Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
Posted on: Feb. 16 2016,4:20 pm
(Common Citizen @ Feb. 13 2016,11:28 pm)
QUOTE
It is a grave loss for our country. As the donks are popping the champagne the Honor Guard is preparing.
It's a loss for his family. We're not celebrating, but the vacancy has to be filled. You can't pick and choose which years you want to have 9 Justices.
Not much has changed with the party of no, the Republican leadership already insisted they wouldn't confirm anyone the President appointed. Shouldn't they at least wait for someone to be named before they insist on reasons they'll vote no?
-------------- You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
^^considering the activists Buster has chosen so far, no. But he does have the constitutional duty to name a nominee, also the senate has the duty to approve or deny. This process should be taken seriously and not rushed. By this time next year should be sufficient.
With just a year left in his presidency, President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy left by Justice Powell. In his remarks he said, "...Join together in a bipartisan effort to fulfill our constitutional obligation of restoring the US Supreme Court to full strength."
The Senate at the time was held by the Democrats, yet they confirmed Reagan's nominee.. President Obama hasn't even made a nomination and the party NO has already said they will not confirm...
-------------- History is no more than the lies agreed upon by the victors.
^^and to that I say, "tuff sh!t" to have Buster screw up the court for generations would be bad. Yep, elections have consequences, Buster was elected by the people, and so was the senate.
^^no, that would be you socialist that say that, what's going on is strictly by the constitution, the president can nominate someone and the senate has to approve. Let Buster bring forth a nominee.
Remember boys and girls,
