What could be the reason for a president...constitutionally...choosing a SC nominee?

[nat4900]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

 

[Auld Phart]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

What is the responsibility of Congress when the president nominates someone?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama should nominate Miguel Estrada. I'm sure the Senate would let a vote go forward.

 

[nat4900]

What is the responsibility of Congress when the president nominates someone?

First, let me remind you that it is not "congress" and that you mean just the senate....

But, there must have been a reason why the Founders aid the president shall nominate and NOT "the senate shall nominate"....See the difference?

 

[EriktheRed]

Obama should nominate Miguel Estrada. I'm sure the Senate would let a vote go forward.

You wanna primary Mark Kirk if he votes for whoever the Prez nominates?

 

[nat4900]

Obama should nominate Miguel Estrada. I'm sure the Senate would let a vote go forward.

Estrada was a staunch ideologue; nonetheless, this thread is not about whether democrats in GWB first term were right in filibustering Estrada confirmation.......and, current senate republicans can certainly do the same filibustering and....like those democrats 14 years ago, suffer the consequences.

 

[Auld Phart]

What is the responsibility of Congress when the president nominates someone?

First, let me remind you that it is not "congress" and that you mean just the senate....

But, there must have been a reason why the Founders aid the president shall nominate and NOT "the senate shall nominate"....See the difference?

Very good impersonation of a parrot.

What is the SENATES role in the process?


(BTW, since when it the Senate not a part of Congress? )

 

[nat4900]

Very good impersonation of a parrot.

What is the SENATES role in the process?


(BTW, since when it the Senate not a part of Congress? )

Go play with your gun down in your basement...You're not worth the keystrokes....BYE

 

[Auld Phart]

Very good impersonation of a parrot.

What is the SENATES role in the process?


(BTW, since when it the Senate not a part of Congress? )

Go play with your gun down in your basement...You're not worth the keystrokes....BYE

Can't answer the question, or afraid too?

President nominates.

What is the Senates role?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama should nominate Miguel Estrada. I'm sure the Senate would let a vote go forward.

You wanna primary Mark Kirk if he votes for whoever the Prez nominates?

If he votes for Estrada, I'd be okay with that.

 

[bripat9643]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

 

[Timmy]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

 

[bripat9643]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

If they believe Obama's choice is not a good one, then their duty is to not confirm him. I can't imagine Obama nominating anyone who isn't intent on destroying the Constitution.

 

[Rustic]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

Washington is a fuck up, the more dysfunctional they are the better off the country is.

 

[Auld Phart]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

They should just rubberstamp whoever he nominates?

 

[Timmy]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

If they believe Obama's choice is not a good one, then their duty is to not confirm him. I can't imagine Obama nominating anyone who isn't intent on destroying the Constitution.

HE HASNT MADE A CHOICE !!!! Shows you who's just to blame for all the gridlock doesn't it . The GOP won't even pretend to be on the up and up .

 

[Timmy]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

They should just rubberstamp whoever he nominates?

Nope .

As it stands , they are rubber stamping "no".

 

[bripat9643]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

If they believe Obama's choice is not a good one, then their duty is to not confirm him. I can't imagine Obama nominating anyone who isn't intent on destroying the Constitution.

HE HASNT MADE A CHOICE !!!! Shows you who's just to blame for all the gridlock doesn't it . The GOP won't even pretend to be on the up and up .

We already know what kind of choice he'll make. They're all DOA.

 

[Auld Phart]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

They should just rubberstamp whoever he nominates?

Nope .

As it stands , they are rubber stamping "no".

As it stands , they are rubber stamping "no".

AS IT STANDS, there is no one to rubberstamp, OR deny.

 

[bripat9643]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

They have no duty to confirm any of Obama's nominations.