Republicans don’t actually find the constitution sacred. They just pretend they do

[Winco]

"If Trump ended up not winning..."

And Bookmarked and Noted for Nov 2020.
Don't get upset when trump loses in the 2020 election.

If trump wins, I'm ok.
Really has ZERO influence on my life, unless (R) or RWI's revolt in the event of a trump loss.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So if Trump doesn't declare war, he's cool, right?

There was nothing unconstitutional about McConnell's blocking a Supreme Court nominee. If you believe there is, explain using the language of the Constitution.

FYI, we've already been over all this here.

Uh no. The senate MUST have a vote on a Supreme Court nominee. Otherwise it would be pointless for a president to nominate someone to begin with if the majority leader is just going to say no. That isn’t how ******* Congress works.

Post the Constitutional text stating the Senate MUST hold such a vote.

 

[kyzr]

I am a liberal. I hate being subsumed into the people that are exploitative and then redefine it as multicultural . We were never asked what we think or want, instead somebody from the outside TELLS us what to think. That is completely outside liberalism.

Welcome to the "urban plantations", and their propaganda machine, the MSM.

 

[Care4all]

So if Trump doesn't declare war, he's cool, right?

There was nothing unconstitutional about McConnell's blocking a Supreme Court nominee. If you believe there is, explain using the language of the Constitution.

FYI, we've already been over all this here.

The constitution says the President shall pick the justice when there is an opening and the Senate shall give their advice and consent.

That means the Senate has hearings on the nominee, for their advice and consent deliberations, then votes him down if they do not give their consent.

Mitch did not even have a hearing on the constitutional pick, of the President's.... first time in history that a majority leader ever did that....with being nearly a year out from their last day, is my understanding?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So if Trump doesn't declare war, he's cool, right?

There was nothing unconstitutional about McConnell's blocking a Supreme Court nominee. If you believe there is, explain using the language of the Constitution.

FYI, we've already been over all this here.

The constitution says the President shall pick the justice when there is an opening and the Senate shall give their advice and consent.

That means the Senate has hearings on the nominee, for their advice and consent deliberations, then votes him down if they do not give their consent.

Mitch did not even have a hearing on the constitutional pick, of the President's.... first time in history that a majority leader ever did that....with being nearly a year out from their last day, is my understanding?

Post the Constitutional text proving your contention.

 

[BluesLegend]

Oh sure pretty much anything a democrat president does is “unconstitutional” including EO’s.

Lib please you people routinely ignore the U.S. Constitution and yap on about how its outdated and needs to be throw away or re-written. Why? Because it stands in the way of your Dem dream of government control over our lives.

 

[harmonica]

Oh sure pretty much anything a democrat president does is “unconstitutional” including EO’s. When a republican does it? Nah. All that matters is that their side won. They won’t admit this, but it’s the reason why they don’t criticize republicans for breaking the rules. Here are some examples:

1) If Trump ended up attacking Iran, his dumbass would just do it without congressional support. Legally it is congress who declares war, but that doesn’t matter. Iran is scum! Bomb em! **** Congress! If Trump did care about approval, he would have discussed why he sent thousands of troops to Iran.

2) Remember when McDonnell unconstitutionally blocked the vote of Obama’s Supreme Court nominee? Whether McConnell's self righteous ass likes it or not, Congress must decide the nominee choice with a VOTE. McConnell prevented the senate from even voting at all which is unconstitutional. Do republican voters care? No. Their side won! That’s all that matters.

the DEMS are the jackass hypocrites
--Obama takes out a bad guy--they praise him
--Trump takes out a bad guy-OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

etc etc etc

 

[Care4all]

So if Trump doesn't declare war, he's cool, right?

There was nothing unconstitutional about McConnell's blocking a Supreme Court nominee. If you believe there is, explain using the language of the Constitution.

FYI, we've already been over all this here.

Uh no. The senate MUST have a vote on a Supreme Court nominee. Otherwise it would be pointless for a president to nominate someone to begin with if the majority leader is just going to say no. That isn’t how ******* Congress works.

Post the Constitutional text stating the Senate MUST hold such a vote.

Myths vs. Facts on Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy - Alliance for Justice

MYTH: The Senate has no obligation whatsoever to give a Supreme Court nominee a timely hearing or vote on confirmation.

FACT: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Senate the duty to provide “advice and consent” on any person the president nominates to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. To refuse to give that advice and consent by not holding a hearing or vote on a nominee is a dereliction of that constitutional duty—a point endorsed by over 350 law professors in a letter organized by Alliance for Justice.

FACT: Since the Senate Judiciary Committee began holding hearings for Supreme Court nominees in 1916, no nominee has not received a hearing (save for nine nominees who were confirmed within 11 days).

FACT: Since the 1980s, every person appointed to the Supreme Court has been given a prompt hearing and vote within 100 days. The longest period of time a nomination has been pending prior to confirmation is 125 days. That was for Justice Louis Brandeis’ nomination in 1916.

FACT: Not since the Civil War has the Senate flat out refused to consider a Supreme Court nominee. In 1866, the Senate took no action on Andrew Johnson’s nominee, Henry Stanbery. The Senate’s inaction, however, was due to legislation Congress passed that year to reduce the number of justices on the Court, a measure that was meant to block any attempt by the embattled president to fill any vacancy on the Court.

FACT: Since 1955, every Supreme Court nominee confirmed during a period of divided government has been nominated by a Republican president and confirmed by a Democratic Senate. That accounts for 11 nominees in total:

Justice Clarence Thomas (George H. W. Bush, 1991)

Justice David Souter (George H. W. Bush, 1990)

Justice Anthony Kennedy (Ronald Reagan, 1988)

Justice John Paul Stevens (Gerald Ford, 1975)

Justice William Rehnquist (Richard Nixon, 1971)

Justice Lewis Powell (Richard Nixon, 1971)

Justice Harry Blackmun (Richard Nixon, 1970)

Chief Justice Warren Burger (Richard Nixon, 1969)

Justice Charles Whitaker (Dwight Eisenhower, 1957)

Justice William Brennan (Dwight Eisenhower, 1957)

Justice John Marshall Harlan (Dwight Eisenhower, 1955)

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So if Trump doesn't declare war, he's cool, right?

There was nothing unconstitutional about McConnell's blocking a Supreme Court nominee. If you believe there is, explain using the language of the Constitution.

FYI, we've already been over all this here.

Uh no. The senate MUST have a vote on a Supreme Court nominee. Otherwise it would be pointless for a president to nominate someone to begin with if the majority leader is just going to say no. That isn’t how ******* Congress works.

Post the Constitutional text stating the Senate MUST hold such a vote.

Myths vs. Facts on Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy - Alliance for Justice

MYTH: The Senate has no obligation whatsoever to give a Supreme Court nominee a timely hearing or vote on confirmation.

FACT: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Senate the duty to provide “advice and consent” on any person the president nominates to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. To refuse to give that advice and consent by not holding a hearing or vote on a nominee is a dereliction of that constitutional duty—a point endorsed by over 350 law professors in a letter organized by Alliance for Justice.

FACT: Since the Senate Judiciary Committee began holding hearings for Supreme Court nominees in 1916, no nominee has not received a hearing (save for nine nominees who were confirmed within 11 days).

FACT: Since the 1980s, every person appointed to the Supreme Court has been given a prompt hearing and vote within 100 days. The longest period of time a nomination has been pending prior to confirmation is 125 days. That was for Justice Louis Brandeis’ nomination in 1916.

FACT: Not since the Civil War has the Senate flat out refused to consider a Supreme Court nominee. In 1866, the Senate took no action on Andrew Johnson’s nominee, Henry Stanbery. The Senate’s inaction, however, was due to legislation Congress passed that year to reduce the number of justices on the Court, a measure that was meant to block any attempt by the embattled president to fill any vacancy on the Court.

FACT: Since 1955, every Supreme Court nominee confirmed during a period of divided government has been nominated by a Republican president and confirmed by a Democratic Senate. That accounts for 11 nominees in total:

Justice Clarence Thomas (George H. W. Bush, 1991)

Justice David Souter (George H. W. Bush, 1990)

Justice Anthony Kennedy (Ronald Reagan, 1988)

Justice John Paul Stevens (Gerald Ford, 1975)

Justice William Rehnquist (Richard Nixon, 1971)

Justice Lewis Powell (Richard Nixon, 1971)

Justice Harry Blackmun (Richard Nixon, 1970)

Chief Justice Warren Burger (Richard Nixon, 1969)

Justice Charles Whitaker (Dwight Eisenhower, 1957)

Justice William Brennan (Dwight Eisenhower, 1957)

Justice John Marshall Harlan (Dwight Eisenhower, 1955)

You just can't do it, can you.

 

[Care4all]

So if Trump doesn't declare war, he's cool, right?

There was nothing unconstitutional about McConnell's blocking a Supreme Court nominee. If you believe there is, explain using the language of the Constitution.

FYI, we've already been over all this here.

Uh no. The senate MUST have a vote on a Supreme Court nominee. Otherwise it would be pointless for a president to nominate someone to begin with if the majority leader is just going to say no. That isn’t how ******* Congress works.

Post the Constitutional text stating the Senate MUST hold such a vote.

Myths vs. Facts on Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy - Alliance for Justice

MYTH: The Senate has no obligation whatsoever to give a Supreme Court nominee a timely hearing or vote on confirmation.

FACT: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Senate the duty to provide “advice and consent” on any person the president nominates to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. To refuse to give that advice and consent by not holding a hearing or vote on a nominee is a dereliction of that constitutional duty—a point endorsed by over 350 law professors in a letter organized by Alliance for Justice.

FACT: Since the Senate Judiciary Committee began holding hearings for Supreme Court nominees in 1916, no nominee has not received a hearing (save for nine nominees who were confirmed within 11 days).

FACT: Since the 1980s, every person appointed to the Supreme Court has been given a prompt hearing and vote within 100 days. The longest period of time a nomination has been pending prior to confirmation is 125 days. That was for Justice Louis Brandeis’ nomination in 1916.

FACT: Not since the Civil War has the Senate flat out refused to consider a Supreme Court nominee. In 1866, the Senate took no action on Andrew Johnson’s nominee, Henry Stanbery. The Senate’s inaction, however, was due to legislation Congress passed that year to reduce the number of justices on the Court, a measure that was meant to block any attempt by the embattled president to fill any vacancy on the Court.

FACT: Since 1955, every Supreme Court nominee confirmed during a period of divided government has been nominated by a Republican president and confirmed by a Democratic Senate. That accounts for 11 nominees in total:

Justice Clarence Thomas (George H. W. Bush, 1991)

Justice David Souter (George H. W. Bush, 1990)

Justice Anthony Kennedy (Ronald Reagan, 1988)

Justice John Paul Stevens (Gerald Ford, 1975)

Justice William Rehnquist (Richard Nixon, 1971)

Justice Lewis Powell (Richard Nixon, 1971)

Justice Harry Blackmun (Richard Nixon, 1970)

Chief Justice Warren Burger (Richard Nixon, 1969)

Justice Charles Whitaker (Dwight Eisenhower, 1957)

Justice William Brennan (Dwight Eisenhower, 1957)

Justice John Marshall Harlan (Dwight Eisenhower, 1955)

You just can't do it, can you.

Can't do what?

I can't fix your reading and comprehension skills?

Yeah, you are probably right....


FACT: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Senate the duty to provide “advice and consent” on any person the president nominates to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. To refuse to give that advice and consent by not holding a hearing or vote on a nominee is a dereliction of that constitutional duty—a point endorsed by over 350 law professors in a letter organized by Alliance for Justice.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So if Trump doesn't declare war, he's cool, right?

There was nothing unconstitutional about McConnell's blocking a Supreme Court nominee. If you believe there is, explain using the language of the Constitution.

FYI, we've already been over all this here.

Uh no. The senate MUST have a vote on a Supreme Court nominee. Otherwise it would be pointless for a president to nominate someone to begin with if the majority leader is just going to say no. That isn’t how ******* Congress works.

Post the Constitutional text stating the Senate MUST hold such a vote.

Myths vs. Facts on Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy - Alliance for Justice

MYTH: The Senate has no obligation whatsoever to give a Supreme Court nominee a timely hearing or vote on confirmation.

FACT: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Senate the duty to provide “advice and consent” on any person the president nominates to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. To refuse to give that advice and consent by not holding a hearing or vote on a nominee is a dereliction of that constitutional duty—a point endorsed by over 350 law professors in a letter organized by Alliance for Justice.

FACT: Since the Senate Judiciary Committee began holding hearings for Supreme Court nominees in 1916, no nominee has not received a hearing (save for nine nominees who were confirmed within 11 days).

FACT: Since the 1980s, every person appointed to the Supreme Court has been given a prompt hearing and vote within 100 days. The longest period of time a nomination has been pending prior to confirmation is 125 days. That was for Justice Louis Brandeis’ nomination in 1916.

FACT: Not since the Civil War has the Senate flat out refused to consider a Supreme Court nominee. In 1866, the Senate took no action on Andrew Johnson’s nominee, Henry Stanbery. The Senate’s inaction, however, was due to legislation Congress passed that year to reduce the number of justices on the Court, a measure that was meant to block any attempt by the embattled president to fill any vacancy on the Court.

FACT: Since 1955, every Supreme Court nominee confirmed during a period of divided government has been nominated by a Republican president and confirmed by a Democratic Senate. That accounts for 11 nominees in total:

Justice Clarence Thomas (George H. W. Bush, 1991)

Justice David Souter (George H. W. Bush, 1990)

Justice Anthony Kennedy (Ronald Reagan, 1988)

Justice John Paul Stevens (Gerald Ford, 1975)

Justice William Rehnquist (Richard Nixon, 1971)

Justice Lewis Powell (Richard Nixon, 1971)

Justice Harry Blackmun (Richard Nixon, 1970)

Chief Justice Warren Burger (Richard Nixon, 1969)

Justice Charles Whitaker (Dwight Eisenhower, 1957)

Justice William Brennan (Dwight Eisenhower, 1957)

Justice John Marshall Harlan (Dwight Eisenhower, 1955)

You just can't do it, can you.

Can't do what?

I can't fix your reading and comprehension skills?

Yeah, you are probably right....


FACT: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Senate the duty to provide “advice and consent” on any person the president nominates to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. To refuse to give that advice and consent by not holding a hearing or vote on a nominee is a dereliction of that constitutional duty—a point endorsed by over 350 law professors in a letter organized by Alliance for Justice.

You've posted an opinion, not the text as requested in your thread, if you would read it. There is no Constitutional obligation for the Senate to provide said advice and consent, only that the President cannot proceed with an appointment without it.

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 Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, 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.

 

[Tax Man]

When liberals swear their oath to the constitution, they just pretend they do.

Which part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", is hard to understand, Virginia?

For conservatives it is real hard!

 

[Dana7360]

Oh sure pretty much anything a democrat president does is “unconstitutional” including EO’s. When a republican does it? Nah. All that matters is that their side won. They won’t admit this, but it’s the reason why they don’t criticize republicans for breaking the rules. Here are some examples:

1) If Trump ended up attacking Iran, his dumbass would just do it without congressional support. Legally it is congress who declares war, but that doesn’t matter. Iran is scum! Bomb em! **** Congress! If Trump did care about approval, he would have discussed why he sent thousands of troops to Iran.

2) Remember when McDonnell unconstitutionally blocked the vote of Obama’s Supreme Court nominee? Whether McConnell's self righteous ass likes it or not, Congress must decide the nominee choice with a VOTE. McConnell prevented the senate from even voting at all which is unconstitutional. Do republican voters care? No. Their side won! That’s all that matters.

I would be shocked if any of the far right radical extremists actually have read the whole constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

So if Trump doesn't declare war, he's cool, right?

There was nothing unconstitutional about McConnell's blocking a Supreme Court nominee. If you believe there is, explain using the language of the Constitution.

FYI, we've already been over all this here.

The constitution says the President shall pick the justice when there is an opening and the Senate shall give their advice and consent.

That means the Senate has hearings on the nominee, for their advice and consent deliberations, then votes him down if they do not give their consent.

Mitch did not even have a hearing on the constitutional pick, of the President's.... first time in history that a majority leader ever did that....with being nearly a year out from their last day, is my understanding?

Your ignorance is showing again, the fake language you just stated appears no where in the Constitution. BTW, you just proved my original post in this thread, you're one of those AVERAGE Americans that have no clue what the Constitution says. Here's a cure for your ignorance.

Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 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 Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, 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.

Now tell the class where the term "shall" is applied to the senate. Where does it say the senate can't withhold consent?

.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Waahhh

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So if Trump doesn't declare war, he's cool, right?

There was nothing unconstitutional about McConnell's blocking a Supreme Court nominee. If you believe there is, explain using the language of the Constitution.

FYI, we've already been over all this here.

The neocons libs are mad that trump hasn't launched us into another one of their wars. They do not like it.

 

[Bush92]

Oh sure pretty much anything a democrat president does is “unconstitutional” including EO’s. When a republican does it? Nah. All that matters is that their side won. They won’t admit this, but it’s the reason why they don’t criticize republicans for breaking the rules. Here are some examples:

1) If Trump ended up attacking Iran, his dumbass would just do it without congressional support. Legally it is congress who declares war, but that doesn’t matter. Iran is scum! Bomb em! **** Congress! If Trump did care about approval, he would have discussed why he sent thousands of troops to Iran.

2) Remember when McDonnell unconstitutionally blocked the vote of Obama’s Supreme Court nominee? Whether McConnell's self righteous ass likes it or not, Congress must decide the nominee choice with a VOTE. McConnell prevented the senate from even voting at all which is unconstitutional. Do republican voters care? No. Their side won! That’s all that matters.

Democrats believe in the Constitution?

 

[LuckyDuck]

Oh sure pretty much anything a democrat president does is “unconstitutional” including EO’s. When a republican does it? Nah. All that matters is that their side won. They won’t admit this, but it’s the reason why they don’t criticize republicans for breaking the rules. Here are some examples:

1) If Trump ended up attacking Iran, his dumbass would just do it without congressional support. Legally it is congress who declares war, but that doesn’t matter. Iran is scum! Bomb em! **** Congress! If Trump did care about approval, he would have discussed why he sent thousands of troops to Iran.

2) Remember when McDonnell unconstitutionally blocked the vote of Obama’s Supreme Court nominee? Whether McConnell's self righteous ass likes it or not, Congress must decide the nominee choice with a VOTE. McConnell prevented the senate from even voting at all which is unconstitutional. Do republican voters care? No. Their side won! That’s all that matters.

Perhaps there are a few Republicans who pretend that the Constitution is sacred, but when it comes to the left, they as a whole, clearly want to just toss it in a paper shredder and go on full Marxist.

 

[Hossfly]

So if Trump doesn't declare war, he's cool, right?

There was nothing unconstitutional about McConnell's blocking a Supreme Court nominee. If you believe there is, explain using the language of the Constitution.

FYI, we've already been over all this here.

The constitution says the President shall pick the justice when there is an opening and the Senate shall give their advice and consent.

That means the Senate has hearings on the nominee, for their advice and consent deliberations, then votes him down if they do not give their consent.

Mitch did not even have a hearing on the constitutional pick, of the President's.... first time in history that a majority leader ever did that....with being nearly a year out from their last day, is my understanding?

FYI there is a non-written agreement between parties that a SCOTUS appointee will not be confirmed during a Presidential election year. It's been that way as long as I can remember. It may have been done but I don't recall it.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans have only read the second amendment
And only half of that