Skip to comments.
Obama says Senate obligated to vote on Supreme Court nominee
Associated Press ^
| May 16, 2016 6:26 PM EDT
| Kathleen Hennessey
Posted on 05/16/2016 4:45:53 PM PDT by Olog-hai
President Barack Obama said Monday he believes the Senate has a constitutional obligation to vote on a president’s nomination to the Supreme Court, staking out a position at odds with Republicans and some legal scholars.
Obama made the claim in an online video interview about his stalled nomination of U.S. Circuit Court Judge Merrick Garland. Asked if he thought the Constitution’s language about “advice and consent” meant the Senate had an obligation to hold a vote, Obama told BuzzFeed News: “I do.” […]
The GOP has pointed out that in 2005, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid argued that the Constitution doesn’t say the Senate has a duty to vote on presidential nominees. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: adviceandconsent; dingyharry; liberalagenda; merrickgarland; obama; senate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
To: dfwgator
21
posted on
05/16/2016 4:57:51 PM PDT
by
dfwgator
To: Olog-hai
Simon sez 0bama jump inna lake...
22
posted on
05/16/2016 4:58:17 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
(Live Free or Die.)
To: Olog-hai
Well of course the Senate should vote on a nominee. At some point. When they get good and ready. Like, maybe, sometime in 2017. What’s the rush?
23
posted on
05/16/2016 4:58:18 PM PDT
by
Enterprise
("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
To: dfwgator
Just like Obama was when he was in the Senate
24
posted on
05/16/2016 4:58:55 PM PDT
by
stocksthatgoup
(GOPe/MSM - "When we want your opinion, we will give it to youGo to trumps websites look at issues an)
To: mkjessup
The ear handles are not big enough...
25
posted on
05/16/2016 4:59:42 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
(Live Free or Die.)
To: Olog-hai
Asspress conveniently forgets to report his previous views on the matter.
26
posted on
05/16/2016 5:00:08 PM PDT
by
Luke21
To: Olog-hai
They could just vote “no”. Easy. Repeat for any nominee that follows.
27
posted on
05/16/2016 5:00:09 PM PDT
by
GingisK
To: mkjessup
28
posted on
05/16/2016 5:04:42 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
To: mkjessup
LOL!
"0bama Schmoe", as the Russians describe commander clownshoes.
"Обама - чмо!"
WARNING - if yer allergic to stoopid, DON'T click on the pic. Yer head might explode. That is all.
29
posted on
05/16/2016 5:06:14 PM PDT
by
kiryandil
(To the GOPee: "Giving the Democrats the Supreme Court means you ARE the Democrats.")
To: BenLurkin
See my post #29. The Russians have a dim view of the Muslim clown.
30
posted on
05/16/2016 5:08:13 PM PDT
by
kiryandil
(To the GOPee: "Giving the Democrats the Supreme Court means you ARE the Democrats.")
To: econjack
“Well, so much for numb-nuts being a Constitutional scholar.”
____________
Heck, I wanted to comment here, but after your remark, there’s nothing worth saying.
31
posted on
05/16/2016 5:08:22 PM PDT
by
StAntKnee
(Add your own danged sarc tag)
To: kiryandil
The Russians have a dim view of the Muslim clown.Join the club, we've got jackets.
32
posted on
05/16/2016 5:10:30 PM PDT
by
dfwgator
To: Olog-hai
With many Republicans openly questioning Trump's temperament and principles, Democrats have said it's too risky to let Trump pick the next justice if he's elected in November. They really think that the Republicans should worry more over a Trump nominee than an Obama nominee?!!
Wow, that just gave me a cognitive dissonance headache.
33
posted on
05/16/2016 5:11:04 PM PDT
by
Pontiac
(The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
To: Olog-hai
No. No, they’re not. But you, however, was obligated to provide your true BC and uphold the US Constitution.
34
posted on
05/16/2016 5:12:04 PM PDT
by
bgill
(CDC site, "We still do not know exactly how people are infected with Ebola")
To: Olog-hai
Obama says Senate obligated to vote on Supreme Court nominee
35
posted on
05/16/2016 5:12:40 PM PDT
by
spokeshave
(Somewhere there is a ceiling for Trump.....Yeah, it's called The Oval Office)
To: Olog-hai
I guess those who call Obola stupid rather than amoral were right after all.The Constitution clearly gives the Senate the *power* to accept,or reject,the President's nominees but says absolutely *nothing* about obligation.
To: Olog-hai
What does he mean by “vote”? I thought he ruled by decree anyhow. If he puts a justice on the court that way, nobody much will care. Guaranteed.
To: Olog-hai; All
To: Olog-hai
Obama says Senate obligated to vote on Supreme Court nomineeNo they're not! Buffoon!
To: Pontiac
Democrats will say anything. They passed the “2 + 2 = 5” point quite a while back.
40
posted on
05/16/2016 5:32:35 PM PDT
by
Olog-hai
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
