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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
You seriously need to learn American grammar.
As I've said again and again in other threads: Words have meaning. Grammar is the way words are put together and that has meaning as well. If you break down the sentences into their basic parts, you find the meaning of that string of words. If you don't know the meaning of words or parts of speech and their meaning, your arguments go down the drain in spectacular fashion---as they have in this argument.



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.

Taking out the clauses which are not in question we have:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall nominate Judges of the supreme Court.
Just diagram the sentence. It's simple grammar.
He shall obtain the advice and consent of the Senate. Has he sought the advice of the Senate? Until he does so, they are not obligated to do anything. Simple nature of the language. If you don't know grammar and the meaning of the words, you can't understand the attempt to communicate ideas.




posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Let me know when Obama blasts Democrats for doing the same thing.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

The constant repetitions that you make toward my posts (and the posts of just about anyone you disagree with) that we need to a) learn grammar or b) learn history or c) provide more evidence beyond which you continually move the goal posts are just patently ridiculous. For your future reference, I will never respond to that kind of ridiculous manipulation again.

As to the merits of your most current argument, you have done nothing except to say "my interpretation is right." That proves NOTHING.

To review my argument:

1. Article II outlines the powers of the President.

2. These powers are actions that the President is legally empowered and/or directed to make under the Constitution.

3. One of these powers (actions) that the President is Constitutionally EMPOWERED to perform is the nomination of a Supreme Court justice.

4. Article II then follows that with the corresponding ACTION required of the Senate, i.e. to Advise and Consent (or to Refuse) the nomination/appointment.

5. These are POSITIVE requirements ... i.e. they require the President and the Senate to TAKE ACTIONS.

Now you can try to twist that around, ask for Youtube videos as evidence or whatever other little tactics you want to deploy, but those are the obvious FACTS in this situation.

There is nothing in the Constitution which allows for the Senate either to command the President NOT to exercise his power and RESPONSIBILITY to nominate (as McConnell and others have unconstitutionally done with treasonous intent) nor to IGNORE their CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES to ADVISE regarding a nominee's fitness for the position and CONSENT or REJECT the nominee based on rational reasonable criteria.

I am not the topic here.

Your opinions regarding my knowledge of language, civics, history or any other area of knowledge are not the topic here.

Either address the argument made here while avoiding personal commentary directed at me ... or be ignored.
edit on 25-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

Article II doesn't establish the "rights" of the President, they express the POWERS of the Office.

Political POWER is the ability to PERFORM AN ACTION. The President is granted the power to PERFORM THE ACTION of nomination.

The Senate is granted the Power to do two things in response to ADVISE the President on this nominee and to either CONSENT or REJECT the nominee.

The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT the power to the Senate to a) command the President not to perform this action or b) refuse to perform the actions of ADVISE and CONSENT in return.

The only CLAIM I have made is to state clearly what the Constitution says. The evidence is the Constitution itself.

Your claim is that the Senate is not compelled to act in response to the President, invoking what you call legal precedent regarding "mandates" etc. etc. etc. Your claim is the subordinate claim here. You have provided nothing but your own "authority" as evidence. I have provided the text of the Constitution itself.

It's on you bud, not me. Prove your case.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I largely agree with you. Democrats not railing against this happening when democrats do it makes the outrage hollow though. Just like it will be hollow when the situation is reversed against the Republicans in the future.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The only thing that matters to me is that they follow the Constitution. R or D



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
If one doesn't know the meaning of words about which the argument is being made, or one does not know the rules of grammar, one cannot make a cogent argument. If one is attempting to argue history or civics, one's arguments should be based on actual knowledge of the subject. Otherwise, the poster appears to be a bot simply posting the same, tired argument.

Back to topic: It won't be difficult at all for Moneybags Mitch to explain his position. He's the leader of the Senate, duly elected. He may not have a pen and a phone but he controls the flow of legislation. It's his job. Has the president asked for the advice of the Senate?
I've already suggested that Gerry Spence would be my choice as a nominee. I believe I missed your recommendation to the OP.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Sargeras

Article II doesn't establish the "rights" of the President, they express the POWERS of the Office.

Political POWER is the ability to PERFORM AN ACTION. The President is granted the power to PERFORM THE ACTION of nomination.

The Senate is granted the Power to do two things in response to ADVISE the President on this nominee and to either CONSENT or REJECT the nominee.

The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT the power to the Senate to a) command the President not to perform this action or b) refuse to perform the actions of ADVISE and CONSENT in return.

The only CLAIM I have made is to state clearly what the Constitution says. The evidence is the Constitution itself.

Your claim is that the Senate is not compelled to act in response to the President, invoking what you call legal precedent regarding "mandates" etc. etc. etc. Your claim is the subordinate claim here. You have provided nothing but your own "authority" as evidence. I have provided the text of the Constitution itself.

It's on you bud, not me. Prove your case.


Your issue is a technicality. They're not required to actually confirm anyone, but legally they should pretend. They're supposed to listen and decide, why bother if it can't go anywhere? Congress already wastes enough time. If you like Congress or not....... and I don't, this is an FU to to an executive branch who bypassed them and left everything to the courts. The only power they have on these issues lies with the SCOTUS. The problem with that is a lot of damage is done long before the court gets to it(amnesty). I can understand trying to not give Obama a 3rd lifetime court appointment given his disregard for congress. This is a mess that both sides have caused.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: EightTF3

Republicans and Conservatives continually argue for the strictest "strict constructionism."

It is beyond obvious, despite the continual obfuscation here and elsewhere, that the Constitution states clearly that the POWER of the President is to nominate individuals to certain high offices within the government of the United States. There exists a corresponding and secondary or reactive POWER on the part of the Senate to "Advise and Consent" regarding that nominee.

There is nothing in Article I (listing the powers of Congress) that enables the Senate to give orders to the President to refrain from exercising his Powers.

There is nothing in Article I that enables the Senate to ignore the exercise of its clearly defined powers of Advise and Consent.

Now, here's the rub.

The Constitution does not address the mechanism of punishment for a Branch of Government refusing to exercise the enumerated powers assigned to it.

Thus, let's say that Congress simply chooses to ignore its power to ... say ... make laws, as the Republicans have done for the last five years particularly, for the most part.

There is no Constitutional regress. There is no punishment the People can exact upon those who choose not to do their jobs other than at the voting booth.

There is no way to compel the Senate to do its Constitutional duty directly ... but there should be.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
If one doesn't know the meaning of words about which the argument is being made, or one does not know the rules of grammar, one cannot make a cogent argument. If one is attempting to argue history or civics, one's arguments should be based on actual knowledge of the subject. Otherwise, the poster appears to be a bot simply posting the same, tired argument.


Yet, I do know the meaning of words and grammar, and I do understand civics and history. You don't agree with the arguments made, however, and being utterly incapable of logically or factually disputing them, you simply take the sophomoric tactic of ad hominem ... you imply that those you are conversing with are ignorant of grammar, history and civics not because you demonstrate this, but merely because you don't agree with or can't contest the facts presented. The other common tactic you use is to continually "move the goalposts" by asking for more and more evidence regardless of how much is presented to you.

That's not argumentation, that's merely the mundane fallacies that you continually deploy here against me and others.

Now, consider yourself ignored unless you choose to argue in a reasonable and factual manner.
edit on 26-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Cleaned up redundancy



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: EightTF3

Republicans and Conservatives continually argue for the strictest "strict constructionism."

It is beyond obvious, despite the continual obfuscation here and elsewhere, that the Constitution states clearly that the POWER of the President is to nominate individuals to certain high offices within the government of the United States. There exists a corresponding and secondary or reactive POWER on the part of the Senate to "Advise and Consent" regarding that nominee.

There is nothing in Article I (listing the powers of Congress) that enables the Senate to give orders to the President to refrain from exercising his Powers.

There is nothing in Article I that enables the Senate to ignore the exercise of its clearly defined powers of Advise and Consent.

Now, here's the rub.

The Constitution does not address the mechanism of punishment for a Branch of Government refusing to exercise the enumerated powers assigned to it.

Thus, let's say that Congress simply chooses to ignore its power to ... say ... make laws, as the Republicans have done for the last five years particularly, for the most part.

There is no Constitutional regress. There is no punishment the People can exact upon those who choose not to do their jobs other than at the voting booth.

There is no way to compel the Senate to do its Constitutional duty directly ... but there should be.


I thought the republican congress acted like dicks for the most part. They fought Obama for show to impress constituents, while getting nothing really done outside passing more BS budgets. That said Obama decided to ignore congress with executive action which bothers me far more cause actions that can be taken unilaterally are harder to correct long team, you'll get it if we see a President Trump. I hate them all but I'd rather not let Obama have a 3rd justice if I'm being honest. My leanings would make me unwelcome at most conservative or liberal parties. I don't blame a congress he doesn't want to work with for fighting over the only power they have left, the Courts and it's legally in their power. I don't see it as being in any less good faith



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: EightTF3

Every President, including George Washington, has used Executive Orders. Many have used more than Obama has and to accomplish far more controversial outcomes.

Your claim that "Obama doesn't want to work with Congress" is at best a chicken-egg problem.

Other than that, I can't debate with your personal opinions and preferences.



Oh, and to the ostensible question that OP queried? My nominee would probably be along the lines of Vice Admiral James W. Crawford, III.
edit on 26-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Sir, your constant repetition of some nonsensical interpretation of the Constitution born of ignorance of the meaning of words and grammar is wearying. As as your unwavering attempts to derail threads and divert attention from the OP's intent.

Per the OP:


Who will it be, and who would you vote for? Is The top clown going to pull one more over us before he is out for good?
Lets here it ATS-ers!


Have I missed your nominee?
You have not once addressed the OP's question but attempted to divert attention from that question.
You have no argument. Only cries that others don't argue correctly when your lack of knowledge is pointed up. The same twisted gobbledygook, to the point of being botish.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   
/yawn

In other news ...

Massachusetts Senate divided on resolution urging US Senate vote on President Obama's Supreme Court pick



Back on Beacon Hill, Kenneth Donnelly's resolution states that the people of Massachusetts "deserve to have a fully functioning Supreme Court with nine justices," and the U.S. Constitution does not limit the president's power to appoint a nominee in an election year. It says failing to consider a nominee would undermine the meaning and intent of the U.S. Constitution "and be a profound disservice to the American people."


MarketWatch



Everyone knows the Senate is broken, and has been broken for years. And everyone knows that Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has taken the clownishness to new heights with his argument that Obama isn’t really the president for the last year of his term, which I suppose means that the executive branch of government should just turn off the lights until next January.

When McConnell says “let the people decide,” he’s ignoring the fact that the people already decided, and they elected Obama.

Of course, McConnell has never accepted the election(s) of Obama as president. That’s why McConnell’s Senate has blocked dozens of appointments to administration and judicial positions. This didn’t start last week. There are now 89 vacancies on the federal courts, including 31 deemed by the courts to be an “emergency” vacancy that is delaying justice for the American people.


Newspaper Editorial Boards Overwhelmingly Urge Senate To "Do Your Job" And Vote On Obama's SCOTUS Nominee - Media Matters



The Washington Post: "THIS ONE shouldn't be complicated. The fourth year of President Obama's four-year term has just begun. Senators are elected to six-year terms, and all of them have at least 11 months still to serve. The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has created a vacancy on the nine-member Supreme Court. The Constitution tells the president to nominate justices and senators to confirm or reject those nominees."




The LA Times: "This is self-serving sophistry. The American people do have a voice in any nomination Obama makes. They "spoke" when they elected him to a second term that has 11 months remaining. His authority to nominate Supreme Court justices is no more diminished by his supposed lame-duck status than any of his other constitutional powers.

The Senate also has a constitutional duty: to consider presidential nominees expeditiously. A long vacancy is undesirable in part because a court comprised of only eight members raises the possibility of 4-4 decisions that, while they affirm a lower court's decision, don't create a national precedent."


/shrug
edit on 26-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Your nominee?
I believe that is the topic of this thread.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 04:34 AM
link   
As I've said many times here, the only thing that matters in all the folderol about "government this and that" is our Constitution.

The Constitution is more than clear on the nomination process for judicial high office.

It is my sincerest hope that Mr. McConnell, the other Senators and anyone else choosing to ignore the American people and our founding documents, soon learn or at least remember the facts of the matter.

OP's topic here clearly states that the President has said it will be difficult for anyone to explain anything other than that to the American people, and I agree wholeheartedly.

I've made my "recommendation" above ... along with the Constitutional basis of why the Senate must do its duty, along with multiple sources that clearly support that interpretation.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So your recommendation is Market Watch, Media Matters and the LA Times? Funny, I thought nominations for Supreme Court justices had to be persons.
Guess you don't have any answers to the OP, just attempts to derail yet again into your twisted Progressive, Authoritarian view of the Constitution.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66

So your recommendation is Market Watch, Media Matters and the LA Times? Funny, I thought nominations for Supreme Court justices had to be persons.
Guess you don't have any answers to the OP, just attempts to derail yet again into your twisted Progressive, Authoritarian view of the Constitution.


Speaking of reading comprehension ... you're wrong yet again.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: EightTF3

Oh, and to the ostensible question that OP queried? My nominee would probably be along the lines of Vice Admiral James W. Crawford, III.


Now, please get back on topic and stop the personal commentary and attempts to harass...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join