Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[Faun]

So what is it you think "advice and consent" means?

It means the Senate will consider the president's nominees. They may or may not approve of them, but they have to consider them. Just how fucking retarded are you that you don't even know that?

No, it doesn't. It means the President has to get their consent. It doesn't mean they have to give it. Doesn't even mean they have to think about giving it.

I guess I'm so "retarded" that I know where to find the complete text of the Senate Rules and Procedures.

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.

Even worse, that demented bitch idiotically thinks something which has never happened before in the entire history of this nation -- is a rule.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hey, Captain Obtuse. Learn the difference between "Senate rules" and "what the Senate does with the rules." Duuuuhhhhh. "The Senate chose to do this, that OBVIOUSLY means they HAD to do it!" Do you hate being as stupid as you are, or are you not actually aware of it?

Demented bitch... there is no such rule. Not a formal Senate rule, not an informal rule the Senate follows. There have been two times in the last half century relevant to this situation. Abe Fortas and Anthony Kennedy. One was confirmed, the other not.

That's what you moronically refer to a rule.

Really? There's no formal Senate rule stating that the majority leader decides which business will be addressed and when? How very interesting.

REFERENCE TO COMMITTEES; MOTIONS TO DISCHARGE; REPORTS OF COMMITTEES; AND HEARINGS AVAILABLE - Rules of the Senate - United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

Just because the Senate CHOSE to consider nominees does not mean they were OBLIGATED to do so.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So what is it you think "advice and consent" means?

It means the Senate will consider the president's nominees. They may or may not approve of them, but they have to consider them. Just how fucking retarded are you that you don't even know that?

No, it doesn't. It means the President has to get their consent. It doesn't mean they have to give it. Doesn't even mean they have to think about giving it.

I guess I'm so "retarded" that I know where to find the complete text of the Senate Rules and Procedures.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So what is it you think "advice and consent" means?

It means the Senate will consider the president's nominees. They may or may not approve of them, but they have to consider them. Just how fucking retarded are you that you don't even know that?

No, it doesn't. It means the President has to get their consent. It doesn't mean they have to give it. Doesn't even mean they have to think about giving it.

I guess I'm so "retarded" that I know where to find the complete text of the Senate Rules and Procedures.

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.

Advising isn't their only duty. Consenting is as well. They can't advise and consent when they shut the confirmation process down entirely because they don't like the president.

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".

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you??

The Senate/President are not akin to a mother/child.

They are co-equal branches of government. One cannot shut the other out of their Constitutional responsibilities.

How did you get to be so deranged?

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with YOU? It's called an analogy. And while they're co-equal branches of government, they have their specific powers precisely for the purpose of acting as a check on each other. So yes, in the sense that the President has to get the Senate's permission to appoint a Justice, the comparison is valid. The Senate has no obligation to consent to anything, and your inability to read English does not change the fact that the Constitution says the President has to gain the consent of the Senate, not that the Senate has to give it.

I'd ask how you got so deranged, but years of worshiping Obama and making excuses for him is reason enough.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It means the Senate will consider the president's nominees. They may or may not approve of them, but they have to consider them. Just how fucking retarded are you that you don't even know that?

No, it doesn't. It means the President has to get their consent. It doesn't mean they have to give it. Doesn't even mean they have to think about giving it.

I guess I'm so "retarded" that I know where to find the complete text of the Senate Rules and Procedures.

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.

Even worse, that demented bitch idiotically thinks something which has never happened before in the entire history of this nation -- is a rule.

Clearly, you've just had too many years of Obama's "Fuck the rules, I want to do this, and I dare you to stop me" governance, and now you're pussy-aching because it's come to a screeching halt.

My heart bleeds for your pain. No, really.

 

[Faun]

Demented bitch... there is no such rule. Not a formal Senate rule, not an informal rule the Senate follows. There have been two times in the last half century relevant to this situation. Abe Fortas and Anthony Kennedy. One was confirmed, the other not.

That's what you moronically refer to a rule.

Really? There's no formal Senate rule stating that the majority leader decides which business will be addressed and when? How very interesting.

REFERENCE TO COMMITTEES; MOTIONS TO DISCHARGE; REPORTS OF COMMITTEES; AND HEARINGS AVAILABLE - Rules of the Senate - United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

Just because the Senate CHOSE to consider nominees does not mean they were OBLIGATED to do so.

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.

 

[Faun]

It means the Senate will consider the president's nominees. They may or may not approve of them, but they have to consider them. Just how fucking retarded are you that you don't even know that?

No, it doesn't. It means the President has to get their consent. It doesn't mean they have to give it. Doesn't even mean they have to think about giving it.

I guess I'm so "retarded" that I know where to find the complete text of the Senate Rules and Procedures.

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.

Advising isn't their only duty. Consenting is as well. They can't advise and consent when they shut the confirmation process down entirely because they don't like the president.

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".

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you??

The Senate/President are not akin to a mother/child.

They are co-equal branches of government. One cannot shut the other out of their Constitutional responsibilities.

How did you get to be so deranged?

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with YOU? It's called an analogy. And while they're co-equal branches of government, they have their specific powers precisely for the purpose of acting as a check on each other. So yes, in the sense that the President has to get the Senate's permission to appoint a Justice, the comparison is valid. The Senate has no obligation to consent to anything, and your inability to read English does not change the fact that the Constitution says the President has to gain the consent of the Senate, not that the Senate has to give it.

I'd ask how you got so deranged, but years of worshiping Obama and making excuses for him is reason enough.

I can't help that you're too fucking retarded to understand analogies are employed to draw comparisons between things; but there is no lucid comparison between a mother/child and Senate/President. A mother and her child are not co-equal partners ... the Senate is not an authority over the president. It's your fault you can't grasp even the simplest structures because you choose to be a conservative, whose brains function in reverse.

 

[Faun]

It means the Senate will consider the president's nominees. They may or may not approve of them, but they have to consider them. Just how fucking retarded are you that you don't even know that?

No, it doesn't. It means the President has to get their consent. It doesn't mean they have to give it. Doesn't even mean they have to think about giving it.

I guess I'm so "retarded" that I know where to find the complete text of the Senate Rules and Procedures.

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 poor, demented, bitch... Samuel Alito not only got a hearing, he not only got an up/down vote .... he got confirmed...

By a Democrat-led Senate.

Sadly for you, you're just not bright enough to make an efficacious argument.

 

[Flopper]

The Senate leadership is waiting till after the election to see who wins the presidency. If a Republican wins, they either vote down Obama's nomination or not bring it up for a vote, because they will get a more conservative justice in 2017.

If a Democrat wins, then they will probably confirm Obama's nominee because he or she would probably be less left leaning that a Clinton or Sander's nominee. Delaying till after the election makes good political sense for the party controlling the Senate. The only risk is losing the Senate.

"This comes after McConnell issued his most definitive statement on Tuesday: There will be no Supreme Court nominee confirmed in President Barack Obama's final year in office.

In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court."

Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee - CNNPolitics.com


>>>>

He Lies. If Hillary is elected and Obama actually nominates a middle of road judge, McConnell will go for Obama's nominee rather than Hillary's because see will nominate someone much further to the left than Obama.

 

[Flopper]

When has the left EVER wanted the voters to decide anything?

You're fucking demented. Democrats wants the electorate to come out and decide. The more people come out to vote, the better Democrats do in elections.

No, the Democrats are not the least bit interested in letting the people decide anything. This is why their primaries have super-delegates that supersede the popular vote entirely, why all their policy victories come through judicial fiats and executive orders, why they want to change their tune and now demand that the Constitution requires that the Senate rubberstamp judicial nominees.

The country already decided. You can deny that all you want, doesn't really matter.

Uh huh. Anything decided against the will of liberals is a mere suggestion, totally mutable or even ignorable. Anything decided in favor of liberals is carved in fucking stone by the finger of God, unalterable for all eternity.

Your double standards and hypocrisy impress no one anymore. Suck it.

Again, cuz you really don't understand English. Denying the country picked Obama to do his job for 4 years, which includes filling vacant seats on the Supreme Court, does not alter that reality.

Yes, Obama said he will do the job he was elected to do. McConnell says he won't.

What the country needs is a court that is neither packed with liberals nor conservatives but a court that will give a fair hearing to any case brought before it without strong political prejudices.

 

[Flopper]

It means the Senate will consider the president's nominees. They may or may not approve of them, but they have to consider them. Just how fucking retarded are you that you don't even know that?

No, it doesn't. It means the President has to get their consent. It doesn't mean they have to give it. Doesn't even mean they have to think about giving it.

I guess I'm so "retarded" that I know where to find the complete text of the Senate Rules and Procedures.

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..

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really? There's no formal Senate rule stating that the majority leader decides which business will be addressed and when? How very interesting.

REFERENCE TO COMMITTEES; MOTIONS TO DISCHARGE; REPORTS OF COMMITTEES; AND HEARINGS AVAILABLE - Rules of the Senate - United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

Just because the Senate CHOSE to consider nominees does not mean they were OBLIGATED to do so.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, it doesn't. It means the President has to get their consent. It doesn't mean they have to give it. Doesn't even mean they have to think about giving it.

I guess I'm so "retarded" that I know where to find the complete text of the Senate Rules and Procedures.

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.

 

[Grizz]

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

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

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

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!

Your own link proves you wrong. 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 ​

 

[Grizz]

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

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

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

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.

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?

 

[Grizz]

No - that is what you think I am saying.
That is not what I am saying at all.
It is not hard to figure out that McConnell set the time till after the Nov. election and the country is pretty close to be evenly split on this issue. It's only right to wait till after this very volatile and very strange election season is over.
It is also their Constitutional right to not consent.

Please stop trying to portray that there will be advise and consent proceedings after the November elections, that is false. What was said was that they will not do anything until the next President is seated which is after January.

The question isn't does the Senate have to confirm someone they don't feel is qualified. The issue is they have said they will not undertake any proceedings based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the candidate nominated. THAT is the danger.


>>>>

The Senate leadership is waiting till after the election to see who wins the presidency. If a Republican wins, they either vote down Obama's nomination or not bring it up for a vote, because they will get a more conservative justice in 2017.

If a Democrat wins, then they will probably confirm Obama's nominee because he or she would probably be less left leaning that a Clinton or Sander's nominee. Delaying till after the election makes good political sense for the party controlling the Senate. The only risk is losing the Senate.

....and all entirely with their rights to do.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

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?

 

[Grizz]

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

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.

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.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Nothing allows the
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.

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!

 

[Grizz]

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.

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.