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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Obama Nails Republicans For Hyper-Partisan Reversal On Supreme Court Nominees

page: 6
120
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: MillerTribe
lame duck doesn't mean, newly elected though does it?? it's an entirely different matter when they are talking about just holding up all appointments for the next four to eight years.




posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Umm ... dude, I hate to point this out: but you ARE The OP


Why refer to yourself not in the first person?



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

Are you REALLY trying to make this ridiculous semantics point? You do know that OP can either mean opening post or opening poster right? Usually intelligent people use context to figure out which one is which. Just like when they see the word "read".
edit on 4-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
As I recall it's illegal to appoint during an election year and the demonrats made the law!!




posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ahh hahah .. point taken.

Actually I did not know that hahah ... *blush*



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

Alright well if it was a honest mistake I'll forgive you. It's hard to tell when people are trying to be sarcastically nasty versus legit these days when it comes to posts like that.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: MillerTribe
lame duck doesn't mean, newly elected though does it?? it's an entirely different matter when they are talking about just holding up all appointments for the next four to eight years.



Well that's really baseless rumors and predictions but if that wee to happen it would be the will of the people who will have voted in a how you say obstructionist congress for decade and counting. That's how this works. Elections have consequences.
edit on 4-11-2016 by MillerTribe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Just how long is the time limit for 'advise and consent' by the Senate for Supreme Court nominees as specified in the Constitution?

Oh, there isn't a time limit.


The Constitution doesn't say that debate cannot be in Swahili either.

It is a Constitutional obligation for Congress to actually advise and consent, as is it for the President to make appointments. Intentionally avoiding advise and intentionally avoiding voting on consent is obviously a violation.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
As I recall it's illegal to appoint during an election year and the demonrats made the law!!


Where is that law? I don't believe it's true.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

" they are blatantly ignoring their constitutional duty in an attempt to turn the supreme court into an extra appendage to serve their purpose. "

Exactly , I Agree .The Dems do that All the time .



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Lets see...the Supreme Court is supposed to follow the Constitution.

From Scholastic.com who states:


The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress. It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.


When you have extremists and rogues being appointed to the Supreme Court who ignore their role and dish out personal, opinionated "justice" instead of following the highest law of the land...the Constitution...we have a problem. When Obama and maybe Clinton turn out to be criminals, liars, cheaters, thieves and murders and appoint justices that will aid them with their un-Constitutional agenda...it is a REQUIREMENT of those who can, to fight this corruption by any means necessary.

Keeping un-American opinions out of our legal system is, for me...more than enough to applaud these representatives of the people for doing what they can to stop the corruption of American laws and values.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: MillerTribe

baseless rumors??
that republican congressmen are saying that they will just not do any appointments for four years if hillary is elected is not a baseless rumor. I can find you videos where they are saying it!!

and, you need to read the constitution....
the "will of the people" really has very little to do with it. they elected the president, they elected the congress... that is where they expressed their will. now that president that they elected and that congress they elected are obligated by the constitution to work together, president by nominating someone, congress by advising and consenting to someone and place that someone on the court.
yes, the congress has the duty to vote down any nominee that they see as being unfit for the job, but they are failing at their duty if they don't at least advise, and take into consideration the president's nominee...give the a vote!

and, failing their duties deserves impeachment!



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE



When you have extremists and rogues being appointed to the Supreme Court who ignore their role and dish out personal, opinionated "justice" instead of following the highest law of the land...the Constitution...we have a problem.


give me some examples of that personal and opinionated justice that the supreme court has laid out??
I'd be interested to know.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Agreed, Obama is mad because he can't keep stacking the deck, and stacking the deck has been ALL that he does.

HE stacked the deck in his favor by not having any inspector generals put in place for a long time so everything he was doing could fly under the radar easier, and it worked.
He stacks the deck any chance he gets, and that includes unconstitutionally doing so, like with Obamacare which they had to call it a tax to get away with it. A totally illegal tax without representation. Obama is a pig liar who deserves nothing from anyone.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I'm not going to get into a case by case debate. Lets make it simple. There are two major political parties. The Supreme court has been basically divided between these to parties and one "tie-breaker". These judges are partisan and vote their beliefs...to some extent. Clinton and Obama would gladly stack the court to ignore the Constitution and support un-Constitutional efforts. If the justice is supposed to be blind and the courts fair, then at a political level they must be balanced.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Well it seems your using two different standards. How long the seat was vacant vs how long the appointment was withheld. Heres what I mean the Obama administration still has brought the vote to the senate. All Obama has done is make an announcement who he would choose. If he wanted he can send his appointment to the senate for vote. This would force the senate to filibuster the nomination like Obama did with Alito. So as of yet the senate hasn't even obstructed anything only threatened to do so if Obama sends up a nominee. So why I bring this up there has been no nominee proposed to the senate floor and therefore cannot get that clock running. All we can base this off is the time scalias death in march. So far the calendar is still zero on how long they withheld the appointment.

Basically the white house hasn't started the process and chooses not to me personally I would and make the senate filibuster many presidents have. But Obama seems more intent on letting this fight remain in the press. Obama is using it to help in the battle for the senate as long as he doesn't go forward its a campaign issue. Bottom line is until the president does more than make an announcement no one is holding up a nomination they are trash talking in the press about what they will and wont do. Me personally I think they should just fill the position if they believe hes unqualified that will be shown in the hearings. But the white house doesn't want to start the process so this is nothing more than politics as usual out of Washington holding court in the office of public opinion instead of actually nominating someone.
edit on 11/4/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

That's certainly not the legal precedent. Advice and consent is held as any lawful action of congress and confirmation. Filibusters, threshold changes and floor votes are all recognized powers of congress. The president does not have the power to compel a legislative vote. Even a declaration of war doesn't trigger a congressional vote. It's called separation of powers. Emboldened by decades of crying obstructionist, it's main ingredient in this cake.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Basically the white house hasn't started the process
False.
The nomination was received by the Senate on March 16, 2016. The President did what was required. Or is there some secret part of the process that only you know about?
www.whitehouse.gov...
vacancy



edit on 11/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


OMG and in case you haven't noticed its only obstruction when the republicans do it for Pete sake.


And in case you haven't noticed, and libs are bad for not noticing being caught up in themselves, we are having a constitutional crisis in this country and all options afforded in the constitution, balance of powers are being or threatening to be used.

The constitution may be to much for you libs to understand. It was made this way for just such occasions.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


hearingsNo secret at all advising the senate is not starting the process. The president has to send his appointment to the judiciary Committee. then they will hold I believe three hearings two private and one public been a while since I read it. Then the judiciary will either recommend to appoint or not. Then it goes to the senate hearings but by all means show me where the white hose has started the proceedings since you seem to know some secret that apparently the senate doesn't know. This fight has been done before yes the president can force hearings on the issue he chooses not to at this time.




top topics



 
120
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join