transplantbillsfan Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 And on a side note, I'm really finding it hilarious how much @DC Tom is annoyed I'm ignoring him. Sheesh... the way that old racist curmudgeon is using 3rd parties just to try to reach me is actually almost flattering. And all of you 3rd parties are happy to abide... guess he's got ya by the panties. Well, nonetheless, thanks for the attention.
Doc Brown Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 8 hours ago, Koko78 said: The Senate's role is to 'advise and consent'. The procedure for "advise and consent" is up to the Senate to decide. The Senate was never required to consent to the nominee. The Senate was never required to hold a vote, committee meeting, or do anything other than receive the document appointing Garland, which they did. McConnell's act in invoking the 'Biden Rule' was not unconstitutional. Breaking Senate "precedent" is not an unconstitutional act, no matter how hard you cross your fingers and wish it to be. Don't whine because the Democrats were, once again, hoist by their own petard. I think it's a stretch to say that something Biden said as a hypothetical set a precedent. Saying something and following through on something are two different things. Creating the phrase the "Biden rule" was clever by McConnell (they would've found something else in the past to justify not holding a vote regardless) and people don't give him enough credit in helping elect Trump by keeping that Supreme Court seat open.
Foxx Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Doc Brown said: I think it's a stretch to say that something Biden said as a hypothetical set a precedent. Saying something and following through on something are two different things. Creating the phrase the "Biden rule" was clever by McConnell (they would've found something else in the past to justify not holding a vote regardless) and people don't give him enough credit in helping elect Trump by keeping that Supreme Court seat open. are you saying that the populace prefers conservative jurists?
SoCal Deek Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 Or Hilary could’ve just gotten her lazy butt to Wisconsin and then she could’ve been picking Mickey Mouse for the Supreme Court! Can we stop this already?
Chef Jim Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 6 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: Never needed a lawyer in my life, either. Doubt I ever will. I guaran*****ingtee you will. I’ll bet my next month’s income you will.
Foxx Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 6 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: I guaran*****ingtee you will. I’ll bet my next month’s income you will. nah, he isn't going to do a will. he is going to let the state have it all.
Chef Jim Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Foxx said: nah, he isn't going to do a will. he is going to let the state have it all. Well I was going to wager my life savings on that. But he’ll probably write it himself on a cocktail napkin. “I leave my Hot Wheels to my nephew” But even if he’s does as you say he’ll still need a lawyer to probate his “estate”. Bur his one of those dumb people that thinks all you need a lawyer for is if you get in trouble with the law. Edited June 2, 2019 by Chef Jim 1
Foxx Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 17 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Well I was going to wager my life savings on that. But he’ll probably write it himself on a cocktail napkin. “I leave my Hot Wheels to my nephew” But even if he’s does as you say he’ll still need a lawyer to probate his “estate”. Bur his one of those dumb people that thinks all you need a lawyer for is if you get in trouble with the law. he'll probably just have one of his second grade students that have been accepted into Harvard do it before they technically become a, 'lawyer'. 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said: Or Hilary could’ve just gotten her lazy butt to Wisconsin and then she could’ve been picking Mickey Mouse for the Supreme Court! Can we stop this already? This is a forum that constantly goes back to what-if wide-right hadn't happened, who was the best XYZ-player in the Bills history, and what if we had drafted THIS GUY instead of THAT GUY in 1974. They don't know how to stop rehashing woulda, coulda, shouldas. Horses avoid this forum for their own health and skin. (I would now upload a beating-a-dead-horse-gif, but they are all super disgusting.) 1
Chef Jim Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: This is a forum that constantly goes back to what-if wide-right hadn't happened, who was the best XYZ-player in the Bills history, and what if we had drafted THIS GUY instead of THAT GUY in 1974. They don't know how to stop rehashing woulda, coulda, shouldas. Horses avoid this forum for their own health and skin. (I would now upload a beating-a-dead-horse-gif, but they are all super disgusting.) Wait.....there is a football sub-forum here? 2
3rdnlng Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 34 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: This is a forum that constantly goes back to what-if wide-right hadn't happened, who was the best XYZ-player in the Bills history, and what if we had drafted THIS GUY instead of THAT GUY in 1974. They don't know how to stop rehashing woulda, coulda, shouldas. Horses avoid this forum for their own health and skin. (I would now upload a beating-a-dead-horse-gif, but they are all super disgusting.) The one that got away.
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 29 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Wait.....there is a football sub-forum here? Shocking, I know.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 51 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I would now upload a beating-a-dead-horse-gif, but they are all super disgusting. 2
RochesterRob Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: This is a forum that constantly goes back to what-if wide-right hadn't happened, who was the best XYZ-player in the Bills history, and what if we had drafted THIS GUY instead of THAT GUY in 1974. They don't know how to stop rehashing woulda, coulda, shouldas. Horses avoid this forum for their own health and skin. (I would now upload a beating-a-dead-horse-gif, but they are all super disgusting.) Ralph is CHEAP!
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 8 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: And on a side note, I'm really finding it hilarious how much @DC Tom is annoyed I'm ignoring him. Sheesh... the way that old racist curmudgeon is using 3rd parties just to try to reach me is actually almost flattering. And all of you 3rd parties are happy to abide... guess he's got ya by the panties. Well, nonetheless, thanks for the attention. I'm trying to provide you factual information, to cure your willful ignorance, you racist turd. 300 lawyers who don't understand the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Senate's rights are simply 400 lawyers who are wrong. This, more than your bigotry, is why you should have your teaching license revoked. You not only make arguments to authority, you make badly stupid ones.
Doc Brown Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 7 hours ago, Foxx said: are you saying that the populace prefers conservative jurists? No, because more of the country leans left than right. What it did do was give conservatives rationale for holding their nose and pulling the lever for Trump. There was more motivation on the right because replacing Scalia with a liberal judge was a frightening proposition.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 17 hours ago, Koko78 said: The Senate's role is to 'advise and consent'. The procedure for "advise and consent" is up to the Senate to decide. The Senate was never required to consent to the nominee. The Senate was never required to hold a vote, committee meeting, or do anything other than receive the document appointing Garland, which they did. McConnell's act in invoking the 'Biden Rule' was not unconstitutional. Breaking Senate "precedent" is not an unconstitutional act, no matter how hard you cross your fingers and wish it to be. Don't whine because the Democrats were, once again, hoist by their own petard. Can you explain in a way that makes it both unconstitutional and an act of treason? That's the money shot. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 16 hours ago, /dev/null said: Thankfully I have never needed a lawyer at any point in my life. But if I ever did need one, the kind of person that I'm "Glad you aren't my lawyer" in the best of times are probably the kind of person you need in the worst Ah-i needed a lawyer one time about 20 years ago for an allegation by a former employee. It was a baseless claim, brought by an unscrupulous individual who was no longer an employ because, well, she lacked ethical clarity in her life. Ultimately, i prevailed but it cost me quite a bit of money when I had very little to spare. Very stressful as well. Yeah, give me the attorney who is state of the art current every time. 1
Koko78 Posted June 2, 2019 Posted June 2, 2019 20 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Can you explain in a way that makes it both unconstitutional and an act of treason? That's the money shot. Sure! They voted for Neil Gorsuch. That was both unconstitutional (as Hillary won the popular vote and should be president), and treason because she wasn't supposed to lose. McConnell should feel badly about himself and consider suicide by double-tap during a failed mugging where nothing was taken. 1 2
Recommended Posts