Screw You Harry Reid

[jillian]

A 55 year old resolution is neither law nor binding; Reid and the president are correct, Obama is at liberty to put forward the nomination, the Senate will respond as it sees fit.

See how the far left drones claim something to be irrelevant, but to them the Constitution (a 200 year old resolution) is irrelevant to them as well..

quiet, wackjob hack.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I would like to see Obama nominate someone.

Then have the senate Bork them the way Ted Kennedy and Joe, the plagairzer, Biden Robert Bork.

 

[80zephyr]

A 55 year old resolution is neither law nor binding; Reid and the president are correct, Obama is at liberty to put forward the nomination, the Senate will respond as it sees fit.

While the resolution is neither law nor binding, the mindset of those that approved of it is clear. For the Dems to cry foul over this issue is the height of hypocrisy.

Mark

 

[Camp]

Found the link. Hypocrisy thy name is liberal.



http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

It is an inaccurate and distorted talking point that is being debunked. He did not call for "no vote" or "no hearings", nor did he call for no consideration of anyone. He proposed not confirming extremist right wing judges and his comments referred to a theoretical situaltion, not an actual occuring situation.

why would it post anything different from what it always posts?

I have also already posted schumer's complete post which was UNLESS THE APPOINTEE IS MAINSTREAM, the senate should filibuster. it was not a blanket refusal. it was just a refusal to appoint a psycho. there was a justice confirmed unanimously to the D.C. circuit.... clearly not a psycho and clearly qualified.

that's what the hacks are leaving out. but then again, she's never posted anything that wasn't a lie in her life.

Plus it was a suggestion made after two nominations had already been confirmed. He was simply expressing the view that the next nomination needed to be more of a moderate instead of what he considered as extremist or far right as the last two confirmations.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

A 55 year old resolution is neither law nor binding; Reid and the president are correct, Obama is at liberty to put forward the nomination, the Senate will respond as it sees fit.

See how the far left drones claim something to be irrelevant, but to them the Constitution (a 200 year old resolution) is irrelevant to them as well..

quiet, wackjob hack.

Who TF are you ?

Why don't you find a short pier and take a long walk.

You are the most pathetic poster on this board next to RDean.

Your posts are rarely more than three lines. They never say anything. We can all see you are unhappy with your pathetic life.

So take your own advice and

SHUT THE **** UP.

 

[jillian]

A 55 year old resolution is neither law nor binding; Reid and the president are correct, Obama is at liberty to put forward the nomination, the Senate will respond as it sees fit.

See how the far left drones claim something to be irrelevant, but to them the Constitution (a 200 year old resolution) is irrelevant to them as well..

quiet, wackjob hack.

Who TF are you ?

Why don't you find a short pier and take a long walk.

You are the most pathetic poster on this board next to RDean.

Your posts are rarely more than three lines. They never say anything. We can all see you are unhappy with your pathetic life.

So take your own advice and

SHUT THE **** UP.

thanks for your irrelevant opinion.

and who am I? someone who's seen the hack say nothing but the phrase "far left drone"

now take a hike little boy.

 

[turzovka]

poor winger.... you really should stop stamping your feet. why should the next president have four nominations just so you wingers can do what you've tried to do to this president for seven years?

you should probably get over it.

me? I think you're going to be so sorry when record numbers of dems come out to vote in November over this just to kick your obstructive butts.

On the other hand, Harry Reid is just the kind of guy you look up to.

It also seems that kind of sickness is contagious thanks to a sinister media.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

 

[Camp]

I would like to see Obama nominate someone.

Then have the senate Bork them the way Ted Kennedy and Joe, the plagairzer, Biden Robert Bork.

Bork was carrying more luggage than he could carry for such an important nomination. He should have never been nominated. It was an insult to the nation that he was. His actions since being rejected has proven the Senate was right to reject him.

 

[Rambunctious]

Dirty Harry should be in prison along with Filthy Hillary...oh did you know she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary? that is extra amazing because no one heard of him until she was nine. So if her statement is true she walked around for 9 years without a name.

 

[Camp]

A 55 year old resolution is neither law nor binding; Reid and the president are correct, Obama is at liberty to put forward the nomination, the Senate will respond as it sees fit.

While the resolution is neither law nor binding, the mindset of those that approved of it is clear. For the Dems to cry foul over this issue is the height of hypocrisy.

Mark

What resolution are you talking about? Are you distorting the resolution to suggest recess appointments be discontinued after two had been made by Eisenhower? How is that fairly related to the current situation?

 

[Rambunctious]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

Yeah and it's about time.... Mr. Obama and his lack of a rigorous defense of the constitution has tainted his authority. He has lost the privilege of selecting a justice or frankly doing anything else his last 10 months. PERIOD! His presidency is OVER! Lame big eared duck.....

 

[Camp]

A 55 year old resolution is neither law nor binding; Reid and the president are correct, Obama is at liberty to put forward the nomination, the Senate will respond as it sees fit.

See how the far left drones claim something to be irrelevant, but to them the Constitution (a 200 year old resolution) is irrelevant to them as well..

quiet, wackjob hack.

Who TF are you ?

Why don't you find a short pier and take a long walk.

You are the most pathetic poster on this board next to RDean.

Your posts are rarely more than three lines. They never say anything. We can all see you are unhappy with your pathetic life.

So take your own advice and

SHUT THE **** UP.

You should try to learn from folks who can project and convey intelligent thoughts without an overuse of drivel and profanity they way you currently do.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

Yeah and it's about time.... Mr. Obama and his lack of a rigorous defense of the constitution has tainted his authority. He has lost the privilege of selecting a justice or frankly doing anything else his last 10 months. PERIOD! His presidency is OVER! Lame big eared duck.....

Another moron who believes anything that does not support conservative dogma is unconstitutional

 

[tinydancer]

Found the link. Hypocrisy thy name is liberal.



http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

It is an inaccurate and distorted talking point that is being debunked. He did not call for "no vote" or "no hearings", nor did he call for no consideration of anyone. He proposed not confirming extremist right wing judges and his comments referred to a theoretical situaltion, not an actual occuring situation.

why would it post anything different from what it always posts?

I have also already posted schumer's complete post which was UNLESS THE APPOINTEE IS MAINSTREAM, the senate should filibuster. it was not a blanket refusal. it was just a refusal to appoint a psycho. there was a justice confirmed unanimously to the D.C. circuit.... clearly not a psycho and clearly qualified.

that's what the hacks are leaving out. but then again, she's never posted anything that wasn't a lie in her life.

A truthful statement from tinydancer to Jillian:

You are a board ***** from hell who consistently posts as if you are menopausal on steroids on a good day when your enema takes.

 

[jillian]

Found the link. Hypocrisy thy name is liberal.



http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

It is an inaccurate and distorted talking point that is being debunked. He did not call for "no vote" or "no hearings", nor did he call for no consideration of anyone. He proposed not confirming extremist right wing judges and his comments referred to a theoretical situaltion, not an actual occuring situation.

why would it post anything different from what it always posts?

I have also already posted schumer's complete post which was UNLESS THE APPOINTEE IS MAINSTREAM, the senate should filibuster. it was not a blanket refusal. it was just a refusal to appoint a psycho. there was a justice confirmed unanimously to the D.C. circuit.... clearly not a psycho and clearly qualified.

that's what the hacks are leaving out. but then again, she's never posted anything that wasn't a lie in her life.

A truthful statement from tinydancer to Jillian:

You are a board ***** from hell who consistently posts as if you are menopausal on steroids on a good day when your enema takes.

projecting again, lying loon?

that's my message to you.

now stop posting insane lies you drug addled loon.

 

[tinydancer]

A 55 year old resolution is neither law nor binding; Reid and the president are correct, Obama is at liberty to put forward the nomination, the Senate will respond as it sees fit.

See how the far left drones claim something to be irrelevant, but to them the Constitution (a 200 year old resolution) is irrelevant to them as well..

quiet, wackjob hack.

Who TF are you ?

Why don't you find a short pier and take a long walk.

You are the most pathetic poster on this board next to RDean.

Your posts are rarely more than three lines. They never say anything. We can all see you are unhappy with your pathetic life.

So take your own advice and

SHUT THE **** UP.

thanks for your irrelevant opinion.

and who am I? someone who's seen the hack say nothing but the phrase "far left drone"

now take a hike little boy.

Oh your enema didn't take today after all.

 

[tinydancer]

Found the link. Hypocrisy thy name is liberal.



http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

It is an inaccurate and distorted talking point that is being debunked. He did not call for "no vote" or "no hearings", nor did he call for no consideration of anyone. He proposed not confirming extremist right wing judges and his comments referred to a theoretical situaltion, not an actual occuring situation.

why would it post anything different from what it always posts?

I have also already posted schumer's complete post which was UNLESS THE APPOINTEE IS MAINSTREAM, the senate should filibuster. it was not a blanket refusal. it was just a refusal to appoint a psycho. there was a justice confirmed unanimously to the D.C. circuit.... clearly not a psycho and clearly qualified.

that's what the hacks are leaving out. but then again, she's never posted anything that wasn't a lie in her life.

A truthful statement from tinydancer to Jillian:

You are a board ***** from hell who consistently posts as if you are menopausal on steroids on a good day when your enema takes.

projecting again, lying loon?

that's my message to you.

now stop posting insane lies you drug addled loon.

Oooooooh you're having a really bad day. Hot flashes and constipated? Poor woman.

 

[80zephyr]

Republicans have moved the goalpost from:

We don't agree with the nominee
to
We don't agree with the person doing the nominating

Unprecidented

No, its not. Obama actually did it himself.

Obama Speech - Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. Floor Statement- Complete Text


Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. Floor Statement

TOPIC: Confirmations
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Floor Statement on the Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr.
Complete Text

First off, let me congratulate Senators Specter and Leahy for moving yet another confirmation process along with a civility that speaks well of the Senate.

As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I'm deeply troubled.


Mark

 

[kwc57]

A 55 year old resolution is neither law nor binding; Reid and the president are correct, Obama is at liberty to put forward the nomination, the Senate will respond as it sees fit.

Of course it isn't binding, but it shows the hypocrisy. When the show is on the other foot, they do the same thing. Schumer made the same argument in 2007.

No one is saying the president can't do his constitutional duty and nominate someone. The senate can do their constitutional duty of advise and consent and deny his nomination. In other words, it is standard constitutional operating procedure, not the obstructionism the left and the media are claiming. For Reid, calling someone obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. The man has no shame.