Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zax who wrote (926359)	3/16/2016 12:26:20 PM
From: POKERSAM	Respond to of 1576162

You're kidding right? LOL

To: zax who wrote (926359)	3/16/2016 12:28:24 PM
From: locogringo	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Honey_Bee Tenchusatsu Respond to of 1576162

How long will Republicans play the game of unconstitutional precedents? Why wasn't it unconstitutional when the democrats played this same game? _H_Y_P_O_C_R_I_T_E_ BTW, if this clown is so talented why did obama skip him completely the last two nominations? DUH DUH DUH

To: zax who wrote (926359)	3/16/2016 2:53:54 PM
From: locogringo	1 Recommendation Recommended By jlallen Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576162

The people want Hillary or Bernie to choose the next Supreme Court justice. Why do you ignore the will of the people? Are you some kind if racist or commie?

To: zax who wrote (926359)	3/16/2016 8:54:15 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	3 Recommendations Recommended By Land Shark locogringo zax Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576162

Zax, The Constitution gives the President the responsibility to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court and the Senate a job to do in considering that nominee - with no exceptions for either in election years. And they will. No "unconstitutional precedent" here. If the Senate wants to Bork Obama's nominee, no problem. The Democrats already set a precedent there, and it was completely constitutional. Tenchusatsu