Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

"

Despite suggestions by the President, various Senators, and


numerous commentators that the Senate has a constitutional

obligation to act on judicial nominations, the text of the Constitution

contains no such obligation."

Moreover, the suggestion


that the obligation is implicit in the Advice and Consent Clause

does not appear to comport with the Framers’ understanding

of the term."


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf

Let's see Harvard Law professor , or you and Faun.....
 
So Congress has no obligation to do anything then. They are under no obligation to pass laws on anything. Essentially doing what the Republicans have done the last 7 years, shut down the government.

We've reached the point where one major party sees its desires slowly fading away and no way to stem the tide with elections. So they have decided to hold the entire country hostage and not fulfill any of the functions laid out in the Constitution for the Congress.

Go with that plan cons, demographics will render your desires entirely irrelevant soon enough. But until then stop claiming to be Americans. You aren't.
 
So Congress has no obligation to do anything then. They are under no obligation to pass laws on anything. Essentially doing what the Republicans have done the last 7 years, shut down the government.

We've reached the point where one major party sees its desires slowly fading away and no way to stem the tide with elections. So they have decided to hold the entire country hostage and not fulfill any of the functions laid out in the Constitution for the Congress.

Go with that plan cons, demographics will render your desires entirely irrelevant soon enough. But until then stop claiming to be Americans. You aren't.


You are off in lwing never never land. The "GOP Congress" folded to Obama on immigration, Obamacare etc. BO has gotten most everything he wanted either that or EO or court decision. The Congress blocked not much of anything. The left wingers are turning this country into Greece or a 3rd world basket case so it really does not matter much.
 
So Congress has no obligation to do anything then. They are under no obligation to pass laws on anything. Essentially doing what the Republicans have done the last 7 years, shut down the government.

We've reached the point where one major party sees its desires slowly fading away and no way to stem the tide with elections. So they have decided to hold the entire country hostage and not fulfill any of the functions laid out in the Constitution for the Congress.

Go with that plan cons, demographics will render your desires entirely irrelevant soon enough. But until then stop claiming to be Americans. You aren't.


You are off in lwing never never land. The "GOP Congress" folded to Obama on immigration, Obamacare etc. BO has gotten most everything he wanted either that or EO or court decision. The Congress blocked not much of anything. The left wingers are turning this country into Greece or a 3rd world basket case so it really does not matter much.

You want to obfuscate.

If Congress isn't required to do anything, then we have no government. This was never a problem before now because both parties actually worked and did their jobs. They bickered, argued, name called, but in the end they voted and that was that.

This is the first time one of the political parties has said "we are over-rulling the Constitution and will not do our jobs. Our political party is now our god."

Republicans never forget, you are the ones that crossed this line and made your politics more important than the country and the Constitution. Democracy doesn't work for you any more.
 
Sorry, but you fail in your attempt to move the goal posts. The "rule" in question, which isn't really in question since there is no such rule -- is about the Senate getting to pick and choose which president appoints Supreme Court justices.

Sorry, but you fail in your attempt to understand English . . . just like every other time you try to converse, apparently.

The Senate Rule is about considering nominees. At no point in any law or rule of procedure is the question of WHY a nominee is or is not considered ever addressed. So the Senate Republicans can refuse to consider Obama's nominees because they don't want Obama choosing Justices, because they don't like the nominees' faces, or because they'd rather sit around watching movies and eating popcorn.

The Rules of the Senate still gives them the power to do so.

That wasn't even moving the goalposts. That was trying to retroactively pretend you got to set them in the first place.
You poor, pathetic, demented bitch. Try reading the quotes of this argument. The "rule" being discussed was over the Senate claiming their right to deny a sitting president their Constitutional authority to appoint judges. You don't get to switch to a different rule about the Senate being in charge of the Senate. There is no "rule" which allows the Senate to obstruct the Constitution.

If there were such a rule, and there clearly isn't, yhen the only time Supreme Court vacancies would be filled would be when one party controls both the Senate and the presidency. Otherwise, the opposing party in the Senate would never confirm the president's nominee; but instead wait it out until that person was no longer president. Damn you're a special kind of retarded

You poor, pathetic, demented pseudo-human. Try thinking, or get someone who can think to explain it to you. The Senate doesn't suddenly change its operations and lose its powers based on your specific word choices and hair-splitting. "The Senate leader runs things, but he doesn't get to if I phrase it as THIS!"

There is no number of times you can say that it's ONLY about "denying a sitting President blah blah fuckety fuck" that's going to change the fact that the Senate can do what the Senate can do, whether you like their motivations for doing it or not.

"If there was such a rule, and there clearly isn't . . . despite having it cited to me, BECAUSE THE RULES ARE INVALID IF YOU HAVE THIS MOTIVATION!" only works with other people who are as stupid as you. I'm not saying there aren't a lot of them, but they're all as powerless and meaningless as you are.

Just because an option is dangerous and risky doesn't mean it's not valid and possible. It just means it's undesirable in most instances.

You don't get to deny that the Senate works the way it works, simply because this is the first you've heard about it, and you don't like it. They actually made quite a practice of simply ignoring things they didn't want to deal with when the Democrats were in charge, but you were too dimwitted to be aware of it, and now you've got your skivvies in a bunch because your own precedent is coming back to bite you in the ass. Boo fucking hoo. Not sorry for your ignorance, not sorry for your rude awakening.
Logorrhea doesn't help your idiocy. There is no precedent to this as no Senate has ever denied a sitting president from fulfilling their Constitutional responsibilities of not being able to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

I can only assume the part you forgot to say was, "In my fantasy where the world began with Obama's Presidency."

Asking a question and then pretending that not reading the answer means it didn't exist doesn't help your idiocy, although it does wonders for amusing me.
Your ludicrous assumptions are noted and dismissed. Here, in reality, no Senate ever shut down the confirmation process entirely to prevent a president from his Constitutional power of filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court with nearly a year remaining in their term.

Unprecedented.
 
Given every poll out on this issue indicates the public does not want the Senate to reject considering every one of Obama's nominees, it seems it doesn't look good for this GOP ploy to shut down the confirmation process.

Nothing spells out the timing son, and given you have Schumer and Biden both on record as trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be confirmations in he final year...well....you lose.
Nothing allows the
Given every poll out on this issue indicates the public does not want the Senate to reject considering every one of Obama's nominees, it seems it doesn't look good for this GOP ploy to shut down the confirmation process.

Nothing spells out the timing son, and given you have Schumer and Biden both on record as trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be confirmations in he final year...well....you lose.
I can't help the meaning of the word, "with," eludes you. Just as the reality that Schumer was in no position to facilitate any such non-action and Biden, who was, never said there should be no confirmations in the final year.

LOL, dude pay NO attention to the facts or history.

You lose.
Bear in mind both Biden and Schumer went to great lengths to argue against your position.....

"Biden in ’92: No election-season Supreme Court nominees"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-supreme-court-nominee-1992-219635#ixzz40xMjg7wr

Go away kid, come back when you get educated.
Holyfuckingshit! :eusa_doh:

Your own link proves you wrong. :eusa_doh: Your own link says Biden called for confirmation (which there wasn't one anyway) to be held off until the end of the "election season"

But speaking of getting educated, I'm more than happy to educate you....

What Biden said...

"It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed." Biden continued, "If that were the course were to choose as a Senate, to not consider holding hearings until after the election, instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway -- and it is -- action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."






"

"It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed." Biden continued, "If that were the course were to choose as a Senate, to not consider holding hearings until after the election, instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway -- and it is -- action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."


I kind of feel bad for you, Biden is saying just what I said ;)

Are you really as disconnected from reality as you appear??

You claimed Biden said, "there SHOULDN'T be confirmations in he final year..."

But Biden didn't say that. What Biden said was there shouldn't be any confirmations until after the election. And he said that just months before the election. In reality, with a month off for the Senate in between Biden saying that; and the election; it was a grand total of 3 months Biden wanted to avoid confirmations.

So no, Biden did not say the same thing you said. 3 months out of 12 is not a year. I don't care how crazy you are.
 
And EXACTLY WHERE does what Schumer or Biden have to say when they overloaded their asses with their mouths have any God Damn bearing on Constitutional law? What Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution and/or what Title, Chapter and Section is it codified in the U.S. Code? Show us what you got or STFU!!!! And don't cowardly dodge the question like I have a feeling you're likely going to do with a bag of bluster and bullshit!

Dude, you angry?
I'm no fucking Dude, pup!

I'm not any angrier than usual when I read crap like, "Go away kid, come back when you get educated." That was your last line in your post #1882 to another to which I responded and you have finally responded with a dodge to cover up your bloody ignorance exactly like I said you would! But let me give you the benefit of the doubt along with another chance to answer the question I asked you last Monday.
EXACTLY WHERE does what Schumer or Biden have to say when they overloaded their asses with their mouths have any God Damn bearing on Constitutional law? What Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution and/or what Title, Chapter and Section is it codified in the U.S. Code?

Will you dance, dodge and deflect yet again or respond substantively and honestly?

LOL, it's been a few days since I was here child.

I do so enjoy folks like yourself who's ego knows no bounds.

You are a hypocrite in the mold of Schumer and Biden, advocate one method for yourselves but quite another when your previous position is inconvenient for you now.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that's says he Senate HAS to take up the nomination, let alone when.

Glad I could educate you kid. ;)
Exactly as I figured, more deflection. You avoided addressing the point of the question and turned it to an erroneous GOP talking point. So much for your self promoted instruction abilities, pup! All bark, no fucking bite!


LOL, ainchoo jus all tough and shit? Sorry kid, there is NO constitutional requirement for the Senate (whether held by Dems or Pubs) to take it up just because a Prez, ANY Prez says they should...I'm all eyes if you can prove me otherwise child.
It's not just the president informing them they have to do their job -- it's the Constitution. Filling judicial vacancies is a shared responsibility between the President and the Senate.

He 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
 
"

Despite suggestions by the President, various Senators, and


numerous commentators that the Senate has a constitutional

obligation to act on judicial nominations, the text of the Constitution

contains no such obligation."

Moreover, the suggestion


that the obligation is implicit in the Advice and Consent Clause

does not appear to comport with the Framers’ understanding

of the term."


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf

Let's see Harvard Law professor , or you and Faun.....
First off, I truly doubt you read that "article", as the author named it. Do you really think that something written by a law student is a true example of an authoritative source? Even the author of the paper didn't think so and wrote in the notes on the first page, "This Article represents only the views of the author." [Emphasis Added]

I can see the appeal of the author's conclusion for those desiring to maintain the status quo and to continue the obstructionism through the Senate's proposed inaction, but one must read the paper in full to comprehend the lack of a VALID foundational argument. Here is a bit from the pre-conclusion summary (PDF pg. 44) with the bulk of the fundamental argument reduced to this, which allows for brevity to demonstrate the point;

"Just as the Constitution contains no explicit requirement that the President act in the pocket veto context, it contains no explicit obligation that the Senate act to demonstrate its lack of consent to a judicial nomination." [Emphasis Added]

In that sentence, the author tries to sell a classic Fallacy of Composition by inferring that B is true therefore A must be true. With that argument fatally flawed, the conclusion must also fail. Q.E.D.

The "pocket veto clause" is at Article I § 7 Cls 2 [in Bold and Underlined] and states;
"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall NOT be a law. [Emphasis Added]

That is nothing more that a check on the Congress to balance their power and the President's. The paper's author equates a possibility of the President's potential inability to read the legislation and take action on the bill to sign it or prepare a veto statement and return the bill to the Congress as required to INACTION.

In truth, it simply prevents the Senate from passing legislation and then adjourning the very next day for 10 days and ensuring passage of a bill which might be vetoed otherwise. The pocket veto clause is certainly not about INACTION! That student's conclusion disregards the facts involved in those circumstances to make an erroneous assumption that the "pocket veto" is a manifestation brought on by the President, and equates to a no action CHOICE on the President's part rather than a check and balance written into the Constitution is absurd. I'm sure you must have found that "source" out there in the Great Bit & Byte Bucket in the sky like many others have before you.

There are a number of truly AUTHORITATIVE sources out there regarding the advice and consent clause. Each and Every one I have read, save that one you cited, discussed the ACTIONS OF the Senate Judiciary and the body of the Senate during the confirmation process, and NEVER any option for either to just sit on their collective hands and refuse to act upon any nomination. To give Advise is to take an action. To Consent is to take an action. Refusing to take action is INACTION! When the Constitution mandates the Senate to take action regarding an appointment INACTION does NOT satisfy that Constitutional requirement. Q.E.D.

Here are three authoritative papers written and often cited. They are not a student's product, but those of professionals. Each of them discuss different as well as common aspects of the ACTION the of Senate's Constitutional responsibilities post nomination during the appointment "advice and consent" stage outlined in Article II § 2 Cls 2. They not only point out that the Senate must take an ACTIVE role during the process, but also discuss the political aspects of the process and the interplay between the political and Constitutional parts of the dance. They are certainly not flawed opinions of a student.

"The Senate, the Constitution, and the Confirmation Process"
David A. Strauss, 1992

"Advice and Consent: What the Constitution Says",
John McGinnis, 2005

"The Real Debate Over the Senate's Roll in the Confirmation Process"
Wm. Grayson Lambert, 2012
 
You are beyond retarded. Apparently, I gave you more credit than you deserved. The Senate's job is to advise and consent. While they don't have to consent to whomever the president nominates, they do have to advise and consent -- which can't be done if they shut the confirmation process down.

Sorry, but no. They ARE advising the President right now. They are advising him that his nominees are not going to be referred to committee, much less approved.

And anyone who can read English - which manifestly does not include you - can see that the Constitution is not putting the onus on the Senate to do anything. It is putting the onus on the President to do something, ie. get the Senate's consent.

Your argument is akin to saying, "Because a child has to get his mother's consent to go outside and play, it is therefore his mother's job to consider his request to do so." Any parent with two functioning brain cells knows that the child's requirement to get permission does not preclude the parent from issuing a pre-emptive "NO".

Okay....so the new normal is to just not confirm any Justice from an opposing President's nominees?

The ONLY way to get a nominee confirmed is to control both the White House and 60 members of the Senate?

Is this how our country has operated the last 200+ years?

You're saying this is legal and how things should be handled...after all from a partisan stand point both political parties would gain the most from this.

Partisanship has been the norm for a while, your lack of awareness and deliberate blindness to your own side's faults notwithstanding.

Our country has been wielding the rules differently for a while now, and it wasn't the Republicans who initiated it. I've lost count of the number of times leftist shitstains like you have come to this board, savoring the wonders of manipulating, bending, and outright ignoring the rules to get their way, and been told that they should be careful of the precedents they set, because it clears the way for the other side to borrow their plays against them.

During former President Bush's term, Senate Democrats under then-Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked Bush's judicial appointees in job lots, including Samuel Alito with the assistance of then-Senator Barack Obama. Not a word about the Senate's alleged "obligation to consider" back then. Harry Reid was famous for simply leaving legislation he didn't like on his desk and utterly ignoring it, without even referring it to committee . . . the exact same Senate rule in play now. Where was his "obligation to consider" back then? Or does that ONLY apply to Supreme Court nominees, and ONLY when it's a Democrat who nominates them? Was the Senate "advising and consenting" by your standards when the Democrats tried to leave Alito's nomination to wither on the vine?

You don't like what's in Pandora's box? Should have thought of that before you opened it.
You are mixing apples and oranges. There is no constitution requirement that the Senate consider a bill passed by the house but there is a constitutional requirement that it consider appointments. It's true Democrats blocked a number of Bush appointees but they did it the right way, in the Judiciary Committee, or on floor of the Senate. Refusing to consider a nominee is wrong regardless of which party does it..

No, there isn't. You lefties have really got to come to terms with the fact that your illiteracy doesn't change the meanings of words in any way, any more than wishing really hard changes reality.
Insults are not replies. If there were someway to eliminate the insults and flame wars, this board might really be worth the time.
 
Sorry, but you fail in your attempt to understand English . . . just like every other time you try to converse, apparently.

The Senate Rule is about considering nominees. At no point in any law or rule of procedure is the question of WHY a nominee is or is not considered ever addressed. So the Senate Republicans can refuse to consider Obama's nominees because they don't want Obama choosing Justices, because they don't like the nominees' faces, or because they'd rather sit around watching movies and eating popcorn.

The Rules of the Senate still gives them the power to do so.

That wasn't even moving the goalposts. That was trying to retroactively pretend you got to set them in the first place.
You poor, pathetic, demented bitch. Try reading the quotes of this argument. The "rule" being discussed was over the Senate claiming their right to deny a sitting president their Constitutional authority to appoint judges. You don't get to switch to a different rule about the Senate being in charge of the Senate. There is no "rule" which allows the Senate to obstruct the Constitution.

If there were such a rule, and there clearly isn't, yhen the only time Supreme Court vacancies would be filled would be when one party controls both the Senate and the presidency. Otherwise, the opposing party in the Senate would never confirm the president's nominee; but instead wait it out until that person was no longer president. Damn you're a special kind of retarded

You poor, pathetic, demented pseudo-human. Try thinking, or get someone who can think to explain it to you. The Senate doesn't suddenly change its operations and lose its powers based on your specific word choices and hair-splitting. "The Senate leader runs things, but he doesn't get to if I phrase it as THIS!"

There is no number of times you can say that it's ONLY about "denying a sitting President blah blah fuckety fuck" that's going to change the fact that the Senate can do what the Senate can do, whether you like their motivations for doing it or not.

"If there was such a rule, and there clearly isn't . . . despite having it cited to me, BECAUSE THE RULES ARE INVALID IF YOU HAVE THIS MOTIVATION!" only works with other people who are as stupid as you. I'm not saying there aren't a lot of them, but they're all as powerless and meaningless as you are.

Just because an option is dangerous and risky doesn't mean it's not valid and possible. It just means it's undesirable in most instances.

You don't get to deny that the Senate works the way it works, simply because this is the first you've heard about it, and you don't like it. They actually made quite a practice of simply ignoring things they didn't want to deal with when the Democrats were in charge, but you were too dimwitted to be aware of it, and now you've got your skivvies in a bunch because your own precedent is coming back to bite you in the ass. Boo fucking hoo. Not sorry for your ignorance, not sorry for your rude awakening.
Logorrhea doesn't help your idiocy. There is no precedent to this as no Senate has ever denied a sitting president from fulfilling their Constitutional responsibilities of not being able to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

I can only assume the part you forgot to say was, "In my fantasy where the world began with Obama's Presidency."

Asking a question and then pretending that not reading the answer means it didn't exist doesn't help your idiocy, although it does wonders for amusing me.
Your ludicrous assumptions are noted and dismissed. Here, in reality, no Senate ever shut down the confirmation process entirely to prevent a president from his Constitutional power of filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court with nearly a year remaining in their term.

Unprecedented.

"I don't like what you said, so I'll just dismiss it and repeat my assertions!" And this is different from what you were already doing how?

I don't blame you lefties for refusing to ever hear other points of view, let alone respond to them. Living in an echo chamber where the only opinion is your own is the only way you dipshits can ever win an argument.
 
Sorry, but no. They ARE advising the President right now. They are advising him that his nominees are not going to be referred to committee, much less approved.

And anyone who can read English - which manifestly does not include you - can see that the Constitution is not putting the onus on the Senate to do anything. It is putting the onus on the President to do something, ie. get the Senate's consent.

Your argument is akin to saying, "Because a child has to get his mother's consent to go outside and play, it is therefore his mother's job to consider his request to do so." Any parent with two functioning brain cells knows that the child's requirement to get permission does not preclude the parent from issuing a pre-emptive "NO".

Okay....so the new normal is to just not confirm any Justice from an opposing President's nominees?

The ONLY way to get a nominee confirmed is to control both the White House and 60 members of the Senate?

Is this how our country has operated the last 200+ years?

You're saying this is legal and how things should be handled...after all from a partisan stand point both political parties would gain the most from this.

Partisanship has been the norm for a while, your lack of awareness and deliberate blindness to your own side's faults notwithstanding.

Our country has been wielding the rules differently for a while now, and it wasn't the Republicans who initiated it. I've lost count of the number of times leftist shitstains like you have come to this board, savoring the wonders of manipulating, bending, and outright ignoring the rules to get their way, and been told that they should be careful of the precedents they set, because it clears the way for the other side to borrow their plays against them.

During former President Bush's term, Senate Democrats under then-Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked Bush's judicial appointees in job lots, including Samuel Alito with the assistance of then-Senator Barack Obama. Not a word about the Senate's alleged "obligation to consider" back then. Harry Reid was famous for simply leaving legislation he didn't like on his desk and utterly ignoring it, without even referring it to committee . . . the exact same Senate rule in play now. Where was his "obligation to consider" back then? Or does that ONLY apply to Supreme Court nominees, and ONLY when it's a Democrat who nominates them? Was the Senate "advising and consenting" by your standards when the Democrats tried to leave Alito's nomination to wither on the vine?

You don't like what's in Pandora's box? Should have thought of that before you opened it.
You are mixing apples and oranges. There is no constitution requirement that the Senate consider a bill passed by the house but there is a constitutional requirement that it consider appointments. It's true Democrats blocked a number of Bush appointees but they did it the right way, in the Judiciary Committee, or on floor of the Senate. Refusing to consider a nominee is wrong regardless of which party does it..

No, there isn't. You lefties have really got to come to terms with the fact that your illiteracy doesn't change the meanings of words in any way, any more than wishing really hard changes reality.
Insults are not replies. If there were someway to eliminate the insults and flame wars, this board might really be worth the time.

Repetitions are not replies, either. If you want to hear something other than insults, earn them, don't demand them.

And yes, I realize that "earning" is not a familiar concept to you.

Let me simple this up for you: if you get a reply, and then ignore it and repeat your assertion as though it's settled, self-evident fact as though nothing else was ever said, then there's no incentive whatsoever for me to keep talking to you as though you're an intelligent human being who's actually listening and conversing, rather than an ignorant, squawking parrot with a few learned phrases he mimics. So the next post and all subsequent posts will simply be pointing out what your blank repetition told me: you're a doofus.
 
Okay....so the new normal is to just not confirm any Justice from an opposing President's nominees?

The ONLY way to get a nominee confirmed is to control both the White House and 60 members of the Senate?

Is this how our country has operated the last 200+ years?

You're saying this is legal and how things should be handled...after all from a partisan stand point both political parties would gain the most from this.

Partisanship has been the norm for a while, your lack of awareness and deliberate blindness to your own side's faults notwithstanding.

Our country has been wielding the rules differently for a while now, and it wasn't the Republicans who initiated it. I've lost count of the number of times leftist shitstains like you have come to this board, savoring the wonders of manipulating, bending, and outright ignoring the rules to get their way, and been told that they should be careful of the precedents they set, because it clears the way for the other side to borrow their plays against them.

During former President Bush's term, Senate Democrats under then-Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked Bush's judicial appointees in job lots, including Samuel Alito with the assistance of then-Senator Barack Obama. Not a word about the Senate's alleged "obligation to consider" back then. Harry Reid was famous for simply leaving legislation he didn't like on his desk and utterly ignoring it, without even referring it to committee . . . the exact same Senate rule in play now. Where was his "obligation to consider" back then? Or does that ONLY apply to Supreme Court nominees, and ONLY when it's a Democrat who nominates them? Was the Senate "advising and consenting" by your standards when the Democrats tried to leave Alito's nomination to wither on the vine?

You don't like what's in Pandora's box? Should have thought of that before you opened it.
You are mixing apples and oranges. There is no constitution requirement that the Senate consider a bill passed by the house but there is a constitutional requirement that it consider appointments. It's true Democrats blocked a number of Bush appointees but they did it the right way, in the Judiciary Committee, or on floor of the Senate. Refusing to consider a nominee is wrong regardless of which party does it..

No, there isn't. You lefties have really got to come to terms with the fact that your illiteracy doesn't change the meanings of words in any way, any more than wishing really hard changes reality.
Insults are not replies. If there were someway to eliminate the insults and flame wars, this board might really be worth the time.

Repetitions are not replies, either. If you want to hear something other than insults, earn them, don't demand them.

And yes, I realize that "earning" is not a familiar concept to you.

Let me simple this up for you: if you get a reply, and then ignore it and repeat your assertion as though it's settled, self-evident fact as though nothing else was ever said, then there's no incentive whatsoever for me to keep talking to you as though you're an intelligent human being who's actually listening and conversing, rather than an ignorant, squawking parrot with a few learned phrases he mimics. So the next post and all subsequent posts will simply be pointing out what your blank repetition told me: you're a doofus.
When you start hurling insults, I know you're mind is closed on the subject and there is no need for further discussion.. I don't play the name calling game and I'm unwatching this thread, so there is no reason to reply.
 
Partisanship has been the norm for a while, your lack of awareness and deliberate blindness to your own side's faults notwithstanding.

Our country has been wielding the rules differently for a while now, and it wasn't the Republicans who initiated it. I've lost count of the number of times leftist shitstains like you have come to this board, savoring the wonders of manipulating, bending, and outright ignoring the rules to get their way, and been told that they should be careful of the precedents they set, because it clears the way for the other side to borrow their plays against them.

During former President Bush's term, Senate Democrats under then-Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked Bush's judicial appointees in job lots, including Samuel Alito with the assistance of then-Senator Barack Obama. Not a word about the Senate's alleged "obligation to consider" back then. Harry Reid was famous for simply leaving legislation he didn't like on his desk and utterly ignoring it, without even referring it to committee . . . the exact same Senate rule in play now. Where was his "obligation to consider" back then? Or does that ONLY apply to Supreme Court nominees, and ONLY when it's a Democrat who nominates them? Was the Senate "advising and consenting" by your standards when the Democrats tried to leave Alito's nomination to wither on the vine?

You don't like what's in Pandora's box? Should have thought of that before you opened it.
You are mixing apples and oranges. There is no constitution requirement that the Senate consider a bill passed by the house but there is a constitutional requirement that it consider appointments. It's true Democrats blocked a number of Bush appointees but they did it the right way, in the Judiciary Committee, or on floor of the Senate. Refusing to consider a nominee is wrong regardless of which party does it..

No, there isn't. You lefties have really got to come to terms with the fact that your illiteracy doesn't change the meanings of words in any way, any more than wishing really hard changes reality.
Insults are not replies. If there were someway to eliminate the insults and flame wars, this board might really be worth the time.

Repetitions are not replies, either. If you want to hear something other than insults, earn them, don't demand them.

And yes, I realize that "earning" is not a familiar concept to you.

Let me simple this up for you: if you get a reply, and then ignore it and repeat your assertion as though it's settled, self-evident fact as though nothing else was ever said, then there's no incentive whatsoever for me to keep talking to you as though you're an intelligent human being who's actually listening and conversing, rather than an ignorant, squawking parrot with a few learned phrases he mimics. So the next post and all subsequent posts will simply be pointing out what your blank repetition told me: you're a doofus.
When you start hurling insults, I know you're mind is closed on the subject and there is no need for further discussion.. I don't play the name calling game and I'm unwatching this thread, so there is no reason to reply.

"I make up any excuse I can think of to not have to deal with your points."

I do so love leftists thinking I condescend to talk to them because I think THEY are smart enough to learn something.
 

Forum List

Back
Top