So, Obama gets to put a third dullard to the Supreme Court?

[TheGreatGatsby]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

The Republicans will try to stall it for a year.

 

[Debra K]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word, "subversiveness". You may not agree with the president's nomination, but the president has the constitutional authority to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Senate has the power to consent or not consent to the appointment of the president's nominee. If some senators disapprove of the nominee, then they should cast their votes to withhold consent. They will be answerable for their votes to their constituents. That's the way our system works.

If the Senate stalls a vote, then members of the Senate will be viewed as obstructionists ... power hungry wolves. There is no political advantage to be gained by stalling.

 

[norwegen]

Andrew Jackson nominated several justices. Know what we get when Democrats nominate justices?

Dred Scott.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word, "subversiveness". You may not agree with the president's nomination, but the president has the constitutional authority to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Senate has the power to consent or not consent to the appointment of the president's nominee. If some senators disapprove of the nominee, then they should cast their votes to withhold consent. They will be answerable for their votes to their constituents. That's the way our system works.

If the Senate stalls a vote, then members of the Senate will be viewed as obstructionists ... power hungry wolves. There is no political advantage to be gained by stalling.

I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Andrew Jackson nominated several justices. Know what we get when Democrats nominate justices?

Dred Scott.

Well the two dullards in conjunction with Roberts selling out (probably under threats to his person and family) brought us the next Dred Scott: Obamacare.

 

[Debra K]

Andrew Jackson nominated several justices. Know what we get when Democrats nominate justices?

Dred Scott.

Your inane response is noted. You haven't accounted for the evolution and shift of people, mindset, and political parties that has taken place since 1857.

 

[irosie91]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

The Republicans will try to stall it for a year.

I hope----that lots of people will JOIN THE STALL------I am a congenital
democrat and did vote for Obama ---<<< confession. I was not particularly
overjoyed with him---------now I am horrified

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

The Republicans will try to stall it for a year.

I hope----that lots of people will JOIN THE STALL------I am a congenital
democrat and did vote for Obama ---<<< confession. I was not particularly
overjoyed with him---------now I am horrified

Do away with lifetime appointments. Court's already crippled with those two dullards he appointed otherwise.

 

[norwegen]

Andrew Jackson nominated several justices. Know what we get when Democrats nominate justices?

Dred Scott.

Well the two dullards in conjunction with Roberts selling out (probably under threats to his person and family) brought us the next Dred Scott: Obamacare.

No longer citizens, we're subjects.

The natural law no longer determines our destiny, and our jurisprudence no longer, as Jefferson said, carries us "back to the time when the Constitution was adopted."

 

[Debra K]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word, "subversiveness". You may not agree with the president's nomination, but the president has the constitutional authority to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Senate has the power to consent or not consent to the appointment of the president's nominee. If some senators disapprove of the nominee, then they should cast their votes to withhold consent. They will be answerable for their votes to their constituents. That's the way our system works.

If the Senate stalls a vote, then members of the Senate will be viewed as obstructionists ... power hungry wolves. There is no political advantage to be gained by stalling.

I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.

I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.

Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.

 

[irosie91]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

The Republicans will try to stall it for a year.

I hope----that lots of people will JOIN THE STALL------I am a congenital
democrat and did vote for Obama ---<<< confession. I was not particularly
overjoyed with him---------now I am horrified

Do away with lifetime appointments. Court's already crippled with those two dullards he appointed otherwise.

there are advantages in allowing permanent tenure------YOUR comment IS
a topic for discussion

 

[Boss]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

Republicans should stall any nomination until a new president is seated. It has been done in the past and it's not unprecedented. Obama is not going to replace Scalia with another Constitutional originalist. That should be a given.

We can't afford another radical liberal on the court, which is exactly what Obama will likely nominate. Or... he may attempt to nominate someone who is "moderate" in hopes of gaining enough support from the mealy-mouth GOP establishment crowd who seems to want to give him everything he wants. That should be rejected as well.. BUT... given the way McConnell and Boehner have bent over backwards to appease Obama, who fucking knows what will happen?

In any event... this completely changes the complexion of this election.

 

[irosie91]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word, "subversiveness". You may not agree with the president's nomination, but the president has the constitutional authority to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Senate has the power to consent or not consent to the appointment of the president's nominee. If some senators disapprove of the nominee, then they should cast their votes to withhold consent. They will be answerable for their votes to their constituents. That's the way our system works.

If the Senate stalls a vote, then members of the Senate will be viewed as obstructionists ... power hungry wolves. There is no political advantage to be gained by stalling.

I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.

I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.

Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.

??? cost analysis? the supreme court CAN function as it is now for less than one year

 

[Debra K]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word, "subversiveness". You may not agree with the president's nomination, but the president has the constitutional authority to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Senate has the power to consent or not consent to the appointment of the president's nominee. If some senators disapprove of the nominee, then they should cast their votes to withhold consent. They will be answerable for their votes to their constituents. That's the way our system works.

If the Senate stalls a vote, then members of the Senate will be viewed as obstructionists ... power hungry wolves. There is no political advantage to be gained by stalling.

I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.

I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.

Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.

??? cost analysis? the supreme court CAN function as it is now for less than one year

That is certainly something a stalling senator might tell his constituents, and his constituents might not accept this excuse and unseat his obstructionist butt ....

National Elections take place every even-numbered year. Every four years the president, vice president, one-third of the Senate, and the entire House are up for election (on-year elections). On even-numbered years when there isn't a presidential election, one-third of the Senate and the whole House are included in the election (off-year elections).

U.S. Senate: Elections

So yes ... a thinking senator will weigh the costs and benefits of stalling ....

 

[MisterBeale]

Obama is a pawn of the internationalists.


The elites want open borders, and they want America to have no guns. This is their big opportunity.


Obama will nominate someone that looks like a moderate, quacks like a moderate, and walks like a moderate.



America won't know that the SOB is for giving every illegal that is here the right to full citizenship and all but deleting the right to private gun ownership until after the person is already confirmed.


And the internationalist, CFR, UN loyal Republicans certainly won't bother to find out.

This game is set up to screw over Americans and destroy their rights. Who ever this person will be, is going to be confirmed and it will be the end of the Republic as we all know it. It will make a Trump candidacy irrelevant.

 

[irosie91]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word, "subversiveness". You may not agree with the president's nomination, but the president has the constitutional authority to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Senate has the power to consent or not consent to the appointment of the president's nominee. If some senators disapprove of the nominee, then they should cast their votes to withhold consent. They will be answerable for their votes to their constituents. That's the way our system works.

If the Senate stalls a vote, then members of the Senate will be viewed as obstructionists ... power hungry wolves. There is no political advantage to be gained by stalling.

I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.

I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.

Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.

??? cost analysis? the supreme court CAN function as it is now for less than one year

That is certainly something a stalling senator might tell his constituents, and his constituents might not accept this excuse and unseat his obstructionist butt ....

National Elections take place every even-numbered year. Every four years the president, vice president, one-third of the Senate, and the entire House are up for election (on-year elections). On even-numbered years when there isn't a presidential election, one-third of the Senate and the whole House are included in the election (off-year elections).

U.S. Senate: Elections

So yes ... a thinking senator will weigh the costs and benefits of stalling ....

why? just for stalling?

 

[Debra K]

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word, "subversiveness". You may not agree with the president's nomination, but the president has the constitutional authority to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Senate has the power to consent or not consent to the appointment of the president's nominee. If some senators disapprove of the nominee, then they should cast their votes to withhold consent. They will be answerable for their votes to their constituents. That's the way our system works.

If the Senate stalls a vote, then members of the Senate will be viewed as obstructionists ... power hungry wolves. There is no political advantage to be gained by stalling.

I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.

I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.

Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.

??? cost analysis? the supreme court CAN function as it is now for less than one year

That is certainly something a stalling senator might tell his constituents, and his constituents might not accept this excuse and unseat his obstructionist butt ....

National Elections take place every even-numbered year. Every four years the president, vice president, one-third of the Senate, and the entire House are up for election (on-year elections). On even-numbered years when there isn't a presidential election, one-third of the Senate and the whole House are included in the election (off-year elections).

U.S. Senate: Elections

So yes ... a thinking senator will weigh the costs and benefits of stalling ....

why? just for stalling?

You, sir, are a dullard .... yes, have you not heard of the concept of consequences? for instance, if you stall paying a bill when it comes due, there might be consequences .... unless you're still a dullard, you will THINK about that .... when you're sitting in dull darkness after the electric company shuts off your supply of electricity ... and you can ponder why ....

 

[mamooth]

Do away with lifetime appointments. Court's already crippled with those two dullards he appointed otherwise.

That just results in the kind of open corruption we see in Wisconsin. You know, where Wisconsin SC ruled that the financial corruption and cronyism which bought them their elections was perfectly legal.

Hence, I can see why conservatives love the idea.

 

[Obiwan]

I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.

I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.

Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.

??? cost analysis? the supreme court CAN function as it is now for less than one year

That is certainly something a stalling senator might tell his constituents, and his constituents might not accept this excuse and unseat his obstructionist butt ....

National Elections take place every even-numbered year. Every four years the president, vice president, one-third of the Senate, and the entire House are up for election (on-year elections). On even-numbered years when there isn't a presidential election, one-third of the Senate and the whole House are included in the election (off-year elections).

U.S. Senate: Elections

So yes ... a thinking senator will weigh the costs and benefits of stalling ....

why? just for stalling?

You, sir, are a dullard .... yes, have you not heard of the concept of consequences? for instance, if you stall paying a bill when it comes due, there might be consequences .... unless you're still a dullard, you will THINK about that .... when you're sitting in dull darkness after the electric company shuts off your supply of electricity ... and you can ponder why ....

And if you are faced with the prospect of hiring the village idiot, you wait for a suitable candidate to come along....

Failure to follow that simple rule has consequences, too....