Little piece of info before evryone goes nuts if Repubs reject Obama SCOTUS appt.

[jon_berzerk]

...Obama voted against both Bush appointees...so...yeah

So you have no problem allowing Obama the same courtesy of a vote?

Actually no...I do not believe it is the Senate's job to outright block an appt. no matter what. My point is before everyone goes crazy when Repubs vote against someone, that Obama voted against BOTH of Bush's appt's.
The 2nd point is top Dems did and said the same thing back in 2007.

Let the Senate do their job and interview and vote on the prospective Justice.

McConnell has said he won't even talk to anyone Obama proposes

so in other words no consent

In other words

Republicans do not care who is the proposed Justice. They only care that THEY be the ones proposing the Justice

you like some cheese with your whine

--LOL

 

[peach174]

You all know that the Dems would be doing the same thing if it was them it was happening to.
The issues being voted on right now is too important on both sides.

 

[Syriusly]

And BTW - how many know that when this EXACT SAME SITUATION OCCURRED IN 2007 - Democrats came out and said the same thing as Repubs are saying now.
So...it was ok to block then, but now now???

Do you think it was okay when the Democrats did it?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Voting against isn't the problem, not allowing a vote is.

Unless we invoke the Schumer Rule

exactly

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Voting against isn't the problem, not allowing a vote is.

Barry does not deserve any more picks, he has shitty judgement.

Yet a majority of Americans think you are wrong twice...

The GOP won the last election and took the Senate.

Elections have consequences or not?

 

[peach174]

And BTW - how many know that when this EXACT SAME SITUATION OCCURRED IN 2007 - Democrats came out and said the same thing as Repubs are saying now.
So...it was ok to block then, but now now???

Do you think it was okay when the Democrats did it?

YES
It's part of our checks a balances so that neither side can completely take over anything.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You all know that the Dems would be doing the same thing if it was them it was happening to.
The issues being voted on right now is too important on both sides.

they have

in fact they set the precedent for it

 

[jon_berzerk]

Voting against isn't the problem, not allowing a vote is.

Barry does not deserve any more picks, he has shitty judgement.

Yet a majority of Americans think you are wrong twice...

The GOP won the last election and took the Senate.

Elections have consequences or not?

now you have done it

for the next 20 posts

the leftard crystal ball will be used

--LOL

 

[JoeMoma]

Voting against isn't the problem, not allowing a vote is.

You mean like Harry Reid repeatedly refused to allow votes to the floor?? Like that?

On a Supreme Court Justice? No...

So appointing a SCOTUS Justice is more important than passing laws?...so...refusing votes because you are afraid you will lose the vote is ok?

That's the game of politics in the Senate, but this is far beyond politics. This could cause a serious crisis, that a deadlocked SC cannot respond to.

And not bringing up bills for a vote is constitutional, while not granting Advice and Consent is not.

I looked up the word hypocrite and there was a picture of paint my house.

 

[peach174]

You all know that the Dems would be doing the same thing if it was them it was happening to.
The issues being voted on right now is too important on both sides.

they have

in fact they set the precedent for it

NO it is part of our constitutional republic.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Voting against isn't the problem, not allowing a vote is.

You mean like Harry Reid repeatedly refused to allow votes to the floor?? Like that?

On a Supreme Court Justice? No...

So appointing a SCOTUS Justice is more important than passing laws?...so...refusing votes because you are afraid you will lose the vote is ok?

That's the game of politics in the Senate, but this is far beyond politics. This could cause a serious crisis, that a deadlocked SC cannot respond to.

And not bringing up bills for a vote is constitutional, while not granting Advice and Consent is not.

I looked up the word hypocrite and there was a picture of paint my house.

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

You all know that the Dems would be doing the same thing if it was them it was happening to.
The issues being voted on right now is too important on both sides.

they have

in fact they set the precedent for it

NO it is part of our constitutional republic.

indeed

i am just pointing that the left like to forget

that they too have been known not to give consent

 

[JoeMoma]

If one of the "liberal" justices died would the republicans still be so adamant about snubbing the president's nominee? That could happen in the next 10 months or so. Then there would be 7 Justices. An odd number is the goal, so I guess 7 would be MORE desirable than 8!

Originally, the court had 6.

 

[JoeMoma]

I think in the end, Obama will get his nominee passed.

He only has to find 14 Pussies in the Republican Party to vote his way...and there are way more Pussies than that in the Establishment Senate of the Republican Party.

I figure he will appoint his Justice Department Hack--a Black Woman he hunted up last year out of oblivion to finish the job of corrupting the Justice Department which Holder so ably began....and then he will wait for about 48 hours before he starts hollering:

Racism!!!!

Sexism!!!!

And then the Republican Establishment Pussies in the Senate will start to fold....Obama will have 14 in his pocket by this summer.

Opra Winfrey

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Voting against isn't the problem, not allowing a vote is.

You mean like Harry Reid repeatedly refused to allow votes to the floor?? Like that?

On a Supreme Court Justice? No...

So appointing a SCOTUS Justice is more important than passing laws?...so...refusing votes because you are afraid you will lose the vote is ok?

That's the game of politics in the Senate, but this is far beyond politics. This could cause a serious crisis, that a deadlocked SC cannot respond to.

And not bringing up bills for a vote is constitutional, while not granting Advice and Consent is not.

I looked up the word hypocrite and there was a picture of paint my house.

Hypocrites are those who say they love the Constitution and then piss on the memory of a man who defended it by ignoring it.

 

[peach174]

I think in the end, Obama will get his nominee passed.

He only has to find 14 Pussies in the Republican Party to vote his way...and there are way more Pussies than that in the Establishment Senate of the Republican Party.

I figure he will appoint his Justice Department Hack--a Black Woman he hunted up last year out of oblivion to finish the job of corrupting the Justice Department which Holder so ably began....and then he will wait for about 48 hours before he starts hollering:

Racism!!!!

Sexism!!!!

And then the Republican Establishment Pussies in the Senate will start to fold....Obama will have 14 in his pocket by this summer.

I don't think so the issues being voted on this summer are too important.
If they pass, kiss some more of our freedoms goodbye.

 

[francoHFW]

You all know that the Dems would be doing the same thing if it was them it was happening to.
The issues being voted on right now is too important on both sides.

they have

in fact they set the precedent for it

NO it is part of our constitutional republic.

indeed

i am just pointing that the left like to forget

that they too have been known not to give consent

Duh, after hearings and a vote...Bork was a dork. From my HS.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Obama Supreme Court Recess Appointment Possible According To Senate Judiciary Democrat
The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) would not take the idea of President Obama using a recess appointment to fill the late Justice Scalia's seat off the table during an interview on CNN's State Of The Union.…

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Has anyone thought to ask why this fancy-shmancy hunting lodge didn't have any medical personnel on the premises?

One might wonder if the rush to get Scalia "processed" and removed from the ranch might have more to do with the potential for lawsuits than anything else.

Did you actually put any thought into that post? Do you maintain emergency medical personnel at your home 24/7/365?

It is kind of hard to sue someone for dying. What ridiculous scenario are you hinting at?

Do you know the difference between a private residence and a resort? Your posts don't indicate that you do.

Do you often frequent many resorts in the middle of West Texas that cater to quail hunting?

 

[Preacher]

Voting against isn't the problem, not allowing a vote is.

Barry does not deserve any more picks, he has shitty judgement.

Oh his judgement is fine he is doing EXACTLY what he intends to do. Destroy America from within.