Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Antonin Scalia dead
Comments
-
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?






