Discussion:
Childish, rude, inconsiderate Republican failure
(too old to reply)
i***@gmail.com
2016-02-16 10:40:49 UTC
Permalink
The Republicans' childish threat to block a-yet-to-be-named nominee to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court is, at the very least, extremely inconsiderate and rude. The justices have cases to read, discuss, and ponder. Their dockets will not stop growing because of the Senate's inaction. The justices need time to discuss and consider the matters upon which they are to decide. The Republicans' threat isn't important BUT if the Senate actually delays action, some heads should roll for preventing a third of our government to function.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America does not say that the President may or might but that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court ..." It appears to me that the failure of a sitting President to submit a nomination to the Senate would be malfeasance, i.e., The President is constitutionally obligated to submit a nomination. Submission of a nomination cannot be delayed.

It further says "... the President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions ..." I don't know what that means but it might be relevant.
Marcus
2016-02-16 17:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
The Republicans' childish threat to block a-yet-to-be-named nominee to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court is, at the very least, extremely inconsiderate and rude. The justices have cases to read, discuss, and ponder. Their dockets will not stop growing because of the Senate's inaction. The justices need time to discuss and consider the matters upon which they are to decide. The Republicans' threat isn't important BUT if the Senate actually delays action, some heads should roll for preventing a third of our government to function.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America does not say that the President may or might but that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court ..." It appears to me that the failure of a sitting President to submit a nomination to the Senate would be malfeasance, i.e., The President is constitutionally obligated to submit a nomination. Submission of a nomination cannot be delayed.
It further says "... the President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions ..." I don't know what that means but it might be relevant.
Why do the Republicans want the next president to fill the vacancy?

It doesn't make sense for them to want another Democratic president to make that decision.

http://marccatone.webs.com/berniesanders.htm

Marc
o***@yahoo.com
2016-02-18 21:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcus
Post by i***@gmail.com
The Republicans' childish threat to block a-yet-to-be-named nominee to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court is, at the very least, extremely inconsiderate and rude. The justices have cases to read, discuss, and ponder. Their dockets will not stop growing because of the Senate's inaction. The justices need time to discuss and consider the matters upon which they are to decide. The Republicans' threat isn't important BUT if the Senate actually delays action, some heads should roll for preventing a third of our government to function.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America does not say that the President may or might but that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court ..." It appears to me that the failure of a sitting President to submit a nomination to the Senate would be malfeasance, i.e., The President is constitutionally obligated to submit a nomination. Submission of a nomination cannot be delayed.
It further says "... the President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions ..." I don't know what that means but it might be relevant.
Why do the Republicans want the next president to fill the vacancy?
It doesn't make sense for them to want another Democratic president to make that decision.
http://marccatone.webs.com/berniesanders.htm
Marc
I suppose ewe got ewer crystal ball from a box of California Fruitfalkes cereal.
o***@yahoo.com
2016-02-18 21:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
The Republicans' childish threat to block a-yet-to-be-named nominee to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court is, at the very least, extremely inconsiderate and rude. The justices have cases to read, discuss, and ponder. Their dockets will not stop growing because of the Senate's inaction. The justices need time to discuss and consider the matters upon which they are to decide. The Republicans' threat isn't important BUT if the Senate actually delays action, some heads should roll for preventing a third of our government to function.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America does not say that the President may or might but that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court ..." It appears to me that the failure of a sitting President to submit a nomination to the Senate would be malfeasance, i.e., The President is constitutionally obligated to submit a nomination. Submission of a nomination cannot be delayed.
It further says "... the President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions ..." I don't know what that means but it might be relevant.
don't ewe just hate it when the repubs steal from the democrat playbook?

it seems ewe do.
Dink
2016-02-23 14:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@yahoo.com
Post by i***@gmail.com
The Republicans' childish threat to block a-yet-to-be-named nominee to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court is, at the very least, extremely inconsiderate and rude. The justices have cases to read, discuss, and ponder. Their dockets will not stop growing because of the Senate's inaction. The justices need time to discuss and consider the matters upon which they are to decide. The Republicans' threat isn't important BUT if the Senate actually delays action, some heads should roll for preventing a third of our government to function.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America does not say that the President may or might but that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court ..." It appears to me that the failure of a sitting President to submit a nomination to the Senate would be malfeasance, i.e., The President is constitutionally obligated to submit a nomination. Submission of a nomination cannot be delayed.
It further says "... the President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions ..." I don't know what that means but it might be relevant.
don't ewe just hate it when the repubs steal from the democrat playbook?
it seems ewe do.
Dems block a 'pub judge apointment:
"Nothing to see here; just move along now."

'Pubs block a Dem judge appointment:
"Pitch a screaming fit about 'Pub OBSTRUCTION."
--
Dink {Vox clamantis in deserto}
Marcus
2016-02-24 03:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dink
Post by o***@yahoo.com
Post by i***@gmail.com
The Republicans' childish threat to block a-yet-to-be-named nominee to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court is, at the very least, extremely inconsiderate and rude. The justices have cases to read, discuss, and ponder. Their dockets will not stop growing because of the Senate's inaction. The justices need time to discuss and consider the matters upon which they are to decide. The Republicans' threat isn't important BUT if the Senate actually delays action, some heads should roll for preventing a third of our government to function.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America does not say that the President may or might but that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court ..." It appears to me that the failure of a sitting President to submit a nomination to the Senate would be malfeasance, i.e., The President is constitutionally obligated to submit a nomination. Submission of a nomination cannot be delayed.
It further says "... the President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions ..." I don't know what that means but it might be relevant.
don't ewe just hate it when the repubs steal from the democrat playbook?
it seems ewe do.
"Nothing to see here; just move along now."
"Pitch a screaming fit about 'Pub OBSTRUCTION."
--
Dink {Vox clamantis in deserto}
I guess it's no big deal, the Republicans are just delaying the inevitable...a new Democratic president selecting a new justice after 1/20/17.
Lloyd Bonafide
2016-02-25 03:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcus
Post by Dink
Post by o***@yahoo.com
Post by i***@gmail.com
The Republicans' childish threat to block a-yet-to-be-named nominee to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court is, at the very least, extremely inconsiderate and rude. The justices have cases to read, discuss, and ponder. Their dockets will not stop growing because of the Senate's inaction. The justices need time to discuss and consider the matters upon which they are to decide. The Republicans' threat isn't important BUT if the Senate actually delays action, some heads should roll for preventing a third of our government to function.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America does not say that the President may or might but that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court ..." It appears to me that the failure of a sitting President to submit a nomination to the Senate would be malfeasance, i.e., The President is constitutionally obligated to submit a nomination. Submission of a nomination cannot be delayed.
It further says "... the President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions ..." I don't know what that means but it might be relevant.
don't ewe just hate it when the repubs steal from the democrat playbook?
it seems ewe do.
"Nothing to see here; just move along now."
"Pitch a screaming fit about 'Pub OBSTRUCTION."
--
Dink {Vox clamantis in deserto}
I guess it's no big deal, the Republicans are just delaying the inevitable...a new Democratic president selecting a new justice after 1/20/17.
As always, all of Marcus's predictions are wrong. He predicted Hillary
would not be the nominee and Rand Paul would be president. Now he's
predicting a Democrat president.
JerryD(upstateNY)
2016-02-27 23:18:40 UTC
Permalink
"Marcus" wrote I guess it's no big deal, the Republicans are just delaying
the inevitable
...a new Democratic president selecting a new justice after
1/20/17.<<<<<<<<<

You, the republican establishment, the democrat establishment and the press
are STILL in denial.
Trump will will win the republican nomination and then go on to CRUSH his
democrat opponent.
There will be states that have voted solid democrat for the last 20 years
that will flip, this year.

JerryD(upstateNY)

Loading...