What's wrong with the GOP? Vote on Supreme Court Justice

[Vigilante]

This is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....

Buncha pussys

Yes,saying **** YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!

It doesn't take balls to be a *****, quite the opposite. If they had real balls they stand up for themselves

How would you know about balls...you're a liberal...BUT besides the obvious, the hypocrisy of the left on this matter, after all the video's in monumental!

 

[Slade3200]

This is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....

Buncha pussys

Yes,saying **** YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!

It doesn't take balls to be a *****, quite the opposite. If they had real balls they stand up for themselves

How would you know about balls...you're a liberal...BUT besides the obvious, the hypocrisy of the left on this matter, after all the video's in monumental!

And what do you say to those who don't play for the right or left? Those who condem the actions from dems in the past and the GOP current tantrum?

 

[Vigilante]

This is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....

Buncha pussys

Yes,saying **** YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!

It doesn't take balls to be a *****, quite the opposite. If they had real balls they stand up for themselves

How would you know about balls...you're a liberal...BUT besides the obvious, the hypocrisy of the left on this matter, after all the video's in monumental!

And what do you say to those who don't play for the right or left? Those who condem the actions from dems in the past and the GOP current tantrum?

Too ******* bad! The DemoRATS made the bed, now the Reps are going to sleep in it!

 

[Publius1787]

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

How am I being stupid? You make no sense. If these were executives in a business they would be fired so fast for pulling this crap

It's not a business, it is a government institution. Can you show us the timeline the Senate has to follow when a judge is nominated?

It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.

Obama's nomination was one that he thought the Senate would have to do some soul searching to refuse. He should have nominated a Black male Democrat since Thomas is just Scalia in Blackface. The president chose a White male with outstanding credentials showing that once again he was trying to meet the Senate more than half way...much to the chagrin of his Black constituency. Still, this unprecedented refusal to vet by the Senate continues with impunity.

No, the Dems have NEVER done the same to the Pubs. You cannot show me where the Democrats have ever refused to vet a nominee. They might have voted against confirmation or filibustered,but they engaged in the process as ordained by the Constitution. They have never refused to vet or conduct a hearing on USSC nominees.
Nice try but go back to square one and try again.

That's because when the Democrats tried to do so they didn't have the votes to sustain. Nevertheless I think Reid holds the record on blocked judicial nominees. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Well, YOU WERE wrong when you said the Dems did it to the Pubs. I am not interested in anecdotal reasons as to why the Dems didn't do it. BTW the Pubs have a chance to break Reid's record on this singe appointment if only they would do their jobs.

The Senates job, within their constitutional realm, is whatever they vote it to be within the rules. They have the right to do nothing. Sorry if this offends you.

The Senate's spheres of responsibilities in this case turn on the Constitutional stipulation " to advise and consent." That the republican majority would abrogate the Constitutional requirement in that way is offensive not only to me but to to all who elected Obama to do his job. Do the Republicans Senators really have the right to ignore the "advise and consent" stipulation? I don't think they do but we don't know for sure. After all, no precedent has been set. This hasn't happened in our entire history until now. Personally, I think Obama ought to bring this before the evenly divided court and hope that Roberts will come through again.

Yes they do have the right to ignore the advise and consent stipulation. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that one. Obama already got his balls smashed by the Supreme Court for recess appointments (9-0 by the way). Republicans refused to approve his NLRB appointees so he deemed the Senate in recess and gave them the job without consent of the Senate. National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning . You can hear the transcript on Oyez.org where the justices said that essentially doing nothing is in fact denying consent. I agree and with a 9-0 opinion what you say doesn't really matter. It is not only precedent but it is now well established that if the Senate does nothing it amounts to a refusal to consent.

 

[Publius1787]

It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.

Obama's nomination was one that he thought the Senate would have to do some soul searching to refuse. He should have nominated a Black male Democrat since Thomas is just Scalia in Blackface. The president chose a White male with outstanding credentials showing that once again he was trying to meet the Senate more than half way...much to the chagrin of his Black constituency. Still, this unprecedented refusal to vet by the Senate continues with impunity.

No, the Dems have NEVER done the same to the Pubs. You cannot show me where the Democrats have ever refused to vet a nominee. They might have voted against confirmation or filibustered,but they engaged in the process as ordained by the Constitution. They have never refused to vet or conduct a hearing on USSC nominees.
Nice try but go back to square one and try again.

That's because when the Democrats tried to do so they didn't have the votes to sustain. Nevertheless I think Reid holds the record on blocked judicial nominees. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Well, YOU WERE wrong when you said the Dems did it to the Pubs. I am not interested in anecdotal reasons as to why the Dems didn't do it. BTW the Pubs have a chance to break Reid's record on this singe appointment if only they would do their jobs.

The Senates job, within their constitutional realm, is whatever they vote it to be within the rules. They have the right to do nothing. Sorry if this offends you.

They also have a right as defined by the constitution to show up to work for only one day a year. Maybe they should all just do that too.

One day only a year? That'll be nice. I wish they would.

 

[Publius1787]

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the 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 Councils, 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 claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

Obama's already got his winky slammed in the door (9-0 vote) for assuming that he, not congress, has the authority to declare when the senate is in recess. (See National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning). You now purport that he has the right to decide when congress chooses to advise and consent? We have checks and balances. Obama just got checked.

I don't think anybody is arguing that the president should decide when the congress holds the hearing. It is their job to do it, and they are refusing to do it, plan and simple. The fact the constitution doesn't define a time period is a weak argument. The constitution also says that congress need to only meet once a year on January 3, should the members of congress only show up to work one day a year? That's what the constitution says, right? Bunch of idiots

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Congressional refusal to vote on an Presidential appointment amounts to a refusal of consent. They are doing their job. Your problem with them is that you want Republicans to open themselves up to scrutiny. The Republicans are obviously playing politics and your pissed that they haven't given the Democrats as large as an opportunity to play politics. Fat Chance.

But hey, Why doesn't Obama nominate the most Conservative qualified justice he can find? That will surely get the Senate to act. Thats, in part, how Kennedy got on the court.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Give it a freaking chance. Hussein only nominated him the day before yesterday. On the surface it seems that the judge might be a moderate but rumors persist that he holds unconstitutional personal bias against the 2nd Amendment. Let it play out.

I hope it plays out and congress does their job. I've been shaking my head for weeks at this posturing by the GOP to not even consider a nominee. It blows my mind and I still haven't heard a sensible justification.

Biden Rule.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Obama will be denied the opportunity to put another justice on the SCOTUS, he could nominate God and it will be request denied, out of spite!

I agree, spite is the purpose behind the stand off... Not this "Leave it up to the people" BS. This attitude is whats spinning our government down the drain.

The word you are searching for is 'consequences' as in, Obama behaves like an ass for the last 7 years and now there are consequences.

It is your opinion only. I believe that President Obama did a fine job over the last 7 years. Certainly better than the President before him.

So accomplishing nothing is better?

 

[JQPublic1]

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the 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 Councils, 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 claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

That's fine. File a lawsuit, and prove it to everyone in the court system. If you can actually make the case, and take it to court, do so. Otherwise, it's just opinion.

And maybe you are right. Was the destruction of Robert Bork right? Was the attempted disembowment of Clarence Thomas right?

Who said this..... "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?" - Florynce Kennedy, a left wing feminist.

As far as I can tell, the left wing is who turned judge appointment into a political ram rod. Was it not FDR who threatened to pack the court to get whatever he wanted, and magically the court suddenly started agreeing with whatever was passed?

You people haven't cared what the constitution says anyway. Where is social security, and medicare, given as a power of the Federal Government? Not there. Does not exist. So lets end those first, and then we'll deal with whether the Senate must agree to an Obama appointment.

Bork and Thomas were vetted, all the democrats are asking is that any nominee named by Obama be vetted as provided by the Advise and Consent Decree of the Constitution .Ignoring the Constitution is not an option and I expect this might end up in court.

 

[Papageorgio]

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the 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 Councils, 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 claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

That's fine. File a lawsuit, and prove it to everyone in the court system. If you can actually make the case, and take it to court, do so. Otherwise, it's just opinion.

And maybe you are right. Was the destruction of Robert Bork right? Was the attempted disembowment of Clarence Thomas right?

Who said this..... "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?" - Florynce Kennedy, a left wing feminist.

As far as I can tell, the left wing is who turned judge appointment into a political ram rod. Was it not FDR who threatened to pack the court to get whatever he wanted, and magically the court suddenly started agreeing with whatever was passed?

You people haven't cared what the constitution says anyway. Where is social security, and medicare, given as a power of the Federal Government? Not there. Does not exist. So lets end those first, and then we'll deal with whether the Senate must agree to an Obama appointment.

Bork and Thomas were vetted, all the democrats are asking is that any nominee named by Obama be vetted as provided by the Advise and Consent Decree of the Constitution .Ignoring the Constitution is not an option and I expect this might end up in court.

Again, what are the time constraints that are put on the Senate in the
Constitution?

 

[Never3ndr]

This is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....

Buncha pussys

Yes,saying **** YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!

Actually if they had balls they would have the hearing and deny the recommendation (they hold the majority in the Senate and should have no problem doing this). As it stands, they just look like a bunch of idiots sitting on their thumbs.

 

[Vigilante]

This is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....

Buncha pussys

Yes,saying **** YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!

Actually if they had balls they would have the hearing and deny the recommendation (they hold the majority in the Senate and should have no problem doing this). As it stands, they just look like a bunch of idiots sitting on their thumbs.

Perhaps to you they do, to me it looks like they are saving the taxpayer perhaps millions of $'s for a shame hearing that everyone knows the ending to!

 

[JQPublic1]

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the 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 Councils, 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 claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

Obama's already got his winky slammed in the door (9-0 vote) for assuming that he, not congress, has the authority to declare when the senate is in recess. (See National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning). You now purport that he has the right to decide when congress chooses to advise and consent? We have checks and balances. Obama just got checked.

I don't think anybody is arguing that the president should decide when the congress holds the hearing. It is their job to do it, and they are refusing to do it, plan and simple. The fact the constitution doesn't define a time period is a weak argument. The constitution also says that congress need to only meet once a year on January 3, should the members of congress only show up to work one day a year? That's what the constitution says, right? Bunch of idiots

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Congressional refusal to vote on an Presidential appointment amounts to a refusal of consent. They are doing their job. Your problem with them is that you want Republicans to open themselves up to scrutiny. The Republicans are obviously playing politics and your pissed that they haven't given the Democrats as large as an opportunity to play politics. Fat Chance.

But hey, Why doesn't Obama nominate the most Conservative qualified justice he can find? That will surely get the Senate to act. Thats, in part, how Kennedy got on the court.

You didn't cite the case that shows that a broad refusal to vet ANY presidential nominee by the Senate ( not Congress) has been ruled as valid and stands as a precedent. We aren't talking about inferior officers such as those mentioned in your example, we are talking about primary officers of the Supreme Court where advising =(after vetting) and Consent=(with concurrence of a Senate majority contingent upon qualification) is the ONLY option. The very words of the Constitution do not contain a provision for ignoring the vetting process of a primary federal officer.

You showed where Obama appointed NLRB officers during a recession (3 days) was invalidated by the USSC. You did not mention that his appointments were invalidated because the Congress was't recessed over 10 days. But the USSC nomination we are presently discussing has NOTHING to do with a recess appointment and nothing in that USSC decision suggested the Senate could circumvent the vetting process by doing nothing.

 

[Never3ndr]

This is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....

Buncha pussys

Yes,saying **** YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!

Actually if they had balls they would have the hearing and deny the recommendation (they hold the majority in the Senate and should have no problem doing this). As it stands, they just look like a bunch of idiots sitting on their thumbs.

Perhaps to you they do, to me it looks like they are saving the taxpayer perhaps millions of $'s for a shame hearing that everyone knows the ending to!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these guys are paid salary, not hourly wages. Where do you get that we would be saving millions of dollars if they sat around and did their job instead of not doing it?

 

[JQPublic1]

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the 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 Councils, 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 claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

That's fine. File a lawsuit, and prove it to everyone in the court system. If you can actually make the case, and take it to court, do so. Otherwise, it's just opinion.

And maybe you are right. Was the destruction of Robert Bork right? Was the attempted disembowment of Clarence Thomas right?

Who said this..... "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?" - Florynce Kennedy, a left wing feminist.

As far as I can tell, the left wing is who turned judge appointment into a political ram rod. Was it not FDR who threatened to pack the court to get whatever he wanted, and magically the court suddenly started agreeing with whatever was passed?

You people haven't cared what the constitution says anyway. Where is social security, and medicare, given as a power of the Federal Government? Not there. Does not exist. So lets end those first, and then we'll deal with whether the Senate must agree to an Obama appointment.

Bork and Thomas were vetted, all the democrats are asking is that any nominee named by Obama be vetted as provided by the Advise and Consent Decree of the Constitution .Ignoring the Constitution is not an option and I expect this might end up in court.

Again, what are the time constraints that are put on the Senate in the
Constitution?

I haven't seen any time constraints mentioned in the Constitution but action before November might be advisable. But that doesn't mean the Democrat Senators cant use some pressure of their own within the Senate to delay passage of Bills or legislation pushed by the Republicans. The republicans have 54 votes in the Senate and sometimes 60 votes are needed to pass certain legislation. The Democrats can still make life hard for republicans in the Senate with that 6 vote margin. I expect that strategy will be used to full effect if the Democrats stick together.

 

[Stephanie]

Go sit down Obama. take the advice of your own damn pick for VP. WE THE PEOPLE don't want your picks. all we want now is for you to GO, get gone, bye bye. counting down the days now.
Biden in '92: Bush Shouldn't Name SCOTUS Nominee Until After Election (VIDEO)

 

[MarcATL]

Give it a freaking chance. Hussein only nominated him the day before yesterday. On the surface it seems that the judge might be a moderate but rumors persist that he holds unconstitutional personal bias against the 2nd Amendment. Let it play out.

Sure, give them a little time so they can check out his birth certificate, or investigate whether he caused the Benghazi tragedy. They are right wingers. They'll make up some silly thing to accuse him of. They always have before.

What have they accused him of before?

They make up accusations. That's what they do. He hasn't been in their sights before, but made up accusations are SOP for the right.

Didn't you already see a USMB rightwinger post one of their latest made-up lies about the nominee? That he's somehow anti-second amendment. No proof whatsoever to back it up, but somehow they just know he is. Somehow.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

Maybe Joe Biden could explain it to you, Obama and the leftist media then:

Biden in 1992, if there was an opening on the Supreme Court, HW should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Thank you for demonstrating their hypocrisy AGAIN!!!!! We had a gazillion threads already about this. They've been whining about this since Scalia's passing... WTF?????

I'm not whining about anything you stupid *****. I agree with Biden in 1992 and I agree with the Republicans now. The Supreme Court doesn't give a shit about the law, they have a lifetime political appointment. Our country is too divided to be filling Supreme Court seats in the environment.

You're the whining hypocrite. Where do you think Biden was wrong exactly?

When will the country not be divided in the future? Who's going to bring them together?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

Maybe Joe Biden could explain it to you, Obama and the leftist media then:

Biden in 1992, if there was an opening on the Supreme Court, HW should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Thank you for demonstrating their hypocrisy AGAIN!!!!! We had a gazillion threads already about this. They've been whining about this since Scalia's passing... WTF?????

I'm not whining about anything you stupid *****. I agree with Biden in 1992 and I agree with the Republicans now. The Supreme Court doesn't give a shit about the law, they have a lifetime political appointment. Our country is too divided to be filling Supreme Court seats in the environment.

You're the whining hypocrite. Where do you think Biden was wrong exactly?

So ignore the constitution and ignore we already voted on who should select the next justice. Obama won, stop crying.

The neoconservative Republican party has been crying, wailing and moaning about Obama winning since 2008. They won't stop now.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[easyt65]

Democrats
- Are physically trying to deny freedom of speech
- Are physically trying to deny freedom to assemble
- Are physically trying to silence Trump, silence his message, deny people the right to hear that message, and to attend his rallies
- They are usung Fascist tactics to try to impose their minority will on the majority
- They break the law
- They have enbraced the intolerance of ISIS
- They have embraced and joined with a racist terrorist group that has called for the murder of all whites and policemen
- They are running an admitted Socialist as a candidate
- Their members show up at GOP rallies wearing kkk hoods and try to disrupt the events
- Their President just set the record for least FOIA Requests fulfilled
- Their President refuses to enforce US law, protects criminal illegals, protects cities that violate US federal law to provide violent criminal illegals a safe haven, and puts illegals as a higher priority than Americans
- Their President has aided and abbetted Mexican drug cartels, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeida, and ISIS
- New evidence/testimony reveals Obama ordered military troops on the way to Benghazi - that could have gotten there in time to save 2 Americans - to turn around / abort the mission, leaving Americans to die

...and liberals still ask what's wrong with the GOP?! SERIOUSLY?!