It's Official. No Obama nominee

[Faun]

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, I never said that. Don't hold me responsible for your reading comprehension problems.

Don't insult me because you can't say what you mean.

I said exactly what I mean. You'll note, others understood even though you can't.

No, they're crawfisin' for you...lol

You think that's what people do??

You know, it's actually you're inability to comprehend, right?

That's why you fell for that fake news story.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Like I said, insults are all there are...lol

Case closed on that...lol

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

You said their job isn't just to advise, by to consent.

so...you have a problem with the way the Constitution states it too? They say the SAME THING...."advise and consent". So you believe that the Constitution itself says "their job isn't just to advise, by [sic] to consent".

Are you saying they're legally obligated to consent to any nominee?

Fuan says they have to consent.

"Fuan?"

Now, that's a mispelling...lol

 

[Faun]

Damn. Battery's down to 1%. Later.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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, I never said that. Don't hold me responsible for your reading comprehension problems.

Don't insult me because you can't say what you mean.

I said exactly what I mean. You'll note, others understood even though you can't.

No, they're crawfisin' for you...lol

You think that's what people do??

You know, it's actually you're inability to comprehend, right?

That's why you fell for that fake news story.

"'You're' inability to comprehend"?

Um...LMFAO!!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Holyfuckingshit!

Why do you cry endlessly about being called a moron when you are one?

How many times must you be informed? This is about the Senate not doing their job; as well as, for the first time in U.S. history, denying a president of their Constitutional obligations; as well as, for the first time in U.S. history, shutting down the confirmation process.

Holyfuckingshit!

No wonder you fell for that fake news story about Obama appointing a replacement with an executive order. You are completely ******* brain-dead.

Like I said, insults are all there are...lol

Case closed on that...lol

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

You said their job isn't just to advise, by to consent.

so...you have a problem with the way the Constitution states it too? They say the SAME THING...."advise and consent". So you believe that the Constitution itself says "their job isn't just to advise, by [sic] to consent".

Are you saying they're legally obligated to consent to any nominee?

Fuan says they have to consent.

No....

They should agree to hold hearings.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Like I said, insults are all there are...lol

Case closed on that...lol

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

You said their job isn't just to advise, by to consent.

so...you have a problem with the way the Constitution states it too? They say the SAME THING...."advise and consent". So you believe that the Constitution itself says "their job isn't just to advise, by [sic] to consent".

Are you saying they're legally obligated to consent to any nominee?

Fuan says they have to consent.

No....

They should agree to hold hearings.

It would be a waste of time AND money to hold hearings, when they already know they're going to reject the nominee.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

You said their job isn't just to advise, by to consent.

so...you have a problem with the way the Constitution states it too? They say the SAME THING...."advise and consent". So you believe that the Constitution itself says "their job isn't just to advise, by [sic] to consent".

Are you saying they're legally obligated to consent to any nominee?

Fuan says they have to consent.

No....

They should agree to hold hearings.

It would be a waste of time AND money to hold hearings, when they already know they're going to reject the nominee.

Nevertheless they owe it to the constitution to do just that.

How do you know they'll reject him.

What if they sent Robert Bork's ultra-conservative twin up ?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

See if the Senate were to vote down every nominee President Obama sent- at least the Senate would be pretending to do its job.

But the GOP has said they won't even be pretending to do its Constitutionally mandated job- they be offering any 'advise and consent'- regardless- they won't even consider any nominee.

Let us remember this everytime you tell us that you think President Obama is ignoring the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

You said their job isn't just to advise, by to consent.

so...you have a problem with the way the Constitution states it too? They say the SAME THING...."advise and consent". So you believe that the Constitution itself says "their job isn't just to advise, by [sic] to consent".

Are you saying they're legally obligated to consent to any nominee?

Fuan says they have to consent.

No....

They should agree to hold hearings.

It would be a waste of time AND money to hold hearings, when they already know they're going to reject the nominee.

Since when is it a waste of time for the Senate to follow it's Constitutional responsibilities?

And seriously- were you able to write that without laughing at the irony?

It would be a waste of time AND money to hold hearings

That has never stopped the Senate before- whether GOP or Democrat.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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?

See if the Senate were to vote down every nominee President Obama sent- at least the Senate would be pretending to do its job.

But the GOP has said they won't even be pretending to do its Constitutionally mandated job- they be offering any 'advise and consent'- regardless- they won't even consider any nominee.

Let us remember this everytime you tell us that you think President Obama is ignoring the Constitution.

The Senate isn't ignoring the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution mandate a vote. In fact, as I pointed out, it would be a huge waste of money to do so.

 

[Dale Smith]

you know, it's getting really boring hearing idiots call things communism or socialism when they are too uneducated and ignorant to know what those economic concepts are.

moron... why don't' you just call him black which is really what you mean.

It's no mere coincidence that McConnell and the Republican Senators who are determined to not let Obama fulfill his Constitutional obligations are comprised of 8 out of 9 Senators from former slave states with the other three from states that were not yet admitted into the country when the confederacy seceded.

Nobody is stopping your ******* president from fulfilling his Constitutional obligation to NOMINATE a candidate.

Nominating a replacement isn't his only Constitutional obligation in this regard. With the Senate, he is also obligated to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court. They are denying a president from fulfilling his Constitutional responsibilities.

We are playing by the liberal playbook. Get used to it.

shut up lying loon. you freaks have done nothing but try to delegitimize this president for 7 years.

now go scream into your pillow.

Barrypuppet did it to himself......even though he is just a figurehead of this massive corporate entity that lamely attempts to pass it's self off as a legitimate governmental body, still, Barrypuppet has no nads...but then again he is a homosexual trying pass himself off as a straight "Alpha" male and nothing could be further from the truth. He was handpicked by the Bilderburg group in 2008 because #1 He was easily compromised due to his sexuality and #2 Because liberal morons like you that defended every draconian measure that he was told to pass via Executive Order scream about the tint of his skin as an excuse for doing the same shit that liberals soiled themselves when Bushpuppet was in office. You are an intellectual lightweight, kiddo....I can see right through you. Faun, yourself and all the other Barrybots are totally clueless.

 

[Dale Smith]

Another insult...lol

What's it about, then?

Holyfuckingshit!

Why do you cry endlessly about being called a moron when you are one?

How many times must you be informed? This is about the Senate not doing their job; as well as, for the first time in U.S. history, denying a president of their Constitutional obligations; as well as, for the first time in U.S. history, shutting down the confirmation process.

Holyfuckingshit!

No wonder you fell for that fake news story about Obama appointing a replacement with an executive order. You are completely ******* brain-dead.

Like I said, insults are all there are...lol

Case closed on that...lol

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

You said their job isn't just to advise, by to consent.

so...you have a problem with the way the Constitution states it too? They say the SAME THING...."advise and consent". So you believe that the Constitution itself says "their job isn't just to advise, by [sic] to consent".

Which Constitution are you speaking off? The organic one written by the Continental Congress in the 1770's or the one that was written in 1871 when it became USA.INC?....and yes, the all caps are significant if you have any clue about Admiralty Law and Black's Law dictionary....you might want to educate yourself on some things before you shoot off your big, stupid mouth about shit that you have absolutely no clue about.......just some friendly advice.

 

[Dale Smith]

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?

See if the Senate were to vote down every nominee President Obama sent- at least the Senate would be pretending to do its job.

But the GOP has said they won't even be pretending to do its Constitutionally mandated job- they be offering any 'advise and consent'- regardless- they won't even consider any nominee.

Let us remember this everytime you tell us that you think President Obama is ignoring the Constitution.

The Senate isn't ignoring the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution mandate a vote. In fact, as I pointed out, it would be a huge waste of money to do so.

If (and I do mean "IF") there are any congressmen that haven't been compromised or bought off? I hope they do block any nomination that the Barrypuppet is being told to put in front of us....keep the wolf at the door a little while longer while people wake up to the scam.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

See if the Senate were to vote down every nominee President Obama sent- at least the Senate would be pretending to do its job.

But the GOP has said they won't even be pretending to do its Constitutionally mandated job- they be offering any 'advise and consent'- regardless- they won't even consider any nominee.

Let us remember this everytime you tell us that you think President Obama is ignoring the Constitution.

The Senate isn't ignoring the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution mandate a vote. In fact, as I pointed out, it would be a huge waste of money to do so.

I said nothing about a vote- once again what does the Constitution actually say?

He shall have Power.... and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint..... Judges of the supreme Court,

The President's job is to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

The Senates job is to provide 'advice and consent' on Supreme Court nominees.

The GOP has said they will provide neither.

 

[daws101]

It goes in order, almost poetry...

"President shall nominate", the Congress will, "advise and consent", then the nominee becomes an appointee. Its right there in The Constitution.

Post the actual doc not your memorized version please.
I'm not saying you aren't correct but if you can post a link or a page.

I copied it exactly from my pocket Constitution. He's welcome to post a link to the Constitution to prove me wrong.

It's right here. Are you willfully ignoring it?

he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall APPOINT

Link please.

I copied that from Bodecea's post. If it's bullshit, blame him...lol

That's her lol!

 

[Syriusly]

Holyfuckingshit!

Why do you cry endlessly about being called a moron when you are one?

How many times must you be informed? This is about the Senate not doing their job; as well as, for the first time in U.S. history, denying a president of their Constitutional obligations; as well as, for the first time in U.S. history, shutting down the confirmation process.

Holyfuckingshit!

No wonder you fell for that fake news story about Obama appointing a replacement with an executive order. You are completely ******* brain-dead.

Like I said, insults are all there are...lol

Case closed on that...lol

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

You said their job isn't just to advise, by to consent.

so...you have a problem with the way the Constitution states it too? They say the SAME THING...."advise and consent". So you believe that the Constitution itself says "their job isn't just to advise, by [sic] to consent".

Which Constitution are you speaking off? The organic one written by the Continental Congress in the 1770's or the one that was written in 1871 when it became USA.INC?....and yes, the all caps are significant if you have any clue about Admiralty Law and Black's Law dictionary....you might want to educate yourself on some things before you shoot off your big, stupid mouth about shit that you have absolutely no clue about.......just some friendly advice.

Here is a transcript of the Constitution of the United States

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Here is the relevant quote:

He shall have Power.... and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint..... Judges of the supreme Court,

 

[Dale Smith]

Like I said, insults are all there are...lol

Case closed on that...lol

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

You said their job isn't just to advise, by to consent.

so...you have a problem with the way the Constitution states it too? They say the SAME THING...."advise and consent". So you believe that the Constitution itself says "their job isn't just to advise, by [sic] to consent".

Which Constitution are you speaking off? The organic one written by the Continental Congress in the 1770's or the one that was written in 1871 when it became USA.INC?....and yes, the all caps are significant if you have any clue about Admiralty Law and Black's Law dictionary....you might want to educate yourself on some things before you shoot off your big, stupid mouth about shit that you have absolutely no clue about.......just some friendly advice.

Here is a transcript of the Constitution of the United States

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Here is the relevant quote:

He shall have Power.... and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint..... Judges of the supreme Court,

Seems that SCOTUS nominees have been rejected in the past because it could not pass muster of the House and Senate...are you in need of some examples? Learn, grow, evolve.....

 

[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 etv

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?

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.

Your autocorrect doesn't have "faun" in it? Is that the story you're sticking with?

Here's the link to your comment...LMAO!

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 etv

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? [/QUOTE

What a mess that is....

 

[bodecea]

Sure, ignore the part where I explained what this is all about. Then look like a retard again when you demonstrate you still don't understand what this is about.

You said their job isn't just to advise, by to consent.

so...you have a problem with the way the Constitution states it too? They say the SAME THING...."advise and consent". So you believe that the Constitution itself says "their job isn't just to advise, by [sic] to consent".

Which Constitution are you speaking off? The organic one written by the Continental Congress in the 1770's or the one that was written in 1871 when it became USA.INC?....and yes, the all caps are significant if you have any clue about Admiralty Law and Black's Law dictionary....you might want to educate yourself on some things before you shoot off your big, stupid mouth about shit that you have absolutely no clue about.......just some friendly advice.

Here is a transcript of the Constitution of the United States

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Here is the relevant quote:

He shall have Power.... and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint..... Judges of the supreme Court,

Seems that SCOTUS nominees have been rejected in the past because it could not pass muster of the House and Senate...are you in need of some examples? Learn, grow, evolve.....

That is correct....no one is denying that....but the GOP Senators have just foolishly signed a document stating they will not even LOOK at anyone the President nominates.....one cannot pass or fail muster if the Senators refuse to even hold a muster.

 

[bodecea]

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.

What did he mean, then?

He was using the EXACT words that are in the Constitution. You know, that document that is the Supreme Law of the Land? Heard of it? When the U.S. Constitution says "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....

DO you think the Constitution was claiming that the Senate MUST accept any nominee?

I'm sorta waiting for him to tell us, instead of you doing it for him.

For Pete's Sake! < not an insult You just asked ME what he meant by it. And I answered you. I understood him just fine. You are the one who seems to NOT GET what the Constitution itself says.