No better way to energize the DEM voters than to block Obama's nominations...

[martybegan]

Yes, please save that Supreme Court appointment for me! Thanks!

He's actually more trustworthy when it comes to 2nd amendment rights than either Obama or Hillary, despite his lurch left during the primary process.

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

There's no one other than Saul Alinsky who would be acceptable on the Court.

I'm saying he is, who he would appoint to the Court would be another story.

 

[Correll]

Some clever reporter is going to walk Hillary Clinton into a trap. First, they will ask her if Obama should be able to appoint a Supreme Court Justice in his last year in office. She will have to answer in the affirmative.

Then she will be asked that if Obama's nomination is blocked, will she commit to appointing the same person.

The media is not interested in tripping up the dem candidate.

And HIllary could easily field that question.

 

[g5000]

I will appoint Putin to the Court. He's a smart guy, believe me.

 

[Contumacious]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations....

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO NOMINATE A CANDIDATE.


THE SENATE HAS THE RIGHT TO IGNORE THE CANDIDATE.

In the United States, "advice and consent" is a power of the United States Senate to be consulted on and approve treaties signed and appointments made by the President of the United States to public positions, including Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, United States Attorneys, and ambassadors.

IT DOES NOT SAY "ADVISE AND CAPITULATE"

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations....

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

Plus it will remind everyone what kind of nut the Republicans want for a judge.

 

[Silhouette]

Alternate title for this thread: "No better way to energize the GOP vote than to enlighten the middle bloc as to what will happen if another Liberal Justice is appointed".

Think of the Kim Davis syndrome and specifically why she was jailed (not generalizations with the candidates dancing around the issue). Also: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc. and the arguments in that thread...

 

[Mad Scientist]

Old article from the Wall Street Urinal:

Most Americans Can’t Name a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Survey Says

So yeah, no better way to energize Dem voters.

Right.

 

[PredFan]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations.....

Would they? I don't know that the average voter even pays attention to this shit. Either way, the president has the right to appoint a new justice and the Senate should give his nomination a vote.

They pay attention to what gets talked about...
View attachment 63671

And why wouldn't the WH say that? That is all they have done for 7 years.

 

[Contumacious]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations....

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

Plus it will remind everyone what kind of nut the Republicans want for a judge.

Mod edit: Do not post in Caps. You've been reminded of this before.

 

[candycorn]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations....

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO NOMINATE A CANDIDATE.


THE SENATE HAS THE RIGHT TO IGNORE THE CANDIDATE.

In the United States, "advice and consent" is a power of the United States Senate to be consulted on and approve treaties signed and appointments made by the President of the United States to public positions, including Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, United States Attorneys, and ambassadors.

And there is no rule that Senators or Congressmen or Presidents for that matter refer to each other as "my colleague", "my associate" or "Mr President" or whatever.

However, it is expected by the American people that such things occur.

By the way, they are not "candidates", they are nominees or selections. They have the American People's permission and obligation by their place as Senators to reject a nominee. That is acceptable if it is done due to proper grounding. It isn't acceptable to the American people to simply ignore their duties.

I have a feeling the Dems will not see the fine distinction there but I think most Indies will. What will turn off most indies is if there are no hearings....

The worst thing that could happen is that the GOP caves in during an election year. With enough public pressure, it may happen.

 

[Correll]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations....

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO NOMINATE A CANDIDATE.


THE SENATE HAS THE RIGHT TO IGNORE THE CANDIDATE.

In the United States, "advice and consent" is a power of the United States Senate to be consulted on and approve treaties signed and appointments made by the President of the United States to public positions, including Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, United States Attorneys, and ambassadors.

And there is no rule that Senators or Congressmen or Presidents for that matter refer to each other as "my colleague", "my associate" or "Mr President" or whatever.

However, it is expected by the American people that such things occur.

By the way, they are not "candidates", they are nominees or selections. They have the American People's permission and obligation by their place as Senators to reject a nominee. That is acceptable if it is done due to proper grounding. It isn't acceptable to the American people to simply ignore their duties.

I have a feeling the Dems will not see the fine distinction there but I think most Indies will. What will turn off most indies is if there are no hearings....

The worst thing that could happen is that the GOP caves in during an election year. With enough public pressure, it may happen.

A real possibility.

Hopefully Trump can turn the focus to issues where the LIbs are in the minority.

Such as supporting blatant anti-white discrimination a la Disparate Impact Theory as per the New Have Firefighter Case.

 

[Silhouette]

THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO NOMINATE A CANDIDATE.
THE SENATE HAS THE RIGHT TO IGNORE THE CANDIDATE.

Forgive the dems on the threads here Contumacious. They're a little fuzzy on separation of powers. How do I know? The same evening Obergefell 2015 was announced, this display appeared on the Whitehouse. So, we all know it takes days of approval and paperwork to make any changes at the Whitehouse. The muted colors alone, less bright than white would have posed a security issue. Think of the timing and do the math. The Obama Administration was advertising to the world that they knew in advance how Obergefell would come down.

And when the Judicial can rewrite the Constitution to include "just some deviant sex behaviors that are our favorites...but not others" (like polygamy, which is discriminatory towards polygamists) using the 14th Amendment, to cover marriage, which isn't a guaranteed right in the Constitution, just like driving isn't either (the first if not qualified: danger to children, the second if not qualified, a danger to other drivers), then we have the Judicial doing the Legislature's job, and the Executive having pre-knowledge (influence over) what the Judicial is doing. The Legislature's power (the closest to the People in working practice) has been all but castrated.

So when a cult like what the dems have become feels unbridled tyrannical power, don't expect them to understand how the Legislature has any intrinsic power to balance the Executive's demand that we unbalance the Supreme Court to lean hard liberal left. They just won't get it.

"What? Limitations to our cult-steamroller? Brakes on the runaway train???? Are you talking Greek or what?.."...

You know they don't even know why they want radical change anymore. I think at this point it's just a movement with a life of its own that helps them numb the pain of the psychological wounds they clearly have and clearly aren't dealing with.. But why should the rest of us suffer because they won't recapitulate their lives?

 

[whitehall]

"Bork", "Borked"...does anybody on the low information left know what those political words mean? It's insane to claim republicans shouldn't do their checks and balances duty because it will "energize democrats".

 

[candycorn]

This is true.

On the other hand, we CAN'T allow a liberal court.

The damage to be done to our society would just be to great.

This really does work out well for Hillary <cough> motive<cough>.

Anything that makes you guys look dumber than normal is a good thing. This is probably the perfect storm in terms of how dumb you look and what extent you'll go through to maintain that appearance.

 

[candycorn]

"Bork", "Borked"...does anybody on the low information left know what those political words mean? It's insane to claim republicans shouldn't do their checks and balances duty because it will "energize democrats".

The Senate (be it opposition or friendly) should do their duty. Ignoring their duty will energize the Dems. Whenever people show up to the polls, the GOP loses handily. They will have added reason to show up if you guys try to pull off this crap.

 

[candycorn]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations.....

Would they? I don't know that the average voter even pays attention to this shit. Either way, the president has the right to appoint a new justice and the Senate should give his nomination a vote.

I would argue you do not know many voters then. You're right about the 2nd part....even if it's a pro-forma thing....you do your duty.

 

[candycorn]

Will it energize them enough to get a job instead of mooching off hard-working Americans?????

You should mention that to red states; they have the most moochers by far.

 

[candycorn]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations.....

Would they? I don't know that the average voter even pays attention to this shit. Either way, the president has the right to appoint a new justice and the Senate should give his nomination a vote.

if the Republicans don't put up a fight on the SC they will lose their own base's interest.

They need to have vote though. They need to do their duty. They have nothing to stand on except politics for not giving the President's nominee a hearing.

 

[candycorn]

Scalia was not even dead for 24 hours and that F'ING POS you voted for made this announcement, he is lower than whale shit...

His nominee will be blocked, they better have thick skin...

If she doesn't get indicted you mean...

McConnell spoke hours before Obama did....so you're right...Mitch McConnell is lower than Whale Shit.

 

[candycorn]

Some clever reporter is going to walk Hillary Clinton into a trap. First, they will ask her if Obama should be able to appoint a Supreme Court Justice in his last year in office. She will have to answer in the affirmative.

Then she will be asked that if Obama's nomination is blocked, will she commit to appointing the same person.

Not much of a trap.