Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Antonin Scalia dead
Comments
-
Yep, my inside sources are telling me it's going to be Sri Srinivasan. The icing on the cake is that he's close personal friends with Cruz. tabbing his close friend in the back would even make Cruz more likable.AZDuck said:It will also be fun to see the rightie tighties in the Senate tell us why the guy that just got appointed to the DC Circuit and confirmed by a 97-0 vote is "extreme and unqualified"
KOMO link, buttfuckers! -
You don't actually give Obama the seat. You float rumors that you will. Obama is still very popular among democrats for some reason and that would push turnout in a general election. The argument against is it helps the turnout on the right but those people already had one chance to vote Obama out and failed.PurpleThrobber said:
While that may be a sweatpants boner for some leftists, neither Hilary or Bern are stupid enough to cede power to der Barrack for the remainder of his natural born life.AZDuck said:topdawgnc said:The recess appointment would be best.
Let Obama put his gay male, Arab, or transgender in place.
Then when the new President is elected we can change direction ... Or not
Big turnout usually helps the Dems - minorities, women, helots, ducks. If the Senate holds up Obummer's nominee they hand the Dems an issue for the Senate races - in a year the Dems look to be picking up seats (not an editorial comment - just a favorable map). Give the wimmens and the blicks a reason to show up and it could go very poorly.
Maybe the most chincredible outcome would be for the GOP to stall, Hillary to get elected, and put Obummer on the bench.
I also think you'd see a fucking MELTDOWN in the flyovers if that happened. And those fuckers have a lot of guns and religion and land on which to lay siege.
The other thing it does is put pressure on the right to just take an Obama selection. Is it worth the risk of losing the election and Obama having that seat? -
That's an unbelievably stupid strategy. Nobody would believe for a second that Obama would be a serious suggestion for the SCOTUS seat.allpurpleallgold said:
You don't actually give Obama the seat. You float rumors that you will. Obama is still very popular among democrats for some reason and that would push turnout in a general election. The argument against is it helps the turnout on the right but those people already had one chance to vote Obama out and failed.PurpleThrobber said:
While that may be a sweatpants boner for some leftists, neither Hilary or Bern are stupid enough to cede power to der Barrack for the remainder of his natural born life.AZDuck said:topdawgnc said:The recess appointment would be best.
Let Obama put his gay male, Arab, or transgender in place.
Then when the new President is elected we can change direction ... Or not
Big turnout usually helps the Dems - minorities, women, helots, ducks. If the Senate holds up Obummer's nominee they hand the Dems an issue for the Senate races - in a year the Dems look to be picking up seats (not an editorial comment - just a favorable map). Give the wimmens and the blicks a reason to show up and it could go very poorly.
Maybe the most chincredible outcome would be for the GOP to stall, Hillary to get elected, and put Obummer on the bench.
I also think you'd see a fucking MELTDOWN in the flyovers if that happened. And those fuckers have a lot of guns and religion and land on which to lay siege.
The other thing it does is put pressure on the right to just take an Obama selection. Is it worth the risk of losing the election and Obama having that seat? -
It's a fine suggestion if you want to incite dozens of Malheur County episodes before the election.GreenRiverGatorz said:
That's an unbelievably stupid strategy. Nobody would believe for a second that Obama would be a serious suggestion for the SCOTUS seat.allpurpleallgold said:
You don't actually give Obama the seat. You float rumors that you will. Obama is still very popular among democrats for some reason and that would push turnout in a general election. The argument against is it helps the turnout on the right but those people already had one chance to vote Obama out and failed.PurpleThrobber said:
While that may be a sweatpants boner for some leftists, neither Hilary or Bern are stupid enough to cede power to der Barrack for the remainder of his natural born life.AZDuck said:topdawgnc said:The recess appointment would be best.
Let Obama put his gay male, Arab, or transgender in place.
Then when the new President is elected we can change direction ... Or not
Big turnout usually helps the Dems - minorities, women, helots, ducks. If the Senate holds up Obummer's nominee they hand the Dems an issue for the Senate races - in a year the Dems look to be picking up seats (not an editorial comment - just a favorable map). Give the wimmens and the blicks a reason to show up and it could go very poorly.
Maybe the most chincredible outcome would be for the GOP to stall, Hillary to get elected, and put Obummer on the bench.
I also think you'd see a fucking MELTDOWN in the flyovers if that happened. And those fuckers have a lot of guns and religion and land on which to lay siege.
The other thing it does is put pressure on the right to just take an Obama selection. Is it worth the risk of losing the election and Obama having that seat?
-
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.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"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
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?Hippopeteamus said:
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.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"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
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.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different... -
If it is Sri, whom the senate confirmed 97-0 for his current position, and the Republicans stonewall this time -- they will look like complete buffoons, which could cost some of them their seats the next time they are up for reelection.bananasnblondes said:
Yep, my inside sources are telling me it's going to be Sri Srinivasan. The icing on the cake is that he's close personal friends with Cruz. tabbing his close friend in the back would even make Cruz more likable.AZDuck said:It will also be fun to see the rightie tighties in the Senate tell us why the guy that just got appointed to the DC Circuit and confirmed by a 97-0 vote is "extreme and unqualified"
KOMO link, buttfuckers!
And if they Republicans do stonewall, then I hope Obama does a recess appointment -- just to say "fuck you" to them. -
Some of you need to learn the definition of advise and consent.
Senate is currently advising Obama not to make a choice and if he does ... They will not consent.
Just following the Schumer Rule of 2007. -
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.dflea said: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..........................
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.
