It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

The constitution works as a whole.

Each amendment reinforces the other.

The one that holds it all together ?

The second.

Because the founders in their infinite wisdom knew that words fail sometimes.




You know, that whole "due process" thing you were just so excited to find? Yeah.


I wonder why gun owners don't enjoy that 'right'.

Because of a crime a person comitted. The whole has to pay penance.


Completely disagree. The amendment that holds everything together is a combination of the 4th and 5th. That combination of legal protections allows and individual or committed group to organize and strike out without being proactively targeted before having broken the law.

On a sidenote, this is why conspiracy laws are such complete BS. The 2nd sure didn't save us from those. Or from the FBI. Or the NSA. Or the wireless wiretaps. Or room 641A. From where I'm sitting, the second hasn't actually done anything for us in over 200 years.




posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

And we sure know my critics sure are for the constitution right ?

Except when it comes to the property rights of rich people, and gun owners.

Or anyone else they don't like.

Shame they are never honest.


Ah, there you go. Back to the normal script!

"Your" critics, eh? You certainly are important in your own mind, aren't you, LOL.

Actually, the Constitution doesn't mention guns at all, per se, and the only property mentioned is that of the United States.

Funny what you discover when you actually read it.





No mention of Christianity either, so we can assume that the Founding Fathers were all Hindu's.

The accepted interpretation of the COTUS is criminal, by the standards of the revolutionary times.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

And there i was thinking the idea was that justice was blind, and not just another pathetic party political tool to be used and abused according to who's occupying the White house, and what their particular party allegiance happens to be...I suppose justice isn't blind...and can also become deaf and dumb too.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Your first is absurd.

Your second, unfounded.
edit on 14-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It took 3 or 4 generations of plutocracy before the Establishment could ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The common interpretation of the COTUS has been criminal since then.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Gryphon66

It took 3 or 4 generations of plutocracy before the Establishment could ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The common interpretation of the COTUS has been criminal since then.



Yep, I've heard your position on the Civil War and Alternate American History.

"Unfounded" remains my comment.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

i was in Marfa when Scalia died. Didn't know he was there. Cibolo Creek Ranch is a wee bit outside of marfa, though.

McConnell is right...American's SHOULD have a voice. But so long as money = speech, the common mans voice is nothing but a squeak amongst the roar of Citizens United.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: xuenchen

I've seen many posts across social media by liberals talking about civil war if Obama nominees are not confirmed.

Fantasies about the "Marines killing hillbillies", and the national guard arresting all republicans.





I have no doubt AT ALL that left wingers could rationalize doing this.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I ask again: so you guys that are clamoring for the Senate to abuse its power of advice and consent to thwart the Constitutionally-mandated responsibility of the President to appoint members to the Supreme Court until "the next President" is elected, obviously believe that a Republican will be elected and the Senate will remain in Republican hands thus netting you another arch-Conservative utterly partisan member of the highest Court in the country.

Never mind that President Obama is the (twice) duly-elected President and is in office for more than 10 months.

At least the true partisan flags are waving in the breeze for once ... it's refreshing.

As I said earlier, somewhat jokingly, consider this seriously:

Would you rather have a moderate appointment that would be acceptable to both sides, or risk the appointment of a strongly-left leaning jurist after Clinton wins the Presidency and the Democrats take back the Senate?



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I hate that we are having to talk about that, honestly. That isn't what its supposed to be about....power struggles and stacking the deck. Thats just not how this is supposed to work.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

I hate that we are having to talk about that, honestly. That isn't what its supposed to be about....power struggles and stacking the deck. Thats just not how this is supposed to work.


Agreed. It should be about nominating the best available jurist who has proven themselves to be a TRUE advocate of the Constitution above all else.

As well as the folks here hypocritically talking about "fairness" while advocating that a 5 / 4 Conservative/Liberal split is somehow just. The "political" status of the Court is supposed to shift from time to time. We've had a Conservative Court for decades ... the people elected a Moderate/Liberal President and the People have spoken.

Political parties having dead-locked control of our electoral process is NOT Constitutional.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Hey McConnell, America had a voice when they reelected Obama. It is Obama's Constitutional authority to nominate the SC Justice. This process has occurred in an election year 18 times in the past 100 years; including the man whom needs replacing; Scalia.







posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
www.scotusblog.com... is an update to the Recess Appointment option which has been severely limited by a SCOTUS decision. Give it a read.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz



I don't care who or what you are, that is funny!



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
Hey McConnell, America had a voice when they reelected Obama. It is Obama's Constitutional authority to nominate the SC Justice.


On the other hand, McConnell can also argue that America voiced its opinion in 2014 when it put a Republican majority in the Senate. Its the Senate's Constitutional authority to confirm any Supreme Court nominee.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
Hey McConnell, America had a voice when they reelected Obama. It is Obama's Constitutional authority to nominate the SC Justice.


On the other hand, McConnell can also argue that America voiced its opinion in 2014 when it put a Republican majority in the Senate. Its the Senate's Constitutional authority to confirm any Supreme Court nominee.



Yes, advise and consent ... not announce beforehand that you are going to block ANY Constitutionally-nominated appointee from the President because you vowed eight years ago, in Mitch's case, to do everything you could to make sure that Obama wasn't successful. Screw the American people, McConnell's politics are all that is important.

And, just so we stay close to the facts, the Senate is NEVER elected by a majority of the American people.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

In fact, it is the Senate's Constitutional duty to confirm the SC Justice based upon their merrits. It is not the Senate's constitutional duty to obstruct the nomination for partisan political reasons. When Obama makes his nomination, then Congress must fulfill their constitutional duty...not wait for the next Congress and/or President to do it for them; to do so would be dereliction of duty and grounds for impeachment.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: vor78

In fact, it is the Senate's Constitutional duty to confirm the SC Justice based upon their merrits. It is not the Senate's constitutional duty to obstruct the nomination for partisan political reasons. When Obama makes his nomination, then Congress must fulfill their constitutional duty...not wait for the next Congress and/or President to do it for them; to do so would be dereliction of duty and grounds for impeachment.


This is a perfect statement and summary of the issue.

Well stated and concise.

Wouldn't it be funny if McConnell got impeached in the midst of this??? LOL, talk about political theater.

I wonder if he would cry, like John Boehner.
edit on 14-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

While I agree that the nominee deserves an up or down vote based on his or her individual merits, the Senate is within its constitutional authority to determine whether such a candidate is acceptable or not using the criteria they determine. If they believe that the nominee's political leanings are potentially damaging to the country, they are within their rights to deny that nominee.

In any event, I think the GOP is really trying to force Obama to nominate someone more conservative than he'd otherwise like to. Whether they'll be successful or not, I don't know. In the meantime, its not a crisis. The Supreme Court can still function with eight justices until this is sorted.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
if they can't fill the position before the next president is sworn in, then they all need to be booted out!!!

somewhere in this country I am sure there is a judge that is moderate enough to be acceptable to both the republicans and the democrats, who will put his responsibility of the job above politics.....and religion, who is capable of being a great supreme court justice! There are probably many...
It's up to obama to find one, it's up to congress to give the okay... if obama presents such a guy to congress, and they shoot him down, well, then the message will be clear, the republicans don't want of good supreme court justice, they want someone who will tow the party line, and cater to the christian right. and, we will probably see a republican defeat all the way around.
there are many right leaning voters out there that just aren't that keen on the idea of the republicans kissing up to the christian right. they will lose those voters in droves if they block a decent candidate because he isn't "conservative" enough, or as hard headed as them on the moral issues. It is time for the two parties to start working together instead of playing this danged game they've been playing!




top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join