Scalia question

[Auld Phart]

And your a loser but we explain stuff to you all the time.

What could be a greater sign of a “loser”, than being so stupidly illiterate as to not know the difference between “your” and “you're”?

That's how you get when all you do is sit around the trailer and get high all day.

You mean my condo on a lake?

Condo on a lake?

Not impressed

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

And your a loser but we explain stuff to you all the time.

What could be a greater sign of a “loser”, than being so stupidly illiterate as to not know the difference between “your” and “you're”?

That's how you get when all you do is sit around the trailer and get high all day.

You mean my condo on a lake?

You're in Gitmo?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

????

The recent election kicked the democrats to the back of the bus in the senate, ya know the one Obama said his policys were on the table.

 

[Care4all]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

A''lame duck'' president or lame duck congress is the president or congress between the November election and the time of the inauguration of the newly elected President and newly elected congress... so, when a new president is elected in November, until the new President is inaugurated in January, the old President is said to be a "lame Duck" President....

and for congress to be a lame duck congress, it is the period between the November election, when a new Congress is elected and when the new congress members get inaugurated in January.

We are not even close to this "Lame Duck" period.

In fact, Obama has gotten more done this year with Congress than he has in most all of his other years in office with congress...Congress actually passed a budget he approved of and signed just a couple of months ago.... he is not a Lame Duck, until a new President is elected...

and even then, it is NOT ALWAYS a Lame Duck session,

As example, if the new President elected is the president's vice President, and the new Congress elected majority has the same party affiliation as the president and the one that existed before the elections, it is NOT a lame duck session at all...

 

[sealybobo]

And your a loser but we explain stuff to you all the time.

What could be a greater sign of a “loser”, than being so stupidly illiterate as to not know the difference between “your” and “you're”?

That's how you get when all you do is sit around the trailer and get high all day.

You mean my condo on a lake?

No, I mean the condo in your head.

Not everyone who disagrees with Republicans is a loser. The president of my company thinks the Republicans are crazy and so does my bro who's a VP of a fortune 400. II think it's more about each person's personality. Republicans are certainly the party for conservatives and assholes

 

[sealybobo]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

????

The recent election kicked the democrats to the back of the bus in the senate, ya know the one Obama said his policys were on the table.

Midterm. Get ready for another general election trouncing.

Hell, a Republican won't even be in the general election because they can't beat trump. How popular are the Republicans? They have no mandate

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

And you're entitled to your opinion, which happens to be wrong and partisan.

The current president should make the appointment, respecting the wishes of those who reelected him to a second term, a term with ends in 2017; it would also be wrong for any president to leave vacant for well over a year a Supreme Court appointment.

 

[defcon4]

And you're entitled to your opinion, which happens to be wrong and partisan.

The current president should make the appointment, respecting the wishes of those who reelected him to a second term, a term with ends in 2017; it would also be wrong for any president to leave vacant for well over a year a Supreme Court appointment.

^^^^^ fails as composition fallacy....

 

[Vigilante]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

And you're entitled to your opinion, which happens to be wrong and partisan.

The current president should make the appointment, respecting the wishes of those who reelected him to a second term, a term with ends in 2017; it would also be wrong for any president to leave vacant for well over a year a Supreme Court appointment.

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

Hat tip: Instapundit


Read more: Blog: Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

That's fine. The Senate may also exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave THEM.

Period.

 

[Care4all]

The next President will likely have 3-4 Supreme Court appointments over their 8 year term, to appoint.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The next President will likely have 3-4 Supreme Court appointments over their 8 year term, to appoint.

The next president will be making Supreme Court appointments reflecting the will of the people who voted in 2016; the Scalia vacancy is the responsibility of the current president, reflecting the will of the people who reelected him in 2012.

Americans who voted to reelect the president expect their votes to be respected, they have a right to their votes being respected and acknowledged, not ignored and discarded for capricious partisan reasons.

 

[Care4all]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

And you're entitled to your opinion, which happens to be wrong and partisan.

The current president should make the appointment, respecting the wishes of those who reelected him to a second term, a term with ends in 2017; it would also be wrong for any president to leave vacant for well over a year a Supreme Court appointment.

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

Hat tip: Instapundit


Read more: Blog: Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

A sense of the Senate Resolution is a meaningless Resolution with no law behind it....

but the Reason the Dems did this resolution to express their feelings on the matter, is because Ike, for every supreme court opening that he had, appointed and put a Justice in the position through recess appointments, bypassing the Senate, throughout his entire time as President, he never went through the Senate to get them voted on first....only when the time period for the recess appointments were up, did the Senate have a chance to vote for these Justices.

Also, this President is NOT in a lame duck session, with a newly elected President waiting to be inaugurated.

 

[defcon4]

The next President will likely have 3-4 Supreme Court appointments over their 8 year term, to appoint.

The next president will be making Supreme Court appointments reflecting the will of the people who voted in 2016; the Scalia vacancy is the responsibility of the current president, reflecting the will of the people who reelected him in 2012.

Americans who voted to reelect the president expect their votes to be respected, they have a right to their votes being respected and acknowledged, not ignored and discarded for capricious partisan reasons.

^^^^fails as composition fallacy

 

[Vigilante]

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court NomineesThe Federalist‎

 

[Blackrook]

The Constitution gives the Senate the right to reject Presidential appointments. Anyone who wants to whine about how unfair this is can take it up with James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and/or George Washington.

 

[Care4all]

The Constitution gives the Senate the right to reject Presidential appointments. Anyone who wants to whine about how unfair this is can take it up with James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and/or George Washington.

Absolutely, the Senate can go through hearings and bring them up on a vote, and reject them and the President can then nominate another Justice for them to vet....this can go on forever and a day...

Unless the President appoints them during a recess period of the Senate, then the appointee usually has a few years in the position, before the Senate has to vote on them.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Americans who voted to reelect the president expect their votes to be respected, they have a right to their votes being respected and acknowledged, not ignored and discarded for capricious partisan reasons.

The people who voted to elect more obstructionist Senate nasties in 2014 have the same right to have their votes respected and acknowledged.

Yes?

 

[Old Rocks]

There's no question the 2nd amendment would be in jeopardy.

With over 100,000,000 armed and climbing, the jeopardy would be thin and short-lived.

And whatever makes you think that the majority of those people are with you? We see people like you are deranged individuals.

 

[Old Rocks]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

Sorry you don't like who the president is. Rules are rules. It's Obama's pick.

And the Senate's choice to approve or not, or even act upon it.

He's a pot head, you're wasting your time explaining stuff to him.

Yes, but I must confess there's a certain remote amusement to kicking the slow-witted here.

Oh, I see. You are a masochist. And you enjoy being kicked.