It's Official. No Obama nominee

[Blackrook]

Trump is an ultra-lib who sings the praises of Planned Parenthood and has openly declared that he is a pro-choice. Any judge he appoints to the Supreme Court will be no better than a judge appointed by a Democrat.

Tonight I will hold my nose and vote for Marco Rubio. He is probably the last chance we have of stopping Trump.

 

[bodecea]

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.
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 really are one of the most ignorant assholes on any forum I've been on.
Obama has ******* ZERO legal power to "appoint" a Justice!
Use the wrong word all you want.
Obama can ONLY NOMINATE a Justice. That's it. Nothing more.
You live in some sort of alternate reality. But thanks for giving everyone a laugh at your expense again.

He most certainly does appoint a Justice....but that Justice must be approved by the Senate. The President appoints, the Senate approves.

Here is the key paragraph in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section. 2.

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 (my emphasis) Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT (my emphasis), 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.


So, you were saying something about "most ignorant assholes"?

Somewhere in life you were listed as a wasted cum shot. Okay here goes idiot. Using YOUR source.

1,"he shall nominate", That would be step one idiot.
2, "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" That would be step TWO idiot.

NO ONE is even thought of as "Appointed" UNTIL steps one AND two have been met idiot.

214 IQ...

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 (my emphasis) Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT (my emphasis), 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.

 

[JimH52]

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.

Too late. The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted not to hold any hearings.

GOP Judiciary: No hearing on Obama court nominee

SWEET! Now the DNC can beat the GOP over the head with the Party over Country campaign ads. And when the Dems retake the WH, expect a very liberal appointee. Can the GOP hold of hearings for 4 years? Oh wait, Stump will be so bad the Dems will win the Senate also! SWEET!

 

[bodecea]

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.

Too late. The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted not to hold any hearings.

GOP Judiciary: No hearing on Obama court nominee

Then I'm sure the Democrats are creating some political ads for all the Democrats running against GOP Senators as we speak.

Tho, with a little pushing, they will break....they want to keep their seats, I'm sure.

Any such ads will benefit the Republicans more than Democrats. There's a lot of political mileage in opposing Obama.

There's a lot of political mileage in showing that the Republicans won't do their job....again. Match it up with the government shutdown they staged. Delicious.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I don't have to pretend. It's very obvious. The Original Intent was for the Senate to give Advice and Consent. They, like stubborn children, are doin

It says "and with the Advise and Consent". That means they give their permission. It is not mandated by the President.

 

[HenryBHough]

I'm still looking at The U.S. Constitution - this time the online full version - not just the pocket version. Still can't find any schedule limiting The Senate on when to undertake even the "advice" part. Far, far less the "consent" part.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

Too late. The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted not to hold any hearings.

GOP Judiciary: No hearing on Obama court nominee

Then I'm sure the Democrats are creating some political ads for all the Democrats running against GOP Senators as we speak.

Tho, with a little pushing, they will break....they want to keep their seats, I'm sure.

Any such ads will benefit the Republicans more than Democrats. There's a lot of political mileage in opposing Obama.

There's a lot of political mileage in showing that the Republicans won't do their job....again. Match it up with the government shutdown they staged. Delicious.

They're doing their job by protecting the country from a tyrannical Supreme Court justice that will decide based on ideology vice the Constitution.

 

[Hossfly]

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 really are one of the most ignorant assholes on any forum I've been on.
Obama has ******* ZERO legal power to "appoint" a Justice!
Use the wrong word all you want.
Obama can ONLY NOMINATE a Justice. That's it. Nothing more.
You live in some sort of alternate reality. But thanks for giving everyone a laugh at your expense again.

He most certainly does appoint a Justice....but that Justice must be approved by the Senate. The President appoints, the Senate approves.

Here is the key paragraph in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section. 2.

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 (my emphasis) Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT (my emphasis), 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.


So, you were saying something about "most ignorant assholes"?

Somewhere in life you were listed as a wasted cum shot. Okay here goes idiot. Using YOUR source.

1,"he shall nominate", That would be step one idiot.
2, "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" That would be step TWO idiot.

NO ONE is even thought of as "Appointed" UNTIL steps one AND two have been met idiot.

214 IQ...

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 (my emphasis) Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT (my emphasis), 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.

Appointment after confirmation. Which is (two thirds of the Senators present concur)

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't have to pretend. It's very obvious. The Original Intent was for the Senate to give Advice and Consent. They, like stubborn children, are doin

It says "and with the Advise and Consent". That means they give their permission. It is not mandated by the President.

But they aren't offering their Advice and Consent, now are they?

Since they aren't doing their duty, maybe Obama should just skip the part they are refusing to do?

 

[L.K.Eder]

I'm still looking at The U.S. Constitution - this time the online full version - not just the pocket version. Still can't find any schedule limiting The Senate on when to undertake even the "advice" part. Far, far less the "consent" part.

yeah, and since this is not spelled out, they can slack off.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm still looking at The U.S. Constitution - this time the online full version - not just the pocket version. Still can't find any schedule limiting The Senate on when to undertake even the "advice" part. Far, far less the "consent" part.

How about never? Is never good for you? And if not, why not?

 

[Hossfly]

Reading comprehension is a *****, ain't it, PMH?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Reading comprehension is a *****, ain't it, PMH?

For some apparently, not me.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

There is a big big difference between saying something and actually doing something. If the Republicans actually DO refuse to DO their job......those Democrat ads will be delightfully easy to produce.

Independents and republicans don't give a shit if there is no appointment.

 

[HenryBHough]

How about never? Is never good for you? And if not, why not?

Tut tut....

There you go trying to write your own words into The Constitution. Sorry, young lady, though somebody might have produced the one you're reading on your Etch-A-Sketch, that's not the one we sometimes get to work from.

Approving a nominee without proper hearings and excruciating investigation would be irresponsible. But, then, "irresponsible" IS The Democrat Party's middle name. So, from that perspective, you might have a point.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How about never? Is never good for you? And if not, why not?

Tut tut....

There you go trying to write your own words into The Constitution. Sorry, young lady, though somebody might have produced the one you're reading on your Etch-A-Sketch, that's not the one we sometimes get to work from.

Approving a nominee without proper hearings and excruciating investigation would be irresponsible. But, then, "irresponsible" IS The Democrat Party's middle name. So, from that perspective, you might have a point.

And how many years would you like to complete that task while the court is a court of eight? Four, maybe five?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is a big big difference between saying something and actually doing something. If the Republicans actually DO refuse to DO their job......those Democrat ads will be delightfully easy to produce.

Independents and republicans don't give a shit if there is no appointment.

Didn't know they liked paying the Senate to not do its job and making the Supreme Court unable to? Interesting.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I don't have to pretend. It's very obvious. The Original Intent was for the Senate to give Advice and Consent. They, like stubborn children, are doin

It says "and with the Advise and Consent". That means they give their permission. It is not mandated by the President.

But they aren't offering their Advice and Consent, now are they?

Since they aren't doing their duty, maybe Obama should just skip the part they are refusing to do?

Give it up. Obama can't do squat.

 

[bodecea]

I don't have to pretend. It's very obvious. The Original Intent was for the Senate to give Advice and Consent. They, like stubborn children, are doin

It says "and with the Advise and Consent". That means they give their permission. It is not mandated by the President.

But they aren't offering their Advice and Consent, now are they?

Since they aren't doing their duty, maybe Obama should just skip the part they are refusing to do?

Give it up. Obama can't do squat.

He can certainly put forth a candidate.

 

[bodecea]

There is a big big difference between saying something and actually doing something. If the Republicans actually DO refuse to DO their job......those Democrat ads will be delightfully easy to produce.

Independents and republicans don't give a shit if there is no appointment.

Those are some very famous last words right there.