Q-baby! Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Cinga said: 2 hours ago, RochesterRob said: If it helps you sleep at night.................But no, Hillary is guilty of a crime and many would like to see her brought to justice if you must know. You are saying that all 12 year old girls are stupid? Warren, Clinton, Gillibrand, etc. are having your walking papers away from the Democratic Party typed up as we speak for that slander. What will you ever do? Yes I am. So are all those women you mentioned. (your words) All 3 of them means all women? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albwan Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 19 hours ago, Nanker said: You are a worthless piece of human excrement in shoes. And you’re probably not wearing shoes. You draw breath, but you’re really a dead soul with no purpose in life but to run around naked so you can show off the feces that you cover yourself with. Your mouth is an anus. I'm guessing sandals or flip flops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 36 minutes ago, Q-baby! said: All 3 of them means all women? Ignoring the "etc" at the end are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-baby! Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 Just now, Cinga said: Ignoring the "etc" at the end are we? You really are stupid. How many women did he mention? 3 is the answer. So etc means every other woman in the world? You are really trying too hard to put words in my mouth. Nice work Matlock! Dork! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 On 5/30/2019 at 10:49 PM, Doc Brown said: I guess McConnel's excuse is the difference between now and then is you currently have a Republican president with a Republican majority Senate. Obama's last year you had a Democratic president with a Republican majority Senate and he ironically followed the "Biden" rule hypothetical. It doesn't even matter as you're going to start seeing calls for increasing the number of Supreme Court judges anyways especially if you get a 6 to 3 majority in these circumstances. And he STILL did something completely unprecedented, even unconstitutional. The Biden rule hypothetical had to do with a Supreme Court Justice retiring in an effort of a kind of one to one replacement, not unexpectedly dying. Besides, Biden also said: “If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate [in naming a Supreme Court nominee], or moderates his selection absent consultation, then his nominee may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.” 13 Presidents have filled Supreme Court vacancies from Washington all the way to Reagan. 17 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed in a Presidential election year, including Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by a Republican President and unanimously confirmed by a Democratic Senate. Garland was the first Supreme Court nominee to not even receive a hearing in over 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: And he STILL did something completely unprecedented, even unconstitutional. The Biden rule hypothetical had to do with a Supreme Court Justice retiring in an effort of a kind of one to one replacement, not unexpectedly dying. Besides, Biden also said: “If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate [in naming a Supreme Court nominee], or moderates his selection absent consultation, then his nominee may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.” 13 Presidents have filled Supreme Court vacancies from Washington all the way to Reagan. 17 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed in a Presidential election year, including Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by a Republican President and unanimously confirmed by a Democratic Senate. Garland was the first Supreme Court nominee to not even receive a hearing in over 100 years. Yeah, it wasn't unconstitutional, by any stretch. "Advice and consent" begins when the nomination is received by the Senate chair. Constitutionally, it does not require anything further than that. So sayeth the Supreme Court. It was craven and childish, but not unconstitutional. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 15 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: And he STILL did something completely unprecedented, even unconstitutional. Yeah, good thing you don't teach constitutional law. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 55 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: And he STILL did something completely unprecedented, even unconstitutional. The Biden rule hypothetical had to do with a Supreme Court Justice retiring in an effort of a kind of one to one replacement, not unexpectedly dying. Besides, Biden also said: “If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate [in naming a Supreme Court nominee], or moderates his selection absent consultation, then his nominee may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.” 13 Presidents have filled Supreme Court vacancies from Washington all the way to Reagan. 17 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed in a Presidential election year, including Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by a Republican President and unanimously confirmed by a Democratic Senate. Garland was the first Supreme Court nominee to not even receive a hearing in over 100 years. I'm not defending him as it was unprecedented. I'm just giving you his twisted argument. It wasn't unconstitutional but the move pretty much guaranteed that future candidates will now run on packing the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Doc Brown said: I'm not defending him as it was unprecedented. I'm just giving you his twisted argument. It wasn't unconstitutional but the move pretty much guaranteed that future candidates will now run on packing the Supreme Court. 2 hours ago, Koko78 said: Yeah, good thing you don't teach constitutional law. Article 2 section 2: "The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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" Letters and statements from those who DO teach constitutional law: https://www.acslaw.org/press_release/top-constitutional-law-scholars-say-no-exception-to-the-rule-in-filling-supreme-court-vacancy-in-election-year/ "the Senate's constitutional duty to 'advise and consent'—the process that has come to include hearings, committee votes, and floor votes—has no exception for election years. In fact, over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees." https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/03/10/letter-experts-president-supreme-court-nominee "It is technically in the power of the Senate to engage in aggressive denial on presidential nominations. But we believe that the Framers' construction of the process of nominations and confirmation to federal courts, including the Senate's power of "advice and consent," does not anticipate or countenance an obdurate refusal by the body to acknowledge or consider a president's nominee, especially to the highest court in the land. The refusal to hold hearings and deliberate on a nominee at this level is truly unprecedented and, in our view, dangerous ... The Constitution gives the Senate every right to deny confirmation to a presidential nomination. But denial should come after the Senate deliberates over the nomination, which in contemporary times includes hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and full debate and votes on the Senate floor. Anything less than that, in our view, is a serious and, indeed, unprecedented breach of the Senate's best practices and noblest traditions for much of our nation's history" https://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/over-350-law-professors-urge-senators-to-fulfill-their-constitutional-duty "fulfill your constitutional duty to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a prompt and fair hearing and a timely vote." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Article 2 section 2: "The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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" Letters and statements from those who DO teach constitutional law: https://www.acslaw.org/press_release/top-constitutional-law-scholars-say-no-exception-to-the-rule-in-filling-supreme-court-vacancy-in-election-year/ "the Senate's constitutional duty to 'advise and consent'—the process that has come to include hearings, committee votes, and floor votes—has no exception for election years. In fact, over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees." https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/03/10/letter-experts-president-supreme-court-nominee "It is technically in the power of the Senate to engage in aggressive denial on presidential nominations. But we believe that the Framers' construction of the process of nominations and confirmation to federal courts, including the Senate's power of "advice and consent," does not anticipate or countenance an obdurate refusal by the body to acknowledge or consider a president's nominee, especially to the highest court in the land. The refusal to hold hearings and deliberate on a nominee at this level is truly unprecedented and, in our view, dangerous ... The Constitution gives the Senate every right to deny confirmation to a presidential nomination. But denial should come after the Senate deliberates over the nomination, which in contemporary times includes hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and full debate and votes on the Senate floor. Anything less than that, in our view, is a serious and, indeed, unprecedented breach of the Senate's best practices and noblest traditions for much of our nation's history" https://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/over-350-law-professors-urge-senators-to-fulfill-their-constitutional-duty "fulfill your constitutional duty to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a prompt and fair hearing and a timely vote." They're all wrong. The Constitution specifies that once the Senate receives the nomination, the rules governing "advice and consent" are solely at the discretion of the Senate. The Supreme Court has upheld this multiple times. And nowhere in the Senate bylaws does it say that the nomination must get an up-and-down vote. Someone quote me, so this racist (*^*&%^$^#can see it. He's got me blocked. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 37 minutes ago, DC Tom said: They're all wrong. The Constitution specifies that once the Senate receives the nomination, the rules governing "advice and consent" are solely at the discretion of the Senate. The Supreme Court has upheld this multiple times. And nowhere in the Senate bylaws does it say that the nomination must get an up-and-down vote. Someone quote me, so this racist (*^*&%^$^#can see it. He's got me blocked. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 58 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Article 2 section 2: "The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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" Letters and statements from those who DO teach constitutional law: https://www.acslaw.org/press_release/top-constitutional-law-scholars-say-no-exception-to-the-rule-in-filling-supreme-court-vacancy-in-election-year/ "the Senate's constitutional duty to 'advise and consent'—the process that has come to include hearings, committee votes, and floor votes—has no exception for election years. In fact, over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees." https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/03/10/letter-experts-president-supreme-court-nominee "It is technically in the power of the Senate to engage in aggressive denial on presidential nominations. But we believe that the Framers' construction of the process of nominations and confirmation to federal courts, including the Senate's power of "advice and consent," does not anticipate or countenance an obdurate refusal by the body to acknowledge or consider a president's nominee, especially to the highest court in the land. The refusal to hold hearings and deliberate on a nominee at this level is truly unprecedented and, in our view, dangerous ... The Constitution gives the Senate every right to deny confirmation to a presidential nomination. But denial should come after the Senate deliberates over the nomination, which in contemporary times includes hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and full debate and votes on the Senate floor. Anything less than that, in our view, is a serious and, indeed, unprecedented breach of the Senate's best practices and noblest traditions for much of our nation's history" https://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/over-350-law-professors-urge-senators-to-fulfill-their-constitutional-duty "fulfill your constitutional duty to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a prompt and fair hearing and a timely vote." You're a dumbass. The Senate did NOT consent to Garland being on the Supreme Court. The Senate fulfilled its constitutional duty. As for your links quoting "law professors"... as the saying goes: 'those who can, do; those who can't, teach'. Ain't that right, teach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Yeah... let's not listen to over 400 lawyers and law professors... let's instead listen to the old racist curmudgeon. His thoughts on constitutional law are clearly more important and credible than the 400+ professionals who study the ins and outs of the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Yeah... let's not listen to over 400 lawyers and law professors... let's instead listen to the old racist curmudgeon. His thoughts on constitutional law are clearly more important and credible than the 400+ professionals who study the ins and outs of the constitution. I'd wager heavily that I've practiced more constitutional law than they have, chief. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 4 hours ago, Koko78 said: Yeah, good thing you don't teach constitutional law. He teaches 2nd graders and some have been accepted into Harvard instead of 3rd grade. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: They're all wrong. The Constitution specifies that once the Senate receives the nomination, the rules governing "advice and consent" are solely at the discretion of the Senate. The Supreme Court has upheld this multiple times. And nowhere in the Senate bylaws does it say that the nomination must get an up-and-down vote. Someone quote me, so this racist (*^*&%^$^#can see it. He's got me blocked. With pleasure.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 19 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Yeah... let's not listen to over 400 lawyers and law professors... let's instead listen to the old racist curmudgeon. His thoughts on constitutional law are clearly more important and credible than the 400+ professionals who study the ins and outs of the constitution. Just common sense wise. If it was unconstitutional do you really think McConnell would’ve blocked a vote on Garland? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Koko78 said: You're a dumbass. The Senate did NOT consent to Garland being on the Supreme Court. The Senate fulfilled its constitutional duty. As for your links quoting "law professors"... as the saying goes: 'those who can, do; those who can't, teach'. Ain't that right, teach? Dumbass? You're a real piece of work. Way to prove that this place is just a cesspool. You should probably get back to your InfoWars. 1 hour ago, Koko78 said: I'd wager heavily that I've practiced more constitutional law than they have, chief. So you're a lawyer then? Edited June 2, 2019 by transplantbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 11 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Way to prove that this place is just a cesspool. 1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said: let's instead listen to the old racist curmudgeon. Yep, it's the rest of us that make this place a "cesspool". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Koko78 said: Yep, it's the rest of us that make this place a "cesspool". So are you a lawyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts