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: 7
120
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


The president has to send his appointment to the judiciary Committee.
False. The President submits his nominee to the Senate. The ball is then in their court. They refuse to do their part.


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,



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




posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
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.


Dems, libs, left don't see things like that about themselves. Take the AHCA, not a single republican voted for it and a few dems maybe......they had the three branches in hand and RAMED the stupid thing down every ones pie hole and then got the SC to get the legal monkey off its back......very partisan.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr


The president has to send his appointment to the judiciary Committee.
False. The President submits his nominee to the Senate. The ball is then in their court. They refuse to do their part.


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,




False again come on now you and I usually don't disagree your slipping. To start the process all Obama has to do is send his nomination to the judiciary chair. Using the Senate’s parliamentary rules, the Senate Judiciary chair, Charles Grassley would have several ways to keep the nomination from moving out of committee. The Judiciary Committee can undertake a pre-hearing investigative stage, followed by public hearings and a decision on a recommendation for the full Senate. Informing the senate of your nomination is only part of the process. In fact the white house has to put forward a bio as well of there nominee to the judiciary. Whats going on here is its to Obamas advantage not to start the nominees investigation and let the republicans do what they do best stick there foot in there mouths as to what they will and wont do. Now you could argue the White houses decided not to push the senate into hearings because they didn't want the fight I guess. Eve Reagan had to push through his nominations forcing the judiciary to take action.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

To start the process all Obama has to do is send his nomination to the judiciary chair.
No. To start the process the President submits his nomination to the Senate. The Senate is refusing to hold a hearing on the nominee.



Now you could argue the White houses decided not to push the senate into hearings because they didn't want the fight I guess.


Senate Republicans are refusing to hold a hearing for President Obama's nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland. Here's why this is an unprecedented level of obstruction.

www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

There is no integrity in breaking the Constitution. Plus these guys are LITERALLY changing their tunes because their gamble is failing, I'd say that is the opposite of integrity. Integrity would be honoring your promise to move on a judge because the public said a Democrat should be President.

YOU don't know the first thing about integrity apparently if you think these Republicans are showing it with these moves.


ROFLMAO... You have got to be kidding... "breaking the Constitution" is what President Obama is doing... He is not preserving it... The three branches of government are supposed to be a check and balances and that not one branch of government can have control of everything... Having democrat/liberals choose another supreme court justice will stop the check and balances you are so willing to part with... Because then the executive branch would have control over the Judicial branch as well. Yes the President is supposed to choose Justices, but justices that want to preserve the Constitution not destroy it like Obama and HIllary want...

Obama is simply pissed because he has been trying to use executive orders to pass unconstitutional laws, and some of those have been stopped while he has been able to pass others.

Don't give us that crap that President Obama and democrats are for the constitution when they are destroying it left and right...


edit on 4-11-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

To start the process all Obama has to do is send his nomination to the judiciary chair.
No. To start the process the President submits his nomination to the Senate. The Senate is refusing to hold a hearing on the nominee.



Now you could argue the White houses decided not to push the senate into hearings because they didn't want the fight I guess.


Senate Republicans are refusing to hold a hearing for President Obama's nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland. Here's why this is an unprecedented level of obstruction.

www.whitehouse.gov...


Senate rules state once they receive the information from the white house they have to start proceedings. Your confusing an announcement with actual documentation. Informing them is only part of the process. All they have to do is send the nomination to Charles Grassley. They submitted there choice to the senate but havnt sent the required documents to the judiciary. This would cause Grassley to have to actively block the nomination something he hasn't had to do yet.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

You are missing a few points. You see...I belong to roughly 1/2 of American citizens. Obama was elected and I didn't vote for him either time. I disagree with most liberal agendas. But Obama, instead of representing the views of all the American people, decided to only represent the far left. So...he is not my President. I did vote for individuals that are now in Congress. Since Obama plays political favoritism, it is only fair that the right leaning people I helped to elect do the exact same thing. If Obama and his buddies can force Obamacare down the throats of all Americans (even when he lied to get it passed), my representatives can decide not to appoint a judge. Tit for tat I think they call it.

If Obama or any president wants cooperation, they need to be the president of ALL the people, not just the side that elected them. If they decide they are only on the side of the left (for example), that makes the right their enemy. Of course...visa versa.

So when YOUR team decides to play non-partisan politics...maybe we will too.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE



Obama is hardly far left but he has had to deal with repeated attacks from fringe groups some of it warranted nut others just total partisan politics. As president I cant say he was a resounding success but he didn't fail either and given a choice between Hillary Trump or him and choose Obama.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I didn't vote for obama either, and will be voting my republican representative in this year...
so, just who's team am I on??
But, I am also conveying my concern on this issue to his office.

it is wrong to allow the supreme court to go through four years with an even number of judges, period! we don't need a bunch of cases going through ending up with tied verdicts and reverting back to the lower courts decisions when many times these cases are combined and the lower courts have made different decisions. that's just a recipe for chaos!

and obama did not nominate a judge that was to the far left, he nominated a judge that was held in high regard to both the republicans and the democratics. which tells me that what the republicans doesn't want moderate anything, they want someone to represent the far right, ya know the one's who want to give the christian groups immunity to a bunch of laws and hold them in higher regard to anyone that might have different religious views. who want to deny gay couples rights simply because god says that they are evil. ect. so just who doesn't want to represent all of america here?



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Have you heard yet the latest news about Obamacare?... The increase in 35% in all healthcare insurance premiums in 2017 thanks to Obamacare... I got to wonder who believes the BS coming out from this administration claiming jobs, and the market are getting better when Obama has put in place regulations which have closed down jobs all over the country...

There used to be 4,000 rigs all over the U.S., now there are only 400 running and Obama closed the rest. The coal industry jobs are all closed down as well. The only thing that is doing well is the imaginary world that progressive/the left has made up and is trying to sell as reality.

There are regulations that are also affecting truckers, and Obama went on the record saying truckers can bypass these regulations if they pay a fee... That's thanks to "the fight for Climate Change"... This in turn, plus the less jobs in the oil industry, and no jobs in coal will increase the prices of electricity, gas, as well as the price in products such as in your supermarket. But hey, liberals/the left say "everything is peachy"...


edit on 4-11-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

obama closed them down, or the companies decided to cap them because it's cheaper to buy oil overseas that for them to drill it out of the ground.
there was another time in history when the wells producing were cut down alot...
around the time when reagan was in office. the oil towns were booming during the clinton years, because the middle east was in turmoil and oil was high. when reagan came in and began dealing with the iranians, the turmoil reduced and well the wells were capped, because the oil price went back down!!

we now have oil prices that are being kept down in an attempt to damage the russian economy, which is based heavily in oil.
and, just what regulations are you griping about with the truckers?



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar



Obama Is Planning New Rules on Oil and Gas Industry’s Methane Emissions

By CORAL DAVENPORTJAN. 13, 2015
Continue reading the main story
Share This Page


WASHINGTON — In President Obamas latest move using executive authority to tackle climate change, White House officials on Wednesday announced plans to impose new regulations on the oil and gas industrys emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. The administrations goal is to cut methane emissions from oil and gas production by up to 45 percent by 2025 from the levels recorded in 2012.
...

www.nytimes.com...

The Environmental Protection Agency will issue the proposed regulations this summer, and final regulations by 2016.



Chris White 3:51 PM 08/18/2016

The Obama administration is allowing trucking companies to buy their way out of a strict set of environmental regulations heaped on the trucking industry.

The Environmental Protection Agency, with the help of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), announced Tuesday changes to fuel emission standards for work trucks, vans and over-the-road semi-trucks under the guise of fighting global warming.

Tucked deep inside the rulebook are a series of complicated stipulations allowing the U.S.’ trucking companies to pay fines if they are unable to comply with the regulators’ increasingly complicated rules.

The new standards will affect engine performance standards for truck model years 2018-2027, and for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks.

The EPA and NHTSA said the new regulations will also lower carbon emission levels by 1.1 billion metric tons, save vehicle owners $170 billion, and ratchet down oil consumption by two billion barrels over a vehicle’s lifetime.
...


Obama Says Truckers Must Pay Fine To Avoid New Climate Regs

These "regulations", among others, will heavily affect the economy of the United States. Truckers are going to pass the bill to the consumers, which will increase the prices, which already are increasing, of all our products.

If we continue down this road, which is what the left including Hillary wants to do, the U.S. will turn into the new Venezuela...

Look at all the regulations that the Venezuelan government has imposed to fight climate change. The same will happen to us if people vote Clinton, or the election is rigged which they will try to do.

Venezuela Rations Electricity, Blames Climate Change

But there are people who still believe the BS that the Obama administration is doing this to "tackle climate change" when it won't do anything to stop or mitigate climate change at all. It is just an excuse for more controls, and power.


edit on 4-11-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.


edit on 4-11-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct link.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

They can hold the hearing but then can reject right? Thats what they said they will do is reject it outright. as their job allows.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Phage

They can hold the hearing but then can reject right? Thats what they said they will do is reject it outright. as their job allows.


Well if Garland is an example they will never even have a hearing. If they had held the hearing and rejected him people would not be so upset with the GOP.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Phage

They can hold the hearing but then can reject right? Thats what they said they will do is reject it outright. as their job allows.


Well if Garland is an example they will never even have a hearing. If they had held the hearing and rejected him people would not be so upset with the GOP.


why hold the hearing when they have already announced the verdict? it would be a waste of taxpayer money.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The President has to choose a supreme court justice that will abide by the U.S. Constitution, but we know he won't because that's what he has done with other justices and government officials he has already put in power.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

They have not voted on Garland thus not showning consent or dissent to his nomination. The Senate has not done its job at all.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Spekaing of "hyper-reversals", the fake rape victim dropped their fake rape claim lawsuit against Trump...again.

It seems like all the all the Trump haters who always posted evey little detail about this phony rape case are suddenly no longer interested.
edit on 4-11-2016 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
. . . which tells me that what the republicans doesn't want moderate anything, they want someone to represent the far right, ya know the one's who want to give the christian groups immunity to a bunch of laws and hold them in higher regard to anyone that might have different religious views. who want to deny gay couples rights simply because god says that they are evil. ect. so just who doesn't want to represent all of america here?



They want another Scalia.

They're acting like 3 year old's. "If I can't have it my way, no one can have it".



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Spekaing of "hyper-reversals", the fake rape victim dropped their fake rape claim lawsuit against Trump...again.

It seems like all the all the Trump haters who always posted evey little detail about this phony rape case are suddenly no longer interested.


Or she caved to the death threats....




top topics



 
120
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join