Advise & Consent

Robo

Robo

Verified User
Obama claims to be a constitutional scholar and he is saying that relative to appointing judges to the Court, that the Constitution is “clear.” He says, “the President shall make nominations to the Court.” He fails to report that the Constitution’s actual text says, “He shall have power with the advise and consent of the Senate shall appoint Judges of the Supreme Court.” (Article 2, Section 2, United States Constitution)

Who thinks that Obama will call the leaders of the Senate to the White House and seek their advise as to who he should appoint to the Court to replace Scalia?

I’ll be awaiting the main stream media’s reporting of that happening, how about you?
 
If you want to be a strict constructionist, it looks like the Senate must agree.... They are not given a choice but to consent. IT does not say, consent or veto, it simply says consent.



* I am being sarcastic, but the argument is about as good as many based on Strict Construction.
 
Last edited:
heres what should happen

Obama nominates someone

the congress rejects them


the next day he nominates another person.


then congress rejects that person.


he keeps giving them nominees immediately after they reject someone



the republican party will be hated by every American In short order
 
evince said:
heres what should happen

Obama nominates someone

the congress rejects them


the next day he nominates another person.


then congress rejects that person.


he keeps giving them nominees immediately after they reject someone



the republican party will be hated by every American In short order
Click to expand...

More likely the President will nominate someone, the Congress will take months maybe a year to decide not to vote, then the new Congress will simply wait for Hillary to renew the nomination.
 
Jarod said:
If you want to be a strict constructionist, it looks like the Senate must agree.... They are not given a choice but to consent. IT does not say, consent or veto, it simply says consent.



* I am being sarcastic, but the argument is about as good as many based on Strict Construction.
Click to expand...

you aren't being sarcastic, you are being disingenuous.......nobody in the 200+ years of American history has pretended the Senate can't say no........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you aren't being sarcastic, you are being disingenuous.......nobody in the 200+ years of American history has pretended the Senate can't say no........
Click to expand...

That's because the Strict Constructionists haven't had their say on the issue. They have made similar arguments on other issues, that is what strict construction is, word games with ambiguity.
 
Jarod said:
If you want to be a strict constructionist, it looks like the Senate must agree.... They are not given a choice but to consent. IT does not say, consent or veto, it simply says consent.



* I am being sarcastic, but the argument is about as good as many based on Strict Construction.
Click to expand...

Never thought about it that way. Doubt any "originalist" ever did either. I like it!
 
Jarod said:
That's because the Strict Constructionists haven't had their say on the issue. They have made similar arguments on other issues, that is what strict construction is, word games with ambiguity.
Click to expand...

/yawn.......one too many liberal dumbfucks on this thread......
 
Jarod said:
Libby never went to jail.

Lying to federal prosecutors?

Where is the evidence HRC did that?
Click to expand...

well, maybe Obama will commute her sentence......as to evidence there's a photocopy of an email posted in one of these threads that she told federal investigators did not exist........seems pretty obviously a lie to most folks who don't have "Hillary or Die" tattooed on them as a tramp stamp.....where did you put yours?......

as I recall, in Libby's case the "lie" he was convicted of was misstating which month he first discussed the investigation with Rove even though the investigation revealed neither of them had anything to do with exposing Plame's name to anyone.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well, maybe Obama will commute her sentence......as to evidence there's a photocopy of an email posted in one of these threads that she told federal investigators did not exist........seems pretty obviously a lie to most folks who don't have "Hillary or Die" tattooed on them as a tramp stamp.....where did you put yours?......

as I recall, in Libby's case the "lie" he was convicted of was misstating which month he first discussed the investigation with Rove even though the investigation revealed neither of them had anything to do with exposing Plame's name to anyone.......
Click to expand...

We can discuss what libby was convicted of if you wish, but my question was what crime are you accusing HRC of?
 
Jarod said:
If you want to be a strict constructionist, it looks like the Senate must agree.... They are not given a choice but to consent..
Click to expand...

And according to Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution the President isn't allowed a choice unless he seeks first the "ADVISE" of the Senate.
 
evince said:
heres what should happen

Obama nominates someone

the congress rejects them


the next day he nominates another person.


then congress rejects that person.


he keeps giving them nominees immediately after they reject someone



the republican party will be hated by every American In short order
Click to expand...

Except for the half of Americans that hate Democrats, huh Dippy?
 
Jarod said:
That's because the Strict Constructionists haven't had their say on the issue. They have made similar arguments on other issues, that is what strict construction is, word games with ambiguity.
Click to expand...

"Strict construction" is the actual, correct defining of words as opposed to the feeble, evil attempts of BIG government progressive's to make words say what they want them to say instead of accepting what they do say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top