Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: Supreme Court nomination [email from the democrats]
email | Feb 13, 2016 | democrats

Posted on 02/13/2016 8:29:15 PM PST by upchuck

Breaking news from the GOP debate stage:

In tonight's debate, the Republican presidential candidates were asked whether or not President Obama should nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court. They said Congress should block, delay, or otherwise refuse to allow the President to fill this vacancy.

There's no excuse for this. It's putting partisan politics above the Constitution and the rule of law, and it's appalling to hear from any public official -- let alone someone who thinks he should be the next President of the United States.

And they're not alone. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- who is responsible for scheduling votes in the Senate -- has already said that "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

But no matter what Mitch McConnell says, President Obama is going to fulfill his constitutional obligation to nominate a successor to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court -- and that nominee deserves a fair hearing in the Senate.

[Request to further this via signing a petition removed.]

Thanks,

Democrats


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last
RATS can rot.
1 posted on 02/13/2016 8:29:15 PM PST by upchuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: upchuck
REMEMBER THE BORK!

And we won't need to denigrate a Coke product to do it.

2 posted on 02/13/2016 8:30:40 PM PST by DoughtyOne (the Free Republic Caucus: what FReepers are thinking, 100s or 1000s of them. It's up to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

If a Republican were in the White House and Sotamayor died, the Democrats would NOT want the President to elect anyone til AFTER the election, they are only spewing this now since this benefits THEM


3 posted on 02/13/2016 8:30:52 PM PST by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
It appears that a recess appointment wouldn't be a permanent appointment.

Eisenhower gave Warren a recess appointment that began on October 1, 1953. It was made permanent when the Senate acted on March 1, 1954. No serious opposition had appeared and he was confirmed by unanimous voice vote.

4 posted on 02/13/2016 8:32:03 PM PST by RC one ("...all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens" US v. WKA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

It’s an unbelievable situation we find ourselves in. One mench croaks and the country finally goes into the dumper irrevocably.


5 posted on 02/13/2016 8:33:02 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

Yes, but we have two problems. Independents will want confirmation of a liberal judge to show they are “fair.” Mitch McC of KY has no backbone to resist for long. KY should have voted him out when they had a golden opportunity to do so, but they had to stick with the status quo.


6 posted on 02/13/2016 8:33:19 PM PST by Theodore R. (Liberals keep winning; so the American people must now be all-liberal all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Freaking NUTZ!


7 posted on 02/13/2016 8:34:16 PM PST by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Whoever Obama nominates the GOP will approve of. At first they will stand firm but eventually will cave, why, simple, they will be accused of being racist, etc etc etc, works every time. Even tonight on CNN they were talking about how Republicans will show everyone they are the party of “No” if they dont go along with Obama’s pick, the narrative has already been written


8 posted on 02/13/2016 8:35:34 PM PST by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Now they want to talk about the rule of law?


9 posted on 02/13/2016 8:36:21 PM PST by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

I would have expected Ginsberg or Breyer to die first.


10 posted on 02/13/2016 8:37:30 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Three, two, one... “The republicans don’t want Obama to nominate a replacement because he’s black.”


11 posted on 02/13/2016 8:38:10 PM PST by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

The Kenyan bastard already had two chances to nominate justices to the Supreme Court. He blew it both times by nominating a couple of freaks. We don’t need to give him a third chance to try to get it right.


12 posted on 02/13/2016 8:38:14 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (02-13-2016. America's Blackest Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

I’m touched the ‘RATS are so concerned about the Constitution and the rule of law...really warms my heart.

/s


13 posted on 02/13/2016 8:39:10 PM PST by twister881
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Reid will just trigger the NUCLEAR option. Oh, wait.


14 posted on 02/13/2016 8:40:54 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to to God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Scalia is a great man. He also was a smoker, drinker, gourmand, and bon vivant. RIP, Honorable Justice.


15 posted on 02/13/2016 8:42:06 PM PST by twister881
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

I’ve given it serious consideration. The answer is NO.


16 posted on 02/13/2016 8:44:47 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

We are now staring out upon the edge of the abyss.

The next few months, hopefully into next year, will define this country, and perhaps the fate of humanity.


17 posted on 02/13/2016 8:46:01 PM PST by Pox (Good Night. I expect more respect tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
The future continues to remain opaque.

Having the future of the country hinged on 3 men is very problematic.

18 posted on 02/13/2016 8:46:42 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

The GOP will do exactly as you say out fear of losing the presidential election. Of course this will result in just the opposite with even a sanders being elected. Bottom line a socialist president with a court so radical it would take earl warren’s breath away. The constitution will be protected by McConnell, Ryan and rove.

I’ll see you on the barricades.


19 posted on 02/13/2016 8:47:00 PM PST by hardspunned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

They won’t stand firm.

They’ll cite the need for national healing after the loss of this great American and say that we owe it to him, to the court, to the country and most of all to our children to stand behind “our president.”

Because they are a bunch of spineless traitors.

STONEWALL TILL FEB 2016!!!!!!


20 posted on 02/13/2016 8:48:03 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Carter...Reagan...Bush...Clinton....Bush....Carter....BUSH? / CLINTON? STOP THE INSANITY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson