Latest Breaking News

lakercub

(670 posts)

34. These commercials should write themselves in contested senate states

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:00 PM

Feb 2016

"Our senator refuses to do his Constitutional job.
Our senator is scared Citizens United will be overturned.
Our senator is bought and paid for.

Why is he/she our senator?

Vote _________ and get a senator who does his/her job.
Vote _________ and work to get Citizens United overturned."
Vote _________ and get a senator who will work to appoint judges not ruled by money

Every single Dem candidate should pound this recalcitrance into the ground. Voters should be reminded at every possible opportunity that this is all about the money and that Citizens United is what's at stake. Give no quarter, pound the Republicans with Citizens United and the horrible court decision that enabled it for the rest of the campaign.

And, if that gets Dems elected and we get the Senate back they damn sure better get legislation going that will overturn that travesty and get judges on the bench who respect the rule of law, not the rule of cash. First 100 days...Do everything possible to get rid of Citizens United.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

171 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

GOP Senators: No hearing, no vote for Obama Court pick [View all] CanonRay Feb 2016 OP

Fire them all! houston16revival Feb 2016 #1

Republicans must defend 24 Senate seats this cycle; 18 are in serious play. BlueCaliDem Feb 2016 #5

Amen to that houston16revival Feb 2016 #12

We do have a candidate Mira Feb 2016 #26

How much money has he put where his mouth is? BlueCaliDem Feb 2016 #103

YES to that: " fire the know-nothing, do-nothing anti-Constitution fascists." L. Coyote Feb 2016 #76

'cause Joe Biden said once..... underpants Feb 2016 #2

They have nothing to lose but their credibility, Qutzupalotl Feb 2016 #3

Republicans Wanna Hang Themselves the zound of zilence Feb 2016 #167

Sue them. C_U_L8R Feb 2016 #4

That's a good idea. Force them to do their jobs. Vinca Feb 2016 #8

ie Kim Davis PatrynXX Feb 2016 #11

Obama could've made an appointment when the Senate was not in session. It would've angered folks, SharonAnn Feb 2016 #33

I think he'd rather fight this sharp_stick Feb 2016 #36

I believe the congress no Marty McGraw Feb 2016 #69

Recess appointments only last until Congress' terms end Reter Feb 2016 #71

The business of the Senate wasn't suspended long enough. Major Hogwash Feb 2016 #169

Sue the Senate for what? GGJohn Feb 2016 #74

You're right C_U_L8R Feb 2016 #79

If it's a 4 to 4 tie, then the lower court ruling stands. eom. GGJohn Feb 2016 #81

Dead loser. Would be dismissed out of hand by a lower court and the Supreme Court wouldn't onenote Feb 2016 #85

Thanks for the informative facts C_U_L8R Feb 2016 #89

What the Constitution intends: treat it as a political matter onenote Feb 2016 #91

Well it's certainly going to be interesting. C_U_L8R Feb 2016 #93

It could happen. Major Hogwash Feb 2016 #170

Dems must fight back hard. lark Feb 2016 #6

+ 1 red dog 1 Feb 2016 #47

If they want president Sanders to pick the next one, I am good with that. They are however still Vincardog Feb 2016 #7

"Whatcha gonna do about it, Obama?" AZ Progressive Feb 2016 #9

Unconstitutionalists geomon666 Feb 2016 #10

I know how Scalia would have voted on the issue. JudyM Feb 2016 #30

No vote for you! KamaAina Feb 2016 #13

Isn't there some way... gregcrawford Feb 2016 #14

United States Senate Oath of Office houston16revival Feb 2016 #18

HA! Excellent! gregcrawford Feb 2016 #19

It should be in every state, what a campaign ad houston16revival Feb 2016 #22

I'm not sure the DNC is even on our side anymore... gregcrawford Feb 2016 #23

The duties of the office don't require any action on presidential nominees. Never have. onenote Feb 2016 #88

There certainly SHOULD be! FiveGoodMen Feb 2016 #65

And just what subversion would that be? GGJohn Feb 2016 #75

Apparently not. Nor do folks apparently pay attention to the fact that while this is unusual onenote Feb 2016 #90

"And just what subversion would that be?" gregcrawford Feb 2016 #111

Again, the Senate doesn't have to take up the nomination, there is no timeline GGJohn Feb 2016 #114

This exchange begs the question... gregcrawford Feb 2016 #117

I'm not justifying anything, I'm educating those that claim what the repugs are doing GGJohn Feb 2016 #118

No. onenote Feb 2016 #86

American people.... Plucketeer Feb 2016 #15

They may change their tune if they lose the Senate and a Democrat wins the Presidency. yellowcanine Feb 2016 #16

I will laugh so hard if they come begging Obama to appoint a moderate before he leaves office. tanyev Feb 2016 #60

Someone pointed out in another thread Wednesdays Feb 2016 #64

Clearly, President Obama is Once Again Guilty of PWB... SDJay Feb 2016 #17

If, once Obama actually nominates someone, SheilaT Feb 2016 #20

Then they are violating the Constitution AllyCat Feb 2016 #21

"Violating the Constitution"? Seeking Serenity Feb 2016 #70

Advise and consent AllyCat Feb 2016 #106

The Senate, via its leadership, has essentially done the "advise" part. (eom) Seeking Serenity Feb 2016 #125

Ummm, no, they're not. GGJohn Feb 2016 #77

Oh you are a delightful conversationalist. AllyCat Feb 2016 #107

I don't know how many times it has to be said, but one more time, GGJohn Feb 2016 #108

So you use your "extensive" knowledge of the process to slam someone else? AllyCat Feb 2016 #127

I think there could be some legal issue treestar Feb 2016 #154

What's the difference between a GOP Senator and a spoiled brat? perdita9 Feb 2016 #24

If people don't vote in November because of some purity test, Chicago1980 Feb 2016 #25

Violating their oath of office. hobbit709 Feb 2016 #27

Yes, that's what they're doing. Herman4747 Feb 2016 #66

Nope. onenote Feb 2016 #92

So according to your logic... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #116

It's not "according to [onenote's] logic," Seeking Serenity Feb 2016 #120

Thank you. onenote Feb 2016 #121

I've tried explaining it, too Seeking Serenity Feb 2016 #123

Guy, I am talking NOT ABOUT THE DAMN LAW, but about duty. Herman4747 Feb 2016 #131

No LEGAL duty, that's right. Seeking Serenity Feb 2016 #133

Can you think for ONCE, just ONCE outside the legal box... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #135

I think the poster you are resopnding to is thinking outside the "legal" box onenote Feb 2016 #138

The poster is a single individual, not a "They" Herman4747 Feb 2016 #139

Actually, in the case of repub Senators, I don't know how you can say the voters did not send onenote Feb 2016 #140

No, it isn't up to the voters... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #142

Maybe they should resign. But there is no consitutional duty to resign and no constitutional way of onenote Feb 2016 #144

Just "Maybe" they should resign??? Herman4747 Feb 2016 #145

What's up with that is no matter what you or I think we have no power to force a Senator to resign onenote Feb 2016 #146

You say it should be a "moral" issue. Seeking Serenity Feb 2016 #147

Question: How does one enforce a moral duty Herman4747 Feb 2016 #151

Heck it's a surprise they have confirmed anything treestar Feb 2016 #153

It's a game! erlewyne Feb 2016 #28

Unconstitutional, and Pres. Obama knows this, GGJohn Feb 2016 #78

It's a game! erlewyne Feb 2016 #110

If you think that any qualified Supreme Court nominee would accept being "seated" as a justice onenote Feb 2016 #122

fucking idiots barbtries Feb 2016 #29

So after President Sanders or President Clinton is sworn in... Orrex Feb 2016 #31

depends on the fillibuster... getagrip_already Feb 2016 #40

8 years? Reter Feb 2016 #73

Keep digging, fellas. Arkana Feb 2016 #32

These commercials should write themselves in contested senate states lakercub Feb 2016 #34

I like this strategy. Beowulf Feb 2016 #59

Best news i have heard today tapermaker Feb 2016 #35

I voted for Barack Obama, they are violating my aintitfunny Feb 2016 #37

The republican party only believes in their sucking extremist politics. Matthew28 Feb 2016 #53

That sounds like a lawsuit. nt Flying Squirrel Feb 2016 #61

A lawsuit? GGJohn Feb 2016 #80

We voted for Obama with the intent for him to nominate SC justices Flying Squirrel Feb 2016 #82

You do realize the Senate can, under the Constitution, GGJohn Feb 2016 #84

RKBA is your favorite group? Imagine that. Flying Squirrel Feb 2016 #97

And that proves what Mr. Squirel? GGJohn Feb 2016 #99

in a surprise to absolutely nobody... getagrip_already Feb 2016 #38

Ah, so they are refusing to do their jobs under the Constitution. blackspade Feb 2016 #39

Umm, no, they're not, GGJohn Feb 2016 #83

Actually the Senate advises and consents. blackspade Feb 2016 #102

What action do they HAVE to take? GGJohn Feb 2016 #104

Well, that's the wing nut interpretation. blackspade Feb 2016 #112

So, several other DU'er's who have said the same exact thing are also wing nuts? eom. GGJohn Feb 2016 #113

No, They are using wing nut framing of the issue... blackspade Feb 2016 #119

There are numerous vacancies among presidentially appointed positions today onenote Feb 2016 #124

so you say.... blackspade Feb 2016 #128

If you have a counter argument based on the text and history of the Constitution onenote Feb 2016 #129

I already outlined my argument. If you don't like it, that's on you. blackspade Feb 2016 #136

It's not a court of law onenote Feb 2016 #137

I gave you my opinion. blackspade Feb 2016 #148

And that's a wonderful defense of your legal interpretation onenote Feb 2016 #150

Whatever dude. blackspade Feb 2016 #159

Childish bullying? GGJohn Feb 2016 #160

Never to late for a pile on, 'eh? blackspade Feb 2016 #161

Wrong, you just refuse to acknowledge that you are incorrect so you resort to insults GGJohn Feb 2016 #162

I plan on having a great night! Thanks! blackspade Feb 2016 #163

You misunderstand as far as the President, GGJohn Feb 2016 #164

Ok, now I have hate in my heart... mountain grammy Feb 2016 #41

Please sign the Petition Milliesmom Feb 2016 #42

Done! red dog 1 Feb 2016 #49

Done and thank you for posting this Arazi Feb 2016 #55

This is absolute Delphinus Feb 2016 #43

fuckers n/t n2doc Feb 2016 #44

As an "Originalist," Scalia would tell them they have to follow the Constitution and vote on Obama's Dustlawyer Feb 2016 #45

And where in the Constitution does it say that? onenote Feb 2016 #94

Article II, Section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as the Appointment clause. Dustlawyer Feb 2016 #98

And just where in Article II, Section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution GGJohn Feb 2016 #100

I'll try once again: this is all a matter of historical record onenote Feb 2016 #101

They have to vote on the nominee treestar Feb 2016 #155

"They have to vote on the nominee" Seeking Serenity Feb 2016 #158

Aux Armes, Citoyenes! muriel_volestrangler Feb 2016 #46

I would like to grab Mitch McConnell by his ugly... 3catwoman3 Feb 2016 #48

This might do even better: forest444 Feb 2016 #68

There oughta be a law. valerief Feb 2016 #50

Based on his record, I predict that . . FairWinds Feb 2016 #51

I hope he stands up to them rockfordfile Feb 2016 #149

Bitching about this here does no good at all red dog 1 Feb 2016 #52

let them shirk, Obama can just nominate a candidate every week 0rganism Feb 2016 #54

Hey McConnell (Turtle lips) ..........., do you fully understand what you did, when you did this ... turbinetree Feb 2016 #56

Time to resurrect the OCCUPY movement!! This is blasphemy!!! n/t Lodestar Feb 2016 #57

Well, that does cinch the Senate for the Dems! ananda Feb 2016 #58

Then the Senate had better not go into recess. Ever. mwooldri Feb 2016 #62

They haven't for a long time and probably won't so long as the WH and Senate onenote Feb 2016 #96

Guess they've never heard the phrase, "When you're in a hole..." Wednesdays Feb 2016 #63

Rent a hall, hold hearings, allow only The Second Stone Feb 2016 #67

To what end? (eom) Seeking Serenity Feb 2016 #72

And that would accomplish what? GGJohn Feb 2016 #87

No one qualified to be SCOTUS justice would agree to participate. onenote Feb 2016 #95

It would not require the nominee to speak The Second Stone Feb 2016 #105

He should have recess appointed benh57 Feb 2016 #109

There was no opportunity to make a recess appointment onenote Feb 2016 #115

Folks disagree benh57 Feb 2016 #165

And that is one of the most incomplete analyses I've seen onenote Feb 2016 #166

So this is what, constitutional crisis? When do Americans blame those responsible for randys1 Feb 2016 #126

Depends on how you define a Constitutional crisis onenote Feb 2016 #130

They are required to do their fucking job that they would be doing if the prez wasnt Black randys1 Feb 2016 #132

As has been explained more times than can be counted, the Senate's "job" onenote Feb 2016 #134

Bullshit...the prez APPOINTS, first of all...and when the senate says they wont even take randys1 Feb 2016 #141

Democrats through history have frequently failed to take action on presidential nominees for onenote Feb 2016 #143

+1 I bet this has never happened before treestar Feb 2016 #156

Maybe not exactly, but pretty close onenote Feb 2016 #157

this makes me so angry treestar Feb 2016 #152

Seems to me that Cornel West was right when he said that the Republicans in Congress have . . . Major Hogwash Feb 2016 #171

We must protest at the Supreme Court Building until the Republicans hold a hearing for Obama's . . . Major Hogwash Feb 2016 #168