"You get nahting...NAHHHTING."
Posted on 02/16/2016 1:50:26 PM PST by amorphous
Due up at 1635ET, President Obama holds his first post-Scalia press conference. We assume the propaganda du jour will be the imminent need to appoint a new SCOTUS justice... and why anyone who blocks that plan is "peddling fiction." While he is up there, we assume some comments regarding the escalations in Syria will be discussed... and why Russia (and Putin most clearly) are to blame.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Article II says that the President may appoint judges to the SCOTUS with the "advice and consent" of two thirds of the Senate. The simple solution is for Mr. McConnell to take that job seriously. What do I mean???
What about that "ADVICE" part, Senator McConnell?
So, in case Senator McConnell doesn't understand that, here's how we do that job. Simply submit a list of nominees for which there will be no floor fight. I can think of two right off the top of my head: Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown. Let the Democrats refuse to nominate a hispanic and a black female, respectively.
This is kindergarten politics, which with Trump is about all Republicans are good for these days.
Napolitano is very knowledgeable.
But Grassley chairs and it includes Sessions, Cruz, and Lee.
I think the chair can prevent it coming out of committee.
Get ready for another.
Well...
If he rejects though, they are already on record stating they think he could have a nomination approved.
Then what, when he rejects and nominates his own?
F.U.B.O. The world DOES NOT revolve around your puny head.
He’ll just make a recess appointment of whichever incompetent hack he nominates.
good news....I certainly hope you are right
The Democrats ruled that out in the 60s.
Stick to it.
It is only a simple majority of Senators to approve a Scotus judge. It takes 2/3 to approve a treaty.
We All end up like Scalia.
What we do before that is what matters.
we’re getting very close to the point where typing isn’t good enough anymore.
a new SC justice under obama or hillary/sanders winning, will cross that line.
This election could be the catalyst that cranks this moveme up to the next level, because the Establishment is not going to allow Trump to take the reigns of power. That will cause many millions of us to take to the streets.
I agree.
Barack will pick based on ideology. Hillary will sell it to the highest bidder.
Obama’s spokesman, in describing Obama’s plans for his last year in office, smugly said that they would work to make his “accomplishments” permanent. And that there may be “surprises”.
Another tell, just like his July 2008 statement that he would be POTUS for “the next 8 to 10 years”. Is Scalia’s sudden, unexplained, uninvestigated death and Obama’s scripted response before the body was even buried a “surprise”? Not to anybody who knows Obama, as the EMP attack that hits in November or December won’t be a surprise to anybody who knows him. But our numbers are few so I suppose we can grant him that to most people assassinating a SCOTUS justice is a “surprise”...
“The Democrats ruled that out in the 60s.”
Apparently not.
"You get nahting...NAHHHTING."
Leahy...
LOL
750am Erik Erickson is reporting Tom Tillis is going wobbly on holding the line.
>>you guys never learn do you?<<
I don’t know who you are speaking to but I caution you to mind your manners, especially when making incorrect statements.
Your overall statement is as stupid as it is insipid and just wrong.
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.