Key GOP Senators Emerge From Meeting: No Hearing For Obama SCOTUS Nom

CrocodileStunter

CrocodileStunter

Well-Known Member
bearkat42 said:
Click to expand...
Fuck yo meme though. Are you saying that there has never been foul play involved in the death of a 79 year old overweight man? Has there ever been an autopsy performed on another person in the same age range? im sure there has been why would they do it in that instance but not in his?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
I think Obama has a duty to appoint someone.

I think congress has a duty to approve or disapprove.

I think the American people deserve to go to the polls to see if we get a liberal leaning court or a right leaning court.

Obama replaced 2 liberal justices with 2 more, one woefully unqualified.

W. Got 2, Clinton got 2, Bush got 1, Reagan got 2.

I see no need for Obama to have 3.

This is the most conservative member of the court. The most influential justice in ages who we are replacing. Hell no to his seat going to a lefty.

Obama isn't a centrist. He's the most left president we've ever had. He governs more from the center becuase he has been forced to. His initial agenda was too liberal for even a democratic congress and he got enough of them replaced by republicans.

The next president gets this pick and likely Ginsburg as well.

It's close enough to where America should get the choice, not a lame duck president.
Click to expand...
It just goes to show how far to the right the GOP has gone that by your lights Obama is "most left". You are so far right your left hand is just something to hold out in order to keep you from losing your balance. You may argue otherwise but it will only show how far the GOP has moved to the right.

Obama will appoint a centrist as he is too.

Are you really saying its unfair that Obama appointed 3 justices. Haaaaaahaaahaaaa. Oh yeah, it matters when a centrist is in office but not an idiot right winger like Bush. What would you be saying if that fool had the chance?

This is not to say that Congress doesn't have the constitutional right to sit on this appointment. They do. Fine, let them help Democrats turn out the young person vote on this issue. Ohhhhhh yeah.

Suck it Thickie
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
It just goes to show how far to the right the GOP has gone that by your lights Obama is "most left". You are so far right your left hand is just something to hold out in order to keep you from losing your balance. You may argue otherwise but it will only show how far the GOP has moved to the right.

Obama will appoint a centrist as he is too.

Are you really saying its unfair that Obama appointed 3 justices. Haaaaaahaaahaaaa. Oh yeah, it matters when a centrist is in office but not an idiot right winger like Bush. What would you be saying if that fool had the chance?

This is not to say that Congress doesn't have the constitutional right to sit on this appointment. They do. Fine, let them help Democrats turn out the young person vote on this issue. Ohhhhhh yeah.

Suck it Thickie
Click to expand...
Of course if Bush was in office I'd want him to get his appointment through. That's besides the point. Bush isn't a commie foreigner. And I dont mean he isn't a us citizen. He isn't a cultural American. Skin color doesn't matter. In his formative years he was raised in a foreign culture. I don't trust the guy.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
Of course if Bush was in office I'd want him to get his appointment through. That's besides the point. Bush isn't a commie foreigner. And I dont mean he isn't a us citizen. He isn't a cultural American. Skin color doesn't matter. In his formative years he was raised in a foreign culture. I don't trust the guy.
Click to expand...
First point, Obama, the 44th President of the US is selecting a Supreme Court Judge. Whatever else you say or think about this is irrelevant.

Second, Bush was an idiot. If I apply your criteria, I'd say that should disqualify Bush jr.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
First point, Obama, the 44th President of the US is selecting a Supreme Court Judge. Whatever else you say or think about this is irrelevant.

Second, Bush was an idiot. If I apply your criteria, I'd say that should disqualify Bush jr.
Click to expand...
I agree what my feelings are, are in fact irrelevant. But these feelings are shared by enough people to make it viable for the Senate to decline the Presidents offer of a new Supreme Court judge, and for that we will thank them and elect them to their next term.

So you see, it is not irrelevant at all. Obama is not an American, his time is nearing its end, lets just play the song and let him bow out gracefully, but enough of his bullshit is enough, its over. Good bye.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
Obama is not an American, his time is nearing its end, lets just play the song and let him bow out gracefully, but enough of his bullshit is enough, its over. Good bye.
Click to expand...
cry some more ya dumb racist.

voting rights are not a racial entitlement, by the way. they are needed because of racist losers from the south like you. and the dearly departed scalia, may he be dead for a long time.
 
S

SSHZ

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Thickie, you are blinded by your beliefs. Do you actually think that the GOP congress is anywhere near the middle? Obama IS a centrist, which is why he is such a disappointment to the left. Of course he will appoint a centrist. Who will also be too far away from the extremely right GOP congress for them to accept. I'm not sure that anybody Obama selects will be acceptable, even if he gave Sandra Day-O'Conor the nod to fill the post temporarily.
Click to expand...
Obama a centrist........LOL That's a good one!
 
Blunted 4 lyfe

Blunted 4 lyfe

Well-Known Member
CrocodileStunter said:
nope. never. this is why America isn't gonna let liberals win the election. you're all fucked in the head and completely morally bankrupt. hence why Obama neede Scalia to die because he was the vote that kept our country free.
Click to expand...
Wait!...I thought Glenn Beck said Scalia died to help Cruz, which batshit crazy, foaming at the mouth, Should I then believe Cruz or Beck?

B4L
 
Blunted 4 lyfe

Blunted 4 lyfe

Well-Known Member
CrocodileStunter said:
Fuck yo meme though. Are you saying that there has never been foul play involved in the death of a 79 year old overweight man? Has there ever been an autopsy performed on another person in the same age range? im sure there has been why would they do it in that instance but not in his?
Click to expand...
Or he could've died from sleep apnea with him being 79 and overweight he's a prime candidate and called it natural causes other than a heart infarction what else is considered natural?

B4L
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
How can one tell that Obama is a moderate right or centrist president? He pissed off people at both extremes in this country. He had some liberal ideas but mostly he was pragmatic and not strongly guided by ideology in his actions. His supreme court nominee will reflect this. In other words, people to the right and left are going to hate whomever he picks. And that's a good thing.
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
The Senate has two constitutional roles in the SCOTUS nomination process: Advice and Consent. They fulfilled both already. They Advised Obama that they would not Consent to consider his nominee. LULZ.

Now the president needs to get cracking on his duty: production of a nominee.

I have a suggestion for the president: Janice Rogers Brown.
Click to expand...
You really need to learn what Advise and Consent means. Advise and Consent does not mean "Advised Obama that they would not Consent to consider a nominee." Only a pure idiot would think that - oh wait, who am I talking to lol!

Advise = a hearing.
Consent = a ruling on said hearing.

So to say that they would not even hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee would be to shirk their constitutional duties.

I also forgot to mention: I guess the people of the United States did have a say in who the next Supreme Court Justice is going to be in 2012 when we reelected Obama to the White House. It should not be decided by an unknown factor in the next election, it needs to be decided.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
You really need to learn what Advise and Consent means. Advise and Consent does not mean "Advised Obama that they would not Consent to consider a nominee." Only a pure idiot would think that - oh wait, who am I talking to lol!

Advise = a hearing.
Consent = a ruling on said hearing.

So to say that they would not even hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee would be to shirk their constitutional duties.

I also forgot to mention: I guess the people of the United States did have a say in who the next Supreme Court Justice is going to be in 2012 when we reelected Obama to the White House. It should not be decided by an unknown factor in the next election, it needs to be decided.
Click to expand...
LULZ.

The Senate has performed their constitutional duty already. Obumbles has not.

When the prez nominates somebody, the Senate might decide to consider that person, or not. It is entirely their decision.

Considering the behavior of Democrats wrt confirmation of judges, the chickens have come home to roost. If you don't like how the Republicans are behaving you have only Democratic leaders to blame; they poisoned the well.

Personally, I think it is a good idea to wait until after the election. Who knows, Colonel Sanders might win and then nominate Fidel Castro, then you guys will be closer to your socialist utopia. Or, Trump might win, then who knows who he will nominate. Or, Clinton might win and then the SCOTUS seat will go to the highest bidder.

Regarding "consent", your really should look up the definition, it might save you a bit of embarrassment in future:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consent

You are equally ignorant on the definition of "advice".
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
LULZ.

The Senate has performed their constitutional duty already. Obumbles has not.

When the prez nominates somebody, the Senate might decide to consider that person, or not. It is entirely their decision.

Considering the behavior of Democrats wrt confirmation of judges, the chickens have come home to roost. If you don't like how the Republicans are behaving you have only Democratic leaders to blame; they poisoned the well.

Personally, I think it is a good idea to wait until after the election. Who knows, Colonel Sanders might win and then nominate Fidel Castro, then you guys will be closer to your socialist utopia. Or, Trump might win, then who knows who he will nominate. Or, Clinton might win and then the SCOTUS seat will go to the highest bidder.

Regarding "consent", your really should look up the definition, it might save you a bit of embarrassment in future:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consent

You are equally ignorant on the definition of "advice".
Click to expand...
Advice and Consent is a LEGAL phrase so looking up dictoinary.reference.com doesn't really work; which means to hold a hearing and then give a ruling and this part is the Senate's power to advise and consent.

LULZ. You're just plain ignorant on this entire thing.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
CrocodileStunter said:
Why can't we get to the real issue which is why wasn't scalias body autopsied? Another Obama trick that backfired and now he won't be able to stack the court.
Click to expand...
CC Dobbs said:
Thank you!!!!!!!! I've been waiting for someone to get to the important shit.
Click to expand...
CrocodileStunter said:
If you can't see the strategy behind having Scalia killed you are naive to the ways of the elites. Ya'll really justify the laisse faire actions of the coroner when it comes to a SC Justice? C'mon man
Click to expand...
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
Advice and Consent is a LEGAL phrase so looking up dictoinary.reference.com doesn't really work; which means to hold a hearing and then give a ruling and this part is the Senate's power to advise and consent.

LULZ. You're just plain ignorant on this entire thing.
Click to expand...
Being ignorant is simply not understanding, or knowing. Being stupid is failing to correct your ignorance.

You have crossed over. Naturally, you're an Obumbles voter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top