Latest Breaking News

Wednesdays

(22,650 posts)

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

Reply to CanonRay (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:57 PM

Feb 2016

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