][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
- Jun 12, 2010
- Reaction score
- Kannapolis, N.C.
Stop whining you leftists would do the same thing if the roles were reversedThe repubs blocking the appointment was constitutionally allowable, but like so many other things that are technically allowable, it was a shitty thing to do.Just got this in an e-mail.Democrats allege that RBG said she wished that her replacement would only be nominated by a new President.
That is an obvious LIE. RBG was a judges judge, and was well aware that the Consitution says the President SHALL make an appointment when a seat on the SCOTUS is vacant.
SHALL is not 'may' or 'can think about it for a while'. 'Shall' is an imperative word that leaves no choice, THE PRESIDENT MUST MAKE AN APPOINTMENT.
Every lawyer should know the difference between 'shall' vrs 'may' or whatever else.
RBG did NOT say that, very obviously, but the 'Deplorable American' people Dimocrats think are too stupid to know the difference, just like they think we are too stupid to know that Trump does not have low regard for the American people.
THE DEMOCRATS DO AND THEY DEMONSTRATE THIS EVERY FOUR YEARS WITH THEIR RIDICULOUS LIES.
Ginsburg’s Words From 2016 Destroy the Democrat Narrative
The fight in 2016 over whether to take up then-President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee caused many to say things they regret. One of them was the late-Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
According to The Daily Wire:
Ginsburg gave a speech at Georgetown Law School on Sept. 7, 2016, after which she took questions. A member of the audience asked, “I was wondering if you thought there were any valid constitutional arguments that would prevent President Obama from filling Justice Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court?”When the GOP-led Senate used its constitutional powers to block the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland in 2016, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted that the president had the power to nominate a candidate for a Supreme Court vacancy any time during his four-year tenure and that the Senate had every right to confirm the nomination or not.
The vacancy Obama chose Garland to fill was created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016; President Barack Obama nominated Garland in mid-March.
Ginsburg answered, “As you know, the president has the authority to name appointees to the Supreme Court, but he has to do so with the advice and consent of the Senate. And if the Senate does not act, as this current Senate is not acting, what can be done about it? Even if you could conceive of a testing lawsuit, what would the response be? ‘Well, you want us to vote? So we’ll vote no.’ But I do think that cooler heads will prevail; I hope sooner rather than later. The president is elected for four years not three years, so the powers that he has in year three continue into year four and maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”
Video and Twitter in the link
Advertisement Send the Next GOP SUPERSTAR John James to the Senate [ACT NOW]The fight in 2016 over whether to take up then-President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee caused many to say things they regret. One of them was the late-Ruth Bader Ginsburg. According to The Daily Wire: When the GOP-led...trumptrainnews.com