Senate should refuse to confirm ALL of Clinton's judicial nominees

[Billy_Kinetta]

That's why selections require confirmation...

Actually, "selections" or nominations, REQUIRE for the senate to hold a hearing....which the GOP-led senate has refused to even do that........GOP'ers in the senate will pay for that mistake.:

There is no such requirement.

 

[nat4900]

As far as guns go for NOW you can own a gun. All it takes is a reversal of 1 decision and there goes your ability to own a gun because they just said the 2nd amendment DOES NOT guarantee the individual right to own a weapon.

Bullshit and "straw man" fallacy......NO ONE is revoking the 2nd amendment, but banning the easy sale of military-style assault weapons whose only real purpose is to kill others, will be brought up when we have a sane SCOTUS in place.

 

[The VOR]

They won't be able to as they are going to lose the Senate.

We'll see...

They won't. Even if they do they won't have a vast majority it will literally be a 1 vote lead

The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Clinton’s Judicial Nominees

Indeed I agree! Don't give an inch! They want it make them bleed for it.

Why do you hate the constitutional process so much? Would you like to ball up the constitution and toss it in the trash?

This isn't about me but yes I would burn the constitution. I am in favor of the leadership principle. Your crying aside that was ******* hilarious! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA they won't allow us to nominate an anti gun nut justice WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Why should I regard the opinion of someone who is blatantly anti-constitution with anything like respect or validity? You would dispense with the constitution just so you can have a gun? Do you know that under the constitution you can have a gun?

Oh its not just because of that. I think the entire idea of a democracy is a joke and doesn't work. Like I said I want a system based on the leadership principle. As far as guns go for NOW you can own a gun. All it takes is a reversal of 1 decision and there goes your ability to own a gun because they just said the 2nd amendment DOES NOT guarantee the individual right to own a weapon.

I thought Obama already took away everyone's guns during these past 8 years?

 

[Mitsu]

The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Clinton’s Judicial Nominees

Indeed I agree! Don't give an inch! They want it make them bleed for it.

Right, we wouldn't want them to say, do their ******* job per the Constitution or anything! ******* Nazis.

Using the text found in the constitution, please explain "their ******* job" as to any obligation to advise and consent.

"[The President] 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."

 

[Nosmo King]

They won't be able to as they are going to lose the Senate.

We'll see...

They won't. Even if they do they won't have a vast majority it will literally be a 1 vote lead

The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Clinton’s Judicial Nominees

Indeed I agree! Don't give an inch! They want it make them bleed for it.

Why do you hate the constitutional process so much? Would you like to ball up the constitution and toss it in the trash?

This isn't about me but yes I would burn the constitution. I am in favor of the leadership principle. Your crying aside that was ******* hilarious! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA they won't allow us to nominate an anti gun nut justice WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Why should I regard the opinion of someone who is blatantly anti-constitution with anything like respect or validity? You would dispense with the constitution just so you can have a gun? Do you know that under the constitution you can have a gun?

Oh its not just because of that. I think the entire idea of a democracy is a joke and doesn't work. Like I said I want a system based on the leadership principle. As far as guns go for NOW you can own a gun. All it takes is a reversal of 1 decision and there goes your ability to own a gun because they just said the 2nd amendment DOES NOT guarantee the individual right to own a weapon.

Leadership principle? Whose leadership and what kind of voice would the citizens have? Have you ever studied revolutionary results and causes given a monolithic government?

 

[nat4900]

There is no such requirement.

YES, there is NO such requirement for the senate to do ANYTHING but just sit on its collective ass.

However, the senate will have a simple Dem. majority next year and the rules could then be changed

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Let this guy pick judges ? I don't think so LOL

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Clinton’s Judicial Nominees

Indeed I agree! Don't give an inch! They want it make them bleed for it.

Right, we wouldn't want them to say, do their ******* job per the Constitution or anything! ******* Nazis.

Using the text found in the constitution, please explain "their ******* job" as to any obligation to advise and consent.

"[The President] 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."

"[The President] 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."

Indeed, he has the power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and only with that.

As is the case with treaty ratifications and other officer nominations, they are not obligated to provide it.

Nor can the president invest such power in himself.

If you continue to disagree, provide the text requested earlier.

 

[jillian]

The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Clinton’s Judicial Nominees

Indeed I agree! Don't give an inch! They want it make them bleed for it.

you should be put in jail. treasonous loon.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is no such requirement.

YES, there is NO such requirement for the senate to do ANYTHING but just sit on its collective ass.

Technically, that is correct.

However, the senate will have a simple Dem. majority next year and the rules could then be changed

Time will tell.

 

[Preacher]

They won't be able to as they are going to lose the Senate.

We'll see...

They won't. Even if they do they won't have a vast majority it will literally be a 1 vote lead

The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Clinton’s Judicial Nominees

Indeed I agree! Don't give an inch! They want it make them bleed for it.

Why do you hate the constitutional process so much? Would you like to ball up the constitution and toss it in the trash?

This isn't about me but yes I would burn the constitution. I am in favor of the leadership principle. Your crying aside that was ******* hilarious! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA they won't allow us to nominate an anti gun nut justice WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Why should I regard the opinion of someone who is blatantly anti-constitution with anything like respect or validity? You would dispense with the constitution just so you can have a gun? Do you know that under the constitution you can have a gun?

Oh its not just because of that. I think the entire idea of a democracy is a joke and doesn't work. Like I said I want a system based on the leadership principle. As far as guns go for NOW you can own a gun. All it takes is a reversal of 1 decision and there goes your ability to own a gun because they just said the 2nd amendment DOES NOT guarantee the individual right to own a weapon.

Leadership principle? Whose leadership and what kind of voice would the citizens have? Have you ever studied revolutionary results and causes given a monolithic government?

Racial Socialism – Creativity Alliance
Führerprinzip - Wikipedia

 

[nat4900]

Bottom line: Yes, senators have NO affirmative conditions to do ANYTHING....The Founders made a mistake in not imposing some sanction if a senator refuses to even show up to work....ever; leaving it up to voters to correct the situation.

However, I expect that under Schumer's leadership in a Dem. controlled senate, rules will change to put a stop in the inactivity of senators simply concerned about their sorry ass rather than governing.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Senate should refuse to confirm ALL of Clinton's judicial nominees

Why?

White Men Raging

 

[TooTall]

A simple majority in the senate (which democrats will almost surely have with the VP's vote) CAN change the rules and bring up the so-called "nuclear option" to fill Scalia's vacancy....and perhaps 2 or more justices' positions......

To the winners belong the spoils, and McConnell will long regret not even holding a hearing for Garland.

Why didn't they include the 'nuclear option' for Supreme Court nominations when they changed the filibuster rule the first time?

 

[TooTall]

That's why selections require confirmation...

Actually, "selections" or nominations, REQUIRE for the senate to hold a hearing....which the GOP-led senate has refused to even do that........GOP'ers in the senate will pay for that mistake.:

LINK!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Apparently actively blocking all Democrat Presidents from appointing Judges is not as bad as Kaepernick taking a knee during the National Anthem at some football game

 

[nat4900]

Technically, that is correct.

Well, more than "technically".....

The Constitution DOES list duties and responsibilities of senators, BUT it does not impose any sanctions when senators just refuse to fulfill those duties and responsibilities.

Actually this situation also points out why Trump should never be president. In his "business" world, you can instantly fire someone for NOT working......in politics, we have to sometime wait 4 or 6 years to "fire" someone.

 

[TooTall]

The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Clinton’s Judicial Nominees

Indeed I agree! Don't give an inch! They want it make them bleed for it.

Of course you are assuming the senate will still be controlled by the Reps. I don't know if the polls are accurate, but if they are, her nominees may walk thru confirmation.

The Senate still requires 60 votes to end cloture so a filibuster by ONE Senator can stop any confirmation.

 

[rightwinger]

A simple majority in the senate (which democrats will almost surely have with the VP's vote) CAN change the rules and bring up the so-called "nuclear option" to fill Scalia's vacancy....and perhaps 2 or more justices' positions......

To the winners belong the spoils, and McConnell will long regret not even holding a hearing for Garland.

Why didn't they include the 'nuclear option' for Supreme Court nominations when they changed the filibuster rule the first time?

They actually thought even Republicans would not be desperate enough to stonewall a Supreme Court nomination

 

[Preacher]

Apparently actively blocking all Democrat Presidents from appointing Judges is not as bad as Kaepernick taking a knee during the National Anthem at some football game

cool story bro.