Sen Reid msg to Repubs about filling SCOTUS vacancy

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Feb 15, 2011
52,842
7,882
1,830
Fairfax, NoVA
Harry Reid To Republicans: You Better Not Block Us From Replacing Scalia
“There is no doubt Justice Antonin Scalia was a brilliant man. We had our differences and I disagreed with many of his opinions, but he was a dedicated jurist and public servant. I offer my condolences to his family."

“The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away. With so many important issues pending before the Supreme Court, the Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible. It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat. Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate's most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”

Sen Reid is a true Statesman. :salute:
 
Harry Reid To Republicans: You Better Not Block Us From Replacing Scalia
“There is no doubt Justice Antonin Scalia was a brilliant man. We had our differences and I disagreed with many of his opinions, but he was a dedicated jurist and public servant. I offer my condolences to his family."

“The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away. With so many important issues pending before the Supreme Court, the Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible. It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat. Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate's most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”

Sen Reid is a true Statesman. :salute:


Fuck that lying drunk piece of shit.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHA Old fool....

harry-reid-injured-eye-AFP-640x480.jpg
 
Harry Reid is one of the dirtiest, piece of shit politicians in recent memory. He has no say here. Republicans just need to hold firm until the election sighting Reid's own rules.
 
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. US Cont. Article II, Section 2

It was neither the intent nor understanding of the Founding Generation that the Senate may deny a president his nominee to a given appointed office, including that of the Supreme Court, solely for subjective, partisan reasons – a Senate hostile to a president for purely partisan reasons is not good cause to block an appointment; nor is there anything in the text, history, or jurisprudence of the Constitution to prohibit a president from making such an appointment at any time during his term as president, as his election reflects the will of the people, where such an appointment is consequently appropriate and warranted.
 
Its common knowledge that Presidents have a short list at the ready for just such an occurrence

Fill the vacancy.
 
Its common knowledge that Presidents have a short list at the ready for just such an occurrence

Fill the vacancy.

Fill the Conservative Italian American seat with another Conservative Italian American - agreed
 
Could make a pretty good debate topic.

"Would you vote for a Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, and gun control?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"
 

Forum List

Back
Top