It's Official. No Obama nominee

[bodecea]

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?

I wonder how many other voting American citizens feel the same way you do. That's really the question.....and the answer that the GOP Senators may be facing.

You're right, it is the question the dems are facing.

The Dems are not the ones who put their names to a paper pledging to do nothing for the next 11 months even before President Obama submitted one name to them.

Those signatures on that paper might WIN votes. The dems might be wishing their names were on that paper, too.

So this is how it's done on the RW side? Be proud of signing a document saying you refuse to do your job you were elected for? Ok.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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

That gave me a chuckle too.

 

[bodecea]

I wonder how many other voting American citizens feel the same way you do. That's really the question.....and the answer that the GOP Senators may be facing.

You're right, it is the question the dems are facing.

The Dems are not the ones who put their names to a paper pledging to do nothing for the next 11 months even before President Obama submitted one name to them.

Those signatures on that paper might WIN votes. The dems might be wishing their names were on that paper, too.

They might....but then again, they are a written admission that those Senators have gone full partisan, refusing to even entertain any nominee the President puts forward.....sight unseen.

Most Americans might be impressed with their decision.

Care to make a bet?

 

[bodecea]

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.

"Fuan" now?

Faun said no such thing....he phrased it in exactly the same way the U.S. Constitution phrases it. So.....let me simplify this for you......if you think that "Fuan" says they have to consent, you also believe that the U.S. Constitution says they have to consent. Is that the position you care to take?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Obama is an idiot who never should've been president, but it made you feel better for electing a black man. No other reason, so **** off. President Trump will undo your mess.

It's all about the Race.....

 

[jillian]

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.

Obama is an idiot who never should've been president, but it made you feel better for electing a black man. No other reason, so **** off. President Trump will undo your mess.

only in rightwingnuthackworld.

imbecile.

 

[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".

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.....

Are you in need of help with reading comprehension?

The House has nothing to do with the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice.

The Senate's job- which they have said they will not do- is to provide 'advice and consent'- they can reject a candidate- but announcing that they will not consider any nominee is an announcement that they are refusing to do their Constitutionally mandated job.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Exactly- it plays well to their GOP base- but it also demonstrates their blatant disregard for the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

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.....

Are you in need of help with reading comprehension?

The House has nothing to do with the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice.

The Senate's job- which they have said they will not do- is to provide 'advice and consent'- they can reject a candidate- but announcing that they will not consider any nominee is an announcement that they are refusing to do their Constitutionally mandated job.

I wonder what would happen if all the GOP Representatives got together and signed a document stating they were not going to consider any Bills for the next 11 months. Not even discuss anything....without even knowing what was in any Bill. Would it be Constitutional, sure. Would they be doing the job they were elected to do? Of course not.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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 ?

They owe it to the American people to prevent an Obama nominee.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

The Senate has advised that they're not considering any Obama nominee. You wanted them to advise, they're advising.

 

[bodecea]

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.

The Senate has advised that they're not considering any Obama nominee. You wanted them to advise, they're advising.

So are you running away from my bet offer?

 

[Hossfly]

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

See how that works?

I wonder how many other voting American citizens feel the same way you do. That's really the question.....and the answer that the GOP Senators may be facing.

You're right, it is the question the dems are facing.

The Dems are not the ones who put their names to a paper pledging to do nothing for the next 11 months even before President Obama submitted one name to them.

Those signatures on that paper might WIN votes. The dems might be wishing their names were on that paper, too.

So this is how it's done on the RW side? Be proud of signing a document saying you refuse to do your job you were elected for? Ok.

The Houses of Congress have procedures they go by to keep leaders and membership informed.This is done by the Senate Majority Whip to insure time is not wasted by voting on an issue that has no chance of passing. Just because Obabble is required to nominate a Judge, he won't do it if there's no majority to pass it. All this is under the heading: POLITICS

Duties of the Senate Majority Whip | eHow

 

[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?

Faun said no such thing....he phrased it in exactly the same way the U.S. Constitution phrases it. So.....let me simplify this for you......if you think that "Fuan" says they have to consent, you also believe that the U.S. Constitution says they have to consent. Is that the position you care to take?

You probably shouldn't stick up with someone who doesn't know the difference between, "your", and, "you're".

 

[Dale Smith]

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.

If I wasn't a bought and paid for member of Congress? I wouldn't give a shit whom the Barrypuppet threw out there to be placed on the Supreme Court. His record for thumbing his nose at the organic united states of America constitution is well documented and throw in the Bill of Rights as well....do you need examples? We are trying to row up shit creek sans the proverbial paddle and I have serious...and I do mean SERIOUS questions about the untimely death of Scalia...it reeks BIG time....so excuse me if I do not share your opinion.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

The Senate has advised that they're not considering any Obama nominee. You wanted them to advise, they're advising.

So are you running away from my bet offer?

Yep.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Senate has advised that they're not considering any Obama nominee. You wanted them to advise, they're advising.

When did the Senate take a vote? What were the results?

And no, a few of the Senate Majority getting together and then saying their will be no consideration of a nomination is not the Senate advising the President, it is a few Senators. That is not what the Constitution calls for.



>>>>

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The Senate has advised that they're not considering any Obama nominee. You wanted them to advise, they're advising.

When did the Senate take a vote? What were the results?

And no, a few of the Senate Majority getting together and then saying their will be no consideration of a nomination is not the Senate advising the President, it is a few Senators. That is not what the Constitution calls for.



>>>>

Which nominee were they to take a vote on?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Which nominee were they to take a vote on?

You said the Senate "advised" the President.

Did the Senate take action or did the Senate Leadership make a summary decision?


>>>>

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Which nominee were they to take a vote on?

You said the Senate "advised" the President.

Did the Senate take action or did the Senate Leadership make a summary decision?


>>>>

They have advised him that they will not consider any nominee.

Advice isn't synonymous with voting.