User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 8:57:17 AM EDT
[#1]
I seriously doubt they can hold out for a year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 8:57:36 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and will be painted as obstructionist...that's fine for a Primary but there is a general election forthcoming......checkers not chess and coming out hrs within the mans death and laying out a public strategy was a huge mistep This is exactly why coming out and blocking anyone is a good thing. Had they let Obama make a pick then block the left would accuse the right of blocking that person because of their identity. "WAR ON WOMEN!!!" "YOU'RE RACIST!!!" "LOOK HOW QUALIFIED HE/SHE IS!!!" Now it's "Nope.....Don't care who they are, we're blocking them" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 8:57:44 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. no kidding. f'ing retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 8:58:02 AM EDT
[#4]
Obama has the power to nominate.
Senate has the power to confirm or not. I'd prefer they all act like professionals, let dear leader make his nomination, vet that nomination, and either confirm or deny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 8:59:14 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no kidding. f'ing retarded. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. no kidding. f'ing retarded. Although I understand............so what.............be fucking men and just say NO AND STICK WITH IT for god's sake. Should be as easy as tying their shoes. Fuck what any filthy commie democrat says about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 8:59:44 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He just gave a press release naming who he would nominate. Both staunch conservatives. But don't let that stop you from getting your digs in Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
CRUZ is the constitutionalist. Would make wiser pics. Trump is a liberal live wire. Might as well let obongo do it if you're thinking the liberal democrat from NY will do any better  He just gave a press release naming who he would nominate. Both staunch conservatives. But don't let that stop you from getting your digs in You already got destroyed in that thread, trump came out to do damage control 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:00:45 AM EDT
[#7]
BTW.....This reads like the headline is trying to make more than what is really there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:00:54 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is exactly why coming out and blocking anyone is a good thing. Had they let Obama make a pick then block the left would accuse the right of blocking that person because of their identity. "WAR ON WOMEN!!!" "YOU'RE RACIST!!!" "LOOK HOW QUALIFIED HE/SHE IS!!!" Now it's "Nope.....Don't care who they are, we're blocking them" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and will be painted as obstructionist...that's fine for a Primary but there is a general election forthcoming......checkers not chess and coming out hrs within the mans death and laying out a public strategy was a huge mistep This is exactly why coming out and blocking anyone is a good thing. Had they let Obama make a pick then block the left would accuse the right of blocking that person because of their identity. "WAR ON WOMEN!!!" "YOU'RE RACIST!!!" "LOOK HOW QUALIFIED HE/SHE IS!!!" Now it's "Nope.....Don't care who they are, we're blocking them" He will for sure nominate someone who is a member of one or more of the various protected classes. It will make it easier to cry the appropriate "ism" throughout the entire election cycle, not that they won't be doing that anyway but now look at the evidence! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:02:18 AM EDT
[#9]
So a rag newspaper writes an article that says the republicans are showing signs they might pass Obama's pick means they have caved.
I love hyperbole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:03:07 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He will for sure nominate someone who is a member of one or more of the various protected classes. It will make it easier to cry the appropriate "ism" throughout the entire election cycle, not that they won't be doing that anyway but now look at the evidence! You mean like Clarence Thomas? We just need to find someone in an EVEN MORE protected class, who was sexually harassed or otherwise molested by the nominee. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:04:08 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BTW.....This reads like the headline is trying to make more than what is really there. I swear Drudge trolls GD.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:04:19 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean like Clarence Thomas? We just need to find someone in an EVEN MORE protected class, who was sexually harassed or otherwise molested by the nominee. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He will for sure nominate someone who is a member of one or more of the various protected classes. It will make it easier to cry the appropriate "ism" throughout the entire election cycle, not that they won't be doing that anyway but now look at the evidence! You mean like Clarence Thomas? We just need to find someone in an EVEN MORE protected class, who was sexually harassed or otherwise molested by the nominee. Liberals and the media don't recognize that he is black. You're only truly black or gay or whatever in their eyes if you vote the correct way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:06:43 AM EDT
[#13]
They are just doing what they should have done in the first place. Telegraphing that move was stupid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:07:23 AM EDT
[#14]
THESE GUYS ARE FUCKING MORONS! WORRIED ABOUT BEING LABELED AN OBSTRUCTIONIST? WHO GIVES A FUCK? THIS IS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY!
YOU KNOW DAMN WELL THE DEMOCRATS WOULD NEVER ALLOW A VOTE IF ROLES WERE REVERSED. GET SOME FUCKING BACKBONE! FUCK! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:08:17 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd like to know how letting the Constitution work as intended is "caving." Has it been done before? As I understand it, yes. It doesn't make it right though, by either side. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not like it hasn't been done before. The GOP needs to start acting like the dems and quit caving. They are the majority party and were elected by the people to do a job. Instead they give the limbs whatever they want. I'd like to know how letting the Constitution work as intended is "caving." Has it been done before? As I understand it, yes. It doesn't make it right though, by either side. Actually, checks and balances is exactly how the Constitution is supposed to work. The Senate was never intended to be a rubber stamp for the President. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:08:24 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd like to know how letting the Constitution work as intended is "caving." Has it been done before? As I understand it, yes. It doesn't make it right though, by either side. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not like it hasn't been done before. The GOP needs to start acting like the dems and quit caving. They are the majority party and were elected by the people to do a job. Instead they give the limbs whatever they want. I'd like to know how letting the Constitution work as intended is "caving." Has it been done before? As I understand it, yes. It doesn't make it right though, by either side. The constitution gives the president the power to nominate justices up until his final day, so Obama is within his right to do so. The constitution gives the congress the power to block those justices up until the president's final day, so congress is within their rights to do so. This is a power game. Let's see who folds. Unfortunately, it will be the republicans. I agree with the earlier poster, who said that the Republicans should have never said they would block any nominee. They should have said, " We will work for the people to assure that we have the best justice possible, no matter how long that process takes ", and let the president nominate, then dragged the process out until Obama was out of office. That statement would look , on the one hand, that they are not obstructionists, and on the other, mentioning the long process, lets the right see that they are going to block the nominations. I swear these people in power haven't got a clue how to communicate the right message. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:08:34 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Liberals and the media don't recognize that he is black. You're only truly black or gay or whatever in their eyes if you vote the correct way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He will for sure nominate someone who is a member of one or more of the various protected classes. It will make it easier to cry the appropriate "ism" throughout the entire election cycle, not that they won't be doing that anyway but now look at the evidence! You mean like Clarence Thomas? We just need to find someone in an EVEN MORE protected class, who was sexually harassed or otherwise molested by the nominee. Liberals and the media don't recognize that he is black. You're only truly black or gay or whatever in their eyes if you vote the correct way. I'd still love to see the political equivalent of a transgender Whoopi Goldberg testifying at the confirmation hearing about how nominee Loretta Lynch is homophobic and full of microaggressions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:09:21 AM EDT
[#18]
If the idiot RINO's blow this situation we are truly fucked. Just drag your feet and say no, while we pray that Cruz gets elected. The Dems would have no problem doing this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:11:18 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obama has the power to nominate. Senate has the power to confirm or not. I'd prefer they all act like professionals, let dear leader make his nomination, vet that nomination, and either confirm or deny. What about the system that worked for decades that was circumvented to allow the demos to push through nominations with a simple majority when they could not get confirmed under the 60 vote rule? A rule that was designed to add power to the minority on really important issues like SCOTUS appointments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:12:22 AM EDT
[#20]
Again, a lesson that Republicans don't see how this game is being played. These aren't blue dog democrats they are up against. These are cutthroat vicious progressives who play for keeps. They aren't looking to get along with the Rs. They are looking to destroy them completely, as in they won't exist anymore. This is why democrats win.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:16:07 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, a lesson that Republicans don't see how this game is being played. These aren't blue dog democrats they are up against. These are cutthroat vicious progressives who play for keeps. They aren't looking to get along with the Rs. They are looking to destroy them completely, as in they won't exist anymore. This is why democrats win. Yup. Their goal - and they've succeed brilliantly at it starting with FDR (and arguably Wilson) - is to creep the Overton Window of the entire body politic steadily to the left. And for the most part, it's a ratchet. It only goes left. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:16:51 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, a lesson that Republicans don't see how this game is being played. These aren't blue dog democrats they are up against. These are cutthroat vicious progressives who play for keeps. They aren't looking to get along with the Rs. They are looking to destroy them completely, as in they won't exist anymore. This is why democrats win. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:20:06 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and will be painted as obstructionist...that's fine for a Primary but there is a general election forthcoming......checkers not chess and coming out hrs within the mans death and laying out a public strategy was a huge mistep This. They should have just played along, dragging their feet at every stage of the process until "look by golly, we're out of time." Now that 0 knows he's on a "contested" timeline, he'll probably throw some name out right away. Conversely, he may nominate someone fairly moderate just so he can get someone (his THIRD nominee) on the court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:21:31 AM EDT
[#24]
Just think if they wait and sanders get elected. Lol. Frankly has a 66% chance of going badly for us.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:21:55 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. They should have just played along, dragging their feet at every stage of the process until "look by golly, we're out of time." Now that 0 knows he's on a "contested" timeline, he'll probably throw some name out right away. Conversely, he may nominate someone fairly moderate just so he can get someone (his THIRD nominee) on the court. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and will be painted as obstructionist...that's fine for a Primary but there is a general election forthcoming......checkers not chess and coming out hrs within the mans death and laying out a public strategy was a huge mistep This. They should have just played along, dragging their feet at every stage of the process until "look by golly, we're out of time." Now that 0 knows he's on a "contested" timeline, he'll probably throw some name out right away. Conversely, he may nominate someone fairly moderate just so he can get someone (his THIRD nominee) on the court. They're already tried to backpedal to that position, but it's too late. Personally, IDGAF. Obstruct away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:22:43 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just think if they wait and sanders get elected. Lol. Frankly has a 66% chance of going badly for us. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I don't think it matters. Our choices are 100% liberal or 66% more liberal. Expected value is about equal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:24:26 AM EDT
[#27]
I don't see this as them caving.
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states: "He 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 Senate has a Constitutional obligation to consider any person the President nominates. The Senate should question the nominee in the Judiciary committee, consider giving consent, then advise the President that that nominee isn't suitable, and they should do that for every nominee that Obama sends. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:25:08 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Although I understand............so what.............be fucking men and just say NO AND STICK WITH IT for god's sake. Should be as easy as tying their shoes. Fuck what any filthy commie democrat says about it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. no kidding. f'ing retarded. Although I understand............so what.............be fucking men and just say NO AND STICK WITH IT for god's sake. Should be as easy as tying their shoes. Fuck what any filthy commie democrat says about it. fine, except for the need to manipulate enough moron voters into hitting the R button this fall to keep a grasp on congress and win the white house. if they don't win the white house, stalling obama's appointment will do nothing because bernie will just make the next one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:25:38 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not saying that it does, but "we're going to block who you pick until if/when our guy gets in office" is bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where in the Constitution does it say "the President should wait to confirm who runs the highest court in the land until the other side gets what they want?" Oh wait, it doesn't.  so now the constitution has meaning to the demsI'm not saying that it does, but "we're going to block who you pick until if/when our guy gets in office" is bullshit. Do you think every SCOTUS nominee has been appointed or even made it to the floor for a vote? 151 have been nominated, 29 have been unsuccessful. Twelve outright rejections including all of John Tyler's nominations via a hostile Senate(towards him). The POTUS nominates, the Senate confirms period. The Senate has no obligation to confirm, put a nominee to a vote or do anything at all. Yes, elections do have consequences, not just the election of a POTUS. It is time for the Senate to check BHO as defined by the Constitution designed by the Founders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:27:24 AM EDT
[#30]
Not up to Grassley. If McConnell holds up, it is his call.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:27:41 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............. fine, except for the need to manipulate enough moron voters into hitting the R button this fall to keep a grasp on congress. Yes...................but FUCK IT.............no more concessions, appearances to be reasonable, etc.,...............FUCK THE LIBERALS. It's time to throw caution to the wind IMHO because their namby pamby ways have done VERY little in recent years IMHO. And the liberals continue on in their SUCCESSFUL slash and burn tactics...................and get EVERY FUCKING THING they want except for a total ban on firearms............which is what this is ultimately all about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:28:38 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
snip The POTUS nominates, the Senate confirms period. The Senate has no obligation to confirm, put a nominee to a vote or do anything at all. snip spot on |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:28:56 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will cave for sure. Spineless fucks. I said it from day 1. They cave everytme. Trump 2016 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:29:34 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CRUZ is the constitutionalist. Would make wiser pics. Trump is a liberal live wire. Might as well let obongo do it if you're thinking the liberal democrat from NY will do any better You do realize that Reagan was a Democrat for the first 51 years of his life, don't you? “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.” . . . . . Ronald Reagan, 1962 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:32:18 AM EDT
[#35]
Who did He nominate?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:35:18 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and will be painted as obstructionist...that's fine for a Primary but there is a general election forthcoming......checkers not chess and coming out hrs within the mans death and laying out a public strategy was a huge mistep This. I'm not sure that's "caving" just yet. (not that I think they won't eventually) The smart move is to hold the hearings then not confirm. Then hope that a R gets elected. That's a not so subtle message to all of you who will sit home once again unless your perfect candidate is nominated. Sometimes you have to take baby steps. If the dumbasses who stayed at home when Mitt was running, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:37:05 AM EDT
[#37]
Obama can nominate all day long the Senate can refuse to hear the nomination. I agree Mitch should have kept his mouth shut.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:39:22 AM EDT
[#38]
July.
That's when the senate will confirm Obama's nominee. Washington has been an illusion and charade for 30 years. Nothing Washington does benefits America. Washington ONLY does what benefits itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:40:18 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and will be painted as obstructionist...that's fine for a Primary but there is a general election forthcoming......checkers not chess and coming out hrs within the mans death and laying out a public strategy was a huge mistep Disagree. Position taken before O nominates a transgender, lesbian, atheist of color and claims of racism, sexism and homophobia can be made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:41:53 AM EDT
[#40]
I just read another article this morning where McConnell says they will hold off until the next president is elected, claiming that this will indicate better what the people want to happen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:44:23 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not saying that it does, but "we're going to block who you pick until if/when our guy gets in office" is bullshit. This bullshit has been practiced for generations and is within the purvue of the Senate. Agree or disagree with their choice to do so, it IS the Senate's prerogative to do so. It is a shame that civics is no longer taught. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:44:40 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
THESE GUYS ARE FUCKING MORONS! WORRIED ABOUT BEING LABELED AN OBSTRUCTIONIST? WHO GIVES A FUCK? THIS IS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY! YOU KNOW DAMN WELL THE DEMOCRATS WOULD NEVER ALLOW A VOTE IF ROLES WERE REVERSED. GET SOME FUCKING BACKBONE! FUCK! Reverse that again and the hue and cry would be heard to the moon from those here if there was a Dem Senate and a GOP POTUS that put forth a conservative nominee in the mold of Scalia and the Dems tried pushing it back till the election. To Mars were it a GOP controlled Senate and a GOP POTUS. Nope, The Turtle has put himself in a very untenable position by barking first. Dumb fuck. That said it's likely by design.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:46:24 AM EDT
[#43]
I wish I had a small bit of confidence in the GOP holding the line on this issue. Frankly, I'd be shocked
 if they don't cave in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:46:56 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
fine, except for the need to manipulate enough moron voters into hitting the R button this fall to keep a grasp on congress and win the white house. if they don't win the white house, stalling obama's appointment will do nothing because bernie will just make the next one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. no kidding. f'ing retarded. Although I understand............so what.............be fucking men and just say NO AND STICK WITH IT for god's sake. Should be as easy as tying their shoes. Fuck what any filthy commie democrat says about it. fine, except for the need to manipulate enough moron voters into hitting the R button this fall to keep a grasp on congress and win the white house. if they don't win the white house, stalling obama's appointment will do nothing because bernie will just make the next one. And we'd be no worse off than we are if 0 gets someone confirmed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:47:41 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The constitution does not mandate that the Senate consent to any appointment the President wishes to make. They can withhold or grant consent as they please, part of the system of checks and balances. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not like it hasn't been done before. The GOP needs to start acting like the dems and quit caving. They are the majority party and were elected by the people to do a job. Instead they give the limbs whatever they want. I'd like to know how letting the Constitution work as intended is "caving." Has it been done before? As I understand it, yes. It doesn't make it right though, by either side. The constitution does not mandate that the Senate consent to any appointment the President wishes to make. They can withhold or grant consent as they please, part of the system of checks and balances. Exactly. he puts up a radical leftwing asshole...it's their duty to tell him to fuck off. If he puts up a more moderate candidate...well...they'll bicker and bitch before confirming, but will do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:47:52 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You do realize that Reagan was a Democrat for the first 51 years of his life, don't you? “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.” . . . . . Ronald Reagan, 1962 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
CRUZ is the constitutionalist. Would make wiser pics. Trump is a liberal live wire. Might as well let obongo do it if you're thinking the liberal democrat from NY will do any better You do realize that Reagan was a Democrat for the first 51 years of his life, don't you? “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.” . . . . . Ronald Reagan, 1962 1962. 18 years before he was elected. Please stop comparing the two. Trump is still a liberal. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:50:37 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not saying that it does, but "we're going to block who you pick until if/when our guy gets in office" is bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where in the Constitution does it say "the President should wait to confirm who runs the highest court in the land until the other side gets what they want?" Oh wait, it doesn't. so now the constitution has meaning to the demsI'm not saying that it does, but "we're going to block who you pick until if/when our guy gets in office" is bullshit. It's not, actually. The SC has operated with 8 and 10 justices before. Part of the same document you're worried about also gives the senate ( well, it WAS states) the right to confirm anyone nominated. So how is the president using his right okay bit not the senate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:52:53 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will cave. They always have and there is no evidence this will be any different............ Correct. I have said it from the moment the issue came up. They are corrupt to the core. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:54:41 AM EDT
[#49]
Nomination of 1 sc justice is bigger than any one of them and they know this.
If they cave if shows they do not care about their constituents at all and only confirms the fact that they are all corrupt fucks. If it happens it only confirms how fucking screwed we are, and it is truly the point where we have no representation left in washington. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:56:53 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not like it hasn't been done before. The GOP needs to start acting like the dems and quit caving. They are the majority party and were elected by the people to do a job. Instead they give the limbs whatever they want. I'd like to know how letting the Constitution work as intended is "caving." Has it been done before? As I understand it, yes. It doesn't make it right though, by either side. The constitution does not mandate that the Senate consent to any appointment the President wishes to make. They can withhold or grant consent as they please, part of the system of checks and balances. I see. And, iirc, nobama played this same game when he was a senator |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
