Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

[ThoughtCrimes]

Do any of you neo-barb conservatives know what is written in the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2? The Senate Judiciary Committee must ACT to fulfill their Constitutional requirement of "advised and consent".

Feel free to post the requirement. FYI, I'm no conservative.

Do you comprehend by use of the English language what "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" means.

Obviously not.

Not a conservative? Why do you parrot so much of the neo-barb conservatives talking points and take those positions then? For me, if it constantly ambles, chirps and repeats mechanically like a neo-barb neoconservative what are the odds its one of PolyChica's hex-ganger non-conservatives? Give up that con because your slip is showing!

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office. You asserted the following:

They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Do any of you neo-barb conservatives know what is written in the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2? The Senate Judiciary Committee must ACT to fulfill their Constitutional requirement of "advised and consent".

Feel free to post the requirement. FYI, I'm no conservative.

Do you comprehend by use of the English language what "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" means.

Obviously not.

Not a conservative? Why do you parrot so much of the neo-barb conservatives talking points and take those positions then?

Because the Progressives/Democrats offer me no better positions to take.

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

You stunted the phrase. Regardless, your second statement negates the first.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

Then post the language that asserts the requirement. Second request.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Do any of you neo-barb conservatives know what is written in the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2? The Senate Judiciary Committee must ACT to fulfill their Constitutional requirement of "advised and consent".

Feel free to post the requirement. FYI, I'm no conservative.

Do you comprehend by use of the English language what "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" means.

Obviously not.

Not a conservative? Why do you parrot so much of the neo-barb conservatives talking points and take those positions then?

Because the Progressives/Democrats offer me no better positions to take.

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

You stunted the phrase. Regardless, your second statement negates the first.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

Then post the language that asserts the requirement. Second request.

I wrote;

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

I made three typos I see so I'll correct them;

I fully understand the phrase "advice and consent" as it is used in Article II § 2 Clause 2. It means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

The corrections were advice vice advise, Article II vice Article I and the first word in the second sentence was meant to be It vice I. Now to your critique of that;

You stunted the phrase. Regardless, your second statement negates the first.

With or without the corrections, your remarks make no fucking sense at all given that was what was being discussed in the first place. There was no negation as you claim in your desperation. You are the one with the difficulty of reading and understanding, obviously!
I wrote this;

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

To which you responded with;

Then post the language that asserts the requirement. Second request.

IF you have read Article II § 2 Clause 2 you obviously didn't understand a word of it. Here is what I wrote to another on this thread earlier today;

Simply obstructing the appointment process shared by the Senate and President by the Senate abrogating their sworn Constitutional duties is to figuratively wipe ones ass with that founding document regardless which faction might be involved in a given session of Congress.

The Senate cannot do that lawfully under the provision of Article II § 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which clearly states, "... and he [the President, sic] 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

"Advice and consent" denote ACTION by the Senate, which is the very antithesis of INACTION! Your assertion that the Senate would be, "...entirely within its powers, as established in the Constitution...." to carry out none of their responsibilities is without merit or foundation in law.

When I wrote the above I didn't bother to mention the Senate Judiciary Committee rules. See Senate Rule XXV. Next time get thee edified!!!!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Do any of you neo-barb conservatives know what is written in the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2? The Senate Judiciary Committee must ACT to fulfill their Constitutional requirement of "advised and consent".

Feel free to post the requirement. FYI, I'm no conservative.

Do you comprehend by use of the English language what "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" means.

Obviously not.

Not a conservative? Why do you parrot so much of the neo-barb conservatives talking points and take those positions then?

Because the Progressives/Democrats offer me no better positions to take.

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

You stunted the phrase. Regardless, your second statement negates the first.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

Then post the language that asserts the requirement. Second request.

I wrote;

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

I made three typos I see so I'll correct them;

I fully understand the phrase "advice and consent" as it is used in Article II § 2 Clause 2. It means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

The corrections were advice vice advise, Article II vice Article I and the first word in the second sentence was meant to be It vice I. Now to your critique of that;

You stunted the phrase. Regardless, your second statement negates the first.

With or without the corrections, your remarks make no fucking sense at all given that was what was being discussed in the first place. There was no negation as you claim in your desperation. You are the one with the difficulty of reading and understanding, obviously!
I wrote this;

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

To which you responded with;

Then post the language that asserts the requirement. Second request.

IF you have read Article II § 2 Clause 2 you obviously didn't understand a word of it. Here is what I wrote to another on this thread earlier today;

Simply obstructing the appointment process shared by the Senate and President by the Senate abrogating their sworn Constitutional duties is to figuratively wipe ones ass with that founding document regardless which faction might be involved in a given session of Congress.

The Senate cannot do that lawfully under the provision of Article II § 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which clearly states, "... and he [the President, sic] 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

"Advice and consent" denote ACTION by the Senate, which is the very antithesis of INACTION! Your assertion that the Senate would be, "...entirely within its powers, as established in the Constitution...." to carry out none of their responsibilities is without merit or foundation in law.

When I wrote the above I didn't bother to mention the Senate Judiciary Committee rules. See Senate Rule XXV. Next time get thee edified!!!!

Please make sense so that I may respond.

 

[Wildman]

Obama is a professor in the constitution

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... that is a joke..., RIGHT?
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

 

[IsaacNewton]

If people that are elected to actually work and do the job hired for don't do it, what good are they?

Indeed. I am a natural born citizen, a voter and a constituent. I voted to have a Senate majority with whom I generally agree in order to block Obama at every turn possible, as did the other voters who in the majority voted with the same intent.

That, therefore, is their job. So far they have been rather bad at it.

Advice and consent is restriction applied to the Executive branch, not a requirement of the Senate. It merely means that the Executive branch cannot perform certain actions without the advice and consent of the Senate. It is in no way required that the Senate give it.

Ahhh. So a political party is free to stop the government's business forever for political purposes.

One party represents the people, one party represents the party. Republicans are not Americans anymore, they are the US version of the Communist Party. In their minds nothing happens unless they say it will.

Easy, if you don't want to participate in the democracy the founders set up, which is built entirely on forced compromise, then get out.

American government and American society doesn't work for you any more, fine. Find another.

What partisan hackery, the founders established a republican form of government, with checks and balances. You're just getting pissy because those checks actually work as intended.

You reject American democracy. You are attempting to say the founders would approve of one party shutting down the government perpetually for political purposes.

They constructed the Constitution with the exact opposite intent. Their whole purpose was to construct a country that relied on forced compromise for the very fact that they know there are groups of people that will eventually demand they get their way like children, so the Constitution was constructed to force compromise.

Republicans have given up on American democracy.

I think the founder would be wondering why most of you regressives haven't been hung for treason yet. But that's just my opinion and I'm entitled to it, just as you are entitled to yours.

In your mind opinion is the same as fact.

But only in your mind.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

If people that are elected to actually work and do the job hired for don't do it, what good are they?

Indeed. I am a natural born citizen, a voter and a constituent. I voted to have a Senate majority with whom I generally agree in order to block Obama at every turn possible, as did the other voters who in the majority voted with the same intent.

That, therefore, is their job. So far they have been rather bad at it.

Advice and consent is a restriction applied to the Executive branch, not a requirement of the Senate. It merely means that the Executive branch cannot perform certain actions without the advice and consent of the Senate. It is in no way required that the Senate give it.

Ahhh. So a political party is free to stop the government's business forever for political purposes.

No, the Senate is entitled to exercise powers granted it under the Constitution as a co-equal branch of government.

Republicans are not Americans anymore, they are the US version of the Communist Party.

You truly are a jester. Comical substitution will not fly in this instance. It seems in the real world the Communists openly support the Democrats. Reference CPUSA. It's nearly a twin to the DNC site.

Try a little meat tenderizer on that dense skull of yours. One day, when you know what you are talking about, we can revisit this matter. You have a bit of studying to do. Ta.

You are not an American. You pretend, but your loyalty lies with your political party only.

Republicans have become un-American relativists. You have actually convinced yourself that it is ok for a few people to hold the rest of the country hostage and stop the government from working because you feel bad about one guy that might be appointed to the Supreme Court.

We've had to grow used to the Tea Bagger section of conservative whackjob land telling the rest of the party that the mentality of 8 year olds IS what that party is about. That throwing tantrums and pouting 'I'm not playing with you anymore' substitutes for adults who understand that all democratic government is about compromise, but you have gotten to the level of mental illness.

That trump is you poor morons pick as a leader only chisels your illness in stone.

You aren't Americans. You aren't.

 

[Wildman]

America has grown and changed during the last 200 years, and so has the U.S. Constitution,...

you idiot!! you just made our case for us, if you do not like the way it is now petition your U.S. Rep. to sponsor an amendment to change this way of selecting a new S.C. judge and have him or her seated on the bench. that is how it's done, now get off your welfare lazy sucking ass and DO IT!!!

BTW ..................................

 

[Wildman]

and that he shall nominate and appoint Supreme Court Justices when there is a vacancy.

"he".., that is a great point you just made, "he" being a masculine pronoun makes a "she" ineligible to become president. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

 

[Wildman]

You aren't Americans. You aren't.

so says an who displays the "Frog" nation's flag...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

 

[JQPublic1]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

Are you forgetting the Senate still is a bipartisan entity that has a significant minority of Democrats on board. They can make life miserable for republican's trying to pass other legislation. Check and balance measure in the Senate go even deeper than most laymen can imagine. Here is one example:

The best parliamentary tool for Senate Democrats is the motion to discharge. Although Democrats will only have a few narrow windows in which they can make their motions to discharge, this particular parliamentary tool allows them to gum up the works and force Republicans to take votes on a matter that is directly related to the Supreme Court vacancy. Rather than just generally obstructing the Senate’s daily business–for example, disrupting Defense funding bills or popular tax relief packages–as part of a larger temper tantrum, the motion to discharge gives Democrats the ability to stay on message.

Shrug. It's well past time for an honest dust-up.

I don't think so.

Another thing is that with Justice Roberts standing firmly in Obama's corner on Obamacare...even another judge like Scalia wouldn't make a bit of difference there.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

If people that are elected to actually work and do the job hired for don't do it, what good are they?

Indeed. I am a natural born citizen, a voter and a constituent. I voted to have a Senate majority with whom I generally agree in order to block Obama at every turn possible, as did the other voters who in the majority voted with the same intent.

That, therefore, is their job. So far they have been rather bad at it.

Advice and consent is a restriction applied to the Executive branch, not a requirement of the Senate. It merely means that the Executive branch cannot perform certain actions without the advice and consent of the Senate. It is in no way required that the Senate give it.

Ahhh. So a political party is free to stop the government's business forever for political purposes.

No, the Senate is entitled to exercise powers granted it under the Constitution as a co-equal branch of government.

Republicans are not Americans anymore, they are the US version of the Communist Party.

You truly are a jester. Comical substitution will not fly in this instance. It seems in the real world the Communists openly support the Democrats. Reference CPUSA. It's nearly a twin to the DNC site.

Try a little meat tenderizer on that dense skull of yours. One day, when you know what you are talking about, we can revisit this matter. You have a bit of studying to do. Ta.

You are not an American. You pretend, but your loyalty lies with your political party only.

Republicans have become un-American relativists. You have actually convinced yourself that it is ok for a few people to hold the rest of the country hostage and stop the government from working because you feel bad about one guy that might be appointed to the Supreme Court.

We've had to grow used to the Tea Bagger section of conservative whackjob land telling the rest of the party that the mentality of 8 year olds IS what that party is about. That throwing tantrums and pouting 'I'm not playing with you anymore' substitutes for adults who understand that all democratic government is about compromise, but you have gotten to the level of mental illness.

That trump is you poor morons pick as a leader only chisels your illness in stone.

You aren't Americans. You aren't.

I am.

You are neither intelligent nor educated. You aren't. You're a tool of the nuevo-Communistas, and a useless one at that.

Compromise is merely losing incrementally. I don't subscribe.

Also, I am still awaiting the constitutional text that mandates granting advice and consent. Third request.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Do any of you neo-barb conservatives know what is written in the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2? The Senate Judiciary Committee must ACT to fulfill their Constitutional requirement of "advised and consent".

Feel free to post the requirement. FYI, I'm no conservative.

Do you comprehend by use of the English language what "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" means.

Obviously not.

Not a conservative? Why do you parrot so much of the neo-barb conservatives talking points and take those positions then?

Because the Progressives/Democrats offer me no better positions to take.

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

You stunted the phrase. Regardless, your second statement negates the first.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

Then post the language that asserts the requirement. Second request.

I wrote;

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

I made three typos I see so I'll correct them;

I fully understand the phrase "advice and consent" as it is used in Article II § 2 Clause 2. It means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

The corrections were advice vice advise, Article II vice Article I and the first word in the second sentence was meant to be It vice I. Now to your critique of that;

You stunted the phrase. Regardless, your second statement negates the first.

With or without the corrections, your remarks make no fucking sense at all given that was what was being discussed in the first place. There was no negation as you claim in your desperation. You are the one with the difficulty of reading and understanding, obviously!
I wrote this;

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

To which you responded with;

Then post the language that asserts the requirement. Second request.

IF you have read Article II § 2 Clause 2 you obviously didn't understand a word of it. Here is what I wrote to another on this thread earlier today;

Simply obstructing the appointment process shared by the Senate and President by the Senate abrogating their sworn Constitutional duties is to figuratively wipe ones ass with that founding document regardless which faction might be involved in a given session of Congress.

The Senate cannot do that lawfully under the provision of Article II § 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which clearly states, "... and he [the President, sic] 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

"Advice and consent" denote ACTION by the Senate, which is the very antithesis of INACTION! Your assertion that the Senate would be, "...entirely within its powers, as established in the Constitution...." to carry out none of their responsibilities is without merit or foundation in law.

When I wrote the above I didn't bother to mention the Senate Judiciary Committee rules. See Senate Rule XXV. Next time get thee edified!!!!

Please make sense so that I may respond.

You too damn poor to pay attention? I don't think so! You're playing dumb to have an excuse to keep from responding, you transparent, dishonest POS! I knew you were a piker from reading many of your posts to others over the last few months. Now piss off you bloody ass!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

Are you forgetting the Senate still is a bipartisan entity that has a significant minority of Democrats on board. They can make life miserable for republican's trying to pass other legislation. Check and balance measure in the Senate go even deeper than most laymen can imagine. Here is one example:

The best parliamentary tool for Senate Democrats is the motion to discharge. Although Democrats will only have a few narrow windows in which they can make their motions to discharge, this particular parliamentary tool allows them to gum up the works and force Republicans to take votes on a matter that is directly related to the Supreme Court vacancy. Rather than just generally obstructing the Senate’s daily business–for example, disrupting Defense funding bills or popular tax relief packages–as part of a larger temper tantrum, the motion to discharge gives Democrats the ability to stay on message.

Shrug. It's well past time for an honest dust-up.

I don't think so.

You are free to think that.

Another thing is that with Justice Roberts standing firmly in Obama's corner on Obamacare.

He didn't. They ruled it a tax, against the administration's wish. A tax can be easily repealed.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Feel free to post the requirement. FYI, I'm no conservative.

Do you comprehend by use of the English language what "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" means.

Obviously not.

Not a conservative? Why do you parrot so much of the neo-barb conservatives talking points and take those positions then?

Because the Progressives/Democrats offer me no better positions to take.

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

You stunted the phrase. Regardless, your second statement negates the first.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

Then post the language that asserts the requirement. Second request.

I wrote;

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

I made three typos I see so I'll correct them;

I fully understand the phrase "advice and consent" as it is used in Article II § 2 Clause 2. It means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

The corrections were advice vice advise, Article II vice Article I and the first word in the second sentence was meant to be It vice I. Now to your critique of that;

You stunted the phrase. Regardless, your second statement negates the first.

With or without the corrections, your remarks make no fucking sense at all given that was what was being discussed in the first place. There was no negation as you claim in your desperation. You are the one with the difficulty of reading and understanding, obviously!
I wrote this;

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

To which you responded with;

Then post the language that asserts the requirement. Second request.

IF you have read Article II § 2 Clause 2 you obviously didn't understand a word of it. Here is what I wrote to another on this thread earlier today;

Simply obstructing the appointment process shared by the Senate and President by the Senate abrogating their sworn Constitutional duties is to figuratively wipe ones ass with that founding document regardless which faction might be involved in a given session of Congress.

The Senate cannot do that lawfully under the provision of Article II § 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which clearly states, "... and he [the President, sic] 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

"Advice and consent" denote ACTION by the Senate, which is the very antithesis of INACTION! Your assertion that the Senate would be, "...entirely within its powers, as established in the Constitution...." to carry out none of their responsibilities is without merit or foundation in law.

When I wrote the above I didn't bother to mention the Senate Judiciary Committee rules. See Senate Rule XXV. Next time get thee edified!!!!

Please make sense so that I may respond.

You too damn poor to pay attention? I don't think so! You're playing dumb to have an excuse to keep from responding, you transparent, dishonest POS! I knew you were a piker from reading many of your posts to others over the last few months. Now piss off you bloody ass!

Yet still I await the constitutional text that mandates granting advice and consent. Fourth request.

 

[JQPublic1]

Do any of you neo-barb conservatives know what is written in the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2? The Senate Judiciary Committee must ACT to fulfill their Constitutional requirement of "advised and consent".

Feel free to post the requirement. FYI, I'm no conservative.

Do you comprehend by use of the English language what "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" means.

Obviously not.

Not a conservative? Why do you parrot so much of the neo-barb conservatives talking points and take those positions then? For me, if it constantly ambles, chirps and repeats mechanically like a neo-barb neoconservative what are the odds its one of PolyChica's hex-ganger non-conservatives? Give up that con because your slip is showing!

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office. You asserted the following:

They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

You've got a point. Obama could file a lawsuit charging the Senate republicans with malfeasance for not following Constitutional guidelines during the nomination process. That scenario is unlikely but I wish he would do it.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Not a conservative? Why do you parrot so much of the neo-barb conservatives talking points and take those positions then?

Because the Progressives/Democrats offer me no better positions to take.

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

You stunted the phrase. Regardless, your second statement negates the first.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

Then post the language that asserts the requirement. Second request.

I wrote;

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

I made three typos I see so I'll correct them;

I fully understand the phrase "advice and consent" as it is used in Article II § 2 Clause 2. It means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

The corrections were advice vice advise, Article II vice Article I and the first word in the second sentence was meant to be It vice I. Now to your critique of that;

You stunted the phrase. Regardless, your second statement negates the first.

With or without the corrections, your remarks make no fucking sense at all given that was what was being discussed in the first place. There was no negation as you claim in your desperation. You are the one with the difficulty of reading and understanding, obviously!
I wrote this;

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

To which you responded with;

Then post the language that asserts the requirement. Second request.

IF you have read Article II § 2 Clause 2 you obviously didn't understand a word of it. Here is what I wrote to another on this thread earlier today;

Simply obstructing the appointment process shared by the Senate and President by the Senate abrogating their sworn Constitutional duties is to figuratively wipe ones ass with that founding document regardless which faction might be involved in a given session of Congress.

The Senate cannot do that lawfully under the provision of Article II § 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which clearly states, "... and he [the President, sic] 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

"Advice and consent" denote ACTION by the Senate, which is the very antithesis of INACTION! Your assertion that the Senate would be, "...entirely within its powers, as established in the Constitution...." to carry out none of their responsibilities is without merit or foundation in law.

When I wrote the above I didn't bother to mention the Senate Judiciary Committee rules. See Senate Rule XXV. Next time get thee edified!!!!

Please make sense so that I may respond.

You too damn poor to pay attention? I don't think so! You're playing dumb to have an excuse to keep from responding, you transparent, dishonest POS! I knew you were a piker from reading many of your posts to others over the last few months. Now piss off you bloody ass!

Yet still I await the constitutional text that mandates granting advice and consent. Fourth request.

I posted it to YOU you fucking idiot in post #163, and you said it didn't make sense to you. Figures! That could be because you are either a pissant or a gadfly with head up ass! Damn but you are whacked!!!!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Because the Progressives/Democrats offer me no better positions to take.

You stunted the phrase. Regardless, your second statement negates the first.

Then post the language that asserts the requirement. Second request.

I wrote;

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

I made three typos I see so I'll correct them;

I fully understand the phrase "advice and consent" as it is used in Article II § 2 Clause 2. It means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office.

The corrections were advice vice advise, Article II vice Article I and the first word in the second sentence was meant to be It vice I. Now to your critique of that;

You stunted the phrase. Regardless, your second statement negates the first.

With or without the corrections, your remarks make no fucking sense at all given that was what was being discussed in the first place. There was no negation as you claim in your desperation. You are the one with the difficulty of reading and understanding, obviously!
I wrote this;

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

To which you responded with;

Then post the language that asserts the requirement. Second request.

IF you have read Article II § 2 Clause 2 you obviously didn't understand a word of it. Here is what I wrote to another on this thread earlier today;

Simply obstructing the appointment process shared by the Senate and President by the Senate abrogating their sworn Constitutional duties is to figuratively wipe ones ass with that founding document regardless which faction might be involved in a given session of Congress.

The Senate cannot do that lawfully under the provision of Article II § 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which clearly states, "... and he [the President, sic] 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

"Advice and consent" denote ACTION by the Senate, which is the very antithesis of INACTION! Your assertion that the Senate would be, "...entirely within its powers, as established in the Constitution...." to carry out none of their responsibilities is without merit or foundation in law.

When I wrote the above I didn't bother to mention the Senate Judiciary Committee rules. See Senate Rule XXV. Next time get thee edified!!!!

Please make sense so that I may respond.

You too damn poor to pay attention? I don't think so! You're playing dumb to have an excuse to keep from responding, you transparent, dishonest POS! I knew you were a piker from reading many of your posts to others over the last few months. Now piss off you bloody ass!

Yet still I await the constitutional text that mandates granting advice and consent. Fourth request.

I posted it to YOU you fucking idiot in post #163, and you said it didn't make sense to you. Figures! That could be because you are either a pissant or a gadfly with head up ass! Damn but you are whacked!!!!

No, you posted the same passage you've been posting all along, which in no way obligates the Senate to provide advice and consent.

Try again.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Do any of you neo-barb conservatives know what is written in the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2? The Senate Judiciary Committee must ACT to fulfill their Constitutional requirement of "advised and consent".

Feel free to post the requirement. FYI, I'm no conservative.

Do you comprehend by use of the English language what "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" means.

Obviously not.

Not a conservative? Why do you parrot so much of the neo-barb conservatives talking points and take those positions then? For me, if it constantly ambles, chirps and repeats mechanically like a neo-barb neoconservative what are the odds its one of PolyChica's hex-ganger non-conservatives? Give up that con because your slip is showing!

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office. You asserted the following:

They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

You've got a point. Obama could file a lawsuit charging the Senate republicans with malfeasance for not following Constitutional guidelines during the nomination process. That scenario is unlikely but I wish he would do it.

I agree and there are other constitutional means to make it uncomfortable for those recalcitrant GOP obstructionist. I really believe their tent is getting smaller every day with all the factions that continue to claim the Republican brand forcing the old guard out to Indy status. The strongest will eventually take over or the GOP faction will drift into oblivion like its predecessor the Whigs if my crystal ball hasn't been hacked again!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Do any of you neo-barb conservatives know what is written in the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2? The Senate Judiciary Committee must ACT to fulfill their Constitutional requirement of "advised and consent".

Feel free to post the requirement. FYI, I'm no conservative.

Do you comprehend by use of the English language what "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" means.

Obviously not.

Not a conservative? Why do you parrot so much of the neo-barb conservatives talking points and take those positions then? For me, if it constantly ambles, chirps and repeats mechanically like a neo-barb neoconservative what are the odds its one of PolyChica's hex-ganger non-conservatives? Give up that con because your slip is showing!

I fully understand the phrase "advise and consent" as it is used in Article I § 2 Clause 2. I means the Senate MUST TAKE ACTION when the President nominates someone for a vacant office. You asserted the following:

They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley (R-IA) cannot lawfully sit on his hands and do nothing when he receives the nomination from the President. Your assertion to the contrary is but a pile of steaming Horseshit!

You've got a point. Obama could file a lawsuit charging the Senate republicans with malfeasance for not following Constitutional guidelines during the nomination process. That scenario is unlikely but I wish he would do it.

One lives in hope.