Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Progressives never compromise, why should anyone else??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 do-nothing assholes.The moral of the story here? Sucks to be a liberal right now.
To grant, or not, consent they must vote.They must grant, or not, consent, which means a vote. That's all I said, dumbfuck."[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."Where is a vote required? Show it.
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.
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.
They don't have to compromise, they have to grant, or not, consent, which means voting.Progressives never compromise, why should anyone else??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 do-nothing assholes.The moral of the story here? Sucks to be a liberal right now.
Getting along is over rated...
They cannot consent without voting, and Advice and Consent are not optional. If they are then Obama doesn't need the Senate at all...To grant, or not, consent they must vote.They must grant, or not, consent, which means a vote. That's all I said, dumbfuck."[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.
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.
NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
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.The moral of the story here? Sucks to be a liberal right now.
Not to mention that the SC is now 4-4.
I have to give you credit for one thing - you DO make me laugh...
Why, there is no hurry.They don't have to compromise, they have to grant, or not, consent, which means voting.Progressives never compromise, why should anyone else??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 do-nothing assholes.The moral of the story here? Sucks to be a liberal right now.
Getting along is over rated...
They don't have to compromise, they have to grant, or not, consent, which means voting.Progressives never compromise, why should anyone else??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 do-nothing assholes.The moral of the story here? Sucks to be a liberal right now.
Getting along is over rated...
They cannot consent without voting, and Advice and Consent are not optional. If they are then Obama doesn't need the Senate at all...To grant, or not, consent they must vote.They must grant, or not, consent, which means a vote. That's all I said, dumbfuck."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.
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.
NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
They cannot consent without voting, and Advice and Consent are not optional. If they are then Obama doesn't need the Senate at all...To grant, or not, consent they must vote.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.
NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
They don't have to vote that is their right as the Senate.
Then Obama has to pick another nomination. This could go back and forth until the next President comes in.
Voting is their Constitutional duty, kids. And if they don't, say goodbye to the GOP Senate. They were going to lose it anyway but pulling this craps means it's gone, gone, gone...They cannot consent without voting, and Advice and Consent are not optional. If they are then Obama doesn't need the Senate at all...To grant, or not, consent they must vote.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.
NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
They don't have to vote that is their right as the Senate.
Then Obama has to pick another nomination. This could go back and forth until the next President comes in.
Yes, it does, and the GOP Senate will fold, as usual...Pride goeth before a fall.
And they have an obligation to vote.He certainly has an obligation to nominate a replacement, whether or not that nominee "fills" the vacancy is pretty much out of his hands.
Just sayin'.
Yes, it does, and the GOP Senate will fold, as usual...Pride goeth before a fall.
Just wait. Their grandstand is made of sand, and the tide is coming in fast...Yes, it does, and the GOP Senate will fold, as usual...Pride goeth before a fall.
Like I said sonny, you make me laugh.
Sure. they can hold hearings and vote the nominee down. I don't have a problem with that. They can go to the American people and explain why the candidate is unacceptable. Not allowing hearings or a vote is not acceptable. This is an important seat that needs to be filled.He does.
And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,
We may even have a Trump vs. Bernie election because people are livid at the establishment.They cannot consent without voting, and Advice and Consent are not optional. If they are then Obama doesn't need the Senate at all...To grant, or not, consent they must vote.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.
NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
They don't have to vote that is their right as the Senate.
Then Obama has to pick another nomination. This could go back and forth until the next President comes in.
The limp-wristed liberals' sole argument is that it will make republicans "look bad". What they simply cannot get through their little pea brains is that America is LIVID at the present administration. We all understand that unless we rid ourselves of these clown "progressives" - we are done as a country and a society. They can't look beyond their ideology to see the absolute ASS WHOOPING that awaits them in November.
Pride goeth before a fall.
"Advise and consent". Ever heard that phrase n00b 'tard?He does.
And the Senate majority has an obligation - and a right - to its constituents to block unacceptable nominees,
The voting pubs doesn't care...Voting is their Constitutional duty, kids. And if they don't, say goodbye to the GOP Senate. They were going to lose it anyway but pulling this craps means it's gone, gone, gone...They cannot consent without voting, and Advice and Consent are not optional. If they are then Obama doesn't need the Senate at all...To grant, or not, consent they must vote.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.
NO must that they vote.
They have the right not to.
They don't have to vote that is their right as the Senate.
Then Obama has to pick another nomination. This could go back and forth until the next President comes in.
