Posted on 11/15/2016 3:23:27 PM PST by the_daug
*I don’t think it can go anywhere but the king has been pretty lawless.*
I don’t know, but I hope you are right about this!
No it hasn't.
Hey, it's true! A gratuitous assertion can be equally as gratuitously refuted.
Sorry, the Senate has not WAIVED its “right” to advice and consent. It EXERCISED its advice & consent responsibility by NOT CONSENTING to Hussein’s nominee. NOT VOTING FOR THE NOMINEE’S APPOINTMENT equals NOT CONSENTING TO THAT APPOINTMENT.
Works for me!
The Senate did not chose to give Garland a vote. They have refused to give others a vote going way back. It’s precedent. These Doofus-es think they can makeup legal doctrine as they go along.
It's not a right, you jackass. It's a Constitutional requirement! The Senate can not waive what the Constitution requires. Also, the Senate has no obligation to take up a nomination, even one from the Liberal Messiah.
Don’t think so, but please share Article and line of the citation you have....
I believe the Article 3 section regarding SCOTUS states otherwise.....
No. Just no.
The Senate will not be in recess, so no recess appointment. And even so his tenure expires when the current Congress does.
[Doofus-es think they can makeup legal doctrine as they go along.]
It’s called DESPERATION!
It’s right next to the part that says the president can rule by executive order and enact treaties by calling them deals.
Let’s have a real petition with a chance...
Something like “We demand the unicorn become the national pet”.
No. It does not.
The constitution requires the consent of the Senate for nominations to become appointments. Anything less than Senate consent means a nominee is not approved for appointment. The Senate chooses whether and how it considers a nomination. The Senate has not and can not "waive" the "advice and consent" requirement.
Of course, cry-baby liberals are again trying to twist clear-as-day constitutional wording into deepest night darkness for their own gain. It is up to adults to take them to the woodshed of learning.
Even morons have constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech. Even when they make a fool of themselves exercising it.
That is not news. When that guy accepts it, that would be the news. As talented as he is, I doubt he would accept it given current circumstances and the fact president trump can replace him by law
As unconstitutional as can be
Any such illegal action would be Doa.
.
Impeachment would take away his pension (let’s roll)
.
These rants are fun.
Well the Senate has granted its consent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.