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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.


Who would want to be nominated under these circumstances ?

Nobody signs up to get "Borked..."




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.



Relax, Skippy. I was just bringing up the irony of Obama's complaints regarding somebody not honoring the intent of the constitution and you immediately respond with the idiotic " I'm above partisanship(it shows) so I'm going to regurgitate and remind everyone in my first sentence" do you think pretending to be more high minded makes you seem smarter. In my opinion skipping the legislative branch to impose something like amnesty violates the intent of the constitution. You're clearly the constitutional expert here so maybe you can correct me. I do know that the supreme court will ultimately decide on that for us, and unlike you, they despite their best efforts do have partisan leanings making this appointment a pretty big deal. You also should check out this popular website called Google.com you can type in something like "Obama John Roberts opposition" and see he tried blocking the guy who ironically saved Obamacare.

Also since you came in complaining about congresses blatant violation of the constitution, what law are they actually violating here?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere

I guess we'll see.

It seems the President (elected by a majority of the American people) will fulfill his Constitutional obligation ... let's see if Mr. McConnell (elected by a majority of Kentuckians) follows his ... or whether he intends to follow through with ignoring the Constitution.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: EightTF3
Also since you came in complaining about congresses blatant violation of the constitution, what law are they actually violating here?


The President . . . 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. . . (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: EightTF3
Also since you came in complaining about congresses blatant violation of the constitution, what law are they actually violating here?


The President . . . 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. . . (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)


The Constitution also assumed people could act like grown ups.

It assumed elected people would keep their sworn oath.

The Founders gave us way too much credit.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere

The Founders gave us way too much credit.


At least in regard to Mitch McConnell, should he go through with his threat to ignore the Constitution.




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere

You know, we don't seem to agree a lot, but we definitely in agreement here.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


Then explain that to your beloved left.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

I'm not beholden to the left, when they are guilty of it I'll point them out too.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: EightTF3
Also since you came in complaining about congresses blatant violation of the constitution, what law are they actually violating here?


The President . . . 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. . . (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)


You know the phase " with the advice and consent of the senate" doesn't mean they have to give either right?

It doesn't say " the Senate shall advise and consent "

It said "with" for a reason.

They don't have to do anything at this juncture.

If Obama truly wants to appoint someone, it damned well better be someone they want, or they can do nothing.

They don't have to advise, they don't even have to vote yes or no.

They don't have to do dick.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
The Constitution does not authorize the Senate to "do nothing."

Advice and Consent (or No Consent) are ACTIONS.

Nothing in the Constitution empowers Mitch McConnell (or the US Senate) to "do nothing."



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

Quote some legal precedent where this is true and has happened in the past then.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Sargeras

I'm not beholden to the left, when they are guilty of it I'll point them out too.


I see you beating " the right is evil" drum daily, yet very rarely see you do anything but defend the left.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere

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.


Look they had their chance.
They brought in their guy but the American people overwhelmingly choose Obama to be their new President and Commander in Chief.

They brought in McCain, and even Trump doesn't think much of McCain.

Speaking of off-topic, since I am,
I find it funny that the majority of Republican primary voters are voting for Trump, who doesn't care for the Bush's (gasp!) believes we were unjustified to go to war with Iraq (you liberal scum!) and puts down the last Conservative to step up to bat for "his" party; McCain.

I just find it so hilarious that the new Republican Demigod Trump is actually:

-very liberal
-pro choice
-pro gay rights
-totally not religious (two corinthians??) lol

Hillary or Donald? One of them wants keep the AFA and the other one wants to change it and make it tremendously better.

As a Bernie fan I support tax funded healthcare for ALL.

So, if Bernie gets devoured by the corruption, hell... I might just go all in on the Donald. I don't know....



edit on 24-2-2016 by EmmanuelGoldstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

Why is that people on the right insist on debating me instead of the topic whenever they run out of things to talk about? Y'all should just make a thread. "Why Krazysh0t is a liberal" and y'all can go at it all day talking about how hypocritical you think I am and how much you all hate me.
edit on 24-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


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


They've already been there, done that, back in the administration of John Tyler. Perhaps some of you that are screeching so loudly should have paid more attention in US History class. Both Tyler and later, Millard Fillmore had nominees rejected by Congress for political reasons.
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, or so somebody once opined.

McConnell is just dumber than a bucket of spit to make such an announcement.
I'm kinda hoping for a nomination for Gerry Spence. I think he would make a fine member of the Black-Robed Tribe.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

We aren't talking about rejection. We are talking about the Senate not even bothering to consider the nomination. BIG difference there.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66


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


They've already been there, done that, back in the administration of John Tyler. Perhaps some of you that are screeching so loudly should have paid more attention in US History class. Both Tyler and later, Millard Fillmore had nominees rejected by Congress for political reasons.
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, or so somebody once opined.

McConnell is just dumber than a bucket of spit to make such an announcement.
I'm kinda hoping for a nomination for Gerry Spence. I think he would make a fine member of the Black-Robed Tribe.




Perhaps you can point to the analogous situation in the Tyler or Fillmore Administrations in which the Senate REFUSED to act on Presidential nominations?

Thank you kindly.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Constitution does not authorize the Senate to "do nothing."

Advice and Consent (or No Consent) are ACTIONS.

Nothing in the Constitution empowers Mitch McConnell (or the US Senate) to "do nothing."



The absence of a mandate to act implies the right not to, in all legal language, period.

That is why laws say things like " shall" "will" " must".

There is no law that action is required unless it is mandated.

You are just blinded by your idiology, and want it to mandate it, but it doesn't.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Personally, I’m fed up with the attitude coming from the GOP these days. Their obssessive hatred for Obama, the obstructionist tactics and outright sabotage of anything/everything associated with Obama (regardless of merit), the ugly disrespect, slander and defamation toward a sitting President, the outrageous conspiracy theories, accusations and insinuations about the President and his family, the kangaroo courts (Congressional hearings) conducted with a lynchmob mentality, and the attempts to derail matters of foreign policy and international relations, etc., etc., etc.,... The GOP is running this nation into the ground. You lost the last general election, so get the f*ck over it.

Contrary to the last GOP President, this one has done a lot for this country. What he inherited from his GOP predecessor was a country in the throes of financial ruin, shedding jobs at the rate of 800,000 per month with 2 raging wars. We survived an imminent depression and the unemployment rate is below 5%. General Motors was saved and thrives again. Whether you like it or not, we’re a lot better off now than when Obama took office.

Unless you’re certifiably brain-dead, it’s quite clear that McConnell’s move to obstruct the process flies in the face of the Constitution, and is unprecedented. It’s also obvious that the GOP’s professed love affair with the letter of the Constitution is nothing more than hollow rhetoric. Like a child having a tantrum, if the GOP doesn’t get it’s way it cries and pouts and refuses to play the game anymore. boo hoo...

I’m an American, have been all my life, and used to be proud of it. Not so much anymore...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join