Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

[SassyIrishLass]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

They will be in violation of the law.

That's your opinion. Now shush, you're a bother

 

[jillian]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

What is so bad about it? The only thing you seem to care about is the rich taking all the wealth in this country and your bible morality being forced on everyone.

And what's so bad about that?

seriously?

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

and the next president will get the next three. that's how it works.

you think we were happy with alito? with roberts?

 

[jillian]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

They will be in violation of the law.

That's your opinion. Now shush, you're a bother

you first, hack.

 

[daws101]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

They will be in violation of the law.

That's your opinion. Now shush, you're a bother

No dumbass it's a fact !
More proof you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

What is so bad about it? The only thing you seem to care about is the rich taking all the wealth in this country and your bible morality being forced on everyone.

And what's so bad about that?

seriously?

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

and the next president will get the next three. that's how it works.

you think we were happy with alito? with roberts?

I would think you would be thrilled

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

What it means has changed.

If it has, such changes are completely illegal.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

They will be in violation of the law.

That's your opinion. Now shush, you're a bother

you first, hack.

Buzz off ya daffy fraud. Again, you contribute nothing and somehow think your middle school one liners constitutes something other than middle school insults.

 

[daws101]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

What it means has changed.

If it has, such changes are completely illegal.

False the constitution was never meant to be a static document.
Jefferson suggested that a new one by drafted every 12 years to keep pace with the changes in the country.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Sandra Day O'Connor: Obama should name Scalia's replacement

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN)Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says President Barack Obama should name Antonin Scalia's replacement.

O'Connor, a nominee of President Ronald Reagan who became the court's swing vote until she retired from the bench in 2006, broke with Republicans who say they plan to block Obama's nominee, and want his successor to name the next justice.

"I don't agree (with Republicans)," O'Connor said in an interview with Phoenix-based Fox affiliate KSAZ. "We need somebody in there to do the job and just get on with it."

She noted that it's unusual to for a Supreme Court opening to exist in an election year, saying that the proximity to the presidential race "creates too much talk around the thing that isn't necessary."

<more>

Read more: Sandra Day O'Connor: Obama should name Scalia's replacement - CNNPolitics.com

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

They will be in violation of the law.

That's your opinion. Now shush, you're a bother

No dumbass it's a fact !
More proof you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

What part of shush didn't ya grasp Mr Opinion?

 

[daws101]

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

They will be in violation of the law.

That's your opinion. Now shush, you're a bother

you first, hack.

Buzz off ya daffy fraud. Again, you contribute nothing and somehow think your middle school one liners constitutes something other than middle school insults.

Since you never made it to middle school how would you know?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

What it means has changed.

If it has, such changes are completely illegal.

False the constitution was never meant to be a static document.
Jefferson suggested that a new one by drafted every 12 years to keep pace with the changes in the country.

Also the supreme court has judicial review through case law so this simple fact blows the hell out of the loserterians idea of it being static.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

of course he's right. but wingers are always selective in their "strict interpretation" anyway.

And would you site for me what part of the constitution I don't follow; since I'm president of the rwnj's on this forum????

the president SHALL nominate and the senate SHALL ADVISE AND CONSENT

it doesn't say... if he feels like

it doesn't say... if he's in the last year in office

it doesn't say if there's a divided government

it says SHALL NOMINATE.

i think that's pretty clear.

is that what you wanted to know?

or should we talk about the other areas where the right is selective?

Well you've certainly thrown a lot of jibberish up there and gotten favorable response from your cronies, but you still haven't shown where I've violated the constitution. You say what may happen as if it's already happened. Now how does that work. Do we work on clarvoyancy around here?
So not one nominee has been blocked. YOu claim we have. Ok, Give me the name?

 

[jillian]

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

They will be in violation of the law.

That's your opinion. Now shush, you're a bother

you first, hack.

Buzz off ya daffy fraud. Again, you contribute nothing and somehow think your middle school one liners constitutes something other than middle school insults.

Since you never made it to middle school how would you know?

yeah, she's all butthurt after telling you to be quiet because you're a "bother".

the hack can't even get her own nonsense straight.

now she'll go pout, drool at the mouth and stamp her feet.

 

[jillian]

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

They will be in violation of the law.

That's your opinion. Now shush, you're a bother

you first, hack.

Buzz off ya daffy fraud. Again, you contribute nothing and somehow think your middle school one liners constitutes something other than middle school insults.

quiet, skank

 

[jillian]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

What is so bad about it? The only thing you seem to care about is the rich taking all the wealth in this country and your bible morality being forced on everyone.

And what's so bad about that?

seriously?

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

and the next president will get the next three. that's how it works.

you think we were happy with alito? with roberts?

I would think you would be thrilled

why?

 

[daws101]

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

They will be in violation of the law.

That's your opinion. Now shush, you're a bother

No dumbass it's a fact !
More proof you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

What part of shush didn't ya grasp Mr Opinion?

Shush is a trailer trashism not English.
Besides you really think that you have the nuts or authority to shut me up.
Ms. one live braincell?

 

[OKTexas]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

You and your dear leader are always befuddled by anything dealing with the Constitution. The dear leader can nominate anyone he wants, then the Senate can schedule hearings at their leisure, there are no time limits placed on either constitutionally. So he can play all the word games he pleases, it means nothing.

 

[daws101]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters
Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

What it means has changed.

If it has, such changes are completely illegal.

False the constitution was never meant to be a static document.
Jefferson suggested that a new one by drafted every 12 years to keep pace with the changes in the country.

Also the supreme court has judicial review through case law so this simple fact blows the hell out of the loserterians idea of it being static.

False. swing and a miss!
Who or what are the loserterians other than one of a countless number of meaningless slogans?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

What it means has changed.

If it has, such changes are completely illegal.

False the constitution was never meant to be a static document.
Jefferson suggested that a new one by drafted every 12 years to keep pace with the changes in the country.

So go draft a new one. Until then, the amendment process is the only legal process available to make changes. All other changes are by their nature illegal.