tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post6785799647431151706..comments2024-03-18T16:53:45.062-04:00Comments on Southern District of Florida Blog: Should Dems oppose GorsuchDavid Oscar Markushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18386723948607633980noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-90450218520880709432017-04-05T09:29:34.633-04:002017-04-05T09:29:34.633-04:00You are right, 4:06, the constitution doesn't ...You are right, 4:06, the constitution doesn't spell out that congress, the president or courts actually have to do their job, it is just kind of expected of people who are supposed to be serving us. <br />President Obama did his job and nominated a qualified jurist, Garland. The senate did not do its job. It did nothing. And now those same obstructionists want to be rewarded. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-14940133440681050122017-04-05T08:07:47.584-04:002017-04-05T08:07:47.584-04:004:16 - why didn't senate vote on Garland? You ...4:16 - why didn't senate vote on Garland? You ok with that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-27566782869919620652017-04-04T16:16:10.538-04:002017-04-04T16:16:10.538-04:00Garland met with numerous GOP senators. Truth and ...Garland met with numerous GOP senators. Truth and the Constitution not very high priorities with you hysterics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-32009092083135188162017-04-04T16:06:42.863-04:002017-04-04T16:06:42.863-04:00Oh please. Consent is not required. You don't ...Oh please. Consent is not required. You don't know what the Constitution says or history. You thinking they "should" have had hearings doesn't make it unconstitutional not to have a hearing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-76258498271916388762017-04-04T16:00:46.341-04:002017-04-04T16:00:46.341-04:00Remember when the GOP wouldn't even meet with ...Remember when the GOP wouldn't even meet with Garland and look him in the eye? Gutless cowards. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-92001265831522004162017-04-04T15:52:01.077-04:002017-04-04T15:52:01.077-04:00Once a President nominates someone, the Constituti...Once a President nominates someone, the Constitution requires the advice and consent of the Senate. Doing nothing for an entire year is not providing the mandated advice and consent. You can spin it any way you want, 2:41, but the Senate did not do what the Constitution required it to do. Not because it couldn't but only because it wouldn't for the same partisanship the GOP leaders now decry. The Senate should have had hearings and a vote on Garland. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-14645544308320244302017-04-04T14:41:13.574-04:002017-04-04T14:41:13.574-04:00The Constitution doesn't require a vote. There...The Constitution doesn't require a vote. There have been 160 Supreme Court nominations in our history; 25 of them never got a vote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-23001358465611639482017-04-04T13:44:17.075-04:002017-04-04T13:44:17.075-04:00This is not just an up or down vote on a very cons...This is not just an up or down vote on a very conservative jurist. In denying even a vote on Garland, the Senate abdicated its constitutional responsibility. It cannot now act as if that is all just water under the bridge. The Senate, as a bipartisan whole, must redeem itself first. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-80546753813012004722017-04-04T11:56:29.373-04:002017-04-04T11:56:29.373-04:00If Gorsuch is moderate, then Thomas is a liberal. ...If Gorsuch is moderate, then Thomas is a liberal. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com