It's Official. No Obama nominee

[bodecea]

you mean the two out of three where dems turned out in numbers...the races that were presidential races? this president never had coattails. the next one will.

you missing something here?

like i said... keep doing it.

No I mean every election cycle since Obama got elected. You know, where Republicans won elections, every time?

You mean the mid year elections where Dems don't show up?

You are aware that president Obama isn't running this time, right?

Also, if you knew anything besides talking smack as they say, you'd know that republicans have more sets to defend this time than Dems. The situation was reversed last time.

How many more excuses are you going to drag out of the closet?

Those are not excuses, those are demographic realities that are always taken into consideration by those who run elections.

How do you explain Republicans dominating every election cycle since Obama got elected?

Republicans dominated the 2012 cycle?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

It's 'party's' genius. For a Constitutional scholar you missed the part where no where in the Constitution does it mention anything about WHEN the Senate is obliged to consider a President's nomination. Ergo no Constitutional 'duty'.
Asshole.
Here's some nice bedtime reading:
McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS
Obama fucked himself with his 'superior "I'm smarter than everyone" bullshit attitude.
Big deal. He's just another LIB creep anyway.
The absolute most wonderful unbelievable part is that such a 'smart' LIB as him is going to go down in history as being personally responsible for having a Trump President. A REP Senate majority and House and in two Trump terms 5-6 REP SCJs on the bench for decades.
All because the stupid DEM negroes 'block-voted' in The First AA President.

While a time frame is not a constraint, the Constitution is clear that the president, with the Senate, work together to fill vacancies. Telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their Constitutional obligations violates the Constitution and the oath they swore to support the Constitution.

You said it yourself, there are no time constraints. Thank you.

 

[Faun]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

All's the current Senate has to do is vote down anyone that Obama nominates. You'll be crying about that, too.

Consider yourself wrong again.

 

[Syriusly]

That's right. The Senate has just officially ruled they will not even consider any Obama SCJ nominee.
".

Good to see that the GOP Senate is openly admitting it's ignoring the Senate's Constitutional duties.


He 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,

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

All's the current Senate has to do is vote down anyone that Obama nominates. You'll be crying about that, too.

Consider yourself wrong again.

Oh, so now, the Senate can't vote down a nominee?...lol

 

[bodecea]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

All's the current Senate has to do is vote down anyone that Obama nominates. You'll be crying about that, too.

That's not the point.
The point is the Senate has decided that the American voter must have the right to choose the next SCJ.
The voter will choose the next President/Senate/House. That's the way it should be.
I guarantee everyone if the shoe was on the different foot the DEMs would be doing the exact same thing.
"Sometimes you eat the bear. Sometimes the bear eats you".
At this point the DEMs are ******* apoplectic. They will do ANYTHING if they can just get the camel's nose under the tent by getting the REPs to 'just consider' Obama's nomination.
Never going to happen.

The American voter made that decision in 2012. They voted for a 4 year term President...not a 3 year term President. That applies every time the American voter makes Presidential decisions....every 4 years.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

No I mean every election cycle since Obama got elected. You know, where Republicans won elections, every time?

You mean the mid year elections where Dems don't show up?

You are aware that president Obama isn't running this time, right?

Also, if you knew anything besides talking smack as they say, you'd know that republicans have more sets to defend this time than Dems. The situation was reversed last time.

How many more excuses are you going to drag out of the closet?

Those are not excuses, those are demographic realities that are always taken into consideration by those who run elections.

How do you explain Republicans dominating every election cycle since Obama got elected?

Republicans dominated the 2012 cycle?

Who owns Congress, now?

 

[bodecea]

Yes...what Wild Bill seems to have trouble seeing is the clear difference between refusing to their job and even signing a statement to that effect.......and doing their job which INCLUDES the right to reject a nominee. The Senate did their job with Bork. They have a vote. The current GOP Senators have petulantly stated for the record that they refuse to even consider anyone that President Obama submits....not even a vote.

They are doing their job of checking and balancing by advising that they're not going to consider Obama's communist nominee.

They are not checking or balancing anything. They are doing nothing.

What you seem to fail to see is that NO ONE here is saying they must approve whomever President Obama nominates....not at all....What we are saying is that their JOB is to vet any nominee the President puts forward and if that nominee is not to their satisfaction, reject him/her. That's how the system is set up...that's how the system worked Bork was brought forward...that's how the system worked when Abe Fortas was brought forward...that's how the system worked even when Scalia was brought forward years ago.

They're not allowing the Commie in Charge to appoint a communist ideologue to the court. And that's exactly what I want them to do.

Who is this "Commie in Charge" you are now going on about?

Your Füerher

Again, who the heck is this "Your Fuerher" you seem to like so much?

 

[Faun]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

Yes...what Wild Bill seems to have trouble seeing is the clear difference between refusing to their job and even signing a statement to that effect.......and doing their job which INCLUDES the right to reject a nominee. The Senate did their job with Bork. They have a vote. The current GOP Senators have petulantly stated for the record that they refuse to even consider anyone that President Obama submits....not even a vote.

They are doing their job of checking and balancing by advising that they're not going to consider Obama's communist nominee.

You know their job is to advise AND consent, not just advise, right?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

All's the current Senate has to do is vote down anyone that Obama nominates. You'll be crying about that, too.

That's not the point.
The point is the Senate has decided that the American voter must have the right to choose the next SCJ.
The voter will choose the next President/Senate/House. That's the way it should be.
I guarantee everyone if the shoe was on the different foot the DEMs would be doing the exact same thing.
"Sometimes you eat the bear. Sometimes the bear eats you".
At this point the DEMs are ******* apoplectic. They will do ANYTHING if they can just get the camel's nose under the tent by getting the REPs to 'just consider' Obama's nomination.
Never going to happen.

The American voter made that decision in 2012. They voted for a 4 year term President...not a 3 year term President. That applies every time the American voter makes Presidential decisions....every 4 years.

The American people have Congress to the republicans, so they can stop Obama's communist agenda.

 

[bodecea]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

It's 'party's' genius. For a Constitutional scholar you missed the part where no where in the Constitution does it mention anything about WHEN the Senate is obliged to consider a President's nomination. Ergo no Constitutional 'duty'.
Asshole.
Here's some nice bedtime reading:
McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS
Obama fucked himself with his 'superior "I'm smarter than everyone" bullshit attitude.
Big deal. He's just another LIB creep anyway.
The absolute most wonderful unbelievable part is that such a 'smart' LIB as him is going to go down in history as being personally responsible for having a Trump President. A REP Senate majority and House and in two Trump terms 5-6 REP SCJs on the bench for decades.
All because the stupid DEM negroes 'block-voted' in The First AA President.

That's an interesting statement right there. I guess we know who Stormfront sends us.

Don't look now, but you just posted an insult.

I rest my case...lol

How is that an insult to someone from Stormfront?

 

[Faun]

President Obama should present his choice to the Senate soon...Then the Ball is in their court as to whether they do their job or not.

This makes the 2016 election one of the 3 most critical in US history. The next 100 years of our nation will be shaped by this election and historians will point to it as a major shift in our courts and foreign policy.

We must get the numbers out to vote Republican in 2016.

We hear that every 4 years.

He can take his choice and shove it up his islamic ass.

Nope.....you have no say in the matter. You are powerless even with your 214 IQ.

President Obama will do his job and appoint a Justice. Then it will be up to the Senate to do its job and either approve or reject that appointment. If they do nothing, then they fail to do their job as per the Constitution.

You are ignorant of the constitution, no surprise since you lefties hate it so much. The Senate has NO duty to approve or even rule on a SCOTUS appointee within ANY time frame. They can take as long as they want to. FACT.

So the Senate can take 8 years if they want, should Trump become president? Is that what you actually believe??

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

Yes...what Wild Bill seems to have trouble seeing is the clear difference between refusing to their job and even signing a statement to that effect.......and doing their job which INCLUDES the right to reject a nominee. The Senate did their job with Bork. They have a vote. The current GOP Senators have petulantly stated for the record that they refuse to even consider anyone that President Obama submits....not even a vote.

They are doing their job of checking and balancing by advising that they're not going to consider Obama's communist nominee.

You know their job is to advise AND consent, not just advise, right?

Oh, so now you're falsely claiming that the Senate MUST accept any nominee and followed that up with an insult?

Two words: Robert Bork

 

[bodecea]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

It's 'party's' genius. For a Constitutional scholar you missed the part where no where in the Constitution does it mention anything about WHEN the Senate is obliged to consider a President's nomination. Ergo no Constitutional 'duty'.
Asshole.
Here's some nice bedtime reading:
McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS
Obama fucked himself with his 'superior "I'm smarter than everyone" bullshit attitude.
Big deal. He's just another LIB creep anyway.
The absolute most wonderful unbelievable part is that such a 'smart' LIB as him is going to go down in history as being personally responsible for having a Trump President. A REP Senate majority and House and in two Trump terms 5-6 REP SCJs on the bench for decades.
All because the stupid DEM negroes 'block-voted' in The First AA President.

While a time frame is not a constraint, the Constitution is clear that the president, with the Senate, work together to fill vacancies. Telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their Constitutional obligations violates the Constitution and the oath they swore to support the Constitution.

You said it yourself, there are no time constraints. Thank you.

There are no time constraints....elected officials can sit there and do nothing for their entire term.....there are no time constraints. BUT....how do the voters feel about them sitting there and doing nothing. Aye, that's the rub.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

It's 'party's' genius. For a Constitutional scholar you missed the part where no where in the Constitution does it mention anything about WHEN the Senate is obliged to consider a President's nomination. Ergo no Constitutional 'duty'.
Asshole.
Here's some nice bedtime reading:
McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS
Obama fucked himself with his 'superior "I'm smarter than everyone" bullshit attitude.
Big deal. He's just another LIB creep anyway.
The absolute most wonderful unbelievable part is that such a 'smart' LIB as him is going to go down in history as being personally responsible for having a Trump President. A REP Senate majority and House and in two Trump terms 5-6 REP SCJs on the bench for decades.
All because the stupid DEM negroes 'block-voted' in The First AA President.

That's an interesting statement right there. I guess we know who Stormfront sends us.

Don't look now, but you just posted an insult.

I rest my case...lol

How is that an insult to someone from Stormfront?

Omg, you really don't get it?...lol

 

[bodecea]

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

All's the current Senate has to do is vote down anyone that Obama nominates. You'll be crying about that, too.

Consider yourself wrong again.

Oh, so now, the Senate can't vote down a nominee?...lol

Of course they can. And they often do. What Faun (not Fain) is saying is that he will not be crying about that as you claim he would be......btw, that's not an insult, is it?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

I've bookmarked this post, in case you're wrong...LMAO

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

It's 'party's' genius. For a Constitutional scholar you missed the part where no where in the Constitution does it mention anything about WHEN the Senate is obliged to consider a President's nomination. Ergo no Constitutional 'duty'.
Asshole.
Here's some nice bedtime reading:
McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS
Obama fucked himself with his 'superior "I'm smarter than everyone" bullshit attitude.
Big deal. He's just another LIB creep anyway.
The absolute most wonderful unbelievable part is that such a 'smart' LIB as him is going to go down in history as being personally responsible for having a Trump President. A REP Senate majority and House and in two Trump terms 5-6 REP SCJs on the bench for decades.
All because the stupid DEM negroes 'block-voted' in The First AA President.

While a time frame is not a constraint, the Constitution is clear that the president, with the Senate, work together to fill vacancies. Telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their Constitutional obligations violates the Constitution and the oath they swore to support the Constitution.

You said it yourself, there are no time constraints. Thank you.

There are no time constraints....elected officials can sit there and do nothing for their entire term.....there are no time constraints. BUT....how do the voters feel about them sitting there and doing nothing. Aye, that's the rub.

This American citizen wants the Senate to block any nominee that Obama puts up.

See how that works?

 

[bodecea]

Bookmark away, the fact that my parties leadership is abrogating their duties under the constitution is irrefutable.

That fact that elections have consequences and that applies to future elections is also irrefutable.



>>>>

It's 'party's' genius. For a Constitutional scholar you missed the part where no where in the Constitution does it mention anything about WHEN the Senate is obliged to consider a President's nomination. Ergo no Constitutional 'duty'.
Asshole.
Here's some nice bedtime reading:
McConnell: Not a 'snowball's chance in hell' I'll relent on SCOTUS
Obama fucked himself with his 'superior "I'm smarter than everyone" bullshit attitude.
Big deal. He's just another LIB creep anyway.
The absolute most wonderful unbelievable part is that such a 'smart' LIB as him is going to go down in history as being personally responsible for having a Trump President. A REP Senate majority and House and in two Trump terms 5-6 REP SCJs on the bench for decades.
All because the stupid DEM negroes 'block-voted' in The First AA President.

That's an interesting statement right there. I guess we know who Stormfront sends us.

Don't look now, but you just posted an insult.

I rest my case...lol

How is that an insult to someone from Stormfront?

Omg, you really don't get it?...lol

Apparently you are unable to explain it to me.

 

[bodecea]

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

Yes...what Wild Bill seems to have trouble seeing is the clear difference between refusing to their job and even signing a statement to that effect.......and doing their job which INCLUDES the right to reject a nominee. The Senate did their job with Bork. They have a vote. The current GOP Senators have petulantly stated for the record that they refuse to even consider anyone that President Obama submits....not even a vote.

They are doing their job of checking and balancing by advising that they're not going to consider Obama's communist nominee.

You know their job is to advise AND consent, not just advise, right?

Oh, so now you're falsely claiming that the Senate MUST accept any nominee and followed that up with an insult?

Two words: Robert Bork

Nope...he didn't say that at all....nice try at twisting his words.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Like when your party refused to confirm Bork? Or, when your Füerher signed illegal executive orders? Or when Clinton knowingly violated national security laws?

So what that Bork was rejected? At least he was considered; unlike what Republicans are doing now which is to not consider anyone Obama nominates.

But even worse for you idiotically attempting to draw a comparison with Bork is that Reagan still got to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It just wasn't Bork. In an election year, no less.

All's the current Senate has to do is vote down anyone that Obama nominates. You'll be crying about that, too.

Consider yourself wrong again.

Oh, so now, the Senate can't vote down a nominee?...lol

Of course they can. And they often do. What Faun (not Fain) is saying is that he will not be crying about that as you claim he would be......btw, that's not an insult, is it?

Picking on my spelling is an attack. Keep proving my Point.

But, Faun--autocorrect doesn't recognize Fuan--is saying that the Senate MUST consent.