It's over 60 now, and let's not forget that the GoP controlled House forced a Government shutdown because they attached a repeal of Obamacare to a funding Bill, while changing House rules so that only the Majority leader or their designee could bring a motion to vote on a Senate bill.

This concept that the president should not appoint a supreme court justice if there is evidence that within some amount of time the general political environment will not be his favor is an interesting one.  How far would you like that idea to go?  Considering the demographics of replublicans and democrats wouldn't the right thing for a republican president to do be to wait until a democrat is in office because his supreme court nominee will likely serve into the eventual political change as generations change?  I mean if we're going to wait a year why not wait 20 or 30 until that generation and demographic change which seems to be the inescapable death knell of social conservatism?  

If you're hoping the Senate can delay, then you're hoping he can't appoint someone.  You didn't say "boy I hope the Senate evaluates the nominees well and appoints someone who represents the views of their constituents".  Nope, you just asked for a total shutdown of the process.

I can absolutely ignore that we the people can't vote him out.  Because we COULD have voted him out.  In 2012.  And we didn't.  So, until another election is held, or if he's impeached, then he's the president, and he has all the powers of the president.  We don't change the president, or strip him of powers, if public opinion changes.  That's just not how it works.  

As for why people voted how they did in the Senate races, I personally have no idea.  And, no offense, but I sincerely doubt that you were following all 33 elections close enough to know what platforms each candidate was running on.  

Several senators, including the majority leader, have outright ruled out any appointment from Obama.  As in, they're not willing to give any suggestion a fair hearing.  And, it's actually quite likely that Obama would suggest a moderate.  It's an election year, so he might want to put someone in now who is less liberal as opposed to risking someone like Cruz coming into office and voting in a hardline conservative.

And, I'm not ignoring any election results.  I'm suggesting that the senators who were voted in do the job they were voted in for.  That job is to give a fair and honest evaluation of any nominee to the supreme court.  I hardly think it is childish to expect elected officials to do their jobs.

I can't tell who is trolling and who is not.

Much as I dislike form the Obamacare took. It was necessary unless democrats can force something stronger.

Government really need to put some control measure on US healthcare system to control the price, Obamacare didn't stopped increase, but it did slowed the increase down.

US public with their weird fetishes for small government need to understand it goes both way. US Government is too big on place it shouldn't, while too small where it matters. For now, expansion of government power is probably better for saving money - As long as it isn't military related.

That is my personal take.

No offense, but you are pretty ignorant in state vs federal. The guy you quoted is completely right. There is NO FEDERAL LAW on drinking age, seat belts, or speed limit. They were heavy handedly placed as requirements to receive federal road funding (so no the interstate commerce clause didn't apply).

Also, the national guard belongs to the governor and not the federal government. If a governor refused to commit his troops, there is no legal ramification. Again, they simply lose federal funding.

Following that precedent the ACA would be constitutional if they tied the requirement up to funding and let the states suffer if they didn't fall in line.

No offense, but don't come into a conversation calling someone ignorant, especially if you have no grasp on what's being discussed.

What we were discussing, before random people started popping in to talk about other things, was whether or not forcing people to do something is inherently unconstitutional.  The US constitution still applies at a state level, in accordance with article VI section 2 of the constitution.  So, whether or not the law is enacted by the state or federal government is totally irrelevant in the context of this conversation.  These examples (which were taken from the top of my head) show situations where the government compels people to do certain things, and the constitutionality of these laws have not been successfully challenged.  Hence, forcing people to do things can be constitutional.  I'm sure we could think of hundreds of situations where forcing people to do certain things is constitutional.  Taxes are especially constitutional as per article 1 section 8 of the constitution.

And nobody discussed the national guard at all, so I don't know why you're talking about it at all.

So really, don't show up and call me ignorant when you have a complete lack of context as to what the original conversation was about.  It's kind of rude.

Its what I want the senate to do. You may think its a bad idea, but i think Obamacare is a bad idea. So the checks and balances seem to be working fine, no one is getting what they want, and everyone is unhappy.

The federal government forcing people to do these things is unconstitoinal. Thats why the feds force states to enact the laws on their behalf through the use of freeway funding. Its a loophole that has been abused far too long. Each state has its own constitution that will allow or not allow certain things. But the constitiion is pretty clear, if it isnt written in the constitioon the power falls to the state. Healthcare should not be on a federal level but a state level. Its also why the supreme court decided that it was a tax.  What he is saying is in the context of your argument. You just dont seem to know how some laws work and how the federal government has used its heavy hand to force state and local governments to do what the fed is not allowed to. It all comes down to states rights vs federal.

What he is stating is not in the context of this conversation, because this conversation is not about which rights are delegated to the states or the federal government.  The conversation was about WHETHER IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT AT ANY LEVEL TO FORCE PEOPLE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. If the state can enforce a speed limit, then enforcing a speed limit is constitutional.  

Being a state law doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be constitutional.  So, when I said it is constitutional to force people to drive a certain speed limit, that is absolutely correct.  If you think it's not constitutional, then please sue the state for acting unconstitutionally next time you get a speeding ticket, and see how that goes..  I never ever ever stated that the federal government has the power to enforce speed limits.  Yet people are talking down to me as though I did. I was just giving examples of the government constitutionally forcing people to do things, with examples from different levels of government.  For fuck's sake people, learn to read.