• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Recess appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court?

Recess appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 68.4%

  • No

    Votes: 12 31.6%
  • Total voters
    38
Doesn't look like it. Could this be another failure/loss for his minions?
 
logger said:
That's always been obvious, I'm delighted you've figured it out.
Click to expand...

He would have accomplished a lot more and better furthered his agenda if he just showed a bit of a spine, especially when it comes to standing up to the Republicans and accepting they had zero interest in working with him or helping him pass one single bill, even if they 100% agreed with it.

That is my biggest dissapointment with Obama. He actually gave the GOP the benefit of the doubt when they were screaming perpetual obstruction from the mountain tops.
 
Hercules56 said:
He would have accomplished a lot more and better furthered his agenda if he just showed a bit of a spine, especially when it comes to standing up to the Republicans and accepting they had zero interest in working with him or helping him pass one single bill, even if they 100% agreed with it.
Click to expand...

If could have done it by showing leadership. But he couldn't because it was his way or no way. I like to know what they agreed 100% on?
That is my biggest dissapointment with Obama. He actually gave the GOP the benefit of the doubt when they were screaming perpetual obstruction from the mountain tops.
Click to expand...

Yes I and half the country were cheering the GOP on! ;)
 
Hercules56 said:
Obama won't do it as he is a skeerety cat with no balls.
Click to expand...

It took balls to throw Israel under the bus. It took balls to expel Russian diplomats based on shaky evidence. He has balls and, therefore, should make the attempt to appoint Merrick tomorrow.

On the other hand, some might say his recent actions were not made because he has balls but, rather, because he can't accept the results of the election and is throwing a temper-tantrum.

If he has balls, he'll advance the appointment. If he is still in denial and crying over spilled milk about the election results, he should advance the appointment (because that is what crybabies do). Either way, nothing should stop him from making the appointment, nothing except the idea that his is a failed presidency. Remember how he was going to unite the country? Looking back, if he had actually been a "great uniter", he most likely would have had his Supreme Court nominee approved early last year. But being one of the most divisive presidents in history, it should be no surprise we are discussing a 5-minute window of opportunity to advance a Supreme Court Justice appointment during the waning days of this massive pile of fail.
 
Dumb All Over said:
It took balls to throw Israel under the bus. It took balls to expel Russian diplomats based on shaky evidence. He has balls and, therefore, should make the attempt to appoint Merrick tomorrow.

On the other hand, some might say his recent actions were not made because he has balls but, rather, because he can't accept the results of the election and is throwing a temper-tantrum.

If he has balls, he'll advance the appointment. If he is still in denial and crying over spilled milk about the election results, he should advance the appointment (because that is what crybabies do). Either way, nothing should stop him from making the appointment, nothing except the idea that his is a failed presidency. Remember how he was going to unite the country? Looking back, if he had actually been a "great uniter", he most likely would have had his Supreme Court nominee approved early last year. But being one of the most divisive presidents in history, it should be no surprise we are discussing a 5-minute window of opportunity to advance a Supreme Court Justice appointment during the waning days of this massive pile of fail.
Click to expand...

The Republicans made it clear that no nominee of Obama's, no matter how qualified, would have gotten a vote or a hearing.
 
Dumb All Over said:
If he has balls, he'll advance the appointment. If he is still in denial and crying over spilled milk about the election results, he should advance the appointment (because that is what crybabies do). Either way, nothing should stop him from making the appointment, nothing except the idea that his is a failed presidency. Remember how he was going to unite the country? Looking back, if he had actually been a "great uniter", he most likely would have had his Supreme Court nominee approved early last year. But being one of the most divisive presidents in history, it should be no surprise we are discussing a 5-minute window of opportunity to advance a Supreme Court Justice appointment during the waning days of this massive pile of fail.
Click to expand...

So Obama was supposed to be the "great uniter" while the Republicans made it clear on January 21st, 2009 that their #1 agenda was to defeat Obama, and that they would obstruct all of his legislation no matter how much they might support it?

Sounds like you're demanding that Obama be a good American while the GOP can be traitors.
 
Dumb All Over said:
On the other hand, some might say his recent actions were not made because he has balls but, rather, because he can't accept the results of the election and is throwing a temper-tantrum.
Click to expand...

The Republicans made it clear in 2009 that their biggest and only agenda was to defeat Obama and none of his bills would get their support no matter how much they might agree with it. They also declared in early 2016 that no Supreme Court nominee of Obama's, no matter how amazingly qualified, would get a Senate hearing let alone a vote. Talk about a temper-tantrum.
 
Hercules56 said:
The Republicans made it clear that no nominee of Obama's, no matter how qualified, would have gotten a vote or a hearing.
Click to expand...

You understand what the stakes are? This next nominee could have tipped the balance of the court? Your guy blinked, we won.
 
Hercules56 said:
So Obama was supposed to be the "great uniter" while the Republicans made it clear on January 21st, 2009 that their #1 agenda was to defeat Obama, and that they would obstruct all of his legislation no matter how much they might support it?
Click to expand...
The GOP played him like a fine fiddle, he did exactly what they wanted him to do, dig in. He lost we won.
Sounds like you're demanding that Obama be a good American while the GOP can be traitors.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, politics is a game, a game of Chess to be exact. Check mate!
 
Hercules56 said:
The Republicans made it clear in 2009 that their biggest and only agenda was to defeat Obama and none of his bills would get their support no matter how much they might agree with it. They also declared in early 2016 that no Supreme Court nominee of Obama's, no matter how amazingly qualified, would get a Senate hearing let alone a vote. Talk about a temper-tantrum.
Click to expand...
Ahh, those bills they agreed on please!
 
logger said:
You understand what the stakes are? This next nominee could have tipped the balance of the court? Your guy blinked, we won.
Click to expand...

You politicized the Supreme Court nomination process in a way not done since our founding in 1776.

At no time in the history of the Republic has a President lost the ability to nominate a Supreme Court Justice during his last year.

What the Republicans did was nothing sort of a coup de etat and when we take back the Senate we will pass new rules to make sure this horrible abuse of democracy never happens again.
 
Hercules56 said:
You politicized the Supreme Court nomination process in a way not done since our founding in 1776.
Click to expand...
Yes!
At no time in the history of the Republic has a President lost the ability to nominate a Supreme Court Justice during his last year.
Click to expand...
Yes, okay possibly, but yes for arguments sake!
What the Republicans did was nothing sort of a coup de etat and when we take back the Senate we will pass new rules to make sure this horrible abuse of democracy never happens again.
Click to expand...

It was spectacular, you'll never take over again! Well at least not for awhile.;)
 
The GOP has declared that no sitting President may nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court during their final year in office.

The Democrats should have taken the Republicans to court immediately as this violated the Advise and Consent clause of the Constitution.
 
logger said:
It was spectacular, you'll never take over again! Well at least not for awhile.;)
Click to expand...

It was an unConstitutional act of treason.

But with the Trump and his lemmings sucking up to Russia, insulting our military and intelligence services, its now clear what has happened. We have suffered a coup de etat. Obama should react accordingly and suspend the transfer of power to Trump until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
 
Hercules56 said:
The GOP has declared that no sitting President may nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court during their final year in office.

The Democrats should have taken the Republicans to court immediately as this violated the Advise and Consent clause of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Well yeah there's that!

But you didn't! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom