The number of Republican Senators running for reelection in Blue States is sufficient in number to defeat any blocking effort by Senate Republicans. Republican Senators in Blue Stated don't get elected by party loyalty, they get elected with crossover Democratic votes. Those votes will vanish if the Senators show partisanship and ignore the fact that they are representing a blue state, which means a state where the population supports the Democratic President. They are in tight races to start with. A partisan position on an important issue could mean winning or losing an election.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
So, Obama gets to put a third dullard to the Supreme Court?
- Thread starter TheGreatGatsby
- Start date
I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.
I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.
Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.
??? cost analysis? the supreme court CAN function as it is now for less than one year
That is certainly something a stalling senator might tell his constituents, and his constituents might not accept this excuse and unseat his obstructionist butt ....
National Elections take place every even-numbered year. Every four years the president, vice president, one-third of the Senate, and the entire House are up for election (on-year elections). On even-numbered years when there isn't a presidential election, one-third of the Senate and the whole House are included in the election (off-year elections).
U.S. Senate: Elections
So yes ... a thinking senator will weigh the costs and benefits of stalling ....
why? just for stalling?
You, sir, are a dullard .... yes, have you not heard of the concept of consequences? for instance, if you stall paying a bill when it comes due, there might be consequences .... unless you're still a dullard, you will THINK about that .... when you're sitting in dull darkness after the electric company shuts off your supply of electricity ... and you can ponder why ....
nonsequiter
Those people that got juris doctorate and all you got was a two year degree at a community college..Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.
The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?
The Republicans will try to stall it for a year.
I hope----that lots of people will JOIN THE STALL------I am a congenital
democrat and did vote for Obama ---<<< confession. I was not particularly
overjoyed with him---------now I am horrified
Do away with lifetime appointments. Court's already crippled with those two dullards he appointed otherwise.
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,196
- 2,320
Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.
Not likely. Obama and cohorts were screaming like freshly-neutered cats about obstructionists in both 2010 and 2014.
The voters added even more obstructionists.
Debra K
Gold Member
- Jul 10, 2015
- 852
- 327
- 180
And if you are faced with the prospect of hiring the village idiot, you wait for a suitable candidate to come along....I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.
Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.
??? cost analysis? the supreme court CAN function as it is now for less than one year
That is certainly something a stalling senator might tell his constituents, and his constituents might not accept this excuse and unseat his obstructionist butt ....
National Elections take place every even-numbered year. Every four years the president, vice president, one-third of the Senate, and the entire House are up for election (on-year elections). On even-numbered years when there isn't a presidential election, one-third of the Senate and the whole House are included in the election (off-year elections).
U.S. Senate: Elections
So yes ... a thinking senator will weigh the costs and benefits of stalling ....
why? just for stalling?
You, sir, are a dullard .... yes, have you not heard of the concept of consequences? for instance, if you stall paying a bill when it comes due, there might be consequences .... unless you're still a dullard, you will THINK about that .... when you're sitting in dull darkness after the electric company shuts off your supply of electricity ... and you can ponder why ....
Failure to follow that simple rule has consequences, too....
The discussion was about STALLING ...
Obama said he was going to nominate a person to fill the vacant seat on the court.
The senate must take a vote ... to give consent or withhold consent to the nominee ... but, republicans are advocating obstruction, i.e., delay, delay, delay ... withholding any action on the nominee (whoever that nominee may be) until after the new president (whoever that may be) takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.
If Obama's nominee is "the village idiot", why not just vote him/her down? Why delay?
And if you are faced with the prospect of hiring the village idiot, you wait for a suitable candidate to come along....??? cost analysis? the supreme court CAN function as it is now for less than one year
That is certainly something a stalling senator might tell his constituents, and his constituents might not accept this excuse and unseat his obstructionist butt ....
National Elections take place every even-numbered year. Every four years the president, vice president, one-third of the Senate, and the entire House are up for election (on-year elections). On even-numbered years when there isn't a presidential election, one-third of the Senate and the whole House are included in the election (off-year elections).
U.S. Senate: Elections
So yes ... a thinking senator will weigh the costs and benefits of stalling ....
why? just for stalling?
You, sir, are a dullard .... yes, have you not heard of the concept of consequences? for instance, if you stall paying a bill when it comes due, there might be consequences .... unless you're still a dullard, you will THINK about that .... when you're sitting in dull darkness after the electric company shuts off your supply of electricity ... and you can ponder why ....
Failure to follow that simple rule has consequences, too....
The discussion was about STALLING ...
Obama said he was going to nominate a person to fill the vacant seat on the court.
The senate must take a vote ... to give consent or withhold consent to the nominee ... but, republicans are advocating obstruction, i.e., delay, delay, delay ... withholding any action on the nominee (whoever that nominee may be) until after the new president (whoever that may be) takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.
If Obama's nominee is "the village idiot", why not just vote him/her down? Why delay?
easy----because lots of people are getting tired of Obama-----"STALL" is a congressional time honored tradition------remember FILLIBUSTER?
Actually, the Senate can do whatever they choose to do, since the Idiot-in-Chief doesn't have dictatorial powers...And if you are faced with the prospect of hiring the village idiot, you wait for a suitable candidate to come along....??? cost analysis? the supreme court CAN function as it is now for less than one year
That is certainly something a stalling senator might tell his constituents, and his constituents might not accept this excuse and unseat his obstructionist butt ....
National Elections take place every even-numbered year. Every four years the president, vice president, one-third of the Senate, and the entire House are up for election (on-year elections). On even-numbered years when there isn't a presidential election, one-third of the Senate and the whole House are included in the election (off-year elections).
U.S. Senate: Elections
So yes ... a thinking senator will weigh the costs and benefits of stalling ....
why? just for stalling?
You, sir, are a dullard .... yes, have you not heard of the concept of consequences? for instance, if you stall paying a bill when it comes due, there might be consequences .... unless you're still a dullard, you will THINK about that .... when you're sitting in dull darkness after the electric company shuts off your supply of electricity ... and you can ponder why ....
Failure to follow that simple rule has consequences, too....
The discussion was about STALLING ...
Obama said he was going to nominate a person to fill the vacant seat on the court.
The senate must take a vote ... to give consent or withhold consent to the nominee ... but, republicans are advocating obstruction, i.e., delay, delay, delay ... withholding any action on the nominee (whoever that nominee may be) until after the new president (whoever that may be) takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.
If Obama's nominee is "the village idiot", why not just vote him/her down? Why delay?
It's called "co-equal branches of government"....
But keep demonstrating your butthurt, because it's really quite entertaining!!!
Debra K
Gold Member
- Jul 10, 2015
- 852
- 327
- 180
I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.
Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.
??? cost analysis? the supreme court CAN function as it is now for less than one year
That is certainly something a stalling senator might tell his constituents, and his constituents might not accept this excuse and unseat his obstructionist butt ....
National Elections take place every even-numbered year. Every four years the president, vice president, one-third of the Senate, and the entire House are up for election (on-year elections). On even-numbered years when there isn't a presidential election, one-third of the Senate and the whole House are included in the election (off-year elections).
U.S. Senate: Elections
So yes ... a thinking senator will weigh the costs and benefits of stalling ....
why? just for stalling?
You, sir, are a dullard .... yes, have you not heard of the concept of consequences? for instance, if you stall paying a bill when it comes due, there might be consequences .... unless you're still a dullard, you will THINK about that .... when you're sitting in dull darkness after the electric company shuts off your supply of electricity ... and you can ponder why ....
nonsequiter
Again, you are presenting yourself as a dullard.
To the extent that you responded "nonsequiter" (sic), that shows that you do not understand the simple meaning of the word "consequences".
non se·qui·tur
[ˌnän ˈsekwədər]
NOUN
- a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
If you stall and don't pay your electrical bill on a timely basis, then the electric company will most likely shut off your electricity. That's called a consequence. When thinking about a course of action, a thinking person will consider the costs vs. the benefits of the contemplated course of action, i.e., what are the consequences? desirable or undesirable?
If you're an elected official and you stall in the performance of your constitutionally imposed duties, there will likely be consequences for yourself and/or your political party. That is a logical conclusion.
Boss
Take a Memo:
And if you are faced with the prospect of hiring the village idiot, you wait for a suitable candidate to come along....??? cost analysis? the supreme court CAN function as it is now for less than one year
That is certainly something a stalling senator might tell his constituents, and his constituents might not accept this excuse and unseat his obstructionist butt ....
National Elections take place every even-numbered year. Every four years the president, vice president, one-third of the Senate, and the entire House are up for election (on-year elections). On even-numbered years when there isn't a presidential election, one-third of the Senate and the whole House are included in the election (off-year elections).
U.S. Senate: Elections
So yes ... a thinking senator will weigh the costs and benefits of stalling ....
why? just for stalling?
You, sir, are a dullard .... yes, have you not heard of the concept of consequences? for instance, if you stall paying a bill when it comes due, there might be consequences .... unless you're still a dullard, you will THINK about that .... when you're sitting in dull darkness after the electric company shuts off your supply of electricity ... and you can ponder why ....
Failure to follow that simple rule has consequences, too....
The discussion was about STALLING ...
Obama said he was going to nominate a person to fill the vacant seat on the court.
The senate must take a vote ... to give consent or withhold consent to the nominee ... but, republicans are advocating obstruction, i.e., delay, delay, delay ... withholding any action on the nominee (whoever that nominee may be) until after the new president (whoever that may be) takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.
If Obama's nominee is "the village idiot", why not just vote him/her down? Why delay?
Well they may very well vote his nominee down. We don't yet know what kind of wacko he is going to nominate. Supreme Court justices have to get a supermajority vote and Congress is majority Republican right now... so how do you figure anything not pretty damn close to a Scalia has ANY chance?
Look... if it had been Ruth Bater Nutbag who croaked, it's a totally different situation... people might kind of be put off by Republicans stalling.. but it's the most conservative Constitutional originalist on the court... that makes it different. Yes... radical left wing idiots like YOU are going to be upset that you don't get to put another of your kind on the court to replace the conservative... tough shit! You'll get over it... or not... don't really care, to be honest.
Debra K
Gold Member
- Jul 10, 2015
- 852
- 327
- 180
Actually, the Senate can do whatever they choose to do, since the Idiot-in-Chief doesn't have dictatorial powers...And if you are faced with the prospect of hiring the village idiot, you wait for a suitable candidate to come along....That is certainly something a stalling senator might tell his constituents, and his constituents might not accept this excuse and unseat his obstructionist butt ....
U.S. Senate: Elections
So yes ... a thinking senator will weigh the costs and benefits of stalling ....
why? just for stalling?
You, sir, are a dullard .... yes, have you not heard of the concept of consequences? for instance, if you stall paying a bill when it comes due, there might be consequences .... unless you're still a dullard, you will THINK about that .... when you're sitting in dull darkness after the electric company shuts off your supply of electricity ... and you can ponder why ....
Failure to follow that simple rule has consequences, too....
The discussion was about STALLING ...
Obama said he was going to nominate a person to fill the vacant seat on the court.
The senate must take a vote ... to give consent or withhold consent to the nominee ... but, republicans are advocating obstruction, i.e., delay, delay, delay ... withholding any action on the nominee (whoever that nominee may be) until after the new president (whoever that may be) takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.
If Obama's nominee is "the village idiot", why not just vote him/her down? Why delay?
It's called "co-equal branches of government"....
But keep demonstrating your butthurt, because it's really quite entertaining!!!
Obiwan: Read Justice Scalia's dissent in the case he is most proud of the words he wrote in his dissent, and then you will know that the only one here demonstrating his "butthurt" is you.
Debra K
Gold Member
- Jul 10, 2015
- 852
- 327
- 180
And if you are faced with the prospect of hiring the village idiot, you wait for a suitable candidate to come along....That is certainly something a stalling senator might tell his constituents, and his constituents might not accept this excuse and unseat his obstructionist butt ....
U.S. Senate: Elections
So yes ... a thinking senator will weigh the costs and benefits of stalling ....
why? just for stalling?
You, sir, are a dullard .... yes, have you not heard of the concept of consequences? for instance, if you stall paying a bill when it comes due, there might be consequences .... unless you're still a dullard, you will THINK about that .... when you're sitting in dull darkness after the electric company shuts off your supply of electricity ... and you can ponder why ....
Failure to follow that simple rule has consequences, too....
The discussion was about STALLING ...
Obama said he was going to nominate a person to fill the vacant seat on the court.
The senate must take a vote ... to give consent or withhold consent to the nominee ... but, republicans are advocating obstruction, i.e., delay, delay, delay ... withholding any action on the nominee (whoever that nominee may be) until after the new president (whoever that may be) takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.
If Obama's nominee is "the village idiot", why not just vote him/her down? Why delay?
Well they may very well vote his nominee down. We don't yet know what kind of wacko he is going to nominate. Supreme Court justices have to get a supermajority vote and Congress is majority Republican right now... so how do you figure anything not pretty damn close to a Scalia has ANY chance?
Look... if it had been Ruth Bater Nutbag who croaked, it's a totally different situation... people might kind of be put off by Republicans stalling.. but it's the most conservative Constitutional originalist on the court... that makes it different. Yes... radical left wing idiots like YOU are going to be upset that you don't get to put another of your kind on the court to replace the conservative... tough shit! You'll get over it... or not... don't really care, to be honest.
A supermajority is not necessary ... only 50 votes are required to approve a nominee, unless there is a filibuster ... and I would love to see Cruz, et al., get off the campaign trail and read "green eggs and ham" to their children on national television for months to stall a vote while America grows angrier and angrier with the obstructionists ... consequences, sometimes they're not beneficial ...
Anathema
Crotchety Olde Man
You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.
Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.
Look at which candidates are leading in the Republican Primaries.... They're all candidates whose supporters are not "establishment" oriented. Allowing Mr Obama to seat a third, and decisive, Supreme Court Justice, will not help any Republican Senator get reelected in November.
Boss
Take a Memo:
And if you are faced with the prospect of hiring the village idiot, you wait for a suitable candidate to come along....why? just for stalling?
You, sir, are a dullard .... yes, have you not heard of the concept of consequences? for instance, if you stall paying a bill when it comes due, there might be consequences .... unless you're still a dullard, you will THINK about that .... when you're sitting in dull darkness after the electric company shuts off your supply of electricity ... and you can ponder why ....
Failure to follow that simple rule has consequences, too....
The discussion was about STALLING ...
Obama said he was going to nominate a person to fill the vacant seat on the court.
The senate must take a vote ... to give consent or withhold consent to the nominee ... but, republicans are advocating obstruction, i.e., delay, delay, delay ... withholding any action on the nominee (whoever that nominee may be) until after the new president (whoever that may be) takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.
If Obama's nominee is "the village idiot", why not just vote him/her down? Why delay?
Well they may very well vote his nominee down. We don't yet know what kind of wacko he is going to nominate. Supreme Court justices have to get a supermajority vote and Congress is majority Republican right now... so how do you figure anything not pretty damn close to a Scalia has ANY chance?
Look... if it had been Ruth Bater Nutbag who croaked, it's a totally different situation... people might kind of be put off by Republicans stalling.. but it's the most conservative Constitutional originalist on the court... that makes it different. Yes... radical left wing idiots like YOU are going to be upset that you don't get to put another of your kind on the court to replace the conservative... tough shit! You'll get over it... or not... don't really care, to be honest.
A supermajority is not necessary ... only 50 votes are required to approve a nominee, unless there is a filibuster ... and I would love to see Cruz, et al., get off the campaign trail and read "green eggs and ham" to their children on national television for months to stall a vote while America grows angrier and angrier with the obstructionists ... consequences, sometimes they're not beneficial ...
Nope, you need to go look it up.. for Supreme Court Justices a supermajority is required. They changed the requirement for appellate court judges but that's a different story altogether.
I tell you what do... send a memo to Hillary and tell her that you want her to press heavy and hard on republicans 'obstructing' an opportunistic liberal appointment to the SCOTUS to replace the constitutional conservative and we'll see how it plays out! Otherwise, all you are doing is blustering your idiotic opinion which doesn't count for diddly-squat.
The Republicans, if they are smart, they hold off approving a new Supreme Court Justice until after the elections. This allows them more options. If they win the Presidency then they get there own nominee. If they retain the Senate, then they have an opportunity to have a more favorable judge. If they lose the Senate and/or the Presidency, they could approve Obama's nominee or roll the dice with the next Democratic President.
??? cost analysis? the supreme court CAN function as it is now for less than one year
That is certainly something a stalling senator might tell his constituents, and his constituents might not accept this excuse and unseat his obstructionist butt ....
National Elections take place every even-numbered year. Every four years the president, vice president, one-third of the Senate, and the entire House are up for election (on-year elections). On even-numbered years when there isn't a presidential election, one-third of the Senate and the whole House are included in the election (off-year elections).
U.S. Senate: Elections
So yes ... a thinking senator will weigh the costs and benefits of stalling ....
why? just for stalling?
You, sir, are a dullard .... yes, have you not heard of the concept of consequences? for instance, if you stall paying a bill when it comes due, there might be consequences .... unless you're still a dullard, you will THINK about that .... when you're sitting in dull darkness after the electric company shuts off your supply of electricity ... and you can ponder why ....
nonsequiter
Again, you are presenting yourself as a dullard.
To the extent that you responded "nonsequiter" (sic), that shows that you do not understand the simple meaning of the word "consequences".
non se·qui·tur
[ˌnän ˈsekwədər]
NOUN
- a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
If you stall and don't pay your electrical bill on a timely basis, then the electric company will most likely shut off your electricity. That's called a consequence. When thinking about a course of action, a thinking person will consider the costs vs. the benefits of the contemplated course of action, i.e., what are the consequences? desirable or undesirable?
If you're an elected official and you stall in the performance of your constitutionally imposed duties, there will likely be consequences for yourself and/or your political party. That is a logical conclusion.
not at all logical. You DECIDED that people who "stall" ---will be VOTED OUT OF OFFICE--------your decision is silly-----some people might SUPPORT that stall
tactic. In fact enough people might be IN FAVOR of the stall factor that it would
KEEP A POLITICIAN in office. Confirming this of that NOMINATED person
to office in the SUPREME COURT is NOT a "constitutionally imposed duty"
The power pendulum is swinging back our way.Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.
The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?
I thought Roberts and alito were bad but see now God worked it all out
Debra K
Gold Member
- Jul 10, 2015
- 852
- 327
- 180
And if you are faced with the prospect of hiring the village idiot, you wait for a suitable candidate to come along....You, sir, are a dullard .... yes, have you not heard of the concept of consequences? for instance, if you stall paying a bill when it comes due, there might be consequences .... unless you're still a dullard, you will THINK about that .... when you're sitting in dull darkness after the electric company shuts off your supply of electricity ... and you can ponder why ....
Failure to follow that simple rule has consequences, too....
The discussion was about STALLING ...
Obama said he was going to nominate a person to fill the vacant seat on the court.
The senate must take a vote ... to give consent or withhold consent to the nominee ... but, republicans are advocating obstruction, i.e., delay, delay, delay ... withholding any action on the nominee (whoever that nominee may be) until after the new president (whoever that may be) takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.
If Obama's nominee is "the village idiot", why not just vote him/her down? Why delay?
Well they may very well vote his nominee down. We don't yet know what kind of wacko he is going to nominate. Supreme Court justices have to get a supermajority vote and Congress is majority Republican right now... so how do you figure anything not pretty damn close to a Scalia has ANY chance?
Look... if it had been Ruth Bater Nutbag who croaked, it's a totally different situation... people might kind of be put off by Republicans stalling.. but it's the most conservative Constitutional originalist on the court... that makes it different. Yes... radical left wing idiots like YOU are going to be upset that you don't get to put another of your kind on the court to replace the conservative... tough shit! You'll get over it... or not... don't really care, to be honest.
A supermajority is not necessary ... only 50 votes are required to approve a nominee, unless there is a filibuster ... and I would love to see Cruz, et al., get off the campaign trail and read "green eggs and ham" to their children on national television for months to stall a vote while America grows angrier and angrier with the obstructionists ... consequences, sometimes they're not beneficial ...
Nope, you need to go look it up.. for Supreme Court Justices a supermajority is required. They changed the requirement for appellate court judges but that's a different story altogether.
I tell you what do... send a memo to Hillary and tell her that you want her to press heavy and hard on republicans 'obstructing' an opportunistic liberal appointment to the SCOTUS to replace the constitutional conservative and we'll see how it plays out! Otherwise, all you are doing is blustering your idiotic opinion which doesn't count for diddly-squat.
It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster (i.e., end debate and bring the matter to a vote) in this matter. Cruz has promised to filibuster. Why would Cruz threaten to filibuster if a filibuster wasn't necessary to prevent an up or down vote and block the President's eventual nominee?
Cruz Plans to Filibuster Any Obama Supreme Court Nominee
Edited to remove reference to two-thirds vote, which applies to other matters.
Furthermore, you're assuming the American people want another "conservative" justice like Scalia ... and I believe your assumption is wrong. I believe most people are repulsed by Senator Cruz ... he's very creepy.
Last edited:
And if you are faced with the prospect of hiring the village idiot, you wait for a suitable candidate to come along....
Failure to follow that simple rule has consequences, too....
The discussion was about STALLING ...
Obama said he was going to nominate a person to fill the vacant seat on the court.
The senate must take a vote ... to give consent or withhold consent to the nominee ... but, republicans are advocating obstruction, i.e., delay, delay, delay ... withholding any action on the nominee (whoever that nominee may be) until after the new president (whoever that may be) takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.
If Obama's nominee is "the village idiot", why not just vote him/her down? Why delay?
Well they may very well vote his nominee down. We don't yet know what kind of wacko he is going to nominate. Supreme Court justices have to get a supermajority vote and Congress is majority Republican right now... so how do you figure anything not pretty damn close to a Scalia has ANY chance?
Look... if it had been Ruth Bater Nutbag who croaked, it's a totally different situation... people might kind of be put off by Republicans stalling.. but it's the most conservative Constitutional originalist on the court... that makes it different. Yes... radical left wing idiots like YOU are going to be upset that you don't get to put another of your kind on the court to replace the conservative... tough shit! You'll get over it... or not... don't really care, to be honest.
A supermajority is not necessary ... only 50 votes are required to approve a nominee, unless there is a filibuster ... and I would love to see Cruz, et al., get off the campaign trail and read "green eggs and ham" to their children on national television for months to stall a vote while America grows angrier and angrier with the obstructionists ... consequences, sometimes they're not beneficial ...
Nope, you need to go look it up.. for Supreme Court Justices a supermajority is required. They changed the requirement for appellate court judges but that's a different story altogether.
I tell you what do... send a memo to Hillary and tell her that you want her to press heavy and hard on republicans 'obstructing' an opportunistic liberal appointment to the SCOTUS to replace the constitutional conservative and we'll see how it plays out! Otherwise, all you are doing is blustering your idiotic opinion which doesn't count for diddly-squat.
It takes a two-thirds vote (60 votes, i.e., supermajority) to end a filibuster (i.e., end debate and bring the matter to a vote) in this matter. Cruz has promised to filibuster. Why would Cruz threaten to filibuster if a filibuster wasn't necessary to prevent an up or down vote and block the President's eventual nominee?
Cruz Plans to Filibuster Any Obama Supreme Court Nominee
ok------I got a feeling that there are all sorts of STALL tactics in all sorts
of minds
- Thread starter
- #39
The power pendulum is swinging back our way.Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.
The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?
I thought Roberts and alito were bad but see now God worked it all out
Back what way? The way that people just make sh** up in the Constitution?
Which Republican do you agree with 100% on their interpretation of the constitution?The power pendulum is swinging back our way.Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.
The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?
I thought Roberts and alito were bad but see now God worked it all out
Back what way? The way that people just make sh** up in the Constitution?
Because jebs interpretation is different than cruz'. You do realize that, right?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 265
- Replies
- 85
- Views
- 5K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 39
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 98
- Replies
- 68
- Views
- 437
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 57
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8039
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-