them the Constitution (a 200 year old resolution) is irrelevant to them as well..

quiet, wackjob hack.

Who TF are you ?

Why don't you find a short pier and take a long walk.

You are the most pathetic poster on this board next to RDean.

Your posts are rarely more than three lines. They never say anything. We can all see you are unhappy with your pathetic life.

So take your own advice and

SHUT THE FUCK UP.

thanks for your irrelevant opinion.

and who am I? someone who's seen the hack say nothing but the phrase "far left drone"

now take a hike little boy.

You give yourself way to much credit.

Can you point to a post where you actually gave some information as opposed to just dropping your little Obamaturds ?

You see something ?

ROTFLMAO

I realize life is tough since your girlfriend left you...but try to act human.

Moron.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

Agreed.

They are behaving stupidly.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I would like to see Obama nominate someone.

Then have the senate Bork them the way Ted Kennedy and Joe, the plagairzer, Biden Robert Bork.

Bork was carrying more luggage than he could carry for such an important nomination. He should have never been nominated. It was an insult to the nation that he was. His actions since being rejected has proven the Senate was right to reject him.

Pure horsecrap.

Nobody had an issue with Bork until he was nominated. In fact he was highly thought of in most circles on both sides.

His opinion on issues was a minor component of the smear campaign that was conducted against him by Teddy Kennedy. He was DOA. I hated Ted Kennedy before that and even more afterwards...I only wish he had suffered more when he died.

The left was worried about the same thing happening to Sotomayor and warned the GOP against it. I would have told them to shove it sideways.

 

[Camp]

I would like to see Obama nominate someone.

Then have the senate Bork them the way Ted Kennedy and Joe, the plagairzer, Biden Robert Bork.

Bork was carrying more luggage than he could carry for such an important nomination. He should have never been nominated. It was an insult to the nation that he was. His actions since being rejected has proven the Senate was right to reject him.

Pure horsecrap.

Nobody had an issue with Bork until he was nominated. In fact he was highly thought of in most circles on both sides.

His opinion on issues was a minor component of the smear campaign that was conducted against him by Teddy Kennedy. He was DOA. I hated Ted Kennedy before that and even more afterwards...I only wish he had suffered more when he died.

The left was worried about the same thing happening to Sotomayor and warned the GOP against it. I would have told them to shove it sideways.

Bork lost his integrity and shamed himself in the Saturday Night Massacre. He betrayed the entire DoJ and American people.