take away the senators’ government paid health insurance if they refuse to do their jobs.
“We are knee deep into a presidential election and I think the precedent for not filling a Supreme Court vacancy in such a time is justified,”
There is no precedent for this you lying scumbag.
1 Like
Any pretense that this man was the temperate choice to become Speaker should be stripped away, now. They can try to parse his statement any way they want, but the meaning is clear, it’s a perceived explanation that they can and should not give President Obama approval for any SC nomination he makes. You would think that at least one of them could think and speak as an individual, and not as part of knee jerk, Republican political group speak.
… Paulie Two-Face has just succeeded in making me miss the Orange Man… 
… i’ve got some blood pressure meds I can share with ya… 
What Paul W said. He has always been a hack, and has never been a constitutionalist.
Their obligation is to have hearings. They are not obligated to vote for a nominee they find unacceptable. I’m an Obama supporter. I want a liberal justice, but I believe he is acting in a constitutional manner.
Ryan: We will sue Obama if he nominates anyone for Supreme Court Justice, all the way to SCOTUS.
It’s not ineptitude; they’re actually quite good at trying to make the government non-functional. And, yes, that has been their goal for a long time.
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!
[In other words: are you SURE it was god, and not, perhaps, some guy in a red suit, carrying a pitchfork?]
1 Like
Voice of the People:
November 2012: We want Obama as President.
February 2016: Obama is still President. He’s the only one we have. Yes, we know his
approval rating is 46.1 but, Congress, your approval rating is 13.3
November 2016 Our next opportunity to speak. Capice?
Okay, I should have written a longer post.
No. The Speaker of the House doesn’t get advise and consent.
Yes, it’s the Senate. Article II, Section 2.2 if I remember correctly (but I didn’t look it up, it’s possible it’s Section 2.3).
The ‘they’ was referring to Republicans. Specifically Republicans in the Senate.
Not a problem, Congress isn’t part of the Advise and Consent process; it’s the exclusive purview of the Senate.
Too bad Paulie didn’t get Eliot Spitzer’s balls instead of just a passing facial resemblance.
So says Paul rAyn, whose favorite philosopher is high griftress Ayn Rand.
One of the problems here Paulie is that you answered the question that had not been asked. The question is does the Senate, (You serve in the House of Representatives which has no say in this matter.) have an obligation to take up a nomination of a SCOTUS Justice or can they just set on it? The answer is Yes, they have an obligation to take it up.
The issue of approving or rejecting that candidate only comes into play after they have taken the nomination to the floor.
Of course Congress has a right not to confirm a nominee. But the Constitution == which neither provides for nor contemplates the existence of political parties – does not empower a political party to issue a prior block of ALL nominations by a particular president to fill a particular vacancy. There is, I think it is fair to say, an assumption built into the Constitution, that members of the Senate will discharge their duties conscientiously and in good faith. And there is absolutely no good faith in a prior, blanket block.