Senate should refuse to confirm ALL of Clinton's judicial nominees

[rdean]

Senate should refuse to confirm ALL of Clinton's judicial nominees

Why?

 

[Mitsu]

The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Clinton’s Judicial Nominees

Indeed I agree! Don't give an inch! They want it make them bleed for it.

Right, we wouldn't want them to say, do their fucking job per the Constitution or anything! Fucking Nazis.

Maybe you should read it?

I have you idiot. Maybe you should try that and learn were it doesn't say you can just do whatever the fuck you like because you lost yet another election.

I know it doesn't say that..

Why don't you post what it does say and then tell us all why you think the Congress of the United States is free to ignore what it requires?

 

[g5000]

US Senators used to be appointed by state legislatures. A lot of state legislatures got themselves into a snit and ended up leaving Senate seats empty for long periods of time out of spite.

So the American people took that power away from them with the 17th Amendment.

Just a reminder for all you pooch fuckers out there.

 

[g5000]

Senate should refuse to confirm ALL of Clinton's judicial nominees

Why?

It will hasten the Second Coming and there are a lot of kids Trump hasn't groped yet.

 

[g5000]

Any Senators who actively block Clinton's appointments out of sheer spite would be at the top of the list of Senators to be unseated in the next election.

No expense spared.

Just a little reminder for all you pooch fuckers out there.

 

[nat4900]

But....but
I thought Republicans said they wanted the PEOPLE to decide in the next election
Doesn't that mean Hillary decides?

Are you telling us republicans were lying all along?

yes, they were (starting with McConnell)....

Here's the breakdown:

Currently the Reps. have 54 senate seats and the Dems 46 (with the 2 Independents caucusing with them)

The 5 most likely senate seats to FLIP on Nov. 8th, are: IL,WI, NH, NV, and PA (with a possibility of CO and MO).....

If those five will indeed flip, Dems. will have 51 plus the VP's vote.

The above simple majority in the senate could force the nuclear option to negate the 60 votes necessary to confirm a nominee.....and if the Repubs. refuse to do their jobs, rest assured that the "option" will be exercised.

At one time, the senate's "nuclear option" excluded from SCOTUS confirmations, BUT NOW, since Garland could not even get a hearing, the rules WILL be changed.

 

[Preacher]

They won't be able to as they are going to lose the Senate.

We'll see...

They won't. Even if they do they won't have a vast majority it will literally be a 1 vote lead

The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Clinton’s Judicial Nominees

Indeed I agree! Don't give an inch! They want it make them bleed for it.

Why do you hate the constitutional process so much? Would you like to ball up the constitution and toss it in the trash?

This isn't about me but yes I would burn the constitution. I am in favor of the leadership principle. Your crying aside that was fucking hilarious! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA they won't allow us to nominate an anti gun nut justice WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

[rightwinger]

But....but
I thought Republicans said they wanted the PEOPLE to decide in the next election
Doesn't that mean Hillary decides?

Are you telling us republicans were lying all along?

yes, they were (starting with McConnell)....

Here's the breakdown:

Currently the Reps. have 54 senate seats and the Dems 46 (with the 2 Independents caucusing with them)

The 5 most likely senate seats to FLIP on Nov. 8th, are: IL,WI, NH, NV, and PA (with a possibility of CO and MO).....

If those five will indeed flip, Dems. will have 51 plus the VP's vote.

The above simple majority in the senate could force the nuclear option to negate the 60 votes necessary to confirm a nominee.....and if the Repubs. refuse to do their jobs, rest assured that the "option" will be exercised.

At one time, the senate's "nuclear option" was excluded from SCOTUS confirmation, BUT NOW, since garland could not even get a hearing, the rules WILL be changed.

Chuck Schumer will not hesitate to use the nuclear option

Republicans have already gridlocked Congress
Now they have gridlocked the Supreme Court

Time to stop accommodating them

 

[nat4900]

As the senate will have a 51 or 52 simple majority, several "smarter" republican senators well know that rather than risk a change in rules that may spell OTHER initiatives being passed,will opt to confirm Clinton's nominees rather than risk their own seats in 2018.

 

[Nosmo King]

They won't be able to as they are going to lose the Senate.

We'll see...

They won't. Even if they do they won't have a vast majority it will literally be a 1 vote lead

The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Clinton’s Judicial Nominees

Indeed I agree! Don't give an inch! They want it make them bleed for it.

Why do you hate the constitutional process so much? Would you like to ball up the constitution and toss it in the trash?

This isn't about me but yes I would burn the constitution. I am in favor of the leadership principle. Your crying aside that was fucking hilarious! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA they won't allow us to nominate an anti gun nut justice WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Why should I regard the opinion of someone who is blatantly anti-constitution with anything like respect or validity? You would dispense with the constitution just so you can have a gun? Do you know that under the constitution you can have a gun?

 

[The VOR]

A simple majority in the senate (which democrats will almost surely have with the VP's vote) CAN change the rules and bring up the so-called "nuclear option" to fill Scalia's vacancy....and perhaps 2 or more justices' positions......

To the winners belong the spoils, and McConnell will long regret not even holding a hearing for Garland.

During Hillary's first term --- because there is no way in the world she loses to the orange buffoon --- a Democratically controlled Senate will confirm Hllary's replacement for Scalia; then she gets two more justices confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate after both Thomas and Alito drop dead in the first year of her term; then, before her first term is up, Notorious RBG will decide to step down and Hillary gets another justice confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate. SCOTUS make up by the end of her first term: 7 - 2

That would be a successful first term right there.

 

[nat4900]

Gun ownership is NOT an issue that will confront the SCOTUS (but perhaps a ban on some military style assault weapons will be.)

The issues that WILL make it to SCOTUS for reconsideration will be:

Citizen United and
Voters' suppression schemes

 

[Fenton Lum]

The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Clinton’s Judicial Nominees

Indeed I agree! Don't give an inch! They want it make them bleed for it.

I always chuckle when I hear we are "a nation of laws", folks like you are why we aren't.

 

[The VOR]

Senate should refuse to confirm ALL of Clinton's judicial nominees

Why?

Because some rwnj from the Federalist wrote an article saying so?

 

[nat4900]

A simple majority in the senate (which democrats will almost surely have with the VP's vote) CAN change the rules and bring up the so-called "nuclear option" to fill Scalia's vacancy....and perhaps 2 or more justices' positions......

To the winners belong the spoils, and McConnell will long regret not even holding a hearing for Garland.

During Hillary's first term --- because there is no way in the world she loses to the orange buffoon --- a Democratically controlled Senate will confirm Hllary's replacement for Scalia; then she gets two more justices confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate after both Thomas and Alito drop dead in the first year of her term; then, before her first term is up, Notorious RBG will decide to step down and Hillary gets another justice confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate. SCOTUS make up by the end of her first term: 7 - 2

That would be a successful first term right there.

In my estimate, Alito will NOT drop out, but Thomas will since he is completely lost without Scalia's lap to sit upon.

Ginsburg and Breyer have hung in there before retiring, waiting for Clinton to take the helm.

The court will be 6-3 with Roberts still as Chief.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Clinton’s Judicial Nominees

Indeed I agree! Don't give an inch! They want it make them bleed for it.

Right, we wouldn't want them to say, do their fucking job per the Constitution or anything! Fucking Nazis.

Using the text found in the constitution, please explain "their fucking job" as to any obligation to advise and consent.

 

[rightwinger]

As the senate will have a 51 or 52 simple majority, several "smarter" republican senators well know that rather than risk a change in rules that may spell OTHER initiatives being passed,will opt to confirm Clinton's nominees rather than risk their own seats in 2018.

I doubt if they are that bright
They will obstruct because that is what they have been elected to do

First thing Schumer should do is invoke the nuclear option for ALL judicial appointees. Even before Hillary has taken office
Hillary should pull the Garland nomination and propose a younger judge who is more liberal
Schumer should call for a congressional review and an immediate vote

Then, Schumer should call for a vote on EVERY remaining judicial vacancy

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

A simple majority in the senate (which democrats will almost surely have with the VP's vote) CAN change the rules and bring up the so-called "nuclear option" to fill Scalia's vacancy....and perhaps 2 or more justices' positions......

To the winners belong the spoils, and McConnell will long regret not even holding a hearing for Garland.

During Hillary's first term --- because there is no way in the world she loses to the orange buffoon --- a Democratically controlled Senate will confirm Hllary's replacement for Scalia; then she gets two more justices confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate after both Thomas and Alito drop dead in the first year of her term; then, before her first term is up, Notorious RBG will decide to step down and Hillary gets another justice confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate. SCOTUS make up by the end of her first term: 7 - 2

That would be a successful first term right there.

In my estimate, Alito will NOT drop out, but Thomas will since he is completely lost without Scalia's lap to sit upon.

Ginsburg and Breyer have hung in there before retiring, waiting for Clinton to take the helm.

The court will be 6-3 with Roberts still as Chief.

 

[Preacher]

They won't be able to as they are going to lose the Senate.

We'll see...

They won't. Even if they do they won't have a vast majority it will literally be a 1 vote lead

The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Clinton’s Judicial Nominees

Indeed I agree! Don't give an inch! They want it make them bleed for it.

Why do you hate the constitutional process so much? Would you like to ball up the constitution and toss it in the trash?

This isn't about me but yes I would burn the constitution. I am in favor of the leadership principle. Your crying aside that was fucking hilarious! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA they won't allow us to nominate an anti gun nut justice WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Why should I regard the opinion of someone who is blatantly anti-constitution with anything like respect or validity? You would dispense with the constitution just so you can have a gun? Do you know that under the constitution you can have a gun?

Oh its not just because of that. I think the entire idea of a democracy is a joke and doesn't work. Like I said I want a system based on the leadership principle. As far as guns go for NOW you can own a gun. All it takes is a reversal of 1 decision and there goes your ability to own a gun because they just said the 2nd amendment DOES NOT guarantee the individual right to own a weapon.

 

[rightwinger]

A simple majority in the senate (which democrats will almost surely have with the VP's vote) CAN change the rules and bring up the so-called "nuclear option" to fill Scalia's vacancy....and perhaps 2 or more justices' positions......

To the winners belong the spoils, and McConnell will long regret not even holding a hearing for Garland.

During Hillary's first term --- because there is no way in the world she loses to the orange buffoon --- a Democratically controlled Senate will confirm Hllary's replacement for Scalia; then she gets two more justices confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate after both Thomas and Alito drop dead in the first year of her term; then, before her first term is up, Notorious RBG will decide to step down and Hillary gets another justice confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate. SCOTUS make up by the end of her first term: 7 - 2

That would be a successful first term right there.

In my estimate, Alito will NOT drop out, but Thomas will since he is completely lost without Scalia's lap to sit upon.

Ginsburg and Breyer have hung in there before retiring, waiting for Clinton to take the helm.

The court will be 6-3 with Roberts still as Chief.

I think Kennedy will retire also

7-2


Thanks Hillary