General Discussion

kairos12

(13,353 posts) Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:55 PM Mar 2016

65,915,796 Disenfranchised Voices

The numbers of votes President Obama received in 2012, and who will not have a say in selecting the next member of the Supreme Court of the United States because of Reich Wing blatant, unprecedented obstructionism.

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

65,915,796 Disenfranchised Voices (Original Post) kairos12 Mar 2016 OP

Obstructing Constitutional prerogatives should be a crime. However, these fucks don't care. nt thereismore Mar 2016 #1

It's the President's prerogative to nominate someone SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #2

That is correct. The problem is, they do not want to vote him down, they want to obstruct. And THAT thereismore Mar 2016 #3

unfortunately it is perfectly legal for the senate to never have a vote on a nominee nt msongs Mar 2016 #4

The problem is SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #5

Not the president's prerogative: It's his duty. JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 2016 #6

thereismore

(13,326 posts)

1. Obstructing Constitutional prerogatives should be a crime. However, these fucks don't care. nt

Reply to kairos12 (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:10 PM

Mar 2016

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,412 posts)

2. It's the President's prerogative to nominate someone

Reply to thereismore (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:11 PM

Mar 2016

which he's done. It's the Senate's prerogative to approve or not.

thereismore

(13,326 posts)

3. That is correct. The problem is, they do not want to vote him down, they want to obstruct. And THAT

Reply to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:14 PM

Mar 2016

should be illegal. I don't really have a problem if they disapproved of his choice in an actual vote.

msongs

(70,369 posts)

4. unfortunately it is perfectly legal for the senate to never have a vote on a nominee nt

Reply to thereismore (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:20 PM

Mar 2016

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,412 posts)

5. The problem is

Reply to thereismore (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:21 PM

Mar 2016

that the Constitution gives no timeline on when they have to provide "advice and consent", so making it illegal is really not even an option.

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,862 posts)

6. Not the president's prerogative: It's his duty.

Reply to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:39 PM

Mar 2016

If he didn't name someone, it would be a dereliction of his duty.

At some point, maybe after the conventions, or maybe after General Election night, he should probably withdraw the nomination. I would so love to see who Prez-elect Sanders would nominate. Probably someone from the 9th Circuit, which would cause Repub heads to melt.

Reply to this discussion