(02-13-2016 09:12 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:05 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Doesn't the President appoint the next justice? or is that just from that silly document?

If you have ever to read that silly document, then you would know that the president DOES NOT appoint supreme court justices.

The president NOMINATES a person, who must be approved by the Senate.

And there's your "civics for liberals who dont know the constitution" lesson for the day.

The President does nominate and appoint the justice but must be confirmed by the Senate.

Quote:The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court is provided for in the Constitution of the United States in only a few words. The “[b]Appointments Clause”[/b] in the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... Judges of the supreme Court.”

I interpret it as the appointment of a nominee until approved by the Senate. The two words come off as interchangeable rather than separate meanings.

(There is also the recess appointments whereby the President appoints a Justice without Senate consent due to them being in recess. (has happened 12 times in US History.))

Yes......thank you for that lesson

(02-13-2016 09:09 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 09:07 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:12 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 07:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Obama's going to use it as a cudgel. Make a show of it and remind Americans what unreasonable obstructionists the Republicans are.

They shut down the government, now they're shutting down the Supreme Court!

w/o question....that's what libtards do....they force the head and hand down on the shaft of the mainstream...

Again, doesn't the constitution say that it's the Presidents job to appoint the next justice? So yeah, it would be the GOP stalling lol.

Maybe Obamas recommendation gets Borked... But that was totally ok when dems did it right?

Nope, that's why our government is crap, and people who are either a dem or a pub are typically loud morons.

our government is crap because the electorate is crap. think it through, princess. it's a democracy.

(02-13-2016 09:13 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 09:12 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:05 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Doesn't the President appoint the next justice? or is that just from that silly document?

If you have ever to read that silly document, then you would know that the president DOES NOT appoint supreme court justices.

The president NOMINATES a person, who must be approved by the Senate.

And there's your "civics for liberals who dont know the constitution" lesson for the day.

The President does nominate and appoint the justice but must be confirmed by the Senate.

Quote:The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court is provided for in the Constitution of the United States in only a few words. The “[b]Appointments Clause”[/b] in the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... Judges of the supreme Court.”

I interpret it as the appointment of a nominee until approved by the Senate. The two words come off as interchangeable rather than separate meanings.

(There is also the recess appointments whereby the President appoints a Justice without Senate consent due to them being in recess. (has happened 12 times in US History.))

Yes......thank you for that lesson

Do you two need a room?

(02-13-2016 09:21 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 09:13 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 09:12 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:05 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Doesn't the President appoint the next justice? or is that just from that silly document?

If you have ever to read that silly document, then you would know that the president DOES NOT appoint supreme court justices.

The president NOMINATES a person, who must be approved by the Senate.

And there's your "civics for liberals who dont know the constitution" lesson for the day.

The President does nominate and appoint the justice but must be confirmed by the Senate.

Quote:The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court is provided for in the Constitution of the United States in only a few words. The “[b]Appointments Clause”[/b] in the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... Judges of the supreme Court.”

I interpret it as the appointment of a nominee until approved by the Senate. The two words come off as interchangeable rather than separate meanings.

(There is also the recess appointments whereby the President appoints a Justice without Senate consent due to them being in recess. (has happened 12 times in US History.))

Yes......thank you for that lesson

Do you two need a room?

He probably would think it's gay for two guys to sit in a room together.

(02-13-2016 08:40 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:37 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:18 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  well...RIP...I guess.



Jan 20th 2017 is a LONG way away...good look bluffing for that long GOP

You are no better than those liberals posting disgusting sentiments of joy over a dead man. Despicable. Liberal tolerance is a sham.

I said RIP...

that's all he's getting out of me.

The Grinch smile eliminates the RIP

That is fine. He probably wouldn't want your sentiment anyway. He loved America and her freedom and always was a polite gentleman.

you have to admit he was edgy in dissent...

he was a sore loser in dissent...

(02-13-2016 09:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:40 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:37 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 08:18 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  You are no better than those liberals posting disgusting sentiments of joy over a dead man. Despicable. Liberal tolerance is a sham.

I said RIP...

that's all he's getting out of me.

The Grinch smile eliminates the RIP

That is fine. He probably wouldn't want your sentiment anyway. He loved America and her freedom and always was a polite gentleman.

you have to admit he was edgy in dissent...

he was a sore loser in dissent...

explain that to his dear friend, ruth bader ginsberg.

(02-13-2016 07:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Obama's going to use it as a cudgel. Make a show of it and remind Americans what unreasonable obstructionists the Republicans are.

They shut down the government, now they're shutting down the Supreme Court!

Do the words Robert and Bork ring any bells for you?

Dems blocked Bork but let through Kennedy. My understanding is McConnell won't let through anybody.

I get it. To Democrats, being hyper-partisan: don't give me what I want.

The only reason you don't get your knickers in a twist when Democrats throw up roadblocks is A. Because they're your ideological snugglebuddies and B. Republican presidents typically cave.

(02-13-2016 10:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 07:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Obama's going to use it as a cudgel. Make a show of it and remind Americans what unreasonable obstructionists the Republicans are.

They shut down the government, now they're shutting down the Supreme Court!

Do the words Robert and Bork ring any bells for you?

robert bork was the most qualified nominee in the history of the SCOTUS. he got slimed by the rapist, ted kennedy -- who, I hope, is smoking a turd in hell right now.

(02-13-2016 05:52 PM)SiegInc Wrote:  ^ They will all be elated when the next transgender, gay, Spanish speaking, white-guilt ridden liberal apologist gets nominated.

He'll be in a wheelchair.

(02-13-2016 10:12 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Dems blocked Bork but let through Kennedy. My understanding is McConnell won't let through anybody.

I seriously doubt Obama will nominate anyone as close to center as Kennedy.

Hmm, died on a ranch in Texas. Did anyone check his face for signs of getting-shot-in-it-by-Dick-Cheney?

(02-13-2016 10:54 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Hmm, died on a ranch in Texas. Did anyone check his face for signs of getting-shot-in-it-by-Dick-Cheney?

I cordially invite you to go **** yourself.

(02-13-2016 10:28 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 10:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 07:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Obama's going to use it as a cudgel. Make a show of it and remind Americans what unreasonable obstructionists the Republicans are.

They shut down the government, now they're shutting down the Supreme Court!

Do the words Robert and Bork ring any bells for you?

robert bork was the most qualified nominee in the history of the SCOTUS. he got slimed by the rapist, ted kennedy -- who, I hope, is smoking a turd in hell right now.

Now that one should really do a lot to raise the level of discourse.

(02-13-2016 11:58 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 10:28 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 10:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 07:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Obama's going to use it as a cudgel. Make a show of it and remind Americans what unreasonable obstructionists the Republicans are.

They shut down the government, now they're shutting down the Supreme Court!

Do the words Robert and Bork ring any bells for you?

robert bork was the most qualified nominee in the history of the SCOTUS. he got slimed by the rapist, ted kennedy -- who, I hope, is smoking a turd in hell right now.

Now that one should really do a lot to raise the level of discourse.

try to not drink the kool-aid. there is this web page. it's called google. you can type these things in, and you get smarter

(02-13-2016 10:54 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Hmm, died on a ranch in Texas. Did anyone check his face for signs of getting-shot-in-it-by-Dick-Cheney?

Classy...

(02-14-2016 12:02 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 11:58 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 10:28 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 10:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 07:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Obama's going to use it as a cudgel. Make a show of it and remind Americans what unreasonable obstructionists the Republicans are.

They shut down the government, now they're shutting down the Supreme Court!

Do the words Robert and Bork ring any bells for you?

robert bork was the most qualified nominee in the history of the SCOTUS. he got slimed by the rapist, ted kennedy -- who, I hope, is smoking a turd in hell right now.

Now that one should really do a lot to raise the level of discourse.

try to not drink the kool-aid. there is this web page. it's called google. you can type these things in, and you get smarter

I don't think you got my point. The disrespectful comments regarding Justice Scalia are only encouraged when you retaliate with your comments above. You know the old saying about wallowing with the pigs.

If we simply wanted the best man for the job it would be Richard Posner.

(02-13-2016 05:58 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 05:47 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  How long does this process play out?

I was watching abc news and they were saying it would be nearly impossible for the White House to get someone nominated and voted for before the end of Obama's term. But they forgot to say you can't say Obama won't try. If he can't this will throw a whole another twist to the upcoming election. If a dem wins the White House independents will essentially be voting for a liberal majority SCOTUS. There's a whole lot on the line now.

Conservative should have already known how important this election was. Ginsburg is in really bad health. Scalia and Thomas were both getting pretty old. Kennedy seems likely to retire soon. Breyer is no spring chicken. The next president could easily put 5 people on the court.