other one Posted February 29, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,073 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 27,824 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 29, 2016 1 hour ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said: President Obama has spoken on the record while he was a Senator that he was against lame duck Supreme Court appointments. Many other Democrats have said the same. Now that there's an opening on the Supreme Court and the Democrats have a lame duck President Obama, they are changing their tune. The Democrats and their supporters are hypocrites. Wear the label proudly. there is nothing stopping Obama from proposing someone and I think he will sooner or later if he can find someone who wants to go through the process knowing that there is no way for them to be confirmed...... why would anyone do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedOnebyGrace Posted February 29, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,056 Content Per Day: 15.13 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Share Posted February 29, 2016 2 hours ago, Vendtre said: I am neither Demacrat nor a supporter. As I stated above, I do not agree with the philosophy that if someone else is guilty of something it gives me a free pass to do it also. Where in the Constitution does it state things change in an election year? When the Democrats change the rules to support them, the Republicans should too. That's only fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vendtre Posted February 29, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 2 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,420 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 322 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted February 29, 2016 2 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said: When the Democrats change the rules to support them, the Republicans should too. That's only fair. If that is the philosophy you wish to espouse that is fine, just do not then turn around and claim to support the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted March 1, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted March 1, 2016 28 minutes ago, Vendtre said: 5 hours ago, Vendtre said: ... Where in the Constitution does it state things change in an election year? Article 2 Section 2 states: "... and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States...." But it doesn't say "when" -- I assume it's at the Senate's convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vendtre Posted March 1, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 2 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,420 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 322 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2016 13 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said: Article 2 Section 2 states: "... and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States...." But it doesn't say "when" -- I assume it's at the Senate's convenience. So, what is next? If a president is 1 1/2 years from the end of their term there is no hearings? Where does it end? If the President submits a name they should get the same fair treatment as if it were 2 years ago. Anything other than that is ignoring the constitution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted March 1, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted March 1, 2016 12 hours ago, Vendtre said: So, what is next? If a president is 1 1/2 years from the end of their term there is no hearings? Where does it end? If the President submits a name they should get the same fair treatment as if it were 2 years ago. Anything other than that is ignoring the constitution But Obama is not in a position to complain about ignoring the Constitution, or blocking nominees as he has done both during his political career. Perhaps sitting presidents should realize that when they decide to dismiss Congress by continually going around it by "executive actions." Maybe that's where and when it will all end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vendtre Posted March 1, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 2 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,420 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 322 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2016 18 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said: But Obama is not in a position to complain about ignoring the Constitution, or blocking nominees as he has done both during his political career. Perhaps sitting presidents should realize that when they decide to dismiss Congress by continually going around it by "executive actions." Maybe that's where and when it will all end. Once again, if you subscribe to the philosophy of "if they do it, then it is ok for me to do it" that is fine. Just don't pretend to support the constitution while doing so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted March 1, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted March 1, 2016 20 minutes ago, Vendtre said: Once again, if you subscribe to the philosophy of "if they do it, then it is ok for me to do it" that is fine. Just don't pretend to support the constitution while doing so Once again: "... and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States....," but the Constitution doesn't state "when," or give any time constraints for the Senate's decision, even if it decides to delay until after an upcoming election. Apparently GOP members of Congress subscribe to the philosophy of: "if Senator Obama did it, then it is ok for us to do it". And as I'm not a member of Congress, this isn't about me -- it's about Obama and the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedOnebyGrace Posted March 1, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,056 Content Per Day: 15.13 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2016 15 hours ago, Vendtre said: If that is the philosophy you wish to espouse that is fine, just do not then turn around and claim to support the constitution. Well President Obama is not supporting the US Constitution so why give him another chance to circumvent it? Democrats are hippocrites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vendtre Posted March 1, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 2 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,420 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 322 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2016 So, what you are saying is since Obama did it, then it is ok for you to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts