Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

MORE THAN A Battle over a Supreme Court SEAT

Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 2:05:30 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
President Obama with less than a year left in his presidency would no doubt like to, as a highlight of his legacy as president, have a liberal nominee to the Court seated on the bench to replace a conservative Strict Constructionist justice. The effects of this Accomplishment of replacing a conservative Justice with a Liberal Justice by Obama would have far more significance than any single accomplishment that he might have been able to claim as president.
Even the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as important to Barack H. Obama as this is to him would fail in comparison to measure up to the fete of his getting one of his liberal nominees appointed to the Court as he would then be assured that his liberal policies would be carried on long after he had left office. Barack Obama and the democrats are so desperate to replace Justice Antonin Scalia with a progressive Supreme court justice that they don't mind in the least being called and shown to be hypocrites, as an example, Joe Biden's thoughts about replacing a Supreme Court Justice in 1992 ****Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.): "It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or in the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President [George H.W.] Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not " and not " name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
Now Barack Obama and the democrats suddenly have had an epiphany it seems and are talking about such things as " The duties of Office," The constitution, This coming from democrats is all most as amazing as a Pig quoting Shakespeare..
The republicans should not allow a Liberal nominee of president Barack Obama's to be seated on the Supreme Court , To allow a Liberal nominee to be seated on the court would destroy the idea of the impartiality and integrity of the court and the decisions handed down would be those of a tyrannic body.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 2:23:24 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
$90 says that if the Prez was a Republican, Looking here would have no problem with letting the president appoint a new justice. But because its a democrat, he has his panties in a twist
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 2:26:00 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 2:23:24 AM, imabench wrote:
$90 says that if the Prez was a Republican, Looking here would have no problem with letting the president appoint a new justice. But because its a democrat, he has his panties in a twist

If only Obama had the lame duck approval numbers that Reagan had....he could get his Kennedy no sweat...
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 4:11:20 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 2:23:24 AM, imabench wrote:
$90 says that if the Prez was a Republican, Looking here would have no problem with letting the president appoint a new justice. But because its a democrat, he has his panties in a twist

Such is the political game, that you would be saying this hypothetical repub prez shouldn't nominate someone. We're all hypocrites when it comes to getting our preferred way lol
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 4:28:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 2:23:24 AM, imabench wrote:
$90 says that if the Prez was a Republican, Looking here would have no problem with letting the president appoint a new justice. But because its a democrat, he has his panties in a twist
I would have no qualms about Obama putting a Liberal on the Supreme Court if the decisions that a liberal Supreme Court hands down only effects the lives of liberals but I as well as others would be forced to live under their decisions This gives me the right to disagree with Obama and the liberals who would be more than happy to load the Supreme court with Liberal Supreme Court Justices.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 11:40:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 2:23:24 AM, imabench wrote:
$90 says that if the Prez was a Republican, Looking here would have no problem with letting the president appoint a new justice. But because its a democrat, he has his panties in a twist

And is it not an entirely natural response from a Conservative to oppose the idea that a court which already managed to muster the majority to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide should become MORE liberal by the appointment of someone with Obama's ideas who could feasibly serve for the next 30-40 years?

In my opinion, looking like an "evil obstructionist congress" for a year or so (after which the American people forget all about it) is worth avoiding a devastating SCOTUS appointment like this one. Congress is making the right move.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 11:46:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Just think for one moment what the consequences of such a decision would be. I can see the future headlines:

"SCOTUS rules that President Trump's deportation plan is unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that defunding Planned Parenthood is unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that abolishing the ACA is unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that Voter ID laws are unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that religious exemptions for businesses are unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that the Capital Punishment is unconstitutional"
I could go on all day...
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 12:19:27 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 11:46:38 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Just think for one moment what the consequences of such a decision would be. I can see the future headlines:

"SCOTUS rules that President Trump's deportation plan is unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that defunding Planned Parenthood is unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that abolishing the ACA is unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that Voter ID laws are unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that religious exemptions for businesses are unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that the Capital Punishment is unconstitutional"
I could go on all day...

+1

This thread alone outlines why SCOTUS should not have the power it does now in making/validating law, as it was never supposed to anyway for this reason. Laws would constantly change, there would be a sift in Liberal Progressivism and Conservative Traditionalism every generation or so because of the supposed power SCOTUS has in interpreting law.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:01:41 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or in the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President [George H.W.] Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not " and not " name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Is it summer so soon?
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:03:38 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 11:40:29 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/25/2016 2:23:24 AM, imabench wrote:
$90 says that if the Prez was a Republican, Looking here would have no problem with letting the president appoint a new justice. But because its a democrat, he has his panties in a twist

And is it not an entirely natural response from a Conservative to oppose the idea that a court which already managed to muster the majority to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide should become MORE liberal by the appointment of someone with Obama's ideas who could feasibly serve for the next 30-40 years?

It is natural natural, but it also is pathetic, since Conservatives only want to apply the Constitution whenever it fits their own agenda.

In my opinion

Your opinion is that of a whining child, as is everyone else who opposes nominating a new justice. You want to deny the President the powers given to him by the Constitution just because you disagree with the president politically. It only stands to how fall your lot has fallen
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:04:51 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 11:46:38 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Just think for one moment what the consequences of such a decision would be. I can see the future headlines:

"SCOTUS rules that President Trump's deportation plan is unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that defunding Planned Parenthood is unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that abolishing the ACA is unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that Voter ID laws are unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that religious exemptions for businesses are unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that the Capital Punishment is unconstitutional"

I see nothing listed above that doesnt please me ;)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:11:24 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 4:28:33 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:

I as well as others would be forced to live under their decisions. This gives me the right to disagree with Obama

Disagree sure, but your disagreement means nothing. If you cared anything at all for what the Constitution actually means, than you wouldnt be protesting Obama exercising the power granted to him by appointing a new justice.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:11:54 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 11:46:38 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Just think for one moment what the consequences of such a decision would be. I can see the future headlines:

"SCOTUS rules that President Trump's deportation plan is unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that defunding Planned Parenthood is unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that abolishing the ACA is unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that Voter ID laws are unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that religious exemptions for businesses are unconstitutional"
"SCOTUS rules that the Capital Punishment is unconstitutional"
Already a violation of the 8th Amendment.
I could go on all day...
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:11:59 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:03:38 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/25/2016 11:40:29 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/25/2016 2:23:24 AM, imabench wrote:
$90 says that if the Prez was a Republican, Looking here would have no problem with letting the president appoint a new justice. But because its a democrat, he has his panties in a twist

And is it not an entirely natural response from a Conservative to oppose the idea that a court which already managed to muster the majority to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide should become MORE liberal by the appointment of someone with Obama's ideas who could feasibly serve for the next 30-40 years?

It is natural natural, but it also is pathetic, since Conservatives only want to apply the Constitution whenever it fits their own agenda.

In my opinion

Your opinion is that of a whining child

I'll just end the conversation here
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:17:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 4:28:33 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 2/25/2016 2:23:24 AM, imabench wrote:
$90 says that if the Prez was a Republican, Looking here would have no problem with letting the president appoint a new justice. But because its a democrat, he has his panties in a twist
I would have no qualms about Obama putting a Liberal on the Supreme Court if the decisions that a liberal Supreme Court hands down only effects the lives of liberals but I as well as others would be forced to live under their decisions This gives me the right to disagree with Obama and the liberals who would be more than happy to load the Supreme court with Liberal Supreme Court Justices.

This is why we have elections. Obama won two. He gets to name a justice. Live with your losses.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:22:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Considering that the Constitution says that a Supreme Court justice nomination requires the consent of the Senate, I don't see how what the current congress is doing is unconstitutional in the slightest.
Obstructionist? Sure. It's what any congress would do in this situation. But it isn't unconstitutional.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:26:30 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:22:42 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Considering that the Constitution says that a Supreme Court justice nomination requires the consent of the Senate, I don't see how what the current congress is doing is unconstitutional in the slightest.
Obstructionist? Sure. It's what any congress would do in this situation. But it isn't unconstitutional.

^ Proves my point exactly. When Obama wants to do what the Constitution allows him to do, Conservatives get up in arms over it. When the GOP wants to do what the Constitution allows them to do, they take no issue with it.

Hypocrites.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:29:07 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:26:30 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:22:42 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Considering that the Constitution says that a Supreme Court justice nomination requires the consent of the Senate, I don't see how what the current congress is doing is unconstitutional in the slightest.
Obstructionist? Sure. It's what any congress would do in this situation. But it isn't unconstitutional.

^ Proves my point exactly. When Obama wants to do what the Constitution allows him to do, Conservatives get up in arms over it. When the GOP wants to do what the Constitution allows them to do, they take no issue with it.

Obama has the constitutional right to appoint someone, congress has the constitutional right to reject that person. What's the problem?

Hypocrites.

I can be a very partisan person, but even I think this is ridiculous.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:31:30 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:26:30 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:22:42 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Considering that the Constitution says that a Supreme Court justice nomination requires the consent of the Senate, I don't see how what the current congress is doing is unconstitutional in the slightest.
Obstructionist? Sure. It's what any congress would do in this situation. But it isn't unconstitutional.

^ Proves my point exactly. When Obama wants to do what the Constitution allows him to do, Conservatives get up in arms over it. When the GOP wants to do what the Constitution allows them to do, they take no issue with it.

I have no problem with Obama being able to appoint a justice. It is within his constitutional power to do so. The hub-bub about this from the GOP is ridiculous.

Hypocrites.

One could say that, yes.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:32:12 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:01:41 AM, TBR wrote:
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or in the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President [George H.W.] Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not " and not " name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Is it summer so soon?

Well yeah, somewhere. Lol.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:34:11 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:29:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:26:30 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:22:42 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Considering that the Constitution says that a Supreme Court justice nomination requires the consent of the Senate, I don't see how what the current congress is doing is unconstitutional in the slightest.
Obstructionist? Sure. It's what any congress would do in this situation. But it isn't unconstitutional.

^ Proves my point exactly. When Obama wants to do what the Constitution allows him to do, Conservatives get up in arms over it. When the GOP wants to do what the Constitution allows them to do, they take no issue with it.

Obama has the constitutional right to appoint someone, congress has the constitutional right to reject that person. What's the problem?

Its not that theyre rejecting the person its that theyre refusing to even let an appointment be made.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:34:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:32:12 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:01:41 AM, TBR wrote:
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or in the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President [George H.W.] Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not " and not " name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Is it summer so soon?

Well yeah, somewhere. Lol.

Fair enough. Point is, 18 months is a bit different then well into the actual election cycle.

Conservatives should get their collective sh1t together and accept that Obama is and should get a proper nomination. They are the babies on this issue.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:36:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:34:11 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:29:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:26:30 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:22:42 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Considering that the Constitution says that a Supreme Court justice nomination requires the consent of the Senate, I don't see how what the current congress is doing is unconstitutional in the slightest.
Obstructionist? Sure. It's what any congress would do in this situation. But it isn't unconstitutional.

^ Proves my point exactly. When Obama wants to do what the Constitution allows him to do, Conservatives get up in arms over it. When the GOP wants to do what the Constitution allows them to do, they take no issue with it.

Obama has the constitutional right to appoint someone, congress has the constitutional right to reject that person. What's the problem?

Its not that theyre rejecting the person its that theyre refusing to even let an appointment be made.

Explain
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:36:26 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:34:45 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:32:12 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:01:41 AM, TBR wrote:
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or in the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President [George H.W.] Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not " and not " name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Is it summer so soon?

Well yeah, somewhere. Lol.

Fair enough. Point is, 18 months is a bit different then well into the actual election cycle.

Conservatives should get their collective sh1t together and accept that Obama is and should get a proper nomination. They are the babies on this issue.

I know. Obama has the constitutional ability to appoint a justice, just as Congress has the constitutional ability to block him. Don't you just love lame-duck occurrences like this?
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:36:29 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:29:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:26:30 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:22:42 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Considering that the Constitution says that a Supreme Court justice nomination requires the consent of the Senate, I don't see how what the current congress is doing is unconstitutional in the slightest.
Obstructionist? Sure. It's what any congress would do in this situation. But it isn't unconstitutional.

^ Proves my point exactly. When Obama wants to do what the Constitution allows him to do, Conservatives get up in arms over it. When the GOP wants to do what the Constitution allows them to do, they take no issue with it.

Obama has the constitutional right to appoint someone, congress has the constitutional right to reject that person. What's the problem?

Hypocrites.

I can be a very partisan person, but even I think this is ridiculous.

If they reject - not filibuster, but reject, fine. Allow for a vote. Fair?
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:38:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:34:45 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:32:12 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:01:41 AM, TBR wrote:
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or in the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President [George H.W.] Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not " and not " name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Is it summer so soon?

Well yeah, somewhere. Lol.

Fair enough. Point is, 18 months is a bit different then well into the actual election cycle.

Conservatives should get their collective sh1t together and accept that Obama is and should get a proper nomination. They are the babies on this issue.

Its hysterical because Obama is far more inclined to appoint a moderate than Hillary or Sanders are since he is at the end of his term and not trying to pander to the hard left. The GOP playing obstructionist only gives fire to Dem voters to turnout and elect the Dem nominee, who will surely appoint or nominate someone far further to the left than Obama would
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:38:51 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:36:03 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:34:11 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:29:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:26:30 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:22:42 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Considering that the Constitution says that a Supreme Court justice nomination requires the consent of the Senate, I don't see how what the current congress is doing is unconstitutional in the slightest.
Obstructionist? Sure. It's what any congress would do in this situation. But it isn't unconstitutional.

^ Proves my point exactly. When Obama wants to do what the Constitution allows him to do, Conservatives get up in arms over it. When the GOP wants to do what the Constitution allows them to do, they take no issue with it.

Obama has the constitutional right to appoint someone, congress has the constitutional right to reject that person. What's the problem?

Its not that theyre rejecting the person its that theyre refusing to even let an appointment be made.

Explain

Get educated
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:46:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:38:22 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:34:45 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:32:12 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:01:41 AM, TBR wrote:
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or in the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President [George H.W.] Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not " and not " name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Is it summer so soon?

Well yeah, somewhere. Lol.

Fair enough. Point is, 18 months is a bit different then well into the actual election cycle.

Conservatives should get their collective sh1t together and accept that Obama is and should get a proper nomination. They are the babies on this issue.

Its hysterical because Obama is far more inclined to appoint a moderate than Hillary or Sanders are since he is at the end of his term and not trying to pander to the hard left. The GOP playing obstructionist only gives fire to Dem voters to turnout and elect the Dem nominee, who will surely appoint or nominate someone far further to the left than Obama would

Did you see this?
http://www.reuters.com...
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:49:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:46:36 AM, TBR wrote:

Did you see this?
http://www.reuters.com...

Yep, unfortunately he has already taken himself out of the running
http://www.cbsnews.com...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 1:51:44 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 1:49:58 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/26/2016 1:46:36 AM, TBR wrote:

Did you see this?
http://www.reuters.com...

Yep, unfortunately he has already taken himself out of the running
http://www.cbsnews.com...

He should appoint Trump.

Or Rubio and completely screw over the GOP's 2016 chances. xD