Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Who said anything about time limits? You're so wrong on this, you have to build up strawmen you can attack.Bullshit, they don't have to take they matter up. It's the responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent the president's nominees. That doesn't mean they have to approve whomever a president puts up; but it does mean they have to take the matter up.Scalia was admired by the Right for his strict interpretation of the literal constitution. Rightly so.
But today the Right is calling for the repression of the constitution by obstructing the enumerated power of the President to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court.
Are the Conservatives maintaining that a President's term of office is only three years, not four as spelled out clearly in the constitution? Are the Conservatives maintaining that the duty of elected Senators is to obstruct rather than legislate and govern? Are the Conservatives maintaining that political power is more important than adhering to the constitution?
Is this strict adherence to the constitution, the quality most admired by the Right, or is it a plot to amass political power?
Where are the Conservative constitutionalists?
No one says the President doesn't have the right to nominate someone Fool. We're saying Congress doesn't have to take the matter up. Look at all the Bills Harry Reid refused to bring to the floor when he was Majority Leader. There were over 300 he refused to even assign to committee. Mitch McConnell is now the Majority Leader and has say over what business the Senate will take on. What goes around comes around. Suck it up. The Democrats are the minority now.
Show me where it states anywhere that thee exists a time limit placed upon Congress for doing anything about anything. I'm waiting.
Who said anything about time limits? You're so wrong on this, you have to build up strawmen you can attack.Bullshit, they don't have to take they matter up. It's the responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent the president's nominees. That doesn't mean they have to approve whomever a president puts up; but it does mean they have to take the matter up.Scalia was admired by the Right for his strict interpretation of the literal constitution. Rightly so.
But today the Right is calling for the repression of the constitution by obstructing the enumerated power of the President to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court.
Are the Conservatives maintaining that a President's term of office is only three years, not four as spelled out clearly in the constitution? Are the Conservatives maintaining that the duty of elected Senators is to obstruct rather than legislate and govern? Are the Conservatives maintaining that political power is more important than adhering to the constitution?
Is this strict adherence to the constitution, the quality most admired by the Right, or is it a plot to amass political power?
Where are the Conservative constitutionalists?
No one says the President doesn't have the right to nominate someone Fool. We're saying Congress doesn't have to take the matter up. Look at all the Bills Harry Reid refused to bring to the floor when he was Majority Leader. There were over 300 he refused to even assign to committee. Mitch McConnell is now the Majority Leader and has say over what business the Senate will take on. What goes around comes around. Suck it up. The Democrats are the minority now.
Show me where it states anywhere that thee exists a time limit placed upon Congress for doing anything about anything. I'm waiting.
This is about Republicans declaring they will not abide by the Constitution. Time has nothing to do with it.
Maybe Reid helped Scalia out of this world??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.
As the Republicans stall, obfuscate and stonewall their way through the nomination process, denying the nation of a full Supreme Court, what do you imagine the fallout for them will be politically speaking? How will their actions play with the electorate? I know it will be a big success with the Rabid Right Wingers, but take the general electorate in mind. You know, the same electorate that elected Obama twice and rates congress' approval in the single digits.Who said anything about time limits? You're so wrong on this, you have to build up strawmen you can attack.Bullshit, they don't have to take they matter up. It's the responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent the president's nominees. That doesn't mean they have to approve whomever a president puts up; but it does mean they have to take the matter up.Scalia was admired by the Right for his strict interpretation of the literal constitution. Rightly so.
But today the Right is calling for the repression of the constitution by obstructing the enumerated power of the President to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court.
Are the Conservatives maintaining that a President's term of office is only three years, not four as spelled out clearly in the constitution? Are the Conservatives maintaining that the duty of elected Senators is to obstruct rather than legislate and govern? Are the Conservatives maintaining that political power is more important than adhering to the constitution?
Is this strict adherence to the constitution, the quality most admired by the Right, or is it a plot to amass political power?
Where are the Conservative constitutionalists?
No one says the President doesn't have the right to nominate someone Fool. We're saying Congress doesn't have to take the matter up. Look at all the Bills Harry Reid refused to bring to the floor when he was Majority Leader. There were over 300 he refused to even assign to committee. Mitch McConnell is now the Majority Leader and has say over what business the Senate will take on. What goes around comes around. Suck it up. The Democrats are the minority now.
Show me where it states anywhere that thee exists a time limit placed upon Congress for doing anything about anything. I'm waiting.
This is about Republicans declaring they will not abide by the Constitution. Time has nothing to do with it.
Of course it does idiot. The Republicans will abide by the Constitution -- they simply will not follow your non-existence time frame.
As the Republicans stall, obfuscate and stonewall their way through the nomination process, denying the nation of a full Supreme Court, what do you imagine the fallout for them will be politically speaking? How will their actions play with the electorate? I know it will be a big success with the Rabid Right Wingers, but take the general electorate in mind. You know, the same electorate that elected Obama twice and rates congress' approval in the single digits.Who said anything about time limits? You're so wrong on this, you have to build up strawmen you can attack.Bullshit, they don't have to take they matter up. It's the responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent the president's nominees. That doesn't mean they have to approve whomever a president puts up; but it does mean they have to take the matter up.No one says the President doesn't have the right to nominate someone Fool. We're saying Congress doesn't have to take the matter up. Look at all the Bills Harry Reid refused to bring to the floor when he was Majority Leader. There were over 300 he refused to even assign to committee. Mitch McConnell is now the Majority Leader and has say over what business the Senate will take on. What goes around comes around. Suck it up. The Democrats are the minority now.
Show me where it states anywhere that thee exists a time limit placed upon Congress for doing anything about anything. I'm waiting.
This is about Republicans declaring they will not abide by the Constitution. Time has nothing to do with it.
Of course it does idiot. The Republicans will abide by the Constitution -- they simply will not follow your non-existence time frame.
Democrats Launch Preemptive Strike Against GOP Obstruction Of Obama’s Scalia Replacement
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, fired back against the already entrenched Republican obstruction to a President Obama nominee, saying SCOTUS is too important to leave understaffed.…
There is a price to pay for losing to Obama in 2012There's a price to pay for loosing an election. Your Blacks and young Liberals were too busy looting and protesting to bother to vote in the mid-terms. Suck it up. You have about eight years of payback coming.
GOP Turtle Mitch McConnell: "If the President has trouble doing nothing, we will be more than happy to show him how it is done."
-Andy Borowitz
Your polling is out of the Republicans only. Democrats don't vote in Republican primaries. Once you look at the general electorate without partisan goggles, you might find some more accurate to nformation. Fringes don't lead, they only bray like mules.As the Republicans stall, obfuscate and stonewall their way through the nomination process, denying the nation of a full Supreme Court, what do you imagine the fallout for them will be politically speaking? How will their actions play with the electorate? I know it will be a big success with the Rabid Right Wingers, but take the general electorate in mind. You know, the same electorate that elected Obama twice and rates congress' approval in the single digits.Who said anything about time limits? You're so wrong on this, you have to build up strawmen you can attack.Bullshit, they don't have to take they matter up. It's the responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent the president's nominees. That doesn't mean they have to approve whomever a president puts up; but it does mean they have to take the matter up.
Show me where it states anywhere that thee exists a time limit placed upon Congress for doing anything about anything. I'm waiting.
This is about Republicans declaring they will not abide by the Constitution. Time has nothing to do with it.
Of course it does idiot. The Republicans will abide by the Constitution -- they simply will not follow your non-existence time frame.
Well, from the polling, I'd say they would be a lot more secure than if they again sided with the Democrats and Obama. The Establishment Republicans are reeling now from the backlash. Probably the most experienced of any Establishment Republican to enter the race was Senator Graham. He was lucky to poll 2%. You are terribly mistaken when you claim it all has to do with rabid rightwingers. Many old-school Democrats, women, some few Blacks, and a whole load of Independents are pissed off with Obamacare and the failed economic and foreign policies of Obama and the Democrats. It's not all Right Wing.
Your polling is out of the Republicans only. Democrats don't vote in Republican primaries. Once you look at the general electorate without partisan goggles, you might find some more accurate to nformation. Fringes don't lead, they only bray like mules.As the Republicans stall, obfuscate and stonewall their way through the nomination process, denying the nation of a full Supreme Court, what do you imagine the fallout for them will be politically speaking? How will their actions play with the electorate? I know it will be a big success with the Rabid Right Wingers, but take the general electorate in mind. You know, the same electorate that elected Obama twice and rates congress' approval in the single digits.Who said anything about time limits? You're so wrong on this, you have to build up strawmen you can attack.Show me where it states anywhere that thee exists a time limit placed upon Congress for doing anything about anything. I'm waiting.
This is about Republicans declaring they will not abide by the Constitution. Time has nothing to do with it.
Of course it does idiot. The Republicans will abide by the Constitution -- they simply will not follow your non-existence time frame.
Well, from the polling, I'd say they would be a lot more secure than if they again sided with the Democrats and Obama. The Establishment Republicans are reeling now from the backlash. Probably the most experienced of any Establishment Republican to enter the race was Senator Graham. He was lucky to poll 2%. You are terribly mistaken when you claim it all has to do with rabid rightwingers. Many old-school Democrats, women, some few Blacks, and a whole load of Independents are pissed off with Obamacare and the failed economic and foreign policies of Obama and the Democrats. It's not all Right Wing.
Are you really blaming Independents and Democrats for derailing the Republican establishment? What kind of political party are you running over there? A dysfunctional one or in denial?Your polling is out of the Republicans only. Democrats don't vote in Republican primaries. Once you look at the general electorate without partisan goggles, you might find some more accurate to nformation. Fringes don't lead, they only bray like mules.As the Republicans stall, obfuscate and stonewall their way through the nomination process, denying the nation of a full Supreme Court, what do you imagine the fallout for them will be politically speaking? How will their actions play with the electorate? I know it will be a big success with the Rabid Right Wingers, but take the general electorate in mind. You know, the same electorate that elected Obama twice and rates congress' approval in the single digits.Who said anything about time limits? You're so wrong on this, you have to build up strawmen you can attack.
This is about Republicans declaring they will not abide by the Constitution. Time has nothing to do with it.
Of course it does idiot. The Republicans will abide by the Constitution -- they simply will not follow your non-existence time frame.
Well, from the polling, I'd say they would be a lot more secure than if they again sided with the Democrats and Obama. The Establishment Republicans are reeling now from the backlash. Probably the most experienced of any Establishment Republican to enter the race was Senator Graham. He was lucky to poll 2%. You are terribly mistaken when you claim it all has to do with rabid rightwingers. Many old-school Democrats, women, some few Blacks, and a whole load of Independents are pissed off with Obamacare and the failed economic and foreign policies of Obama and the Democrats. It's not all Right Wing.
They can in some primaries. Independents can vote in some primaries. It all depends on the state where the primary is held.
Are you really blaming Independents and Democrats for derailing the Republican establishment? What kind of political party are you running over there? A dysfunctional one or in denial?Your polling is out of the Republicans only. Democrats don't vote in Republican primaries. Once you look at the general electorate without partisan goggles, you might find some more accurate to nformation. Fringes don't lead, they only bray like mules.As the Republicans stall, obfuscate and stonewall their way through the nomination process, denying the nation of a full Supreme Court, what do you imagine the fallout for them will be politically speaking? How will their actions play with the electorate? I know it will be a big success with the Rabid Right Wingers, but take the general electorate in mind. You know, the same electorate that elected Obama twice and rates congress' approval in the single digits.Of course it does idiot. The Republicans will abide by the Constitution -- they simply will not follow your non-existence time frame.
Well, from the polling, I'd say they would be a lot more secure than if they again sided with the Democrats and Obama. The Establishment Republicans are reeling now from the backlash. Probably the most experienced of any Establishment Republican to enter the race was Senator Graham. He was lucky to poll 2%. You are terribly mistaken when you claim it all has to do with rabid rightwingers. Many old-school Democrats, women, some few Blacks, and a whole load of Independents are pissed off with Obamacare and the failed economic and foreign policies of Obama and the Democrats. It's not all Right Wing.
They can in some primaries. Independents can vote in some primaries. It all depends on the state where the primary is held.
So, it's a blend of denial and dysfunction.Are you really blaming Independents and Democrats for derailing the Republican establishment? What kind of political party are you running over there? A dysfunctional one or in denial?Your polling is out of the Republicans only. Democrats don't vote in Republican primaries. Once you look at the general electorate without partisan goggles, you might find some more accurate to nformation. Fringes don't lead, they only bray like mules.As the Republicans stall, obfuscate and stonewall their way through the nomination process, denying the nation of a full Supreme Court, what do you imagine the fallout for them will be politically speaking? How will their actions play with the electorate? I know it will be a big success with the Rabid Right Wingers, but take the general electorate in mind. You know, the same electorate that elected Obama twice and rates congress' approval in the single digits.
Well, from the polling, I'd say they would be a lot more secure than if they again sided with the Democrats and Obama. The Establishment Republicans are reeling now from the backlash. Probably the most experienced of any Establishment Republican to enter the race was Senator Graham. He was lucky to poll 2%. You are terribly mistaken when you claim it all has to do with rabid rightwingers. Many old-school Democrats, women, some few Blacks, and a whole load of Independents are pissed off with Obamacare and the failed economic and foreign policies of Obama and the Democrats. It's not all Right Wing.
They can in some primaries. Independents can vote in some primaries. It all depends on the state where the primary is held.
It's called CONSERVATISM.
So, it's a blend of denial and dysfunction.Are you really blaming Independents and Democrats for derailing the Republican establishment? What kind of political party are you running over there? A dysfunctional one or in denial?Your polling is out of the Republicans only. Democrats don't vote in Republican primaries. Once you look at the general electorate without partisan goggles, you might find some more accurate to nformation. Fringes don't lead, they only bray like mules.Well, from the polling, I'd say they would be a lot more secure than if they again sided with the Democrats and Obama. The Establishment Republicans are reeling now from the backlash. Probably the most experienced of any Establishment Republican to enter the race was Senator Graham. He was lucky to poll 2%. You are terribly mistaken when you claim it all has to do with rabid rightwingers. Many old-school Democrats, women, some few Blacks, and a whole load of Independents are pissed off with Obamacare and the failed economic and foreign policies of Obama and the Democrats. It's not all Right Wing.
They can in some primaries. Independents can vote in some primaries. It all depends on the state where the primary is held.
It's called CONSERVATISM.
