Skip to comments.
Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Comes Out Against Waiver For Gen. Mattis To Be Defense Head
The hILL ^
| 12/01/16 09:39 PM EST
| By Harper Neidig
Posted on 12/02/2016 2:16:40 PM PST by drewh
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
To: burghguy
Burgs. She is NY, my home state. I are fu**ed
21
posted on
12/02/2016 2:39:58 PM PST
by
onona
(Keeping the faith will be our new directive for the republic !)
To: ColdOne
Democrat Party home of pricks and princesses.
22
posted on
12/02/2016 2:41:26 PM PST
by
ptsal
To: drewh
They gave her the torch to carry. It’s a trial run to see if she’s the next potential First Female.
To: drewh
☺
24
posted on
12/02/2016 2:43:00 PM PST
by
MotorCityBuck
( Keep the change, you filthy animal! ,)
To: faithhopecharity
we hear that she prefers someone named Barak Hussein Obama* for Secretary of Defense
*note: his true identity is a secret but this is his last-known alias
He could replace his Apology Tour with the Surrender Tour.
To: drewh
Who gives a crap? We have the votes.
To paraphrase ZEro, “We won the election.”
26
posted on
12/02/2016 2:45:49 PM PST
by
LS
("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually" (Hendrix))
To: ColdOne
She is positioning herself as Hillary 2.0 in 2020
To: Alberta's Child
The mandatory retirement period was written into law for a reason, so there ought to be a really good reason to waive it. Well, isn't that quaint. Anyone who knows the Constitution should realize that this so-called "law" is patently unconstitutional on its face. How's that for a waiver?
I'd love for President-elect Trump to use the General Mattis appointment as a test case to dispense with such absurd Congressional overreach...
28
posted on
12/02/2016 2:48:54 PM PST
by
sargon
(The Revolution is ON! Support President-elect Trump!)
To: drewh
Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule. As far as I'm concerned, the civilian control of the military rests with the Commander in Chief, not the Defense Secretary.
29
posted on
12/02/2016 2:52:07 PM PST
by
Not A Snowbird
(SandyInPeoria just doesn't sound right... yet here I am.)
To: drewh
Not surprising but she isn’t going to get a lot of support.
To: Alberta's Child
What, pray tell, was the reason????
31
posted on
12/02/2016 2:53:07 PM PST
by
JBW1949
(I'm really PC....PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT!!!!)
To: sargon
How is it unconstitutional?
32
posted on
12/02/2016 2:54:45 PM PST
by
Alberta's Child
("Yo, bartender -- Jobu needs a refill!")
To: Alberta's Child
Just watch. They may not be able to filibuster the nominee, if the GOP has the good sense to continue Harry Reid’s exception to the filibuster, but they could filibuster the Congressional waiver.
33
posted on
12/02/2016 2:56:46 PM PST
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Hey, New Delhi! What the hell were you thinking???)
To: Alberta's Child
The constitution does not give Congress control over who the President can nominate. He can nominate anyone he wants, and the Senate has approval.
34
posted on
12/02/2016 2:58:58 PM PST
by
Timmy
To: drewh
While I deeply respect General Mattiss service..." (Token) Congresswoman, you are a damned liar.
35
posted on
12/02/2016 3:01:53 PM PST
by
who knows what evil?
(Yehovah saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.com)
To: Alberta's Child
Because it would limit the President's plenary power to appoint the person of his choice. Congress can always defeat such a nomination. Though this ridiculous law has not yet been tested in the US Supreme Court, the widespread legal consensus is that it will not stand up to Constitutional scrutiny...
36
posted on
12/02/2016 3:02:30 PM PST
by
sargon
(The Revolution is ON! Support President-elect Trump!)
To: Timmy
The U.S. Secretary of Defense is a statutory office of the U.S. government, which means the position only exists because Congress passed a statute to codify it into law. If there were conditions attached to the establishment of this office, then how can it possibly be considered unconstitutional?
37
posted on
12/02/2016 3:08:08 PM PST
by
Alberta's Child
("Yo, bartender -- Jobu needs a refill!")
To: sargon
Does Congress have the authority to require the U.S. Attorney General to actually be an attorney?
38
posted on
12/02/2016 3:09:58 PM PST
by
Alberta's Child
("Yo, bartender -- Jobu needs a refill!")
To: drewh
Does this idiot understand Trump is in charge, and he is a civilian?
Anyway the Pentagon would be far more efficient if the military were in charge of the military.
39
posted on
12/02/2016 3:14:11 PM PST
by
manc
( If they want so called marriage equality then they should support polygamy too.)
To: M Kehoe
Oh she is just sore still, because her pal from the same state never got elected.
40
posted on
12/02/2016 3:14:53 PM PST
by
manc
( If they want so called marriage equality then they should support polygamy too.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson