Bush AG: "No question" Obama has "obligation" to fill the seat

[JoeMoma]

what is so different about appointing a a SC Justice ?

if Obama does, the Right whines ..

if Obama doesn't, the right whines ..

The right will not be whining if he doesn't this time, at least not unless Hillary is elected.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Bush AG Alberto Gonzales: ‘No question’ Obama has ‘obligation’ to fill Supreme Court vacancy

Suck it bitches.

Indeed. He has the responsibility to NOMINATE a candidate. That's the END of his job. It's up to the SENATE after that and his nominee will get nowhere.

Enjoy sucking on that.

Nothing like ignoring the Constitution, and what you get paid for eh?

Um, care to quote the document to me? I'll anxiously be awaiting your response.....tick, tick, tick

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Bush AG Alberto Gonzales: ‘No question’ Obama has ‘obligation’ to fill Supreme Court vacancy

Suck it bitches.

Indeed. He has the responsibility to NOMINATE a candidate. That's the END of his job. It's up to the SENATE after that and his nominee will get nowhere.

Enjoy sucking on that.

Nothing like ignoring the Constitution, and what you get paid for eh?

Um, care to quote the document to me? I'll anxiously be awaiting your response.....tick, tick, tick

[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.

 

[JoeMoma]

He does.

And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,

So long as they act with good intentions. As it stands, they are saying they will block anyone just cause it's obama .

And these are the same people who claim obama doesn't follow the constitution .

And these people have the power, granted by the constitution, to block Obama's nominations.

 

[The VOR]

We know that with Obama's tendency to go far left with everything he does,

That is ******* hilarious. The President is farther right than the moron you idiots have in the lead for you party's nomination.

You kooks really believe all this shit you are spoon fed by RWNJ radio, RWNJ blogs and of course the one and only faux snooze.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He does.

And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,

So long as they act with good intentions. As it stands, they are saying they will block anyone just cause it's obama .

And these are the same people who claim obama doesn't follow the constitution .

As long as Obama nominates a Conservative Italian American to fill the Scalia seat, it's all good. The People spoke and gave the Senate to Scalia's Party

In reality he never had a party. It's not a partisan role.

Paint yourself into a corner

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He does.

And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,

So long as they act with good intentions. As it stands, they are saying they will block anyone just cause it's obama .

And these are the same people who claim obama doesn't follow the constitution .

And these people have the power, granted by the constitution, to block Obama's nominations.

If they vote. If they don't vote then they are usurping the Original Intent of the Constitution.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

He does.

And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,

So, block them, but they are required to vote and they are refusing to do that.

Where is a vote required? Show it.

"[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."

Without a vote they can't do the Consent part.

"by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"

They don't have to, as it's not required. All it says is that the president must HAVE the advice and consent of the Senate to forward his nomination, not that they must acquiesce to his demand, and consent to his choice. Same with treaties.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

He does.

And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,

So long as they act with good intentions. As it stands, they are saying they will block anyone just cause it's obama .

And these are the same people who claim obama doesn't follow the constitution .

And these people have the power, granted by the constitution, to block Obama's nominations.

If they vote. If they don't vote then they are usurping the Original Intent of the Constitution.

Complete nonsense.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He does.

And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,

So, block them, but they are required to vote and they are refusing to do that.

Where is a vote required? Show it.

"[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."

Without a vote they can't do the Consent part.

"by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"

They don't have to, as it's not required. All it says is that the president must HAVE the advice and consent of the Senate to forward his nomination, not that they must acquiesce to his demand, and consent to his choice. Same with treaties.

They must grant, or not, consent, which means a vote. That's all I said, dumbfuck.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He does.

And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,

So long as they act with good intentions. As it stands, they are saying they will block anyone just cause it's obama .

And these are the same people who claim obama doesn't follow the constitution .

And these people have the power, granted by the constitution, to block Obama's nominations.

If they vote. If they don't vote then they are usurping the Original Intent of the Constitution.

Complete nonsense.

How does the Senate grant consent? Oh right, they vote...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

He does.

And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,

So, block them, but they are required to vote and they are refusing to do that.

Where is a vote required? Show it.

"[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."

Without a vote they can't do the Consent part.

"by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"

They don't have to, as it's not required. All it says is that the president must HAVE the advice and consent of the Senate to forward his nomination, not that they must acquiesce to his demand, and consent to his choice. Same with treaties.

They must grant, or not, consent, which means a vote. That's all I said, dumbfuck.

Wow, you really ARE the top poster boy for our failed public school systems.

Consent is now defined - as it was then - as "permission for something to happen".

The Senate is under no obligation to grant it, anymore than they are obligated to ratify a treaty.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Bush AG Alberto Gonzales: ‘No question’ Obama has ‘obligation’ to fill Supreme Court vacancy

Suck it bitches.

Indeed. He has the responsibility to NOMINATE a candidate. That's the END of his job. It's up to the SENATE after that and his nominee will get nowhere.

Enjoy sucking on that.

Nothing like ignoring the Constitution, and what you get paid for eh?

Um, care to quote the document to me? I'll anxiously be awaiting your response.....tick, tick, tick

[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.

Apparently you went directly by the word "nominate". It's OK. In your zeal to "get me", you actually neglected to read what you posted.

 

[peach174]

He does.

And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,

So, block them, but they are required to vote and they are refusing to do that.

Where is a vote required? Show it.

"[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."

Without a vote they can't do the Consent part.

That has been Obama's problem from the start he hasn't worked with the Congress, not even with his own party. All he has done is call in the leaders.

Our other Presidents have called in the House and Senate and they negotiate and arrange deals to make what each President wants done.

 

[RandallFlagg]

He does.

And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,

So, block them, but they are required to vote and they are refusing to do that.

Where is a vote required? Show it.

"[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."

Without a vote they can't do the Consent part.

"by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"

They don't have to, as it's not required. All it says is that the president must HAVE the advice and consent of the Senate to forward his nomination, not that they must acquiesce to his demand, and consent to his choice. Same with treaties.

They must grant, or not, consent, which means a vote. That's all I said, dumbfuck.

Nope. Wrong again. We do NOT live under an Ogliarchy. We have 3 distinct sections of government (gotta love those genius founding Fathers). The president NOMINATES and it must be brought to the floor of the SENATE for hearings and debate. Here's the part that you LOVED while Harry Reid was Senate Majority Leader and, of course, now you hate, the Senate Majority Leader (McConnell) sets the agenda for legislative action. He will NOT bring it forward.

The moral of the story here? Sucks to be a liberal right now.

 

[peach174]

Bush AG Alberto Gonzales: ‘No question’ Obama has ‘obligation’ to fill Supreme Court vacancy

Suck it bitches.

Indeed. He has the responsibility to NOMINATE a candidate. That's the END of his job. It's up to the SENATE after that and his nominee will get nowhere.

Enjoy sucking on that.

Nothing like ignoring the Constitution, and what you get paid for eh?

That is our Constitution.

 

[peach174]

We know that with Obama's tendency to go far left with everything he does,

That is ******* hilarious. The President is farther right than the moron you idiots have in the lead for you party's nomination.

You kooks really believe all this shit you are spoon fed by RWNJ radio, RWNJ blogs and of course the one and only faux snooze.

No he isn't, he is far left.
It is based on what he has done for 7 years and his past voting record.
He has continually put ideology above the safety of the nation.
He is suppose to bring in a group of Congress to meet with regularly he hasn't done that.
That is far left.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So, block them, but they are required to vote and they are refusing to do that.

Where is a vote required? Show it.

"[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."

Without a vote they can't do the Consent part.

"by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"

They don't have to, as it's not required. All it says is that the president must HAVE the advice and consent of the Senate to forward his nomination, not that they must acquiesce to his demand, and consent to his choice. Same with treaties.

They must grant, or not, consent, which means a vote. That's all I said, dumbfuck.

Wow, you really ARE the top poster boy for our failed public school systems.

Consent is now defined - as it was then - as "permission for something to happen".

The Senate is under no obligation to grant it, anymore than they are obligated to ratify a treaty.

To grant, or not, consent they must vote.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The moral of the story here? Sucks to be a liberal right now.

Not at all, since we are going to beat the GOP to death for not governing, something the American people are sick to death of. They are tired of paying for do-nothing assholes.

Not to mention that the SC is now 4-4.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The moral of the story here? Sucks to be a liberal right now.

Not at all, since we are going to beat the GOP to death for not governing, something the American people are sick to death of. They are tired of paying for do-nothing assholes.

Not to mention that the SC is now 4-4.

I have to give you credit for one thing - you DO make me laugh...