You like someone not afraid to tell it like it is? Here she is: I can't wait to hear the lame denials here.......this is just straight talk - just like you Trump guys say you like it.

moabarch Loc: Moab, UT

I can't wait to hear the lame denials here.......this is just straight talk - just like you Trump guys say you like it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ePsNcoMNNXc&feature=youtu.be

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ePsNcoMNNXc&feature=youtu.be

Always take the "s" off of "https"

moabarch Loc: Moab, UT

pounder35 wrote:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ePsNcoMNNXc&feature=youtu.be

Always take the "s" off of "https"

Oh......did not know that! I just changed it. Thanks.

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

moabarch wrote:

I can't wait to hear the lame denials here.......this is just straight talk - just like you Trump guys say you like it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ePsNcoMNNXc&feature=youtu.be

Big deal. Obozo is a t*****r. He's done enough damage to the country. The last thing we need is another liberal on the Supreme Court. The Republicans blocking Obama's attempt to appoint a liberal judge is part of their job. Maybe they'll be successful. They've haven't done crap lately but act as bad as the Dim-O-Craps. Why do you think Trump is so popular. The people are tired of the same old crap in the District of Criminals.

moabarch Loc: Moab, UT

pounder35 wrote:

Big deal. Obozo is a t*****r. He's done enough damage to the country. The last thing we need is another liberal on the Supreme Court. The Republicans blocking Obama's attempt to appoint a liberal judge is part of their job. Maybe they'll be successful. They've haven't done crap lately but act as bad as the Dim-O-Craps. Why do you think Trump is so popular. The people are tired of the same old crap in the District of Criminals.

So the constitution only applies when you agree. Big deal is right. Really.

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

moabarch wrote:

So the constitution only applies when you agree. Big deal is right. Really.

Of course. The country is big enough for two dictators. I just appointed myself Chief Dictator and have ordered my troops to arrest Obama for treason. It might take a while since they are all drinking heavily at the pub down the street. :roll:

moabarch Loc: Moab, UT

pounder35 wrote:

Of course. The country is big enough for two dictators. I just appointed myself Chief Dictator and have ordered my troops to arrest Obama for treason. It might take a while since they are all drinking heavily at the pub down the street. :roll:

Your reply makes no sense, of course. And, as usual, "you guys" fail to respond directly to the issue of the post because you can't without admitting you're wrong - something that's virtually impossible for you.
The facts are the facts and Ms Snow explains them well.

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

moabarch wrote:

So the constitution only applies when you agree. Big deal is right. Really.

Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate is REQUIRED to confirm a nomination?

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

moabarch wrote:

Your reply makes no sense, of course. And, as usual, "you guys" fail to respond directly to the issue of the post because you can't without admitting you're wrong - something that's virtually impossible for you.
The facts are the facts and Ms Snow explains them well.

Obozo cares nothing for the Constitution so what would you propose? I would agree that the President has the right to make appointments to the Supreme Court and the Senate has a right to reject an appointment. Hopefully a majority in the Senate will block any attempt by Obozo to appoint a liberal. Is that a good enough direct response?

moabarch Loc: Moab, UT

skylane5sp wrote:

Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate is REQUIRED to confirm a nomination?

They are not required to confirm the nomination positively, but the President "shall nominate" ( so that's his job), and here's the Senate's job: "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" . So their responsibility is to at least discuss the nomination and advise or consent (or not, by way of a v**e) IT IS THEIR JOB. They can v**e against it. But to do NOTHING is shirking their responsibility. They have been shirking this responsibility for years, wreaking havoc within areas of the government so they can blame Obama for the mess.
As I said, you guys are the big supporters of the constitution do long as it goes your way....,.but otherwise, not so much. This argument has been made clear repeatedly. There was no reason for you to even ask the question.

moabarch Loc: Moab, UT

skylane5sp wrote:

Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate is REQUIRED to confirm a nomination?

They are not required to confirm the nomination positively, but the President "shall nominate" ( so that's his job), and here's the Senate's job: "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" . So their responsibility is to at least discuss the nomination and advise or consent (or not, by way of a v**e) IT IS THEIR JOB. They can v**e against it. But to do NOTHING is shirking their responsibility. They have been shirking this responsibility for years, wreaking havoc within areas of the government so they can blame Obama for the mess.
As I said, you guys are the big supporters of the constitution do long as it goes your way....,.but otherwise, not so much. This argument has been made clear repeatedly. There was no reason for you to even ask the question.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

pounder35 wrote:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ePsNcoMNNXc&feature=youtu.be

Always take the "s" off of "https"

All of a sudden she wants the Senate to act. She ignores the Reid never let so many bills off hi desk to even be considered. hey Warren be careful what you wish for, it will come back to bite you on your phoney native American ass. Its OK for the Dems to block legistation but repubs can't.?

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

moabarch wrote:

They are not required to confirm the nomination po... (show quote)

Obama IS the mess. Let him nominate whoever he wants. If it a flaming liberal which is most likely then the Senate can block it.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/

moabarch Loc: Moab, UT

pounder35 wrote:

Obozo cares nothing for the Constitution so what would you propose? I would agree that the President has the right to make appointments to the Supreme Court and the Senate has a right to reject an appointment. Hopefully a majority in the Senate will block any attempt by Obozo to appoint a liberal. Is that a good enough direct response?

Better.....but it did not respond to most of what E. Warren talked about regarding all the non-action over the past 7 years on so many other appointments.
And, of course, to say the President cares nothing about the Constitution is hilariously wrong.

moabarch Loc: Moab, UT

pounder35 wrote:

Obama IS the mess. Let him nominate whoever he wants. If it a flaming liberal which is most likely then the Senate can block it.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/

Well, no, it is the repubs that are the mess......but that aside, yes, of course they can block it. They simply need to their job - which they are refusing to do. Prime example of THEM not caring about the constitution.