Top 5 democratic leaders hypocrites SCOTUS PROCESS

[rightwinger]

As the months wear on, with the majority of circuit courts in blue hands, I think we can expect to see a fair number of cases where a SCOTUS tie vote will throw it back to the lower courts ---> result? A win for the democrats.

You GOP quackadoodles don't realize if you go this route, by not even entertaining the idea of a hearing -- or allowing the seat to remain vacant for over a year -- either way, Obama wins.

I think that after case after case comes back 4-4 the pressure will mount on Republicans to fill the seat

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All Obama has to do is drop his hyper-partisian reflex and nominate a Scalia clone

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As the months wear on, with the majority of circuit courts in blue hands, I think we can expect to see a fair number of cases where a SCOTUS tie vote will throw it back to the lower courts ---> result? A win for the democrats.

You GOP quackadoodles don't realize if you go this route, by not even entertaining the idea of a hearing -- or allowing the seat to remain vacant for over a year -- either way, Obama wins.

I think that after case after case comes back 4-4 the pressure will mount on Republicans to fill the seat

That's OK, it's just another few months; letting Obama put Holder or Michelle or himself on SCOTUS is a lifetime disaster

 

[Pogo]

The people elected a Democratic president. The Constitution says that Democratic President has a four year term, not three.

Elections have consequences. This is one of them.

ahhh....falling back on talking points...."4 years, not 3....blah blah blah....."

Give it a rest. This is government at work.

How long is a Presidential term on your planet then? What, a POTUS should just take the last year off? And what, play golf?

 

[Pogo]

A POTUS is elected to serve for four years. "Four" doesn't mean "three".

Elections have consequences, you lost

I "lost" what? I didn't even run for anything.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A POTUS is elected to serve for four years. "Four" doesn't mean "three".

Elections have consequences, you lost

I "lost" what? I didn't even run for anything.

Hey, don't step on my lines

 

[Pogo]

The five highest-ranking Democrats in the nation once staunchly defended the Senate’s constitutional role in the Supreme Court confirmation process.

Or at least they did, until now.

proceeding with the nomination pronto, includes the constitutional role of the senate in the confirmation process...

and that allows for the denying of a nomination as well as a no vote if so desired by the santé majority leader.

so let's get going and see what happens then, shall we..?

I have said numerous times that President Obama would be ignoring his constitutional responsibility if he did NOT put up a nominee.

However, if he puts up a very far left nominee, the Senate would be remiss in confirming that person seeing as the people spoke when they voted in a republic body of legislators....and the truth is, if the people want a left leaning judge, they will vote in a democratic president.

Voters vote for representatives to stand for their values. That means individuals --- not political parties. This ain't some kind of football game where the objective is to keep the other "team" from "scoring points".

 

[mudwhistle]

What moronic right wingers fail to consider is WHAT Article 2 actually states regarding a SC nominee....

The Founders CLEARLY stated that it is up to the president...and NOT up to a referendum by the people....to nominate a justice....One would think that the wise Founders assumed that elections have consequences and that in a representative democracy, when a president is elected (for FOUR years, by the way) that individual assumes the responsibility of nominating someone.

What part of the word nominate don't you understand?
He can nominate anyone he wants. Doesn’t mean they have to approve them.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

..and the truth is, if the people want a left leaning judge, they will vote in a democratic president.

They did vote in a Democratic President!

Elections have consequences. This is one of them.

and they voted in a republican congress to keep his ass in check.

Leftists continually discount the last election

 

[S.J.]

Joe Biden disagrees with you Democrats on SC nominees in an election year.

 

[Jarhead]

The five highest-ranking Democrats in the nation once staunchly defended the Senate’s constitutional role in the Supreme Court confirmation process.

Or at least they did, until now.

proceeding with the nomination pronto, includes the constitutional role of the senate in the confirmation process...

and that allows for the denying of a nomination as well as a no vote if so desired by the santé majority leader.

so let's get going and see what happens then, shall we..?

I have said numerous times that President Obama would be ignoring his constitutional responsibility if he did NOT put up a nominee.

However, if he puts up a very far left nominee, the Senate would be remiss in confirming that person seeing as the people spoke when they voted in a republic body of legislators....and the truth is, if the people want a left leaning judge, they will vote in a democratic president.

Voters vote for representatives to stand for their values. That means individuals --- not political parties. This ain't some kind of football game where the objective is to keep the other "team" from "scoring points".

and the senate recognizes that our current president believes he can change laws with a stroke of a pen...and allows the Supreme Court to decide if his actions are legal. Several times, the SCOTUS deemed his actions as illegal and overturned them. As representatives of the majority of the people, the senate of a GOP majority will not allow him to choose and appoint one to the bench that will automatically allow for his actions based on ideology.

It is his actions with his executive orders that has prompted this. Nothing more.

And don't start with the talking points....you know...."Obama has less executive orders than his past 4 predecessors...."

Most executive orders are about changing names of streets and locations where a dignitary should be buried.

Obama's executive orders have all but eliminated the need for a legislative body.

A big difference.

 

[Jarhead]

Joe Biden disagrees with you Democrats on SC nominees in an election year.

yeah...well.....apparently Biden has "evolved"....

Lol....the new excuse.