Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
He has no "Constitutional Duty" to nominate a justice without the Consent and Advice of the Senate.
Charles Schumer understood that:
"We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
As did 1960 Democrats (linked on the college football boreds)
As did the Senate in 1968 with LBJ
The advice of the Senate is to not nominate. If he chooses to, then they will not consent ... as is their "Constitutional Duty".
I am sorry you do not agree with the Constitution, or the mid-term elections of 2014. But as a famous man once said:
Elections have consequences.
I am all in favor of a recess appointment, and I am all in favor of Obama making an appointment. And if he was a smart man he would nominate that Injun, not Swaye, who was confirmed with a 97-0 vote.
But there is nothing that says the Senate has to abide.
Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
He has no "Constitutional Duty" to nominate a justice without the Consent and Advice of the Senate.
Charles Schumer understood that:
"We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
As did 1960 Democrats (linked on the college football boreds)
As did the Senate in 1968 with LBJ
The advice of the Senate is to not nominate. If he chooses to, then they will not consent ... as is their "Constitutional Duty".
I am sorry you do not agree with the Constitution, or the mid-term elections of 2014. But as a famous man once said:
Elections have consequences.
I am all in favor of a recess appointment, and I am all in favor of Obama making an appointment. And if he was a smart man he would nominate that Injun, not Swaye, who was confirmed with a 97-0 vote.
But there is nothing that says the Senate has to abide.
You need to learn how looking like a cunt doesn't play well for you if your seat is vulnerable.
If they will not consent on a candidate like Srinivasan, they look like cunts, and their seats become more vulnerable, and risk losing control of the Senate.
Which would be a stupid fucking thing to do - but they are Republicans, so..........................
Some issues are worth going to the mat for.
This is one.
The GOP will lose regardless ... If they buckle they right stays home. Better to go down swinging.
Throw up the mattresses ... Time for war.
Why?
Going to war over transitions of power in the government is exactly what this country is NOT about.
You sound like a partisan fucktard.
I am a partisan fucktard. No running from the fact the left scares the shit out of me and I realize ONLY the judicial branch of government makes a long term difference. Bush, Obama, Clinton ... all can be undone. Justices and their rulings are much more difficult to undo.
And I would disagree ... going to war over transitions of power is EXACTLY what this government is about and founded upon.
Maybe you should read the Declaration of Independence.
Or read some history on Robert Bork and Clarance Thomas.
Or take a read at what Schumer said about Bush with no open appointment.
...As we all know, there has been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good guy; that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe it calls for meaningful advice and consent and that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record...
Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree. But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree. But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.
Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree. But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.
Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree. But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.
I said he gets to nominate someone.
And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.
And deal with the consequences of Democrats screaming that the Republicans are the party of "no" and this is the latest example.
Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree. But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.
I said he gets to nominate someone.
And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.
Why would they do that if he nominates a qualified candidate?
Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree. But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.
I said he gets to nominate someone.
And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.
Why would they do that if he nominates a qualified candidate?
Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree. But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.
I said he gets to nominate someone.
And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.
And deal with the consequences of Democrats screaming that the Republicans are the party of "no" and this is the latest example.
Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree. But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.
I said he gets to nominate someone.
And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.
And deal with the consequences of Democrats screaming that the Republicans are the party of "no" and this is the latest example.
Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree. But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.
I said he gets to nominate someone.
And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.
Why would they do that if he nominates a qualified candidate?
Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree. But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.
I said he gets to nominate someone.
And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.
Why would they do that if he nominates a qualified candidate?
Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree. But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.
I said he gets to nominate someone.
And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.
Why would they do that if he nominates a qualified candidate?
To be cunts.
Which Toppy supports.
Because he's a cunt.
I'll be amused when whine like a little bitch because the EPA shuts down your favorite fishing areas.
Or the Supreme Court limits your right to bear arms.
I couldn't give two fucks about the President or who controls Congress.
Lost in this political bitching thread, is that Scalia died in some really posh resort owned by someone he "helped" a while back by refusing to hear an age discrimination suit owned by the guys' company. Anyways, if an autopsy was done I wonder how much viagra and cocaine would have been found in his system.
Disagree "Advise and CONSENT" Consent: Give permission for something to happen. Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment. If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes. Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause). Edit: Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Ummm, ya think?
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.
No. That's not the fucking point.
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree. But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.
I said he gets to nominate someone.
And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.
Why would they do that if he nominates a qualified candidate?
To be cunts.
Which Toppy supports.
Because he's a cunt.
I'll be amused when whine like a little bitch because the EPA shuts down your favorite fishing areas.
Or the Supreme Court limits your right to bear arms.
I couldn't give two fucks about the President or who controls Congress.
But the SCOTUS ... That shit gets real.
The chincredible vote was for the chincredible amount of sand in your vag.
The EPA stands no chance of keeping me from fishing. And I don't have any guns - lost them all in a tragic boating accident.
Comments
Charles Schumer understood that:
"We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
As did 1960 Democrats (linked on the college football boreds)
As did the Senate in 1968 with LBJ
The advice of the Senate is to not nominate. If he chooses to, then they will not consent ... as is their "Constitutional Duty".
I am sorry you do not agree with the Constitution, or the mid-term elections of 2014. But as a famous man once said:
Elections have consequences.
I am all in favor of a recess appointment, and I am all in favor of Obama making an appointment. And if he was a smart man he would nominate that Injun, not Swaye, who was confirmed with a 97-0 vote.
But there is nothing that says the Senate has to abide.
Reference Bork.
Jesus ... I could go on and on with precedent ...
And I would disagree ... going to war over transitions of power is EXACTLY what this government is about and founded upon.
Maybe you should read the Declaration of Independence.
Or read some history on Robert Bork and Clarance Thomas.
Or take a read at what Schumer said about Bush with no open appointment.
But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I said he gets to nominate someone.
Which Toppy supports.
Because he's a cunt.
Or the Supreme Court limits your right to bear arms.
I couldn't give two fucks about the President or who controls Congress.
But the SCOTUS ... That shit gets real.
The EPA stands no chance of keeping me from fishing. And I don't have any guns - lost them all in a tragic boating accident.