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.

 

Obama: 'It will be difficult' for McConnell to explain decision to block Supreme Court nominee

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: whyamIhere
I heard Trump wants to put Chuck Norris on the Court.

I can't confirm it...

Seriously, Doesn't matter who Obama wants...

Never going to happen.


That's the point though, if he appoints a moderate conservative and they still refuse to have hearings, that just proves the only reason they are doing it is because Obama put them up.

Which is sad as all hell..

~Tenth


It's the Conservatives last desperate power grab.

Hell, it's their Crown Jewel to shove their social agenda.

Seriously, never going to happen.


Yea, to hell with the Constitution right? Obama gets nothing!



You don't see any irony in defending Obama over somebody else not honoring the intent of the constitution? Him skirting the constitution is why everyone so dug in about giving him a 3rd justice. Let's not forget he dug in and did the same thing to Bush




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The American Electorate, at this time, basically breaks into three parts (not unlike Caesar's Gaul):

1. 25% are hard-Right, Republican-right-or-wrong voters.

2. 43% are the ever-growing Independent voters, and there are measurable "leaners" to both "ends" in this group.

3. 32% are hard-left, Democratic-do-or-die voters.

We see these basic dimensions, plus or minus a few points, every time a poll is conducted, and have for decades.

Because of the "growing mean" ... both "sides" have been taking turns getting spanked by the electorate who are, regardless of what any of your favored/flavored media is telling you, in favor of centrist, middle-of-the-road, cooperative policies.

However, the question always comes when one division or the other either participates strongly or doesn't in a given election cycle.

However, to obstruct any and all Presidential Nominees, regardless of who they are, and what they believe ... creates an absolute-one-sided position that will only be joined (Category #1) or opposed. This will be a mistake in an otherwise contentious election year for the Right.

It's simply the law of averages.
edit on 24-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere


If Obama nominates a Conservative I'm sure there would be agreement.


The article in the OP wasn't so sure of that. The way it looks is that McConnell is putting his foot down regardless of the partisan leanings of the judge Obama puts forth.


He never compromised on anything.


This is complete bull#. Obama reached out to the Republicans all the time in his early years of Presidency to take the Republicans up on their claims of "wanting to compromise," but they threw it back in his face every time. That's why he stopped doing it in later years.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

He could just NOT explain it and leave it at that...problem solved.

We all know the reason there won't be a new Justice right now and that is that we can't afford another opponent of the 2nd amendment on the bench. At least that is MY reason.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: whyamIhere
I heard Trump wants to put Chuck Norris on the Court.

I can't confirm it...

Seriously, Doesn't matter who Obama wants...

Never going to happen.


That's the point though, if he appoints a moderate conservative and they still refuse to have hearings, that just proves the only reason they are doing it is because Obama put them up.

Which is sad as all hell..

~Tenth


It's the Conservatives last desperate power grab.

Hell, it's their Crown Jewel to shove their social agenda.

Seriously, never going to happen.


Yea, to hell with the Constitution right? Obama gets nothing!



You don't see any irony in defending Obama over somebody else not honoring the intent of the constitution? Him skirting the constitution is why everyone so dug in about giving him a 3rd justice. Let's not forget he dug in and did the same thing to Bush


Not really, but that's because I'm not partisan blinded enough to believe that Obama shredded the Constitution himself. Though you are more than welcome to point out the places he DID violate the Constitution with SPECIFIC accounts and not just vague allegations (like just saying: gun control).

He did NOT attempt to block any of Bush' Supreme Court nominations because Bush was in his last year of office. In fact, that never happened to begin with for him to do so.
edit on 24-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
"Obama shredded the Constitution."

"Oh yeah, how so?"

"Executive Orders!" *smug look*

"Which EOs were unconstitutional? If so, why haven't they been challenged in Court?"

"HE'S A COMMUNIST-KENYAN-ATHEIST-MUSLIM Dictator!" *has apoplectic fit*

"/sigh"



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

How do you meet someone halfway that isn't willing to do the same for you? It's always "compromise", but all I ever see from the Republicans is "My way or nothing."


Funny, Republicans could say the same thing about Democrats.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

I love this new tactic! "Poor old Republicans, being pressured by their constituents. I feel sorry for them." Give me a friggin break.

I also love how the internet can allow us to dredge up old sound bites, displaying the hypocrisy in such clear detail.





Please... Explain THAT! I mean they made it pretty clear in their statements. But hey, the past is the past, who cares?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: smitastrophe

So what you are saying here is that because these things were said in the past, that it excuses the behavior in the present by the other side? Keep in mind that Bush' appointee was eventually approved anyways.
edit on 24-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

How do you meet someone halfway that isn't willing to do the same for you? It's always "compromise", but all I ever see from the Republicans is "My way or nothing."


Funny, Republicans could say the same thing about Democrats.


They could, but should probably wait until they have a Republican in the President's office who suffers from what Obama suffers from.

People such as yourself need to get it through your head that JUST because the other side did something wrong, doesn't excuse this side from doing it too. Be ABOVE the politics not support it.
edit on 24-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: smitastrophe

Which Nominee did the Senate block and refuse to even consider consider in 1992? (Biden)

Which Nominee did the Senate block and refuse to even consider in 2006? (Obama)

and for that matter ...

Which Nominee did the Senate block and refuse to even consider in 2007? (Schumer)


If the answer is NONE (and it is) then these panty-wetting examples are NOT the same as the McConnell Rule.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whyamIhere


If Obama nominates a Conservative I'm sure there would be agreement.


The article in the OP wasn't so sure of that. The way it looks is that McConnell is putting his foot down regardless of the partisan leanings of the judge Obama puts forth.


He never compromised on anything.


This is complete bull#. Obama reached out to the Republicans all the time in his early years of Presidency to take the Republicans up on their claims of "wanting to compromise," but they threw it back in his face every time. That's why he stopped doing it in later years.


Wait...I blame both sides. Not any single person ruined DC.

Obama played a role...But, I blame everyone.

It's our duty as Americans to clean house...All of them.

Let's change everything...Its our only hope.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere

Well that's fine. According to this article, If Fourth-Year Presidents Shouldn't Do Things, How About Sixth-Year Senators?, there are 34 Senators up for re-election this year. Let's start with those bozos.
edit on 24-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No not at all, all I am doing is highlighting the hypocrisy. And in so doing, I feel much more comfortable with the Senate stone-walling his nomination. No excuse, that's how it works (according to Biden and Obams circa 1992 and 2006).



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Ummm...now that we've entered what if land...what if he doesn't...what if you were to remember Odogmas very own supreme court nominee filibuster...what if...

Yeah...isn't it great to travel the what if road............What if........pfffffft...
(Please insert raspberry lip maneuver)


YouSir



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I couldn't agree with this more. These are the folks we should be focusing on booting the hell outta office!



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader
The only thing Turtle Man and Crew know to do is play Politics, Void of anything that will help your Average American, I hope he follows Scalia's lead.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Again this was only meant to show how hypocritical this administration is. Sure you are right, they didn't "block" anybody. But they did the same things that the Senate is doing now. I have no doubt that the Republican chicken sheets in office will cave and confirm his nomination.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: smitastrophe
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No not at all, all I am doing is highlighting the hypocrisy. And in so doing, I feel much more comfortable with the Senate stone-walling his nomination. No excuse, that's how it works (according to Biden and Obams circa 1992 and 2006).


But they didn't stonewall the competition. The nominees were eventually approved despite their opinions on the matter.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: smitastrophe
a reply to: Gryphon66

Again this was only meant to show how hypocritical this administration is. Sure you are right, they didn't "block" anybody. But they did the same things that the Senate is doing now. I have no doubt that the Republican chicken sheets in office will cave and confirm his nomination.


But "they" didn't do the same things the McConnell Senate states it will do! That is exactly my point.

Yes, Biden, Obama and Schumer all played politics. That is, sadly, expected.

However the Senate did not refuse to even consider a Presidential nominee.

The Constitution is clear, the President nominates an Appointee, the Senate advises and consents (or doesn't).

Refusing to perform the "Advise and Consent" component creates an extra-Constitutional situation that will have to be addressed.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join