Stop: Time To Set The Record Straight With Supreme Court Nominations (VIDEOS)

Stop: Time To Set The Record Straight With Supreme Court Nominations (VIDEOS) | Point-460x253 | Government Multimedia Sleuth Journal Special Interests US Constitution & Bill Of Rights US Supreme Court

The point is quickly approaching where if I read one more article, or see one more liberal buffoon talking about Obama’s right to pick the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice, most of all Obama himself, blood might come shooting out of my eyes. In the video below, I break down the specifics based on the United States Constitution, and historical precedent of why the statements and sound bites being repeated over and over in the media are TOTAL NONSENSE! Following that is a great article from the Daily Caller.

PLEASE SHARE THIIS WITH EVERYONE YOU KNOW!

THIS IS FAR TOO IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO BE MISLED!

When I refer to the United States Constitution, I am referring to the words in black and white, not the ones “between the lines” that so many liberals seem to see; and when referring to historical precedent, I’m referring to what ACTUALLY happened, including all the facts and dates, not the version of history that liberals think becomes true simply by repeating a lie. 

WHAT IS THE “CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY” OBAMA IS ALREADY INCESSANTLY WHINING ABOUT?

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. This clause also allows lower-level officials to be appointed without the advice and consent process. The following is the actual text of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:

[The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, 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.

WHAT DOES “ADVICE AND CONSENT” REALLY MEAN?

Lucky for us, this is DEFINED. Obama can whine all he wants about his “Constitutional duty,” but his “duty” is to nominate, NOTHING MORE! Obama is NOT a king, he’s not an emperor, and he’s not a dictator, so as much as he likes to think he can rule by executive decree, he is WRONG! U.S. Senate Rule 30 makes it perfectly clear, and the ACTUAL text is below:

U.S. Senate Rule 30: “On the final question to advise and consent to the ratification in the form agreed to, the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present shall be necessary to determine it in the affirmative.”

Stop: Time To Set The Record Straight With Supreme Court Nominations (VIDEOS) | Snopes-e1362240302437-460x192 | Government Multimedia Sleuth Journal Special Interests US Constitution & Bill Of Rights US Supreme Court

BUT POLITIFACT AND SNOPES SAY…

I don’t give a rip what either says. Do your own homework, both on the issues, and on both those organizations. While both tend to be correct on many issues, that is merely their “cover” for the issues they simply do not tell the truth about. Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a big time supporter of Obama!

In never ending search for TRUTH, learn the truth about what was suspected on many occasions. Read More. In a previous post of mine a few years ago titled, Long Standing Suspicion Confirmed: SNOPES IS BOGUS,

Snopes lies can be debunked from the most credible source there is: The Supreme Court’s own website. As for Politifact, I haven’t written a blog post about it, and don’t intend to. I’ve done my homework. DO YOURS!

A recent article on notoriously dishonest MSLSD’s website said the following regarding a recent GOP debate:

“It’s not unprecedented [to wait],” Sen. Marco Rubio said on Saturday. “It’s been over 80 years since a lame-duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice.”

While it was unclear which nomination Rubio was referring to, PolitiFact, which rated Rubio’s claim as “mostly false,” pointed to President Herbert Hoover’s 1932 nomination of Benjamin Cardozo as a possibility. Cardozo went on to be confirmed, but Hoover ultimately lost re-election.

Sen. Ted Cruz also adopted this line of argument, saying, “We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year.”

LET’S LEAVE MAKE BELIEVE MSLSD’S WORLD AND ENTER REALITY:

Liberals keep whining and moaning about how Reagan appointed Kennedy at the end of his second term as president. WRONG! First of all, Kennedy was Reagan’s THIRD appointment after the Democrat lead Senate shot down his first two choices (which is their “RIGHT” under U.S. Senate Rule 30), and second of all, it was NOT in his last year in office. Kennedy was nominated in November of 1987, which is just over 13 months before Reagan left office. Obama has 11 months left if office. For all the liberals out there:

IS 13 MONTHS HIGHER OR LOWER THAN 1 YEAR?

NOW, IS 11 MONTHS HIGHER OR LOWER THAN 1 YEAR?

The FACT is, Reagan’s selection process started back in May or June of 1987 which is LONG before his last year in office, and he nominated his first choice, Judge Robert H. Bork, for United States Court Justice on July 1, 1987. His second nomination was Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, who was also rejected by Democrats in the Senate, and Justice Kennedy was nominated 13 months before Reagan left office.

ONCE AGAIN: IS 13 MONTHS HIGHER OR LOWER THAN 1 YEAR?

IS 11 MONTHS HIGHER OR LOWER THAN 1 YEAR?

Tell liberals to Politifact that and shut the hell up. Finally, even IF Obama was not in his last year but closer to 13-14 months left, let’s not forget how dirty the Democrats play, and to them I say: “Paybacks are a bitch.” Listen to Chuck Schumer in 2007 below:

Adding insult to injury, and further proving that Democrats could care less about the Constitution, or this republic, only their agenda, when discussing the single most important document in American jurisprudence, The Bill of Rights, listen to what Chuck Schumer has to say below. This clown is about to be the most powerful Democrat in America if the GOP wins the White House, and he doesn’t even know who wrote the Bill of Rights.

In closing, Barack Obama is a criminal, and he belongs in Leavenworth awaiting trial for treason, but he’s no fool. He knows he has the mainstream media on his side, and they will not only allow him to tell lies, but they’ll also actually be complicit in them. He knows Americans are headline readers and sound bite seekers, so if it gets on the news, people will believe what he says. People’s lack of fact checking is how we ended up with Obama in the first place. In the video below, Peter Schiff gives the most honest explanation of how Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney I’ve ever heard. It’s sad, but it’s downright hysterical. The clip is about 5 minutes, and by about the halfway mark, you’ll find out why it’s both sad and funny.

Stop: Time To Set The Record Straight With Supreme Court Nominations (VIDEOS) | Sen_-Chuck-Schumer-T_J_-Kirkpatrick-Getty-Images-e1455470585596-1024x440-460x198 | Government Multimedia Sleuth Journal Special Interests US Constitution & Bill Of Rights US Supreme Court

The Daily Caller reports:

During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.

Almost immediately after Scalia’s death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.

“You know, the kind of obstructionism that [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell ‘s talking about, he’s hearkening back to his old days,” Schumer said, according to The Hill. “In 2010, right after the election or right during the election, he said, ‘My number-one job is to defeat Barack Obama,’ without even knowing what Barack Obama was going to propose. Here, he doesn’t even know who the president’s going to propose and he said, ‘No, we’re not having hearings; we’re not going to go forward to leave the Supreme Court vacant at 300 days in a divided time.’”

“When you go right off the bat and say, ‘I don’t care who he nominates, I am going to oppose him,’ that’s not going to fly,” Schumer added.

When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.

Much like Republicans today, Schumer’s sentiment was clearly based on a fear that another Bush appointment would radically shift the overall makeup of the Court’s ideology.

Of course, Schumer’s attitude back then provoked a response from Republicans very similar to the one Democrats are making now. Bush’s Press Secretary Dana Perino argued at the time that Schumer’s statements showed “a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution” and amounted to “blind obstructionism.”

As it happened, Schumer’s suggested obstruction never came to pass, as no more vacancies opened during Bush’s presidency.


THE VOICE OF REASON is the pen name of Michael DePinto, a graduate of Capital University Law School, and an attorney in Florida. Having worked in the World Trade Center, along with other family and friends, Michael was baptized by fire into the world of politics on September 11, 2001. Michael’s political journey began with tuning in religiously to whatever the talking heads on television had to say, then Michael became a “Tea-Bagging” activist as his liberal friends on the Left would say, volunteering within the Jacksonville local Tea Party, and most recently Michael was sworn in as an attorney. Today, Michael is a major contributor to www.BeforeItsNews.com, he owns and operates www.thelastgreatstand.com, where Michael provides what is often very ‘colorful’ political commentary, ripe with sarcasm, no doubt the result of Michael’s frustration as he feels we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. The topics Michael most often weighs in on are: Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Jade Helm, Economic Issues, Government Corruption, and Government Conspiracy.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


About The Author

Related posts