# Obama nonimates a Supreme Court Justice



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Moderate my ass. 
Merrick Garland has 'very liberal view of gun rights' - Washington Times

and dead on arrival. McConnell: No hearing for Garland | TheHill


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

And the spineless wimps from the RNC will confirm the offal.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Mad Trapper said:


> And the spineless wimps from the RNC will confirm the offal.


Well if you believe McConnell in the second link, they will not even have a hearing for him.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

I guess the GOP senate wants to lose their jobs.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

RedLion said:


> I guess the GOP senate wants to lose their jobs.
> 
> View attachment 15455


They ALL should loose their "jobs". And pensions and benefits


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

RedLion said:


> I guess the GOP senate wants to lose their jobs.
> 
> View attachment 15455


If Hillary wins, the Senate would be in for a looooong struggle to keep a nominee from a vote for at least 2 years.
Not impossible, but not likely.
Let's ease that burden for them, and ensure she never sees the inside of that office again.


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

The republicans will fold , just like everything else they've given Obama


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> If Hillary wins, the Senate would be in for a looooong struggle to keep a nominee from a vote for at least 2 years.
> Not impossible, but not likely.
> Let's ease that burden for them, and ensure she never sees the inside of that office again.


She should see the inside of the crowbar hotel, until Satan takes her.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Obama is well within his rights and is fulfilling his constitutional duty to nominate a supreme court justice. We can't in conscience demand that congress follow the constitution when the 2nd amendment is involved, and then ignore it for judicial appointments. Congress should investigate the nominee, vote on him, and approve or disapprove him. 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

sideKahr said:


> Obama is well within his rights and is fulfilling his constitutional duty to nominate a supreme court justice. We can't in conscience demand that congress follow the constitution when the 2nd amendment is involved, and then ignore it for judicial appointments. Congress should investigate the nominee, vote on him, and approve or disapprove him.
> 
> What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


I don't agree, they are under no obligation to review him.
Further, I just read where the man is an anti-gunner.
ANYTHING that turd suggest to take action on is cutting our own throats.
Let it wait until after the election, If the dirt bag gets in she can finalize our destruction.
The demonrats took this stance on a previous election.
You really want another nail in our coffin???)

Extract,

He supported the DC gun ban in 2007, voting to reconsider the Heller case after a three judge panel had ruled against the ban.

Hence, we don't have to speculate as to how Garland would vote on Heller if confirmed to the Supreme Court -- he's already voted against Heller once before, thereby showing he'd effectively rip the Second Amendment from the Constitution!

2) In a 2000 case, Garland voted to maintain the registration of gun owners, supporting efforts by the Clinton administration to use the instant check to illegally retain gun owners' names for six months.

This shows that Judge Garland not only hates the Second Amendment, he supports the ability of a President to illegally use executive power to advance liberal causes.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Kasuck voted for the AWB, and not the Average White Band


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Soap Box, Ballot Box and the other Box


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

*Socom42: "I don't agree, they are under no obligation to review him."*

They are. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the President of the United States to appoint certain public officials with the "advice and consent" of the U.S. Senate.

_Full text of the clause:

*He[The President] shall have the Power, *by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; *and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint* Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, *Judges of the supreme Court, *and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments._

If you disagree with the Presidents nomination, make your wishes known to the Congressional Judicial Committee. That is the process. That is the law of the land.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

He is apperently a lib, what is the question?


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

SK nowhere in your posted article does it say, THEY MUST .
McConnell said on Fox News earlier, no review.
ANY appointment by him pushes us further down the socialist rat hole.

I have an idea, why not just let him appoint hildatrash **** bitch to be his successor just like Fidel did with Raul.
How much has he ignored or perverted our constitution as it is?


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

SOCOM42 said:


> SK nowhere in your posted article does it say, THEY MUST .
> McConnell said on fox earlier no review.
> ANY appointment by him pushes us further down the socialist rat hole.


I know. And you're right. We shall see.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Obama Not Serious About SCOTUS Pick - The Rush Limbaugh Show


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Rush is a RINO


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

And there is is, a "middle of the road" pick that happens to lean obama's way on the issue he wants to make his legacy on.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

Rush, as usual, is spot on.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

sideKahr said:


> Obama is well within his rights and is fulfilling his constitutional duty to nominate a supreme court justice. We can't in conscience demand that congress follow the constitution when the 2nd amendment is involved, and then ignore it for judicial appointments. Congress should investigate the nominee, vote on him, and approve or disapprove him.
> 
> What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


I remember when the Senate Dems pulled the same crap for Bush's nominations. Disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now. Proceed with the hearing and either affirm or deny him, there's a big difference between acting as a check/balance to executive power and being an obstructionist.


----------

