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

[ThoughtCrimes]

I wrote;
I made three typos I see so I'll correct them;
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;
With or without the corrections, your remarks make no ******* 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;
To which you responded with;
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;
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 ******* 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.

Because you refuse to accept the Constitutional language merely enforces its validity, fool. Now eat shit and die!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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 ******* 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.

Because you refuse to accept it the Constitutional language merely enforces its validity, fool. Now eat shit and die!

No, I refuse to accept your nonsense because I speak and comprehend English. You, on the other hand, are obviously a victim of the public school system.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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 ******* 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.

Because you refuse to accept it the Constitutional language merely enforces its validity, fool. Now eat shit and die!

No, I refuse to accept your nonsense because I speak and comprehend English. You, on the other hand, are obviously a victim of the public school system.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Nope, you opinion is now where close to fact, of course you're so ignorant that you fail to realize the the Senate was supposed to represent the States in the Congress and be chosen by the State legislatures, according to the founders. They were never meant to be direct representatives of the people, that is what the House of Reps is for. As being direct representatives of the States the consent the Senate was supposed to give the President should reflect the interest of the States. Another regressive judge on the court would be detrimental to the States so consent should be withheld.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

An important principle upon which our system of government is founded is that of division of power, with the branches acting to to provide checks and balances against abuses from the other branches.

At this time, we have a President who holds this nation's Constitution, and its founding principles, in utter, hateful contempt, and who has repeatedly, openly attempted to abuse his position in order to overtly violate the Constitution and the principles upon which our nation is founded. When one branch of government is gone so far amok, it is certainly the responsibility and duty of the other two branches to oppose these abuses.

You're crying because President Obama is not being allowed to act as an irresponsible, unaccountable dictator, because the other branches of government are doing their job, and keeping in in check. To allow one person to abuse the power that Obama wields is as repugnant t what America was supposed to stand for as anything else that I can imagine. That you would defend this tyranny leaves you in no position to accuse anyone else of being “un-American”.

 

[daws101]

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 ..................................

Extremely false accusation.
Amazing tantrum !
More proof that the average IQ of a conservative is .00005
Your answer has zero relavence to my statement.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They ruled it a tax, against the administration's wish. A tax can be easily repealed.

Which really amounts to a temporary stay of execution for the Obamacare scam. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the mandate is a tax, all it will take to bring the whole dungheap down will be a challenge based on the fact that the Obamacare scam originated in the Senate, while the Constitution mandates that all such taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, per the first sentence of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They ruled it a tax, against the administration's wish. A tax can be easily repealed.

Which really amounts to a temporary stay of execution for the Obamacare scam. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the mandate is a tax, all it will take to bring the whole dungheap down will be a challenge based on the fact that the Obamacare scam originated in the Senate, while the Constitution mandates that all such taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, per the first sentence of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.

Essentially correct, but "all it will take" is wishful thinking when one considers how often the Constitution is ignored by both sides. It will require the public equivalent of torches and pitchforks.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Essentially correct, but "all it will take" is wishful thinking when one considers how often the Constitution is ignored by both sides. It will require the public equivalent of torches and pitchforks.

The problem is in how one defines 'Constitutional'. That definition of the term should also include case law precedence. Though it is not part of the Constitution itself, it has huge bearing on how the Constitution is interpreted by the courts.