....lybob Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 You can take all the names of all the people who care what you think about me, write them on a piece of paper, crumble it up and comfortably shove it up the ass of a gnat. The simple fact remains; unless indicted, you get Hillary. And you'll take it. And you'll campaign. And you'll knock on doors. And you'll vote. All of it with a great, bit dumb-as-rocks smile on your face. Why? Because you're a good litle SoProg sheep, happy to let someone else do all your thinking for you. On this basic fact I would bet the farm. Don't get mad just because you talk **** without being man enough to show you actually believe it, it's just who you are accept it - it's funny you use sheep as an insult since you are the one in a flock who gives up control of his life to a lamb or are you willing to admit the Christianity thing is just a costume you put on when convenient - and you have interesting phrases first an obsession with nutsucking and now shoving things up asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 1) Consent, or NOT consent. 2) Refusing to bring it too the floor is a lack of consent. Yes, it's childish partisan bull ****, particularly when you play clips of Reid and Biden saying the same thing and scream "They started it!" And yes, it's damaging. But claiming there's a constitutional requirement that there be a floor vote is equivalent to saying parliamentary procedure is unconstitutional, as blocking bills in committee prevents Congress from doing its job. Like I have said in two posts, the Senate can vote down the nominee. But they can't just not do their Constitutional duty and refuse to "advise and consent/not consent." This procedural preschool they are doing is blatantly not doing what the Constitution mandates, and is not holding up some minor spending bill but the nominaiton of a Supreme Court Justice. This is going to be a huge backfire. The Senate doesn't have to do anything. You'll just have to accept it. Actually the Senate has to "advise and consent" on the President's nomination. Doing nothing is what they are choosing to do but that's not an option given under the Constitution. It's an interesting place for the party of strict construction.* *when convenient Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Actually the Senate has to "advise and consent" on the President's nomination. Doing nothing is what they are choosing to do but that's not an option given under the Constitution. It's an interesting place for the party of strict construction.* *when convenient Sure it's an option. And that's what will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Actually the Senate has to "advise and consent" on the President's nomination. Doing nothing is what they are choosing to do but that's not an option given under the Constitution. It's an interesting place for the party of strict construction.* *when convenient If you're going to be THAT literal, then neither is approval by majority vote. Nor is a filibuster, nor is cloture, nor Senate rules of presumed quorum (particularly that last, which the Senate rules themselves say are contrary to a literal reading of the Constitution.) ALL you're doing is arguing fallaciously that parliamentary procedure is unconstitutional, based on your incorrect belief that "strict constructionist" is equivalent to "literal constructionist." Basically, you're full of ****, and a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) Don't get mad just because you talk **** without being man enough to show you actually believe it, it's just who you are accept it - it's funny you use sheep as an insult since you are the one in a flock who gives up control of his life to a lamb or are you willing to admit the Christianity thing is just a costume you put on when convenient - and you have interesting phrases first an obsession with nutsucking and now shoving things up asses. So you equate 'being man enough' with making a wager with a person who is so simple-minded he needs to carry online conversations with himself through two usernames just to have someone who doesn't think he's a nutbag? Yeah. Okay. Carry on gator...bob. Edited February 25, 2016 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 So you equate 'being man enough' with making a wager with a person who is so simple-minded he needs to carry online conversations with himself through two usernames just to have someone who doesn't think he's a nutbag? Yeah. Okay. Carry on gator...bob. You think I have two personas, while I think you don't even have one, Cipher McNaught Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Checks and balances don't relieve the government of the duty to fulfill its Constitutional obligations. The check is that the Senate must consent on the President's nominees. The obligation of nomination sits with the President and the obligation to advise and consent is on the Senate. The Constitution places an obligation on both the President and the Senate to work together to fill Supreme Court vacancies. There is no veto or majority or supermajority check/balance here. The President and Senate have a job to do. One of them can't just say, "I'm not doing it." The Republicans can play a procedural game of "we will not even hold a hearing" but it demonstrates a childishness that goes too far even for the Senate. Watching them do this will fire their base but alienate independents who would prefer to see a government where people work together to problem-solve. It's a stupid move politically. And it's a horrid move for people who would like to see a functioning government. You mean like voting on a Constitutionally mandated budget each fiscal year? Harry Reid refused to let the Senate do that for about five years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 You mean like voting on a Constitutionally mandated budget each fiscal year? This is not true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Democrats are responding to Biden exactly as you’d expect them to. The New York Post: Obama: Just ignore Joe Biden’s 1992 Supreme Court speech President Barack Obama wants Republican senators to just forget what Joe Biden said more than 20 years ago about delaying a Supreme Court pick. “We know senators say stuff all the time,” Obama said Wednesday in comments from the Oval Office. Though Obama didn’t mention his vice president by name, it was a clear reference to then-Sen. Biden’s much-discussed argument against filling a vacancy on the high court. Republicans are using Biden’s June 1992 Senate floor speech as they vow not to hold hearings on, or even meet with, Obama’s nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Referring to past statements from Biden, as well as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Obama said their words have “no application to the actual situation that we have right now” since there was no nomination at stake at the time. Biden, in a statement on Monday, said his speech was about a hypothetical nominee and that it isn’t evidence that he opposes filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. No hypocrisy there. Nosiree. AR Squared reports: VIDEO: New Judicial Crisis Network Web Ad Pits Biden Against Democrats On #SCOTUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Democrats are responding to Biden exactly as you’d expect them to. The New York Post: Obama: Just ignore Joe Biden’s 1992 Supreme Court speech President Barack Obama wants Republican senators to just forget what Joe Biden said more than 20 years ago about delaying a Supreme Court pick. “We know senators say stuff all the time,” Obama said Wednesday in comments from the Oval Office. Though Obama didn’t mention his vice president by name, it was a clear reference to then-Sen. Biden’s much-discussed argument against filling a vacancy on the high court. Republicans are using Biden’s June 1992 Senate floor speech as they vow not to hold hearings on, or even meet with, Obama’s nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Referring to past statements from Biden, as well as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Obama said their words have “no application to the actual situation that we have right now” since there was no nomination at stake at the time. Biden, in a statement on Monday, said his speech was about a hypothetical nominee and that it isn’t evidence that he opposes filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. No hypocrisy there. Nosiree. AR Squared reports: VIDEO: New Judicial Crisis Network Web Ad Pits Biden Against Democrats On #SCOTUS What did Republicans at the time say in response to that simple speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) You mean like voting on a Constitutionally mandated budget each fiscal year? Harry Reid refused to let the Senate do that for about five years. "I know you are but what am I" does not solve problems. The current issue in this thread is squarely on the Republicans. And sure, Biden said this and other Dems are asses. None of that is relevant to this issue right now. If you're going to be THAT literal, then neither is approval by majority vote. Nor is a filibuster, nor is cloture, nor Senate rules of presumed quorum (particularly that last, which the Senate rules themselves say are contrary to a literal reading of the Constitution.) ALL you're doing is arguing fallaciously that parliamentary procedure is unconstitutional, based on your incorrect belief that "strict constructionist" is equivalent to "literal constructionist." Basically, you're full of ****, and a moron. It's a sentence. It doesn't require a deep textual analysis to get to the bottom of it. The President and Senate have a job to do. If the Senate looks at each candidate and with their "advise and consent" power chooses to shoot them down, they are at least doing their job. What they've chosen to do instead, before a candidate is even nominated, is ignore their Constitutional mandate to "advise and consent" on the president's nominee. It's a step far even for these jokers. You can defend this based on procedure but that's a fool's argument. Both of us know that what's happening here is horrible governance and the Senate is dodging its responsibility for political gain (or loss as the case will be). If we get down to 0 Supreme Court Justices as each one dies off and the Senate plays 20 years of procedural pocket pool, does procedure still trump the Constitution? Hold these jerkoffs to a higher standard, or at least a standard that is "do your f%^&ing job." Edited February 25, 2016 by Observer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 "I know you are but what am I" does not solve problems. The current issue in this thread is squarely on the Republicans. And sure, Biden said this and other Dems are asses. None of that is relevant to this issue right now. It's a sentence. It doesn't require a deep textual analysis to get to the bottom of it. The President and Senate have a job to do. If the Senate looks at each candidate and with their "advise and consent" power chooses to shoot them down, they are at least doing their job. What they've chosen to do instead, before a candidate is even nominated, is ignore their Constitutional mandate to "advise and consent" on the president's nominee. It's a step far even for these jokers. You can defend this based on procedure but that's a fool's argument. Both of us know that what's happening here is horrible governance and the Senate is dodging its responsibility for political gain (or loss as the case will be). If we get down to 0 Supreme Court Justices as each one dies off and the Senate plays 20 years of procedural pocket pool, does procedure still trump the Constitution? Hold these jerkoffs to a higher standard, or at least a standard that is "do your f%^&ing job." Well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-with-members-of-this-secretive-society-of-elite-hunters/ar-BBpXBgx?li=BBnb7Kz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 "I know you are but what am I" does not solve problems. The current issue in this thread is squarely on the Republicans. And sure, Biden said this and other Dems are asses. None of that is relevant to this issue right now. It's a sentence. It doesn't require a deep textual analysis to get to the bottom of it. The President and Senate have a job to do. If the Senate looks at each candidate and with their "advise and consent" power chooses to shoot them down, they are at least doing their job. What they've chosen to do instead, before a candidate is even nominated, is ignore their Constitutional mandate to "advise and consent" on the president's nominee. It's a step far even for these jokers. You can defend this based on procedure but that's a fool's argument. Both of us know that what's happening here is horrible governance and the Senate is dodging its responsibility for political gain (or loss as the case will be). If we get down to 0 Supreme Court Justices as each one dies off and the Senate plays 20 years of procedural pocket pool, does procedure still trump the Constitution? Hold these jerkoffs to a higher standard, or at least a standard that is "do your f%^&ing job." You mean like we've done with "mr. executive order" himself? I'm sorry, but you can stuff it, you partisan hack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Like I have said in two posts, the Senate can vote down the nominee. But they can't just not do their Constitutional duty and refuse to "advise and consent/not consent." This procedural preschool they are doing is blatantly not doing what the Constitution mandates, and is not holding up some minor spending bill but the nominaiton of a Supreme Court Justice. This is going to be a huge backfire. Actually the Senate has to "advise and consent" on the President's nomination. Doing nothing is what they are choosing to do but that's not an option given under the Constitution. It's an interesting place for the party of strict construction.* *when convenient Too bad you didn't pass this advice along to Harry Reid several years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-with-members-of-this-secretive-society-of-elite-hunters/ar-BBpXBgx?li=BBnb7Kz One more to the nutter pile: http://www.abreureport.com/2016/02/secret-societies-at-war-was-scalia-put.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 No wonder Trump & Sanders are getting a lot of votes. There are a lot of nutbags in the world who'll believe everything they read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Well said Your post makes me question everything I wrote. Too bad you didn't pass this advice along to Harry Reid several years ago. So this is your version of "Bush bad." I have long pilloried the Dem Senate for not approving judicial nominees, regardless of party affiliation. But that's not the issue on the table. You mean like we've done with "mr. executive order" himself? I'm sorry, but you can stuff it, you partisan hack. Constitution too much for you to handle? Obama is a tool for many reasons, none of which are relevant to what the Senate is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Your post makes me question everything I wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Your post makes me question everything I wrote. Perhaps if he logged in as ...lybob, it would carry more weight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts