- Aug 4, 2015
- Reaction score
Need a tissue?That can't be a serious question....Why was my comment ironic?Yes what they did was wrong - they should have held a hearing. Beyond that, the shenanigans they pulled changed, quite literally, nothing at all. Garland was not going to get nominated. The answer to them doing something wrong is NOT burning the entire institution to the damn ground. That is absolutely nuts.Your own words demonize the GOP with what they did to the courts over the last 8 years. Block Obama’s nominations and then expedite Trumps.Nothing warrants packing the courts. That signals the absolute end to everything the judiciary stands for.That’s fine if that’s your view on how things should work. Just don’t complain next time the Dems take power and abuse it. You best believe that a move like this validates the Dems to add seats to the court and fill them should they take the majorityYou're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:That’s a nice attempt to spin but no it was not congresses job to advise the President to not perform his constitutional duty... that’s not how the process was designed to work and you know it. Obama nominated a judge. It was congresses job to advise him on the pick and consent or not consent. Had they held a hearing and not consented through a vote then the president should then nominate somebody else. This is not what happened as we well know. The GOP side of Congress blankety stonewalled the nomination in the name of the election year and wanting the people to decide. Most of us knew then that their excuse was bullshit and it’s concretely confirmed now that it was bullshit as they all flat out lied. Get it?It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.What advise and consent did Garland get?What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?easy, are you still to fucking lazy to read the Constitution? Your dumb ass needs to get a 4th grader to "advise" you about Article 2, Sec 2, Cls 2 to enlighten your ignorant ass about the "advise and consent " requirements in the Constitution; especially as it pertains to judges. Oh, and pass that on to that idiot Rush and your idiotic brethren who responded to the OP with such vacuous un-Constitutional suggestions!Usually I don't pay attention to anything Rush Limbaugh says because he is more often than not a pompous arrogant windbag....but I just read the headline talking about how Limbaugh made this suggestion.
He makes a great point - we know how this is going to go. In the coming confirmation hearings Democrats are going to do their very best to top their immoral, unethical, despicable assault they perpetrated against Kavanaugh.
The Kavanaugh hearings were a complete, disgusting, heinous waste of time...so why bother?!
Why put any candidate through such a despicable process when we already know in the end, even if the candidate displayed the wisdom of Solomon and walked on water, the Democrats would still NOT vote for them?
Complete the necessary legal background checks and just vote.
Everything from the moment the nominee is named to the moment the vote is held will be nothing but an immoral, unethical character / job / family / life assassination attempt by the Democrats who only want to prevent the vacancy from being filled by President Trump.
Why allow the Democrats do that to anyone?!
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee should proceed directly to a vote on President Trump's forthcoming Supreme Court nominee without bothering to hold a confirmation hearing, syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday.www.foxnews.com
Yes I am familiar with what it says -It should be obvious to anyone who could read and understand what I cited from the OP and replied to in my oh so complex response. Obviously, you're having the same difficulty in your grasp of 18th Century English. If you are unable to comprehend those few words perhaps you can get together with easyT and share the time and costs of his 4th grade tutor!What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -
So nothing.So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!So nothing.
I'll make it easy on you and point you toward the Framers'explanation of "advise and consent". Hamilton wrote about that in The Federalist #75 & #76. Ever hear about checks and balances being part of the Constitution, Bunkey? Read those two arguments and learn something about the Law of the Land you ignorant fuck!
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.
'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'
Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'
For me, that is no less a threat than the president refusing to pass power onto the next president. The fact the democrats even allow such an evil concept to pass their lips is strongly driving me to vote for republicans and do not kid yourself - they are not threatening this because the republicans are going to appoint a replacement for RGB. This is NOT the first time they have threatened such.
Adding two seats doesn’t pack the court it balances it. And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems
And yes, adding justices to ensure you control the court politics is the very definition of packing the court. How can you claim otherwise with a straight face?
It is massively ironic that you post this half a page later as well:
What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity
'And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems'
If you haven't heard yet, Aussies just nominated Trump for his 3rd individual Nobel Peace Prize...
3 Nobel Peace Prize
2 USSC Justices
& 1 Re-Election...