Okay repubs, your always preaching about holding up the constitution in its purest form, this is from Senator Warren.

“Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate,” she wrote. “I can’t find a clause that says ‘…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.’”

Yes, I heard the wannabe native American say that. Like she is real credible. Precedence also shows that there has not been a Supreme Court justice appointed in the last year of the president's last term, in 80 years. Is Obama the only American citizen(?) that is allowed to trash the Constitution? I realize that this is a privilege reserved only to a tyrant, so perhaps that is the wrong question.

He has the choice of appointing a judge that has bipartisan consensus, or he can wait. Otherwise, our party of no will say "h3ll NO!"

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, I heard the wannabe native American say that. Like she is real credible. Precedence also shows that there has not been a Supreme Court justice appointed in the last year of the president's last term, in 80 years. Is Obama the only American citizen(?) that is allowed to trash the Constitution? I realize that this is a privilege reserved only to a tyrant, so perhaps that is the wrong question.

He has the choice of appointing a judge that has bipartisan consensus, or he can wait. Otherwise, our party of no will say "h3ll NO!"

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House"

Buffoon, do some research before you make a fool of yourself!"

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, I heard the wannabe native American say that. Like she is real credible. Precedence also shows that there has not been a Supreme Court justice appointed in the last year of the president's last term, in 80 years. Is Obama the only American citizen(?) that is allowed to trash the Constitution? I realize that this is a privilege reserved only to a tyrant, so perhaps that is the wrong question.

He has the choice of appointing a judge that has bipartisan consensus, or he can wait. Otherwise, our party of no will say "h3ll NO!"

In 80 years?

Really?.....

I guess what they say is true - you really can't fix stupid

Originally Posted by Guest

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House"

Buffoon, do some research before you make a fool of yourself!"

And it was a Democrat controlled Senate that year.

Rubio seems to be ignorant of many things. He stated on television that the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices is not right and he would look into doing something about it.

The dimwit should know that any change would have to be accomplished through Constitutional amendments - the same for term limits of Congress.

Rubio is digging himself into a hole without a ladder to get out of and willfind himself looking at the nomination of Jeb Bush.

Originally Posted by Guest

In 80 years?

Really?.....

I guess what they say is true - you really can't fix stupid

Don't cut yourself so short......

Originally Posted by Guest

Rubio seems to be ignorant of many things. He stated on television that the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices is not right and he would look into doing something about it.

The dimwit should know that any change would have to be accomplished through Constitutional amendments - the same for term limits of Congress.

Rubio is digging himself into a hole without a ladder to get out of and willfind himself looking at the nomination of Jeb Bush.

And yet, you believe that Sanders is going to produce FREE COLLEGE? Anyone with any sense knows that he can't do it without Congress.

Originally Posted by Guest

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House"

Buffoon, do some research before you make a fool of yourself!"

He was nominated in 1987 and confirmed in 1988. He was already an associate supreme court justice, if I recollect correctly.

I won't address your disrespectful demeanor in your reply. I can take correction and will admit my mistake, if warranted. Be careful.

Originally Posted by Guest

Rubio seems to be ignorant of many things. He stated on television that the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices is not right and he would look into doing something about it.

The dimwit should know that any change would have to be accomplished through Constitutional amendments - the same for term limits of Congress.

Rubio is digging himself into a hole without a ladder to get out of and willfind himself looking at the nomination of Jeb Bush.

Enlighten us. Did Rubio say he WOULD change the law, or did he say that "he would look into doing something about it."??? Does it require a congressional amendment for the president to "look into" something?

It seems that there is a lot of modification to Rubio's quotes going on here. Apparently, someone has a retention problem, or they just never heard him say anything and they are just repeating something from someone else. It's probably not a good idea of letting your bias cause one to slander Rubio.

Originally Posted by Guest

And yet, you believe that Sanders is going to produce FREE COLLEGE? Anyone with any sense knows that he can't do it without Congress.

No, Sanders may propose the idea of free college but since he is not going to be President, the idea does not go anywhere.

Originally Posted by Guest

No, Sanders may propose the idea of free college but since he is not going to be President, the idea does not go anywhere.

I agree, but no one is jumping up and down over his preposterous promises.

The problem with E. Warren's comment is she doesn't go far enough. The Constitution also says that the nominee has to be approved by the Senate. The problem with our current state of politics is there is no middle ground. If Obama puts forward a moderate, and two have been mentioned, how are the Republicans going to sell the idea that the Supreme Court just went to the left?

Both sides are trying to sell the idea that the nominee should be in line with their political philosophy. Isn't the Supreme Court suppose to be a non bias check and balance against the other two sides of government? The judges are suppose to rule on the case brought to them in a non bias manner, and enforce the law as written. Well, it appears neither party wants that to happen.

Judge Roberts, and Kennedy are raked over the coals every time they rule against the Republican leaning judges. It is a real hard sell for Republicans to throw out there that they want a middle of the road judge. In some cases. we have two.

Originally Posted by Guest

The problem with E. Warren's comment is she doesn't go far enough. The Constitution also says that the nominee has to be approved by the Senate. The problem with our current state of politics is there is no middle ground. If Obama puts forward a moderate, and two have been mentioned, how are the Republicans going to sell the idea that the Supreme Court just went to the left?

Both sides are trying to sell the idea that the nominee should be in line with their political philosophy. Isn't the Supreme Court suppose to be a non bias check and balance against the other two sides of government? The judges are suppose to rule on the case brought to them in a non bias manner, and enforce the law as written. Well, it appears neither party wants that to happen.

Judge Roberts, and Kennedy are raked over the coals every time they rule against the Republican leaning judges. It is a real hard sell for Republicans to throw out there that they want a middle of the road judge. In some cases. we have two.

Friend, you do not belong on the Political Forum! Your post does NOT meet the requirements for posting.

Your post was clear, articulate, was not divisive, made perfect sense, and did not insult anyone or any group.

Thank you for a breath of fresh air and to show there are still some reasonable people reading this forum.

Originally Posted by Guest

The problem with E. Warren's comment is she doesn't go far enough. The Constitution also says that the nominee has to be approved by the Senate. The problem with our current state of politics is there is no middle ground. If Obama puts forward a moderate, and two have been mentioned, how are the Republicans going to sell the idea that the Supreme Court just went to the left?

Both sides are trying to sell the idea that the nominee should be in line with their political philosophy. Isn't the Supreme Court suppose to be a non bias check and balance against the other two sides of government? The judges are suppose to rule on the case brought to them in a non bias manner, and enforce the law as written. Well, it appears neither party wants that to happen.

Judge Roberts, and Kennedy are raked over the coals every time they rule against the Republican leaning judges. It is a real hard sell for Republicans to throw out there that they want a middle of the road judge. In some cases. we have two.

Good post, even if I don't completely agree with it.

You have one difficult premise. You gave a hypothetical situation that is way too incredulous. You suggest that Obama would submit a nominee that is moderate. Obama is so far to the left that he makes Hillary appear conservative.