All of the sudden, Lefties want to follow Constitution

[RockEyeState]

LOL !!!!

The high priestesses of Left-wing lunacy, both Rodham and Pocahontas Warren, have all the sudden become strict constitutional disciples.

All of this, despite the fact that Chuckie Schumer, just a few years back, asked all his Left-wing Senator friends to block any & ALL Supreme Court nominee that GWB nominated.

Quite the hypocrites, indeed.

Obama can nominate whoever the **** he wants, however it's up to the Senate to confirm
a workable Justice, for the American people.

 

[naturalmwa]

Sounds like you want them to follow the constitution too. What's your problem?

 

[ANYCHawk]

Tired act is tired.

 

[Huey Grey]

Isn't it a bigger embarrassment that the GOP is suddenly turning their backs on the Constitution?

 

[fivecardstud14]

So I think JakelongJake is Arbitr8, I've said that in the past. Is RockEyeState Kilroy? RockEyeState has the ability to sound like a lunatic when it comes to sports & politics, a Kilroy trait. I'll never forget his dumbass quote regarding the NBA & Jimmy Butler.

 

[starbrown]

Tired act is tired.

Yes, yours is.

 

[Lone Clone]

As I wrote earlier, on this subject it's preposterous for either side to play the hypocrisy card. Just wastes time.

 

[73chief]

Funny thing, nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to confirm a nominee, or even consider a nominee for that matter. They can simply exercise their given power to advise and consent by ignoring a nominee. Per the 1869 Judiciary Act, which set the current Supreme Court roster at 9, only a quorum of 6 justices is required to hear and rule on cases. So two more justices could resign, retire, or die and the court would still function.

 

[naturalmwa]

As I wrote earlier, on this subject it's preposterous for either side to play the hypocrisy card. Just wastes time.

But one side wants to waste time.

 

[Lone Clone]

But one side wants to waste time.

We ALL want to waste time or we wouldn't be on HROT. For heaven's sake, Harry Freaking Reid has an oped piece in the WaPo demanding that Republicans stop being partisan about nominations.

 

[naturalmwa]

Funny thing, nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to confirm a nominee, or even consider a nominee for that matter. They can simply exercise their given power to advise and consent by ignoring a nominee. Per the 1869 Judiciary Act, which set the current Supreme Court roster at 9, only a quorum of 6 justices is required to hear and rule on cases. So two more justices could resign, retire, or die and the court would still function.

So Obama could just seat a justice and force congress to declare they affirmatively don't consent it or it stands? Let's do that.

 

[naturalmwa]

We ALL want to waste time or we wouldn't be on HROT.

Obviously true, but I'm not sure how many of us serve in the Senate.

 

[Lone Clone]

So Obama could just seat a justice and force congress to declare they affirmatively don't consent it or it stands? Let's do that.

Not except as a recess appointment. The Senate has simply declined to act on dozens of occasions. When the Judiciary Committee declines to send a nomination to the floor, that's what happens. When a cloture vote fails, that's what happens. In terms of what the law says, both those outcomes are exactly the same as if the Senate simply shredded the nomination message when it came over from the White House.

 

[SSG T]

Isn't it a bigger embarrassment that the GOP is suddenly turning their backs on the Constitution?

Neither party gives two craps about the constitution unless it supports their abilities to gain, retain or consolidate power. A big part of the reason I refuse to vote for a D or R.

 

[SSG T]

But one side wants to waste time.

The problem is that with roles and situations reversed, it's the exact same thing. Neither party is above being morons.

 

[RockEyeState]

What the Constitution says, for those in Rio Linda is that the President can 'Nominate' a
judge to the Supreme Court. Nominate.
Then, that candidate must be CONFIRMED by the Senate.

Moonbats like to make up the rules, as they go along. Sorry, that isn't going to happen

 

[strummingram]

The problem is that with roles and situations reversed, it's the exact same thing. Neither party is above being morons.

Partisan disciples are just as damaging as their party.

Neither party gives two craps about the constitution unless it supports their abilities to gain, retain or consolidate power. A big part of the reason I refuse to vote for a D or R.

Good man. If we could jusr become a majority.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Funny thing, nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to confirm a nominee, or even consider a nominee for that matter. They can simply exercise their given power to advise and consent by ignoring a nominee. Per the 1869 Judiciary Act, which set the current Supreme Court roster at 9, only a quorum of 6 justices is required to hear and rule on cases. So two more justices could resign, retire, or die and the court would still function.

I don't care one way or another but a bit silly to think that ignoring and refusing is tantamount to advising and consenting (or even not consenting).

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The problem is that with roles and situations reversed, it's the exact same thing. Neither party is above being morons.

Except the last time a president nominated a justice in an election year, the Senate did its job even though it was a different party. They held hearings, they had a vote, they seated a justice.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Except the last time a president nominated a justice in an election year, the Senate did its job even though it was a different party. They held hearings, they had a vote, they seated a justice.

Which justice?

 

[INXS83]

LOL !!!!

The high priestesses of Left-wing lunacy, both Rodham and Pocahontas Warren, have all the sudden become strict constitutional disciples.

All of this, despite the fact that Chuckie Schumer, just a few years back, asked all his Left-wing Senator friends to block any & ALL Supreme Court nominee that GWB nominated.

Quite the hypocrites, indeed.

Obama can nominate whoever the **** he wants, however it's up to the Senate to confirm
a workable Justice, for the American people.

Constitutional expert Mark Levin said there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about timeline or urgency to replace SCOTUS justices. It is POTUS obligation to put forth nominees and the U.S. Senate to consider and confirm/reject.

 

[naturalmwa]

Constitutional expert Mark Levin said there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about timeline or urgency to replace SCOTUS justices. It is POTUS obligation to put forth nominees and the U.S. Senate to consider and confirm/reject.

Do we even need a constitutional expert to scan the text for time lines for us? I hope no one paid him for this insight.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Do we even need a constitutional expert to scan the text for time lines for us? I hope no one paid him for this insight.

it is their duty to stall tyranny

 

[naturalmwa]

it is their duty to stall tyranny

You don't believe this. You think it's their duty to serve the alien illuminati lizard masters who installed them. You're going to need to pick a theology if you want to start your religion.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Sounds like you want them to follow the constitution too. What's your problem?

I have no doubt that the Constitution will be followed.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Constitutional expert Mark Levin said there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about timeline or urgency to replace SCOTUS justices. It is POTUS obligation to put forth nominees and the U.S. Senate to consider and confirm/reject.

This.

 

[SIXERS24]

Reagan started the process in June of 1987. The Democrats rejected the first two choices and then pass a moderate 8 months later. Well the Republican's can start rejecting his nominations.

 

[naturalmwa]

I have no doubt that the Constitution will be followed.

Good, everyone is happy. We should all take the day off and drink.

 

[naturalmwa]

Reagan started the process in June of 1987. The Democrats rejected the first two choices and then pass a moderate 8 months later. Well the Republican's can start rejecting his nominations.

They certainly can, that's actually just what Ds are calling for. A vote.

 

[Huey Grey]

Neither party gives two craps about the constitution unless it supports their abilities to gain, retain or consolidate power. A big part of the reason I refuse to vote for a D or R.

No debate there. I'm simply pointing how how ironic it is for the GOP to run on the Constitution, make it a central part of their platform, but then turn their backs on it when it doesn't say what they want.

 

[Vroom_C14]

But one side wants to waste time.

And the other wants to waste money.. money is time and time is money... point is moot.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Sounds like you want them to follow the constitution too. What's your problem?

The problem is people on both sides screaming about the Constitution only when it behooves them.

 

[86Hawkeye]

They certainly can, that's actually just what Ds are calling for. A vote.

No need to vote unless the Senate majority is happy with the choice, especially so close to an election.

They don't want to confirm someone without giving the people a chance to elect a new POTUS and choose the path for the next 4 years.

It would be irresponsible.

Signed,

Chuck Schumer

 

[starbrown]

I have no doubt that the Constitution will be followed. . . .

. . . except when the supreme court is in session.

 

[theIowaHawk]

it is their duty to stall tyranny

What is the tyranny in this sense? Appointing a judge you disagree with?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

What is the tyranny in this sense? Appointing a judge you disagree with?

no, having a Kenyan install communists that are enemies of the state, that I disagree with

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

No debate there. I'm simply pointing how how ironic it is for the GOP to run on the Constitution, make it a central part of their platform, but then turn their backs on it when it doesn't say what they want.

How are they turning their backs on the constitution? Seems the constitution is being relied on by the republicans if they choose not to confirm a nominee.

 

[86Hawkeye]

. . . except when the supreme court is in session.

Well, Scalia tried.

 

[86Hawkeye]

How are they turning their backs on the constitution? Seems the constitution is being relied on by the republicans if they choose not to confirm a nominee.

Absolutely correct.

The Senate majority has a right to reject or not even consider a nominee.

 

[Huey Grey]

How are they turning their backs on the constitution? Seems the constitution is being relied on by the republicans if they choose not to confirm a nominee.

Where in the Constitution does it say a President cannot nominate a new judge in an election year?