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

[AsherN]

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

"[The President] 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."[/QUOTE]

You know when you actually parse that, 2/3 of the Senate is needed to make Treaties. But not for anything else.

 

[rightwinger]

That's why selections require confirmation...

Actually, "selections" or nominations, REQUIRE for the senate to hold a hearing....which the GOP-led senate has refused to even do that........GOP'ers in the senate will pay for that mistake.:

LINK!

Sorry, NO link since, constitutionally, there is no mandaate for a senator to do his or her job (too bad)...HOWEVER, you judge what should be done with an elected official who refuses to do anything but sit with two thumbs up their ass.

Attempting to stop what this Muslim loving shitbird we have for a President is a full time job.

You didn't do a very good job...Obama got pretty much whatever he wanted over the last eight years

Looks like Hillary will do the same

 

[Preacher]

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

Leadership principle? Whose leadership and what kind of voice would the citizens have? Have you ever studied revolutionary results and causes given a monolithic government?

Racial Socialism – Creativity Alliance
Führerprinzip - Wikipedia

sure. great. We'll replace American constitutional government with a Nazi dictatorship. How'd that work out in 1945?

I lost two uncles in the fight to rid the planet of such evil. The notion some American would prefer such vile, evil government over our own is sickening. You should be both ashamed and ignored.

Go ahead and rate this post "funny". The shallowness of your world view restricts you from responding in an articulate manner.

You obviously didn't read both links if you think Racial Socialism is National Socialism. Leadership principle can be used anywhere...doesn't have to be a Racial or National Socialist country it can be merely a Populist or Nationalist one. Trump can use it here and just merely rend the congress and SC useless

 

[TooTall]

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.

Of course you are assuming the senate will still be controlled by the Reps. I don't know if the polls are accurate, but if they are, her nominees may walk thru confirmation.

The Senate still requires 60 votes to end cloture so a filibuster by ONE Senator can stop any confirmation.

Reps won't do it, they fear the political fallout, and with most of the media behind the Dems they would get murdered in the press. If they couldn't stand up to a bunch of BO's executive orders when they had a majority in both houses, what makes you think they will do it when in the minority?

They aren't in the minority yet, so don't count on it. The Democrats would filibuster any attempt to stand up to Obama's EO's and the Supreme Court has and will continue to find many of them unconstitutional.

 

[TooTall]

The Senate still requires 60 votes to end cloture so a filibuster by ONE Senator can stop any confirmation.

Reps won't do it, they fear the political fallout, and with most of the media behind the Dems they would get murdered in the press. If they couldn't stand up to a bunch of BO's executive orders when they had a majority in both houses, what makes you think they will do it when in the minority?

They didn't fear the political fallout of leaving a Supreme Court seat vacant for a year

Geesh dude, you don't see the difference between delaying until the election is over for a year and leaving a seat vacant for a full presidential term? Is this really that hard?

Once they have gone this far...what is their hurry?

If you are willing to stonewall for one quarter of a Presidents term, why not a full term?

To begin with, there was the distraction of the campaign season which took the spotlight off the one vacant seat. A new president will make filling the vacancy a priority. Considering there could also be other judges retire or die within the next term, it would not be ignored by the press.

How about this scenario, unlikely as it seems to be, Trump wins the presidency but GOP looses the senate. Would the Dems block confirmations?

Yes they would, and the Press would crucify them. OOPS, I forgot, you said Democrats. The press would crucify Trump for nominating a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic justice, and he is deplorable as well.

 

[nat4900]

By the end of 2018, we may have a court that is 6 to 3 (Roberts, Alito and Kennedy....who sometimes votes for more liberal issues)

Thomas, Gingsburg and Breyer will retire and Scalia's seat WILL be filled.

Remember that such senators as Cruz, Corker and Hatch on the GOP side (total of 8) will be up for reelection in 2018 and they better show that they did get off their asses and did something for this nation.

 

[nat4900]

Attempting to stop what this Muslim loving shitbird we have for a President is a full time job.

NotTOObright shows his racism even during his "last stand".......LOL

 

[TooTall]

Attempting to stop what this Muslim loving shitbird we have for a President is a full time job.

NotTOObright shows his racism even during his "last stand".......LOL

Anyone that can't say radical Islamic terrorist is a Muslim loving shitbird. And that would be one of their finest qualities. There is nothing racist about identifying an enemy that is killing Christians, Jews and anyone else that doesn't agree with them.

 

[TooTall]

Attempting to stop what this Muslim loving shitbird we have for a President is a full time job.

NotTOObright shows his racism even during his "last stand".......LOL

Anyone that can't say radical Islamic terrorist is a Muslim loving shitbird. And that would be one of their finest qualities. There is nothing racist about identifying an enemy that is killing Christians, Jews and anyone else that doesn't agree with them.

What happened to Jillian? I usually get a funny rating from both of you LWNJ's. I do appreciate it, as it adds to my rating.

 

[TooTall]

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

"[The President] 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."

You know when you actually parse that, 2/3 of the Senate is needed to make Treaties. But not for anything else.[/QUOTE]

When you actually read it, the AND indicates it takes 2/3 of the Senators to vest the appointment of all of the above.Then there is the "but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper," The Senate did change the rule to a majority vote instead of 2/3rds for all but Supreme Court Justices.