So now the f---tards want to obstruct the Constitutionally mandated duty of the President (Page 2): I suppose that depends on why you believe that they are rolling in their graves. I...

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

PrairieSeasons wrote:

Our nation is highly polarized. Until that's resolved, there's not much chance of approaching your aspiration.

I suppose that depends on why you believe that they are rolling in their graves. I don't think it is because our nation is highly polarized. Our nation has been highly polarized many times in history. Heck, there were instances in the early 1800s when physical brawls broke out on the floor of Congress.

Rather, I think it is when certain parties stop respecting the idea of parliamentary procedure and want to thwart the other side using unfair and unethical means that violate the constitution and procedural rules for the purpose of grinding the functioning of our government to a halt.

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

Keenan wrote:

I suppose that depends on why you believe that the... (show quote)

You mean like Harry Reid?

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

PrairieSeasons wrote:

You mean like Harry Reid?

Wouldn't it be cool if we could all some day aspire to stop making the founding fathers roll in their graves, rather than constantly saying, "mommy, he did it first!"?

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

Keenan wrote:

Wouldn't it be cool if we could all some day aspire to stop making the founding fathers roll in their graves, rather than constantly saying, "mommy, he did it first!"?

That would be cool. Unfortunately the last five senate majority leaders left a lot to be desired, and I don't recall any of them invoking either their mothers or their predecessors.

Jackel Loc: California

sorry for the double entry

Jackel Loc: California

:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

richard-sports wrote:

All you hear from the Cruz-shits and the Rubio-shits and the McConnell-shits is Constitution, Constitution, Constitution. But when the President wants to do his Constitutional duty and nominate a Supreme Court Justice then the f---tards scream no,no,no, it is tradition. Since when does tradition (what tradition? Reagan did it) trump the Constitution?

FACT: There has not, in recent memory, been a president who has nominated a supreme court justice in his last year of his presidency. ! 19monthe before the end of the Bush presidenct Schumer, in the Senate said that bush shouod not appoint a new supreme court justice.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

boberic wrote:

FACT: There has not, in recent memory, been a president who has nominated a supreme court justice in his last year of his presidency. ! 19monthe before the end of the Bush presidenct Schumer, in the Senate said that bush shouod not appoint a new supreme court justice.

FACT: There has not, in recent memory, been an incident where I ate the potatoes before the bread in any dinner I've had. If today I decide to eat the potatoes first, Please don't admonish me for breaking a rule that never existed.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

richard-sports wrote:

All you hear from the Cruz-shits and the Rubio-shits and the McConnell-shits is Constitution, Constitution, Constitution. But when the President wants to do his Constitutional duty and nominate a Supreme Court Justice then the f---tards scream no,no,no, it is tradition. Since when does tradition (what tradition? Reagan did it) trump the Constitution?

Again you show your ignorance, no one will obstruct president Obama from making his appointment, they will just exercise their mandated duty of advise and consent.... I guess that you did not read the entire constitution.... foolish old man.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

richard-sports wrote:

All you hear from the Cruz-shits and the Rubio-shits and the McConnell-shits is Constitution, Constitution, Constitution. But when the President wants to do his Constitutional duty and nominate a Supreme Court Justice then the f---tards scream no,no,no, it is tradition. Since when does tradition (what tradition? Reagan did it) trump the Constitution?

Damn right dumbass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Blurryeyed wrote:

Again you show your ignorance, no one will obstruct president Obama from making his appointment, they will just exercise their mandated duty of advise and consent.... I guess that you did not read the entire constitution.... foolish old man.

That would mean voting on the nominee. They have a right to vote to confirm or not confirm but to refuse to allow a vote to take place is wrong.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

thom w wrote:

That would mean voting on the nominee. They have a right to vote to confirm or not confirm but to refuse to allow a vote to take place is wrong.

That would be the consent part.... The only way that Obama gets another SCOTUS appointment is if he does so during a recess. I would suspect that he has only this week to do it.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Blurryeyed wrote:

That would be the consent part.... The only way that Obama gets another SCOTUS appointment is if he does so during a recess. I would suspect that he has only this week to do it.

They have given him every reason to do that. They didn't say if his selection is too liberal they won't vote on it or if his selection isn't conservative enough they won't vote. They have said they will not let him appoint a justice period. I have never heard a Senate make that statement before. They have hated this president since before he had taken his first action as President. There are only a couple of reasons they could have for that. It can't be based on what he has done since it started before he had done anything. He was already black. Maybe you can think of another reason.

AUminer Loc: Brandon, Ms

richard-sports wrote:

All you hear from the Cruz-shits and the Rubio-shits and the McConnell-shits is Constitution, Constitution, Constitution. But when the President wants to do his Constitutional duty and nominate a Supreme Court Justice then the f---tards scream no,no,no, it is tradition. Since when does tradition (what tradition? Reagan did it) trump the Constitution?

Just like Senator Shumer preached in 2007. So, I guess both sides are , as you say, F---tards.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

thom w wrote:

That would mean voting on the nominee. They have a right to vote to confirm or not confirm but to refuse to allow a vote to take place is wrong.

You know thom, if the tables were reversed and the sitting President were a Republican, and the dem's had control of the Senate, a vote would never take place until after the election. You and I both know Harry Reid would never allow a vote.

That being said, I do indeed look for obama, "The Shillary" and the dem's to come up with some type of shenanigans to place an ultra lib on the Court.