Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Antonin Scalia dead
Comments
-
Independents win elections.topdawgnc said:
It'll bring out the conservatives by the bus loaddnc said:
GOP plays hardball, blocks the nomination, ergo enduring 11 months of awful press, thereby losing the senate and the presidency.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Hard to predict. The GOP obstructing the nomination all the way into the election could absolutely sink the Republicans chances for President. It's a lose-lose for the GOP.dhdawg said:No chance Obama makes this next appointment
If the GOP really goes through with keeping Obama from being able to select a justice, they deserve @owen538
HTH -
Hardy har har har har har
-
2004 says hi2001400ex said:
Independents win elections.topdawgnc said:
It'll bring out the conservatives by the bus loaddnc said:
GOP plays hardball, blocks the nomination, ergo enduring 11 months of awful press, thereby losing the senate and the presidency.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Hard to predict. The GOP obstructing the nomination all the way into the election could absolutely sink the Republicans chances for President. It's a lose-lose for the GOP.dhdawg said:No chance Obama makes this next appointment
If the GOP really goes through with keeping Obama from being able to select a justice, they deserve @owen538
HTH -
About 15% of GWB's 2004 vote is pushing daisies in 2016.topdawgnc said:
2004 says hi2001400ex said:
Independents win elections.topdawgnc said:
It'll bring out the conservatives by the bus loaddnc said:
GOP plays hardball, blocks the nomination, ergo enduring 11 months of awful press, thereby losing the senate and the presidency.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Hard to predict. The GOP obstructing the nomination all the way into the election could absolutely sink the Republicans chances for President. It's a lose-lose for the GOP.dhdawg said:No chance Obama makes this next appointment
If the GOP really goes through with keeping Obama from being able to select a justice, they deserve @owen538
HTH -
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.htmltopdawgnc said:
2004 says hi2001400ex said:
Independents win elections.topdawgnc said:
It'll bring out the conservatives by the bus loaddnc said:
GOP plays hardball, blocks the nomination, ergo enduring 11 months of awful press, thereby losing the senate and the presidency.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Hard to predict. The GOP obstructing the nomination all the way into the election could absolutely sink the Republicans chances for President. It's a lose-lose for the GOP.dhdawg said:No chance Obama makes this next appointment
If the GOP really goes through with keeping Obama from being able to select a justice, they deserve @owen538
HTH
I wouldn't say that conservatives coming out in bus loads won the election. But I was surprised how even the moderates were. -
-
-
Robert Bork says your pussies. Senate doesn't have to vote yes on any nomination
-
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 -
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.
-
It would be smart for both Hillary and Bernie to float this idea.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. -
So many compassionate liberals in this thread.
-
shit postPurpleJ said:So many compassionate liberals in this thread.
-
-
Thanks, Lib!
I have a best friend that is a Lib, but we have a deal. I always root for Libs unless they are playing my Dawgs, and he always roots for Libs unless they are playing my DAWGS.
DAWG SENSE!!
GET ITTTTTT!!! -
-
Good. Ding dong the witch is dead.
-
I guess I just don't give a fuck. Aren't most of the major issues settled? They finally got around to guns in 2008, abortion was nailed (heh) down in 73, and Miranda's been on the books for decades. What huge pressing constitutional issues are left that are going to affect me?
IDGAF -
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? -
Blacks and women DGAF about the SCOTUSAZDuck 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.
HTH -
Everybody does it!RaceBannon said:Robert Bork says your pussies. Senate doesn't have to vote yes on any nomination
-
The right to kill these pasty cocksuckers that took your land?Swaye said:I guess I just don't give a fuck. Aren't most of the major issues settled? They finally got around to guns in 2008, abortion was nailed (heh) down in 73, and Miranda's been on the books for decades. What huge pressing constitutional issues are left that are going to affect me?
IDGAF -
So that's one vote for Muslim.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. -
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
-
Absolutely. But the Senate GOP leaders have already said they will block Obama's nominee, without there actually being a nominee yet. If they had at least waited until someone was tapped they could have used the veil of "non-political reasons" to obstruct it, but they blew their load too soon.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? -
Just as I predicted, Cruz has vowed to block any appointment made by Obama under the banner of "the voters should decide" (although not the voters in 2012 apparently). This maneuver essentially opens the playbook up for the dems. Their best bet would be to nominate a black center-left justice and force the GOP to block. Then beat the issue into the ground for 10 months.
-
concurbananasnblondes said:Just as I predicted, Cruz has vowed to block any appointment made by Obama under the banner of "the voters should decide" (although not the voters in 2012 apparently). This maneuver essentially opens the playbook up for the dems. Their best bet would be to nominate a black center-left justice and force the GOP to block. Then beat the issue into the ground for 10 months.
-
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.
-
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!
