BamaD
Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44 one of the hosts of the five on fox (oh no comrades!) eric bolling just made a good point---that the senate should slow walk the process until they see who the next president's going to be. if its going to be Clinton, then give the guy the nod. if its going to be a republican, then not. Why on earth is that a good point? Why is "slow walking" our Constitutional process a good idea? There is NOTHING in Article 2 Section 2 Appointments clause that says "see who the next president's going to be" See below: 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. Bottom line: I agree with Mitch McConnell: The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction, The American people spoke: Obama: 65,918,507 Romney: 60,934,407 It also doesn't say that they have to put in someone they find objectionalble.
_____________________________
Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.
|