Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Video & Multimedia

EarlG

(23,720 posts) Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:47 PM Feb 2016

115

Yes, President Obama Can Still Nominate a Supreme Court Justice

Follow @demunderground

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pic Of The Moment: Note To The Strict Constitutionalists [View all] EarlG Feb 2016 OP

But only if the President is white and Republican, apparently. Orrex Feb 2016 #1

They go by the *original* constitution nxylas Feb 2016 #9

Nice pick up Earl G Botany Feb 2016 #2

K&R! stonecutter357 Feb 2016 #3

Better yet Cjas Feb 2016 #4

I guarantee if the shoe were on the other foot... Raster Feb 2016 #5

These guys do so much cherry picking... 3catwoman3 Feb 2016 #6

but, but, he can't NewJeffCT Feb 2016 #7

A perfect example of why they are full of shit. SoapBox Feb 2016 #8

A strict constructionist can point out... malthaussen Feb 2016 #10

Congress can add or remove as many justices as it wants d_legendary1 Feb 2016 #17

Who reads the U.S. Code these days, anyway.:) malthaussen Feb 2016 #18

According to some the Bible is just like the U.S. code d_legendary1 Feb 2016 #21

K&R yuiyoshida Feb 2016 #11

They don't notice the stuff about Indians, militias or pirates either. Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2016 #12

another winner from EarlG - kudos NoMoreRepugs Feb 2016 #13

Bravo for this post. N/T Paper Roses Feb 2016 #15

McConnell is Using A Chicken Hawk Strategy houston16revival Feb 2016 #16

!!YES!! Angry Dragon Feb 2016 #25

thank you. MariaThinks Feb 2016 #19

It also says "appoint". Not "nominate". n/t Dawgs Feb 2016 #22

As our resident attorney's will tell us, the word randys1 Feb 2016 #26

k&r! DesertRat Feb 2016 #27

This nomination should be ABSOLUTELY, UNQUESTIONABLY, INARGUABLY 63splitwindow Feb 2016 #28

Waving them around. lonestarnot Feb 2016 #30

We should wait quietwrite Feb 2016 #31

Originalism Advocates, Listen Up DallasNE Feb 2016 #32

But what does that have to do with the Forth Amendment? C Moon Feb 2016 #33