Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your opinion about anyone who disagrees with Obama is a tantrum.Actually, his illegal executive orders that were blocked by the SC and lower courts would be considered a diaper baby tantrum by Obama.😂
Stop being just an aggressive little shit because someone says something you don't agree with.
That doesn't really make too much sense, now does it.
Elizabeth Warren speaks out:
Also, the average length of time for a decision to be made is 37 days; the longest a nominee has been stalled is 261 days. There are 342 days left in Barack Obama's term.
Meaning, in order to delay it past Obama's term, the Republicans will have to beat the all-time stalling record by almost three months.
It is not only not standard procedure to wait this long to let the next person has it, a blocking of this length has in fact never happened even once.
Be aware the Republicans are asking for extraordinary generosity from the Democrats in their desire to... be non-generous to the Democrats. Bit contradictory there.
Originally posted by Robtard
Stop being just an aggressive little shit because someone says something you don't agree with.That doesn't really make too much sense, now does it.
Look who is being an aggressive little shit with these insults..
I wasn't being aggressive, you say the same thing any time the republicans threaten to block something they don't want Obama to do.
Why does the same thing not apply to Obama when he does not get his way?
The people spoke and gave the house and senate to the republicans two years after Obama's second term.
That means after 6 years, the people had enough and gave the power to the other party.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Look who is being an aggressive little shit with these insults..I wasn't being aggressive, you say the same thing any time the republicans threaten to block something they don't want Obama to do.
Why does the same thing not apply to Obama when he does not get his way?
Because the two parties are not acting in any way equal, the obstructionism flows much more one way, and this, specifically, is something that is a Presidential authority clearly outlined in the constitution. Not a Senate authority, a Presidential one with Senate advisement.
Eisenhower appointed three Justices without Senate confirmation.
The people spoke and gave the house and senate to the republicans two years after Obama's second term.That means after 6 years, the people had enough and gave the power to the other party.
No, they gave *those slots* to the other party- slots on representing the specific states, but gave the Presidency- the job that has this power and the one in charge of national-scale decisions specifically like foreign relations and supreme court justices- to Barack Obama, twice, for four years each time. Not 'two years and pretend the next ones don't count because of midterms.'
Supreme Court justices for this four-year stretch is something the people voted President Barack Obama to have by a wide margin.
When the House and Senate were split, the Republicans were still highly obstructionist, they didn't recognize the Democrats when the Democrats had more support, they didn't recognize Obama or agree to work with them when he had the Senate on his side despite the people clearly voting in that direction.
In 2012, the Democrats had more people vote for them in House races, the reason for the Republican majority being districts and gerrymandering. Even so, the House took this as a mandate. We had the popular vote there but you got the power anyway, even though if it worked in a proportional system ala a couple other democracies, you'd have seen a Democratic majority in House, Senate, and Presidency at the same time. With the Presidency, it just happened that we got both the vote and the power.
That's something you kinda leave out when talking about the 'country decided'. The country decided on us but you got power anyway in 2012.
The Republicans seem to think slim majorities of seats but not the big chair equal 'get everything you want,' and that letting the other side do anything, even specifically outlined powers, even though half the country voted against them, is a bridge too far.
Sorry, asking us to not use our elected power so you can have power beyond that what your candidates were elected to is not democratic, not fair, not good for the country, and is not, also, how the government works or is supposed to work.
Short sarcastic version-
Republicans accuse Obama of using Position as President to Lead Country
Republicans in Congress unleashed a blistering attack on him today, accusing Mr. Obama of “cynically and systematically using his position as President to lead the country.”Spearheading the offensive was Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas), who charged the President with the “wanton exploitation of powers that are legally granted to him under the U.S. Constitution.”
Calling him the “Law Professor-in-Chief,” Rep. Stockman accused Mr. Obama of “manipulating a little-known section of the Constitution,” Article II, which outlines the power of the President.
“President Obama looks down the list of all of the powers that are legally his and he’s like a kid in a candy store,” Rep. Stockman said. “It’s nauseating.”
The Texas congressman said that if Mr. Obama persists in executing the office of the Presidency as defined by the Constitution, he could face “impeachment and/or deportation.”
Noting that the President has not yet signed the executive orders on gun control, Rep. Stockman said that he hoped his stern words would serve as a wake-up call to Mr. Obama: “Mr. President, there’s still time for you to get in line. But if you continue to fulfill the duties of President of the United States that are expressly permitted in the Constitution, you are playing with fire.”
Originally posted by Q99
Because the two parties are not acting in any way equal, the obstructionism flows much more one way, and this, specifically, is something that is a Presidential authority clearly outlined in the constitution. Not a Senate authority, a Presidential one with Senate advisement.Eisenhower appointed three Justices without Senate confirmation.
No, they gave *those slots* to the other party- slots on representing the specific states, but gave the Presidency- the job that has this power and the one in charge of national-scale decisions specifically like foreign relations and supreme court justices- to Barack Obama, twice, for four years each time. Not 'two years and pretend the next ones don't count because of midterms.'
Supreme Court justices for this four-year stretch is something the people voted President Barack Obama to have by a wide margin.
When the House and Senate were split, the Republicans were still highly obstructionist, they didn't recognize the Democrats when the Democrats had more support, they didn't recognize Obama or agree to work with them when he had the Senate on his side despite the people clearly voting in that direction.
In 2012, the Democrats had more people vote for them in House races, the reason for the Republican majority being districts and gerrymandering. Even so, the House took this as a mandate. We had the popular vote there but you got the power anyway, even though if it worked in a proportional system ala a couple other democracies, you'd have seen a Democratic majority in House, Senate, and Presidency at the same time. With the Presidency, it just happened that we got both the vote and the power.
That's something you kinda leave out when talking about the 'country decided'. The country decided on us but you got power anyway in 2012.
The Republicans seem to think slim majorities of seats but not the big chair equal 'get everything you want,' and that letting the other side do anything, even specifically outlined powers, even though half the country voted against them, is a bridge too far.
Sorry, asking us to not use our elected power so you can have power beyond that what your candidates were elected to is not democratic, not fair, not good for the country, and is not, also, how the government works or is supposed to work.
How is the republicans taking over the house and senate not a sign that the people wanted something different then what they had?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How is the republicans taking over the house and senate not a sign that the people wanted something different then what they had?
It's a sign that people in a few states did. But note, the gap is still not large, it's a divided congress, not even close to a supermajority. Which traditionally is taken to mean that the country is split and the parties should compromise- something the Republicans reject in favor of wanting the other party to get nothing, despite that not being nearly what the Public voted?
And by a similar note, how is Obama winning by a much larger margin not a sign that people want him in office for 4 years at a stretch?
By your logic, every President should just stop doing stuff after 2 years, because almost every sitting president's party loses a few seats in the off years.
Also, does that apply to Senators too? They're elected to 6 year terms, should they stop pushing for the views they were elected for if the next congressional election doesn't favor them as much, and just sit around for the next 4?
Why is it that this losing-mandate only seems to happen to one side in your eyes, and similarly, does not apply to the reverse, there's been a notable lack of acknowledging Democrat mandates when they do win.
At the end of the day, President of the United States Barack Obama was elected for 4 years, not 2. The Republicans also have a very two-faced way of approaching mandates, i.e. if they win by a little or even lose ground, they have an absolute mandate, if the other side wins, they have a responsibility to do everything in their power to stop the other side from using it's constitutionally granted powers?
This is a very one-way thing, you don't get to block the President for 2 years after a re-election he very solidly won, then just ask him to meekly not do anything in the following years because you won by not-as-much.
This is constitutionally granted power, this is not even something with informal tradition against it, and in order to block it, the Republicans would once again have to set a new obstructionism-related record, in the form of 'longest delayed Supreme Court Justice by a very wide margin.' The Republican politicians are asking us to ignore the constitution and break tradition here in defiance of popular vote. There is no aspect in which this breaks in their favor.
Its been 80 years since a justice has been confirmed in the last 11 months of a president election..
If the senate allowed the presidents nominee to be confirmed they would be ignoring their voter base and the conservative movement that is obviously present in the country of which those people voted in the current leadership change in the senate and the house.
You are only really spinning this to your favor for the obvious reason. You want a 6th liberal judge on the SC..
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Its been 80 years since a justice has been confirmed in the last 11 months of a president election..
While that is technically true, there is a judge serving on the supreme court right now that was confirmed 11 months and 17 days before a new presidency, so that's really a bit disingenuous.
And there are only 4 liberal judges on the Supreme Court, even if the extremism of the Republican Party makes them want to separate themselves from Reagan's appointment Anthony Kennedy
Originally posted by Bardock42
While that is technically true, there is a judge serving on the supreme court right now that was confirmed 11 months and 17 days before a new presidency, so that's really a bit disingenuous.And there are only 4 liberal judges on the Supreme Court, even if the extremism of the Republican Party makes them want to separate themselves from Reagan's appointment Anthony Kennedy
There is a swing judge..quit playing dumb.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
There is a swing judge..quit playing dumb.
There's conservative judges that sometimes don't agree with current Republican extremism, but that's really mostly due to the insane shift of the Republican party, a party in which Ronald Reagan would nowadays be considered a bleeding-heart liberal.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
"While that is technically true, there is a judge serving on the supreme court right now that was confirmed 11 months and 17 days before a new presidency, so that's really a bit disingenuous."wtf does this even mean, its true but also a lie? Get the hell out of here.
I didn't make this up.
It's true, but disingenuous. You are pretending like that is a rule, rather a coincidence of nominations over the last 80 years.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bullshit, I never said anything was a fact, I implied there is a precedence.
What precedence is there? What president has refrained from electing a judge in his last year of office?
What does what Ted Cruz said have anything to do with the facts or what I said. You think Politco is your answer for everything...quit spinning for once in your life.
The actual truth on history.
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/431271/scalia-vacancy