DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... GOP prepares to fight Obama nominee, no matter whom he picks

I have this odd feeling that "block the liberal nominee!" is going to become the new "keep voting to defund Obamacare!"

My Advice is for us to move on to other issues now and if you agree, I will Consent to allowing it to happen.

Murica

Like I need your permission. lmao

See, the Senate said the elections should decide who appoints the next SC Justice. Unfortunately, they way they're acting makes Clinton the most likely winner.

So what lie.... I mean excuse will they come up with then?

Correct, for you are not the President.

40 = delusions of grandeur

That hasn't worked out very well so far.

What's really truly funny about that is that if the Republican Front Runner ends up winning (trump)he has plans to have healthcare for everyone. Almost like Obamacare or Berniecare.

No wonder the republicans are trying so hard to kick him to the curb...LOL

Bernie who?

pretty much.

isn't funny how the republicans are basically saying that they are doing a good job trying to be as inactive as possible? what a joke.

It is never a joke maintaining America's stability while the emotional, PC, Anti First Amendment, Anti Second Amendment, threat to our Constitution crowd is at her throat.

Murica

emotional?

shall i play trump rallies and debates? you wanna talk emotional?

lmao, you can't possibly be serious.

Did you have fun picking one part of that post to post about?

Ok, how about "We don't like what you are saying so we will shut you down and not let people hear your words while we bash the heads of the Police who try to control our emotional outburst!"

Laughing your A off at violence and Disruption is also an emotional response to facts.

Murica!

i picked that part because the other parts was yet again, a joke, and no need to waste time on.

i picked emotional because your sitting here crying about the PC, but didn't your boy Trump threaten to shut down the media because of all the really mean things they were saying about him?

didn't he skip a debate because megyn kelly was hosting it?

the guy was to be tough on the world but can't take on megyn kelly?

lmao. yea, i'm laughing at the loser that is currently leading your party. have fun not being in the WH for another 4 years.

The "People" spoke 3 years ago when they voted in Obama. Just not the people your side wishes had voted. So who is not doing what the people expect, the lowest rated congress ever, that's who.

Allow me to show you a view of the near future...

Bernie who?
Obama who?

I know the future will be, I hate Hillary, whine whine whine sniffle.

I hope Trump can bottle this mystery and keep selling it to y'all when he loses because most people will never treat you like you are a "normal" person again; so you are going to need the delusion.

I wouldn't want to be a "Normal Socialist". It is unAmerican!

Murica

Yep! Then there's always the steel dragon who shows no emotion for and suggests the families of those lost in Benghazi are liars! Emotion...emotion......for only herself!!!

i don't really get what you're complaining about. 40 was crying about emotion, so i checked him on it.

but but but...benghazi!!!!!

anyway,

this is hilarious. if the guy won the election, he would consider and possibly nominated the same guy obama did.

but because it's *lightening strike* obama, the GOP said no without even hearing who the guy wanted.

keep it up, GOP. when clinton hits office, this moderate judge goes out the window, and she's gonna nominate straight up liberals.

but you guys seem to thoroughly enjoy digging your own graves, so have at it.

Kasich, if president, would consider nominating Garland to court

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/john-kasich-merrick-garland-220994

Ohio Gov. John Kasich on Saturday broke with much of his party on Merrick Garland, saying he’d not only consider meeting with President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court — he’d consider nominating Garland himself if he were elected president.
Most Senate Republicans continue to shut down any possibility of hearings for Garland, with many refusing to even meet with the D.C. circuit court judge who Obama formally nominated this week to replace late justice Antonin Scalia.
Story Continued Below

“I want a conservative who’s not going to make the law but who will interpret the law and somebody of high standing,” Kasich told John Dickerson in a pre-taped interview airing Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation." “I don’t care about their peccadilloes you know 30 years ago. But we have a process.”
The comments came after Dickerson asked Kasich if he would’ve looked at Garland himself. Kasich also said he believes the senators should “all sit down and meet with the guy."
Kasich attempted to clarify his comments, later tweeting that he would "give proper consideration to all legitimate SCOTUS candidates."
Kasich, who has built his campaign around a theme of unifying the country, noted that he has appointed more than 100 judges in Ohio, including a woman to the Ohio Supreme Court.
“And we’ve had good success with our selections,” he said.
Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk has been the only lawmaker to really break from party leadership. Last week, he called for a vote on Garland’s nomination.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/john-kasich-merrick-garland-220994#ixzz43RdtXmIR
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

No, 40 was pointing out It is never a joke maintaining America's stability while the emotional, PC, Anti First Amendment, Anti Second Amendment, threat to our Constitution crowd is at her throat.

As far as Kasich and the SC nomination is concerned, for this and other reasons explains why Kasich will be watching the Inauguration from his couch.

It is not the job of the Senate to hold hearings on any nominee the President nominates. If you wish to use the who's job is it, then it needs to be seen in its entirety. First, it would be the President's job to contact the Senate and ask their advice on who the Senate would like as a nominee to the court. Secondly, the President would then propose a nominee. If the nominee is not one advised by the Senate, the President is asking for the Senate to do nothing on his nomination.

The nomination for the court without the advise of the Senate is a political action. If you agree the President can nominate whomever they want, then you accept that the court is a political appointment. This is why the Supreme Court has become as it is now, a split court. It has become a political appointment and not an appointment to a court that is to oversee and rein in the other two branches of government. The nomination to the Courts have become a political appointment that will enact the President's agenda. The problem is the lifetime appointment.

It is not the Senate's fault or the President's fault that they are at odds over an appointment. It is their predecessors who have created this impasse. The President, as a Constitutional Attorney, should know the role of the President and the Senate in this matter. He should know the purpose for this process. The President by acting political has lost his moral high ground, IMHO. The Senate is not some great moral entity either. However, since it has become political, it is not honest to believe that politics will not play into the process.

As for those who think the name of the nominee matters, they miss the point. The name of the nominee is not important. It is important that the process be followed so as to have a veil of legitimacy and not be seen as a political appointment. For those who think that Hillary would be a problem for the Senate if she were to win the Presidency, they also have missed the point. The point will be she will face the same problem the President has currently. She will have to have the advise and consent of whomever she nominates. If the Senate stays Republican or even grow more Republican, she will face as difficult a nomination process. She will have more time to complete the process but the process is still the same.

I'll keep asking until you cut with the rhetoric and answer me!

If it's not the Senates job to hold hearings and vote up or down, who's is it? And by the way, Obama invited Senate Republicans into the White House to discuss who would be a legit candidate, and they refused to go.

And another thing to think about. McConnell said that the people need a vote in who gets selected to the supreme court, however, the people don't actually vote for justices.

They vote for the president who's job it is to nominate a new justice and for those that are charged with holding hearings and vote up or down on a nominee. I'll let you tell me who's job that is.

SO, if that's fact, and it is because, McConnell wouldn't lie to us would he ( ) Then the people voted Obama in, So the people have spoken.

And in case McConnell hasn't been paying attention, the Front Runner for the Republican party is a nutjob who would probably nominate Judge Judy if he gets elected..., OR worse yet, his sister who is a sitting judge.

Then what's McConnell going to do? Stand there and tell us Judge Judy or Trumps sister is more qualified than Garland?

Instead of us going back and forth on this, why don't you tell me what's wrong with Garland? Other than he was nominated by Obama that is.

Ahh, but there's the rub, there really isn't anything wrong with Garland is there?

Ok, let's do it this way, you tell me who would get confirmed? Wait, nobody can get confirmed,, That's right because it's been said over and over again, that anyone that Obama nominates will not even have hearings let alone an up or down vote..

Which brings us back to the truth, it doesn't matter if Obama could resurrect Scalia, those that are supposed to confirm him, wouldn't do it. or so they say. (whoever they are)

This is politics plain and simple and when the democrats did it it was no better and just as wrong.

Damon, they just keep making excuses why this senate shouldn't do the exact same thing every other senate in our nations history has done. And other than their devout followers who buy into everything they say, it's falling on deaf ears. It will only come back to haunt them in the upcoming elections.

I was just reading thru the "Biden Rule" as I saw your post.

We will take it up at our next meeting.

slam

dunk.

I know Pit and frankly, if Obama had nominated "Bo Bo the Monkey man"*, I'd understand the stand off. In fact I'd probably say they were right to do it. But that has much more to do with who he nominated rather than he nominated anyone.



*for the record, I have no idea who Bo Bo the Monkey Man is, I just made him up!

like Joe the plumber?

Cry all you want, the Senate has done its job and advised the President he will not be picking the next SC Justice.

He apparently rejected their advice. That is wrong under the Constitution.

If they advised him to pick someone else, he could do so under the Constitution. Otherwise, shut up. We are a Nation of Laws!

there's a law that says congress can tell the president they will refuse to hear anybody the president picks?

maybe i should get into politics forreal. get paid 6 figures for being a useless body in DC.

Nowhere in law is that a rule. You keep repeating that BS and everyone knows it's BS.

The senate is the one throwing the tantrum here. And the American people know it. lmao

Simply saying no is a tantrum to you?

Seems to me you wish to place yourself above our Constitutions when reading your posts.

No, it's not. It is not unconstitutional to reject advice. In fact, it's just the opposite. If POTUS were to suspend any and all nominations under Senate's threats of inaction, he'd be guilty of dereliction of duty. THAT would be unconstitutional. As is, he's done exactly what was charged him by the constitution.

Next step is for congress to reject his nomination by vote. If they want to adhere to the constitution, that is. Then, it's POTUS' job to nominate another candidate, and so on. At present, THEY are the ones guilty of dereliction. They are refusing to do their jobs. Screw the "Biden Rule"... it's not a rule at all- it's a stall tactic that promotes unconstitutional behavior. It was wrong when Biden initially proposed it, and it's wrong now.

Amen brother. Until we the people collectively let our representatives know that "They did it first..." might win an argument in 4th grade, it's no way to run a government.

Seems to me you're trying to twist the constitution to achieve a political agenda.

Post the law to prove what you say. We already have enough others telling what should be but not what is the Law.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Quoted for TRUTH!

With such assurance that the president could be blocked by the Senate, New York ratified the Constitution. And that’s what Obama and Garland are up against.

No one knows it better than the justices Garland aspires to join. They understand full well that the Founders intended there to be circumstances where, absent an intervening election, no appointment to the Supreme Court could be made.

They know that the states wouldn’t have ratified the Constitution if this had not been the case.

Mitch McConnell To Fox News: NRA Must Approve Of New Supreme Court Justice

http://www.bipartisanreport.com/2016/03/...-court-justice/

Yes, I would like the NRA's input as we have so many unAmerican folks in this Country trying to undo what our Founding Fathers intended.