Which polls are those? I'm not challenging you, I'd like to know who has turnt around that kind of data that fast. Rasmussen has nothing posted yet. PPP, AP, I can't find much. There's some "what do you think" stuff here and there.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a substantive answer.
I find your constant reference to people doing things "for political purposes" as some kind of insult rather odd. Who in politics does not do things for political purposes?
Only Obama and other democrats do it. You know, the liberals. Besides, it's not like any president or politician would come right out and say they are doing thing for political reasons because that would be bad form, so how would you know for sure that it even happens at all?
_________________________________________________________________________It is easy.
Harry Reid unilaterally changed the rules in The Senate, purely for political purposes and changing centuries old rules that call for a two-thirds majority to approve a judge for the bench to a simple majority of 51 in order to allow Obama to pack the courts with left-wing activist judges.
The Republicans do not and will not stoop so low. Mitch McConnell restored regular order.
More political games by Obama:
Obama tried to stack the National Labor Relations Board with liberal union activists.
The Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision ruled Obama’s action was unconstitutional.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-recess-appointments-108347
More political games by Obama:
Obama tried to stack the National Labor Relations Board with liberal union activists.
The Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision ruled Obama’s action was unconstitutional.http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-recess-appointments-108347
Of course the SCOTUS decision has nothing to do with the politics of the appointees:
"The court ruled 9-0 that Obama’s appointments were unconstitutional because the Senate was not truly in recess when he made them during a three-day break in pro forma meetings of the legislative body."
This decision is also the reason that many are saying the McConnell may not let the Senate take any true recess in 2016 and keep it in pro forma session even when on a break on the unlikely chance that Obama would make a recess appointment.
Also nice to see that you will use "far left" websites when it suits you, and only slam them when it doesn't. #notsurprised
Which polls are those? I'm not challenging you, I'd like to know who has turnt around that kind of data that fast. Rasmussen has nothing posted yet. PPP, AP, I can't find much. There's some "what do you think" stuff here and there.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a substantive answer.
I find your constant reference to people doing things "for political purposes" as some kind of insult rather odd. Who in politics does not do things for political purposes?
Only Obama and other democrats do it. You know, the liberals. Besides, it's not like any president or politician would come right out and say they are doing thing for political reasons because that would be bad form, so how would you know for sure that it even happens at all?
_________________________________________________________________________It is easy.
Harry Reid unilaterally changed the rules in The Senate, purely for political purposes and changing centuries old rules that call for a two-thirds majority to approve a judge for the bench to a simple majority of 51 in order to allow Obama to pack the courts with left-wing activist judges.
The Republicans do not and will not stoop so low. Mitch McConnell restored regular order.
Like I said, don't hold your breath.
Hey muleclown, that rule change did not apply to SCOTUS appointments so it is not relevant here. And the reason for it in the first place was because the GOP was using the 2/3rd rule to block cloture votes on virtually all of Obama's lower court appointments so they would not actually get to vote on the confirmation votes themselves.
[Edited on 2/16/2016 by gondicar]
More political games by Obama:
Obama tried to stack the National Labor Relations Board with liberal union activists.
The Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision ruled Obama’s action was unconstitutional.http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-recess-appointments-108347
The appointments came during a period when the Senate claimed to be in session, even though it was on a 20-day break in most of its substantive business. The chamber was gaveled in briefly every three days, apparently in an attempt to stymie recess appointments, and a Senate resolution said no business was to be conducted.
But...that's cool I guess.
More political games by Obama:
Obama tried to stack the National Labor Relations Board with liberal union activists.
The Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision ruled Obama’s action was unconstitutional.http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-recess-appointments-108347
The appointments came during a period when the Senate claimed to be in session, even though it was on a 20-day break in most of its substantive business. The chamber was gaveled in briefly every three days, apparently in an attempt to stymie recess appointments, and a Senate resolution said no business was to be conducted.
But...that's cool I guess.
_________________________________________________________________________
Yea, that was the argument the Obama’s Solicitor General tried to use in The Supreme Court and all 9 justices ruled it bull-sheet.
Guess which Justice admonished Obama’s Solicitor General for misrepresenting the facts to the court?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Which polls are those? I'm not challenging you, I'd like to know who has turnt around that kind of data that fast. Rasmussen has nothing posted yet. PPP, AP, I can't find much. There's some "what do you think" stuff here and there.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a substantive answer.
I find your constant reference to people doing things "for political purposes" as some kind of insult rather odd. Who in politics does not do things for political purposes?
Only Obama and other democrats do it. You know, the liberals. Besides, it's not like any president or politician would come right out and say they are doing thing for political reasons because that would be bad form, so how would you know for sure that it even happens at all?
_________________________________________________________________________It is easy.
Harry Reid unilaterally changed the rules in The Senate, purely for political purposes and changing centuries old rules that call for a two-thirds majority to approve a judge for the bench to a simple majority of 51 in order to allow Obama to pack the courts with left-wing activist judges.
The Republicans do not and will not stoop so low. Mitch McConnell restored regular order.
Like I said, don't hold your breath.
Hey muleclown, that rule change did not apply to SCOTUS appointments so it is not relevant here. And the reason for it in the first place was because the GOP was using the 2/3rd rule to block cloture votes on virtually all of Obama's lower court appointments so they would not actually get to vote on the confirmation votes themselves.
_________________________________________________________________________It does demonstrate the political games Obama, Reid and the democrats have played. The 2/3rd rule was in place for over two centuries and was in place to ensure that liberal activists were not seated on the bench or other politically motivated bills died as they should have.
It is exactly relevant here because Reid arbitrarily changed the rule to allow Obama to stack lower courts with liberal activists.
So much for your attempt to justify the political games by Obama, Reid and the democrats. The American People threw Reid out of power for, amongst other malfeasance, exactly that reason.
Which polls are those? I'm not challenging you, I'd like to know who has turnt around that kind of data that fast. Rasmussen has nothing posted yet. PPP, AP, I can't find much. There's some "what do you think" stuff here and there.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a substantive answer.
I find your constant reference to people doing things "for political purposes" as some kind of insult rather odd. Who in politics does not do things for political purposes?
Only Obama and other democrats do it. You know, the liberals. Besides, it's not like any president or politician would come right out and say they are doing thing for political reasons because that would be bad form, so how would you know for sure that it even happens at all?
_________________________________________________________________________It is easy.
Harry Reid unilaterally changed the rules in The Senate, purely for political purposes and changing centuries old rules that call for a two-thirds majority to approve a judge for the bench to a simple majority of 51 in order to allow Obama to pack the courts with left-wing activist judges.
The Republicans do not and will not stoop so low. Mitch McConnell restored regular order.
Like I said, don't hold your breath.
Hey muleclown, that rule change did not apply to SCOTUS appointments so it is not relevant here. And the reason for it in the first place was because the GOP was using the 2/3rd rule to block cloture votes on virtually all of Obama's lower court appointments so they would not actually get to vote on the confirmation votes themselves.
_________________________________________________________________________It does demonstrate the political games Obama, Reid and the democrats have played. The 2/3rd rule was in place for over two centuries and was in place to ensure that liberal activists were not seated on the bench or other politically motivated bills died as they should have.
It is exactly relevant here because Reid arbitrarily changed the rule to allow Obama to stack lower courts with liberal activists.
So much for your attempt to justify the political games by Obama, Reid and the democrats. The American People threw Reid out of power for, amongst other malfeasance, exactly that reason.
Reid was hardly the first person to use the nuclear option. It has been used quite often and under the Constitution, it is legal. BTW, it was the 3/5 rule, not the 2/3 rule. The 2/3 rule is for expelling members of Congress.
Here is a link for Mule to ignore,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/21/politics/nuclear-option-explainer/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/226398-republicans-clash-on-reversing-nuke-option
[Edited on 2/15/2016 by LeglizHemp]
LOL i hate quoting myself, anyhow.
Hey did you hear....Obama's Elite Texas Prairie Ninja's did it. ?
its a new tv show on fox starring......Jean Claude van Damme, Chuck Norris and Liam Neeson?
Quail Team 6? 😛 😛 😛
So that's what Jade Helm was about................ 😛
JUSTICE SCALIA DEAD FOLLOWING 30-YEAR BATTLE WITH SOCIAL PROGRESS
Doesn't matter what the polls say, nor the Dems or GOP, it matters what the Constitution says.
Doesn't matter what the polls say, nor the Dems or GOP, it matters what the Constitution says.
Doesn't it matter that Mitch McConnell basically said he would ignore the Constitution?
Doesn't matter what the polls say, nor the Dems or GOP, it matters what the Constitution says.
Doesn't it matter that Mitch McConnell basically said he would ignore the Constitution?
Did he actually say that?
It seems like it to me. The quote is in the following Politico report. I'm sure you can find additional corroborating reports.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248
Doesn't matter what the polls say, nor the Dems or GOP, it matters what the Constitution says.
Doesn't it matter that Mitch McConnell basically said he would ignore the Constitution?
Did he actually say that?
_________________________________________________________________________
No, Mitch McConnell did not say that and it does matter what The Constitution says.
The democrats and the liberal media are falling all over themselves to paint Mitch McConnell’s words into something they can use for their political purposes.
Nowhere in The Constitution is mentioned when the president is nominate or when The Senate is to begin to consider or confirm (or not). No timeline exists.
Curiously while the democrats are all screaming for Senate to quickly confirm the yet to be named nominee, Obama said he would choose his nominee “in due time”. No sense of urgency from Obama.
Mitch McConnell never said the process in The Senate would not go forward.
Not one Republican who is a member of the committees that will hold the hearings has ever said that no hearings would be held.
It was Obama who said in the news conference that “it is wrong not to even have hearings” in an attempt to cast The Republicans as obstructionists; a political comment with no basis in fact.
Have you noticed that the fact that Obama filibustered against Samuel Alito’s nomination doesn’t get mentioned in the liberal media or here in the W/P?
“Doesn't it matter that Mitch McConnell basically said he would ignore the Constitution?”
It would matter if Mitch McConnell had said such but he did not.
When you hear someone say “basically said” the words to follow are their attempt to misrepresent what was actually said. This is a common technique used by some people who are desperate to push their ideology into a discussion. Misrepresenting someone’s actual words is lying.
The actual words said or written as in The Constitution matter; not what someone wants them to mean.
The McConnell quote follows. He clearly says the vacancy should not be filled until there is a new President. I believe anyone with the ability to think critically understands McConnell supports abdicating the duties of the Senate as enumerated in the Constitution.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election — an historic rebuke of President Obama’s authority and an extraordinary challenge to the practice of considering each nominee on his or her individual merits.
The swiftness of McConnell’s statement — coming about an hour after Scalia’s death in Texas had been confirmed — stunned White House officials who had expected the Kentucky Republican to block their nominee with every tool at his disposal, but didn't imagine the combative GOP leader would issue an instant, categorical rejection of anyone Obama chose to nominate.“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said.
The McConnell quote follows. He clearly says the vacancy should not be filled until there is a new President. I believe anyone with the ability to think critically understands McConnell supports abdicating the duties of the Senate as enumerated in the Constitution.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election — an historic rebuke of President Obama’s authority and an extraordinary challenge to the practice of considering each nominee on his or her individual merits.
The swiftness of McConnell’s statement — coming about an hour after Scalia’s death in Texas had been confirmed — stunned White House officials who had expected the Kentucky Republican to block their nominee with every tool at his disposal, but didn't imagine the combative GOP leader would issue an instant, categorical rejection of anyone Obama chose to nominate.“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said.
________________________________________________________________________
Most people think that the next president should nominate, not Obama. Mitch McConnell is doing what he elected to do, represent The American People.
Your “abdicating the duties of the Senate as enumerated in the Constitution” is nothing more than your political rhetoric and a lie. Your use of Politico explains why you have such a twisted, biased opinion.
Mitch McConnell will meet his responsibilities as enumerated in the Constitution; he has never said he would not. Nowhere in the Constitution is a timeline.
The McConnell quote follows. He clearly says the vacancy should not be filled until there is a new President. I believe anyone with the ability to think critically understands McConnell supports abdicating the duties of the Senate as enumerated in the Constitution.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election — an historic rebuke of President Obama’s authority and an extraordinary challenge to the practice of considering each nominee on his or her individual merits.
The swiftness of McConnell’s statement — coming about an hour after Scalia’s death in Texas had been confirmed — stunned White House officials who had expected the Kentucky Republican to block their nominee with every tool at his disposal, but didn't imagine the combative GOP leader would issue an instant, categorical rejection of anyone Obama chose to nominate.“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said.
________________________________________________________________________
Most people think that the next president should nominate, not Obama. Mitch McConnell is doing what he elected to do, represent The American People.
Your “abdicating the duties of the Senate as enumerated in the Constitution” is nothing more than your political rhetoric and a lie. Your use of Politico explains why you have such a twisted, biased opinion.
Mitch McConnell will meet his responsibilities as enumerated in the Constitution; he has never said he would not. Nowhere in the Constitution is a timeline.
So what happens when a Democrat is elected president? Do we have to wait 4 more years?
And where do you get that information that most Americans Are in favor of waiting? You were asked that before and you couldn't answer it. You are still pulling facts out of your butt and lying.
Mule: Obama won the last election by more than 5 million votes. He is your President. Patriotic Americans want the President to fulfill his Constitutional duties.
Your assertion that "most people" want the next President to appoint is moronic. Check the latest polls.
It seems like it to me. The quote is in the following Politico report. I'm sure you can find additional corroborating reports.
NO. What he said, and this is the quote you have put forward, is: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy SHOULD NOT BE FILLED until we have a new president."
I don't see, nor have been able to find anywhere he has, said that Obama cannot nominate a candidate for the vacant seat.
Obama can nominate anyone he wants, that is in the Constitution. The Senate is the body that confirms the nominee, that is in the Constitution.So, again, where does he say he "supports abdicating the duties of the Senate as enumerated in the Constitution"?
Fine Jerry. You are being disingenuous. The people chose this President. Obama is the President of the United States and his duty to nominate is clear.
I'm betting that if Mitch McConnell pissed on the Constitution you would explain it away by saying... "He was pissing on the floor, Obama put the Constitution under the stream."
I have no time for your partisan ignorance.
We will say how This most recent naked obstructionism works out for the Grand Old Party of fossilized pig crap.
I have no time for your partisan ignorance.
I should have said "willful" partisan ignorance. I know you are not an ignorant man.
WASHINGTON -- With cracks starting to show in Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's plan to ignore any Supreme Court nominee by President Barack Obama, a conservative activist group is about to start spending money to shore up McConnell's will.
The group, the Judicial Crisis Network, says it is going to spend more than $1 million to run TV, radio and online ads, especially in swing states currently represented by Republicans who are most likely to face a backlash for obstructing the Supreme Court.
The ads parrot the GOP position that with 11 months to go in his final term, Obama shouldn't get to fill the vacancy on the high court that opened with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia over the weekend.
“We want to thank the U.S. Senators who say that the American people should decide who picks the next Supreme Court justice," said the group's chief counsel, Carrie Severino, in a statement announcing the campaign.
The ads aim to benefit Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), as well as McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
All except for McConnell are facing re-election fights in swing states.
Democrats, for their part, are trying to ensure that voters are aware of the blockade against Obama and predict that Republicans will pay at the polls in November.
The fact that a conservative group is mobilizing to keep Republicans in line -- with what appears to be the largest ad buy in the fight so far -- suggests they are worried Democrats could be proven right, or at least that they could scare the GOP off its course.
Below is one of the ads aimed at supporting Grassley, who at first backed McConnell but then said he wanted to see a nominee before deciding if his committee would hold hearings on the person.
It seems like it to me. The quote is in the following Politico report. I'm sure you can find additional corroborating reports.
NO. What he said, and this is the quote you have put forward, is: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy SHOULD NOT BE FILLED until we have a new president."
I don't see, nor have been able to find anywhere he has, said that Obama cannot nominate a candidate for the vacant seat.
Obama can nominate anyone he wants, that is in the Constitution. The Senate is the body that confirms the nominee, that is in the Constitution.So, again, where does he say he "supports abdicating the duties of the Senate as enumerated in the Constitution"?
________________________________________________________________________
Jerry you won’t find it because Mitch McConnell, or any other Republican Senator, has never said it.
Billy is pushing the left’s rhetoric and misinformation campaign. The liberal extremists have nothing so they default to their standard:
1.) Lie
2.) Blame president Bush
3.) Blame The Republicans
4.) Repeat.Billy and his little club’s only source of information are political activist websites such as Politico, Media Matters, Public Policy Polling and the editorial pages of the liberal mainstream media.
Notice in his posts he uses “basically said” and "if". Not a fact in sight.
He also posts "I have no time for your partisan ignorance" but of course continues to spin his far-left rhetoric and can stop replying to your posts.Your quote is exactly what was said. It just doesn’t fit some people’s political agenda so they misrepresent the actual words said.
Muleman... make no mistake... I belong to a big club. There are plenty of voting Americans who are tired of McConnell's obstruction. Those 6 Senate seats at risk? Let's see what those guys do when the rubber hits the road.
Does it really matter? I can't wait for the recess appointment.
Or maybe Hillary will just appoint Obama.
51% of Americans think that Obama should name a successor to Justice Scalia.
53% of Americans think that the Senate should not reject or refuse to consider the nomination.
Muleman... make no mistake... I belong to a big club. There are plenty of voting Americans who are tired of McConnell's obstruction. Those 6 Senate seats at risk? Let's see what those guys do when the rubber hits the road.
Does it really matter? I can't wait for the recess appointment.
Or maybe Hillary will just appoint Obama.
_________________________________________________________________________
McConnell is following The Constitution and is obstructing nothing but the far-left extremists.
Harry Reid and the democrats are the obstructionists after having block over 330 bills from The House of Representatives before The American People threw his and their a$$ out of power.
Hillary Clinton can not appoint anyone from a jail cell.
It is not an appointment, it is a nomination. Do you know the difference?
You would know this if you had ever read The Constitution or a dictionary.
51% of Americans think that Obama should name a successor to Justice Scalia.
53% of Americans think that the Senate should not reject or refuse to consider the nomination.
51% of Americans think that Obama should name a successor to Justice Scalia.
53% of Americans think that the Senate should not reject or refuse to consider the nomination.
___________________________________________________________________________
No source information.
Did you copy and paste that from the left-wing Public Policy Polling site?
51% of Americans think that Obama should name a successor to Justice Scalia.
53% of Americans think that the Senate should not reject or refuse to consider the nomination.
___________________________________________________________________________
No source information.
Did you copy and paste that from the left-wing Public Policy Polling site?
No, I got it from Rasmussen.
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Obama should put off naming a replacement for Scalia and leave that to his successor in the White House. But just over half (51%) disagree and say the president should not pass this decision on.
If the president does nominate someone, 53% say the Republican-led Senate should not reject or refuse to consider the nomination."
Rasmussen is an independent, major and unbiased polling organization. That is why their poll results are so well respected on both side of the aisle. - Muleman1994, 2/16/16
