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

[nat4900]

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!

Sorry, NO link since, constitutionally, there is no mandaate for a senator to do his or her job (too bad)...HOWEVER, you judge what should be done with an elected official who refuses to do anything but sit with two thumbs up their ass.

 

[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."

"[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.

The Senate can't Advise and Consent if they refuse to do so. It's part of their job. Case closed.

 

[nat4900]

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

Yes, THAT was a mistake.....(I have a senatorial aide, friend of mine, who relayed to me that the mistake by senate democrats was due to their fear that Ginsburg would retire sooner than expected and they did not want another right wing justice to be shoved through through the nuclear option.)

 

[rightwinger]

Aside of the Supreme Court, there are currently 101 Federal judicial vacancies, some have been vacant for almost two years

When Democrats take the Senate, their first priority should be to fill these vacancies within 90 days

Current Judicial Vacancies

 

[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.:

LINK!

Sorry, NO link since, constitutionally, there is no mandaate for a senator to do his or her job (too bad)...HOWEVER, you judge what should be done with an elected official who refuses to do anything but sit with two thumbs up their ass.

Well, to keep totalitarianism from dismantling the Constitution, I judge they should be kept in their seats with their thumbs up their asses.

But that's just me.

 

[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.

The Senate can't Advise and Consent if they refuse to do so.

Duh.

It's part of their job.

Indeed. An obligation to provide it is not.

 

[Mitsu]

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.

The Senate can't Advise and Consent if they refuse to do so.

Duh.

It's part of their job.

Indeed. An obligation to provide it is not.

Well they aren't advising and they aren't consenting which means, dummy, they aren't doing what they ******* get paid for!

 

[nat4900]

Well, to keep totalitarianism from dismantling the Constitution, I judge they should be kept in their seats with their thumbs up their asses.

In other words, election DON'T matter, and the functionality of the Senate is no longer needed.

Would a despot suit best your political bent???

 

[BlackAsCoal]

This is a moot argument as democrats will take the Senate .. even with a 50-50 split .. then democrats will do what they want to do and republicans will be reduced to spectators.

 

[Mitsu]

Well, to keep totalitarianism from dismantling the Constitution, I judge they should be kept in their seats with their thumbs up their asses.

In other words, election DON'T matter, and the functionality of the Senate is no longer needed.

Would a despot suit best your political bent???

Typical Nazi baby, taking his ball and going home to mommy because he can't have it his way.

 

[Mitsu]

This is a moot argument as democrats will take the Senate .. even with a 50-50 split .. then democrats will do what they want to do and republicans will be reduced to spectators.

God I hope so. Let's get moving again before we die in our sleep without even trying.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

During Hillary's first term --- because there is no way in the world she loses to the orange buffoon --- a Democratically controlled Senate will confirm Hllary's replacement for Scalia; then she gets two more justices confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate after both Thomas and Alito drop dead in the first year of her term; then, before her first term is up, Notorious RBG will decide to step down and Hillary gets another justice confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate. SCOTUS make up by the end of her first term: 7 - 2

That would be a successful first term right there.

Notorious RBG! Lol. I got all her albums.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Reps won't do it, they fear the political fallout, and with most of the media behind the Dems they would get murdered in the press. If they couldn't stand up to a bunch of BO's executive orders when they had a majority in both houses, what makes you think they will do it when in the minority?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Reps won't do it, they fear the political fallout, and with most of the media behind the Dems they would get murdered in the press. If they couldn't stand up to a bunch of BO's executive orders when they had a majority in both houses, what makes you think they will do it when in the minority?

They didn't fear the political fallout of leaving a Supreme Court seat vacant for a year

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Reps won't do it, they fear the political fallout, and with most of the media behind the Dems they would get murdered in the press. If they couldn't stand up to a bunch of BO's executive orders when they had a majority in both houses, what makes you think they will do it when in the minority?

They didn't fear the political fallout of leaving a Supreme Court seat vacant for a year

Geesh dude, you don't see the difference between delaying until the election is over for a year and leaving a seat vacant for a full presidential term? Is this really that hard?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Reps won't do it, they fear the political fallout, and with most of the media behind the Dems they would get murdered in the press. If they couldn't stand up to a bunch of BO's executive orders when they had a majority in both houses, what makes you think they will do it when in the minority?

They didn't fear the political fallout of leaving a Supreme Court seat vacant for a year

Geesh dude, you don't see the difference between delaying until the election is over for a year and leaving a seat vacant for a full presidential term? Is this really that hard?

Once they have gone this far...what is their hurry?

If you are willing to stonewall for one quarter of a Presidents term, why not a full term?

 

[foggedinn]

After 1968, the democrats became the party of anarchy. It only took 48 years for the matter to come full circle. Now the Republicans are the party that wants to tear everything down.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Reps won't do it, they fear the political fallout, and with most of the media behind the Dems they would get murdered in the press. If they couldn't stand up to a bunch of BO's executive orders when they had a majority in both houses, what makes you think they will do it when in the minority?

They didn't fear the political fallout of leaving a Supreme Court seat vacant for a year

Geesh dude, you don't see the difference between delaying until the election is over for a year and leaving a seat vacant for a full presidential term? Is this really that hard?

Once they have gone this far...what is their hurry?

If you are willing to stonewall for one quarter of a Presidents term, why not a full term?

To begin with, there was the distraction of the campaign season which took the spotlight off the one vacant seat. A new president will make filling the vacancy a priority. Considering there could also be other judges retire or die within the next term, it would not be ignored by the press.

How about this scenario, unlikely as it seems to be, Trump wins the presidency but GOP looses the senate. Would the Dems block confirmations?

 

[Nosmo King]

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

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

sure. great. We'll replace American constitutional government with a Nazi dictatorship. How'd that work out in 1945?

I lost two uncles in the fight to rid the planet of such evil. The notion some American would prefer such vile, evil government over our own is sickening. You should be both ashamed and ignored.

Go ahead and rate this post "funny". The shallowness of your world view restricts you from responding in an articulate manner.

 

[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!

Sorry, NO link since, constitutionally, there is no mandaate for a senator to do his or her job (too bad)...HOWEVER, you judge what should be done with an elected official who refuses to do anything but sit with two thumbs up their ass.

Attempting to stop what this Muslim loving shitbird we have for a President is a full time job.