Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: Supreme Court nomination [email from the democrats]
email | Feb 13, 2016 | democrats

Posted on 02/13/2016 8:29:15 PM PST by upchuck

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: upchuck

No this is not partisan politics. The people quickly realized that Obama is a very bad president. They elected GOP majorities in the house and senate to stop Obama. The Senate has a duty to respect the people’s wishes. If we, the people, wanted another leftist on the S/C we would have elected a liberal senate, we did not. I hope these traitorous idiots we did elect will not be so afraid of the label “partisan” that they will give us another wretched democrat.


41 posted on 02/13/2016 9:25:33 PM PST by erkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Since when do Dems care about the rule of law? Haaa!


42 posted on 02/13/2016 9:29:53 PM PST by NormsRevenge (SEMPER FI!! - Monthly Donors Rock!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Only when they have enough votes to change it for their own enhancement.


43 posted on 02/13/2016 9:36:10 PM PST by Viking2002 (The Avatar is back by popular request.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; All

Corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification, state sovereignty-ignoring Washington cartel senators probably want to confirm a likewise state sovereignty-ignoring activist justice. They likely want this justice to steal not only legislative branch powers, but also 10th Amendment-protected state legislative powers, and use these powers to not only expand the corrupt federal governments powers outside the framework of the Constitution, but also to establish new, unconstitutional, vote-winning, federal civil rights from the bench.


44 posted on 02/13/2016 9:37:25 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Precedent. No lame duck noms.


45 posted on 02/13/2016 9:39:01 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

The Constitution gives the Senate the right to confirm a nominee, but it is not required to. For the Dems to say that the Senate exercising its Constitutional prerogative is putting g itself “above the Constitution” is nonsense.


46 posted on 02/13/2016 9:41:35 PM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

Hillary and Bernie both say there should be a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee, I agree, lets get one.


47 posted on 02/13/2016 9:45:51 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Obama Rules of Engagement: Hands up Don't Shoot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Remember Miguel Estrada...


48 posted on 02/13/2016 10:47:50 PM PST by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Rat party = Convenient Constitutionalists

If you hold the Constitution in such reverence, Rats, you'll applaud the nomination of a strict adherent to the plain wording of the Constitution.

But, you won't because you don't.

49 posted on 02/13/2016 11:02:24 PM PST by Washi (All lives matter, or none do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
neither of those where in the way
50 posted on 02/13/2016 11:15:54 PM PST by cableguymn (We need a redneck in the white house....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Schedule means not agreeing on thier candidates


51 posted on 02/14/2016 3:30:57 AM PST by ronnie raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
They said Congress should block, delay, or otherwise refuse to allow the President to fill this vacancy.

It's putting partisan politics above the Constitution and the rule of law...

A two-word answer: Robert Bork.

52 posted on 02/14/2016 9:30:10 AM PST by JimRed (Is it 1776 yet? TERM LIMITS, now and forever! Build the Wall, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

And I’m sure the dem senate would block it.


53 posted on 02/14/2016 11:56:35 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Obama Rules of Engagement: Hands up Don't Shoot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Obama will have litmus tests, so should we.


54 posted on 02/15/2016 12:03:17 AM PST by Mike Darancette (Obama Rules of Engagement: Hands up Don't Shoot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson