So John Conyers tweeted about Supreme court nominations

[novasteve]

He said that the president has an obligation to make a nomination, and the senate has an obligation to approve that nomination.

WTF??

And Nancy Pelosi retweeted it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Wow, thanks for nothing

 

[Contumacious]

He said that the president has an obligation to make a nomination, and the senate has an obligation to approve that nomination.

WTF??

And Nancy Pelosi retweeted it.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) the executive and legislative were equal branches of government.

The executive could nominate and the senate could ignore (advise and consent NOT advise and capitulate)

I don't know what the rules are now under FDR's socialist "constitution" . I guess, according John Conyers, that the procedure is a tad tyrannical.nowadays.


.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No, they do not have an obligation to approve it, but they do need to hold a vote on it.

 

[jillian]

He said that the president has an obligation to make a nomination, and the senate has an obligation to approve that nomination.

WTF??

And Nancy Pelosi retweeted it.

and?

your point, idiota? he happens to be correct. not that the obstructionist rightwingnuts ever meet their obligations.

 

[Compost]

Yes. John Conyers, the epitome of the need for term limits, tweeted.

 

[Contumacious]

He said that the president has an obligation to make a nomination, and the senate has an obligation to approve that nomination.

WTF??

And Nancy Pelosi retweeted it.

and?

your point, idiota? he happens to be correct. not that the obstructionist rightwingnuts ever meet their obligations.

Ms Jill, Esq is presumably right .....she is an expert on FDR's "constitution"


.

 

[jillian]

He said that the president has an obligation to make a nomination, and the senate has an obligation to approve that nomination.

WTF??

And Nancy Pelosi retweeted it.

and?

your point, idiota? he happens to be correct. not that the obstructionist rightwingnuts ever meet their obligations.

Ms Jill, Esq is presumably right .....she is an expert on FDR's "constitution"


.

you sure as hell aren't.

 

[Contumacious]

He said that the president has an obligation to make a nomination, and the senate has an obligation to approve that nomination.

WTF??

And Nancy Pelosi retweeted it.

and?

your point, idiota? he happens to be correct. not that the obstructionist rightwingnuts ever meet their obligations.

Ms Jill, Esq is presumably right .....she is an expert on FDR's "constitution"


.

you sure as hell aren't.

I concur. Socialism is not my cup of tea.


When the Old Constitution (1787-1935) is RESTORED then I will be the expert again.




.

 

[bendog]

Did anyone BoTher PUTTING up the TWEET? Didn't think so.

 

[deltex1]

He said that the president has an obligation to make a nomination, and the senate has an obligation to approve that nomination.

WTF??

And Nancy Pelosi retweeted it.

and?

your point, idiota? he happens to be correct. not that the obstructionist rightwingnuts ever meet their obligations.

Put down the crack pipe, Mona. They do not have an obligation to approve.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, they do not have an obligation to approve it, but they do need to hold a vote on it.

They can take their time. Ask Miguel Estrada.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Did anyone BoTher PUTTING up the TWEET? Didn't think so.

No, OP just went "Like OMG" and that was like, a big deal

 

[novasteve]

He said that the president has an obligation to make a nomination, and the senate has an obligation to approve that nomination.

WTF??

And Nancy Pelosi retweeted it.

and?

your point, idiota? he happens to be correct. not that the obstructionist rightwingnuts ever meet their obligations.

So Democrats violated the constitution when they rejected Bork?

 

[Londoner]

Ronald Reagan - a lame duck in 1987 - nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy. He faced zero opposition from the Democrats, despite the fact that Kennedy was a conservative with a long history of conservative rulings.

The Democrats confirmed Kennedy quickly because Reagan had a constitutionally protected right to nominate Supreme Court justices.

By denying Obama's right to nominate a justice, your fucking party is taking a shit on the Constitution. You are disenfranchising the Americans who elected Obama to office in two elections.

To prevent a Constitutional Crisis, we needed 9 justices for Bush V Gore. The country requires a fully functional Supreme Court. To leave the Supreme Court incomplete for a year is not only unprecedented, it proves that your party only cares about the Constitution when it serves their narrow ideological agenda.

If the Democrats did the same thing, they would be crucified in the media. If Obama fails to win this battle, than this country will be reduced to a one-party, Soviet-style state.

Mitch McConnel should be impeached for violating the implicit rules of the Constitution, which gives the President of the United States the power to nominate Supreme Court justices.

 

[deltex1]

Ronald Reagan - a lame duck in 1987 - nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy. He faced zero opposition from the Democrats, despite the fact that Kennedy was a conservative with a long history of conservative rulings.

The Democrats confirmed Kennedy quickly because Reagan had a constitutionally protected right to nominate Supreme Court justices.

By denying Obama's right to nominate a justice, your fucking party is taking a shit on the Constitution. You are disenfranchising the Americans who elected Obama to office in two elections.

To prevent a Constitutional Crisis, we needed 9 justices for Bush V Gore. The country requires a fully functional Supreme Court. To leave the Supreme Court incomplete for a year is not only unprecedented, it proves that your party only cares about the Constitution when it serves their narrow ideological agenda.

If the Democrats did the same thing, they would be crucified in the media. If Obama fails to win this battle, than this country will be reduced to a one-party, Soviet-style state.

Mitch McConnel should be impeached for violating the implicit rules of the Constitution, which gives the President of the United States the power to nominate Supreme Court justices.

You cannot be that stupid.

 

[Staidhup]

As I recall, the threat put forth by one Chukie Schumer was to block and obstruct any and all nominations by Baby Bush to the court, and judicial bench, by stonewalling all nominations in the judicial committee, yet now these same pathetic cry baby liberals claim the GOP is not entitled to return the favor? So did the court collapse during the vacancy periods of the past?
We don't need to have a full bench, to state otherwise is an out right lie, but then again liberals lie all day long so nothing new here. An impasse resulting from a 4-4 split would translate into the retention of the current status of a law, in short, the prevailing interpretation would stand.
Several issues are set to be presented to the court, executive order to rewrite a law passed by congress,
executive orders that circumvent federal laws, and campaign finance reform to list a few.
The real issue here is the circumvention of congressional power by the executive and interpretation of the constitution. The goal of the cry babies and whiners is to gain control of the court so they can suspend and alter freedoms as provided by the constitution.
So if Burnout and the Hag can't wait until one of these pathetic excuses is elected then one has to wonder just how nervous are these clowns that their grasp for executive power is in their bag?
Americans are sick and tired of this garbage and the liberal progressive movement knows full well that their days are numbered.

 

[Uncensored2008]

and?

your point, idiota? he happens to be correct. not that the obstructionist rightwingnuts ever meet their obligations.

He's CORRECT Mz. FakeLawyer?



No dummy, the Senate has no obligation to approve an Obama pick.

Ever heard of Robert Bork, you drooling moron?

 

[Staidhup]

One final thought, Londoner, your nuts, period end of sentence, go back to the basement, better yet go to a library and do some research.

 

[Staidhup]

Bork was crucified by one Biden, Schumer, Kennedy, and other liberal mouth pieces, as a result of Bork's positions on the responsibilities of justices in the strict interpretation of the constitution, and not that of writing law.