If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Guest Monadnock & NES Need your Help!!!
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by xtry51, Jan 7, 2019.
She's actually in the shop getting cyborged lol.
I interpret it differently. The Senate's role is to advise and consent. Obama fulfilled his constitutional obligation by nominating a judge for consideration. The Senate fulfilled its obligation to advise and consent and it did not consent. Thus the justice was not nominated to the court. Obama opted not to nominate another justice for consideration and so the seat remained vacant until Trump submitted a nomination that the Senate approved. End of story.
If Obama had opted to nominate another justice that was agreeable to the Senate at the time - I have no doubt he/she would be on the court. He elected not to. So that's on him.
All joking aside, as duplicitous and conniving as the Left are, I have to wonder if they wouldn't attempt just such a charade.
Harry Reid set the precedent ....
They will keep her on life support for decades and bring in vocal fry Dr. Ford to interpret her brainwaves to make SC decisions.
maybe she needs a vacation to some warmer place to recuperate?
Or maybe that hunting resort Scalia was at....
The more a country moves towards a totalitarian / communist type of regime, the more likely they will do this. They elevate their rulers to status of god and then have trouble coming to grips with their demise.
I don't see how this is that much different from what I stated with regard to Obama's pick. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to believe that Obama would have nominated someone that a Republican-controlled Senate would agree with during an election year.
In fact, according to McConnell's own words, the last time a president nominated a candidate that was approved of by the other party during an election year happened in 1880, so history was against Obama. If this weren't true, I'm sure that the fact checkers would have noted it, but it's immaterial now.
Mitch McConnell Defends Blocking Merrick Garland
Hiding the death of a Justice is lighter weight hijinks than snuffing out a Justice in a hunting camp pillow accident.
Party affiliation is completely irrelevant to the process and not mentioned in the constitution at all - ever. It is the POTUS's job to nominate a justice for consideration by the Senate and the Senate's job to approve or not. If the POTUS opts to nominate a justice that will not be approved by the Senate - then the seat remains empty until such time that he does. That's what happened.
If Obama had appointed Gorsuch - the Senate would have seated him. But he nominated a justice the Senate - as a body - was opposed to. So he was never seated. Period - end of story. I don't BELIEVE one thing or another. I'm merely making statements of fact.
Obama played a game. He thought Clinton would win and the Dems would take the Senate. So he opted to wait it out. He lost. That's on him - no one else.
speaking of charades, i cant wait to see what "dirt" they'll sniff up on the next candidate when old ginny does croak.
He (or she) is a child molester. Unless older than the age of 60. Then they are a Communist sympathizer with ties to Russia and Putin.
Oh, wait. Did I do that too early?
Rest assured they have already created a dossier on that nominee without even knowing who it will be. It will just need some tweaks once they have a name.
Psychotic liberals ... But I repeat myself.
The Cult of Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Politico Alum Suggests Sacrifice
I know it's the Senate that confirms, but the House will use their recent victories to predict a soon-to-be Senate majority, so no hearings until then ...
RBG Rot Below Ground
someone should call in a wellness check on her...
Make sure no dogs are around
Yeah, you have to wait. Otherwise the press release will read “This horrible scotus candidate [insert name] is clearly a child molester AND said harsh words to a classmate in junior high school”
I don't need a lesson wrt how the process works to nominate a candidate as I'm well aware that party affiliation is completely irrelevant. I even explained this in my example where McConnell denied the process to move on consideration for Garland Merrick during an election year. Again, the last time a Senate of the opposing party approved a nomination was 139 years ago. Could it happen again? Of course, but only if the right candidate was nominated. However, in today's highly divisive Washinton, it just isn't going to happen for a candidate with a known past whose political and judicial writings do not jive with the controlling Senate party.
Your statement/argument falls apart when you state that if Obama nominated Gorsuch, he would have been approved by the Senate. Why you ask? Because that's where the problem lies, Obama would never have nominated a Gorsuch type in the first place. Gorsuch had/has nothing in common with Obama's political beliefs, and the left/Dems would have excoriated Obama for doing so.
SCOTUS nominations should not be based on politics, but that is where we are in history now. Dems want judicial activists that will make decisions based on where the current political winds are blowing, while Reps want originalists to interpret the US Constitution as it was written.
I'm still not sure what point it is that you are trying to make.
Sources saying Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will resign tomorrow
I heard she has information that will lead to the arrest and conviction of Hillary Clinton.
Your usual sources? I may not sleep. Almost like waiting for to Killary to concede.
She remembered my birthday. What a sweetheart.
I hope it's true. The Left needs another kick in the butt.
From your mouth to God's ear,
but I ain't holding my breath.
Kick in the front hole
I’m guessing Info Wars.
Separate names with a comma.