Should the Judiciary Hearing Be Scrapped & Just A Confirmation Vote Be Held?

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,749
Reaction score
5,182
Points
290
Just as it is within the power of the president to appoint a judge, it is totally within the power of the senate to refuse to confirm them.
That might be the dumbest f*ing thing I hear all day, even dumber than what Slade keeps repeating. Now why in the hell would the GOP want to throw the Democrats - who illegally spied on everyone, conducted a failed political coup attempt, who continued to conduct failed coup attempts, who savagely and immorally put Kavanaugh through hell - a bone and refuse to fill the vacancy?!


Bwuhahahahaha.....
You might want to read that again, it says EXACTLY the opposite of what you think it says.
You are correct, and I apologize. McConnell had an obligation to bring Garland up for hearings. His decision not to falls more under 'Elections have consequences...but who has the votes rule.' The Democrats were kind enough to do away with the filibuster and institute the 'nuclear option, one decision I am sure they now regret.

Judges like Garland and Kavanaugh are unfortunately used and abused - victims of partisan politics.Garland, however, was spared the immoral 'politics of destruction' Kavanaugh was forced to endure.
Garland would never have been nominated had Obama thought that he would actually get a vote.
Was not nearly far left enough.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,939
Reaction score
4,362
Points
1,140
Just as it is within the power of the president to appoint a judge, it is totally within the power of the senate to refuse to confirm them.
That might be the dumbest f*ing thing I hear all day, even dumber than what Slade keeps repeating. Now why in the hell would the GOP want to throw the Democrats - who illegally spied on everyone, conducted a failed political coup attempt, who continued to conduct failed coup attempts, who savagely and immorally put Kavanaugh through hell - a bone and refuse to fill the vacancy?!


Bwuhahahahaha.....
You might want to read that again, it says EXACTLY the opposite of what you think it says.
You are correct, and I apologize. McConnell had an obligation to bring Garland up for hearings. His decision not to falls more under 'Elections have consequences...but who has the votes rule.' The Democrats were kind enough to do away with the filibuster and institute the 'nuclear option, one decision I am sure they now regret.

Judges like Garland and Kavanaugh are unfortunately used and abused - victims of partisan politics.Garland, however, was spared the immoral 'politics of destruction' Kavanaugh was forced to endure.
Garland would never have been nominated had Obama thought that he would actually get a vote.
Was not nearly far left enough.
Garland was nominated and McConnell failed to do his job and was supported by most of the GOP as seen in the many many quotes that are circulating from 2016. They should all be booted from office
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,749
Reaction score
5,182
Points
290
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?!


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!
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 -
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 -
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!

So nothing.
So nothing.
So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

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!
What advise and consent did Garland get?
It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.
 

ThoughtCrimes

Old Navy Vet
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
4,066
Reaction score
851
Points
245
Location
Desert Southwest
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?!


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!
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 -
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 -
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!

So nothing.
So nothing.
So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

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!

Well -
you sure that you meant 75 and 76?
They don't appear to buttress your position.
Well -
you sure that you meant 75 and 76?
They don't appear to buttress your position.
You fucking fraud! Seven (7) minutes elapsed between the time I posted and you replied; check out the time stamps fool!

There is no fucking way you could have read, understood digested and evaluated both of those docs, especially having been written in 18th Century English...and then posted. That is disgusting behavior you Damn Fraud! Hell, your dumb ass didn't even provide an example of your asinine assertion!

So just piss off you bloody fraud!
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
65,321
Reaction score
22,377
Points
2,290
Garland was nominated and McConnell failed to do his job and was supported by most of the GOP as seen in the many many quotes that are circulating from 2016. They should all be booted from office
Everyone involved in refusing to allow hearings to be held for Garland should be booted....but everyone who participated in Obama's failed coup attempt get a pass? Bwuhahahaha.....

I'm sorry - that was off topic. My bad...that just struck me as funny as hell.

:p
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,749
Reaction score
5,182
Points
290
Did graham acknowledge his mistake and take back his statement? Did any of the other GOPers? Cause I sure as hell didn’t hear any of them stick up for Garland in 2016
Failed attempt to keep focusing on the insignificant / irrelevant. The only thing important is the fact that, as RBG herself stated, a President does not stop being a President his 4th year in office and that A President has the right and OBLIGATION to fill a vacancy.

You keeping focusing on what GRAHAM said. I am going to focus on what the CONSTITUTION says.
I'm going to make a radical suggestion here. Everyone hold onto your seats.

The primary concern in regards to the federal government should be what's best for the country and the American people.

I'll pause for the gasps of shock, horror, and confusion.

The Senate exists to serve the country and the people in it. It does not exist for the Senators to make new friends, or congratulate themselves on how many little collegial handshakes they give out, or how well they follow this or that obscure unwritten rule.

I don't actually give a fuck what previous Senates have done. For the most part, I didn't vote for those people, because I wasn't alive then. I also don't give much of a fuck about "Well, LAST time they did THIS and said THAT!" Last time ain't this time. Different players, different circumstances, over and done and not now. Also, the primary purpose of the Senate and the Senators in it is not to "be consistent in the eyes of the media". Their purpose is to do what's best for the country in THIS time and THESE circumstances. If doing so means you have to live with being called a hypocrite, suck it the fuck up.

We have been through a chaotic and catastrophic year that has brought our nation to the brink of implosion. And now the flaming dumpster fire we have become is tottering its way into a hotly-disputed Presidential election in which one side has vowed to trash anything and everything in its way to get what they want. You think Bush v. Gore was a long, drawn-out, tense mess? Try on the Biden campaign trying an amped-up version of that trick in every single battleground state at once.

Now imagine that with no one having the ability to decide the fight one way or another, because the Supreme Court has an even split (which means no decision is rendered at all).

The American people need a functioning Supreme Court right now. They exist to serve us and the country, as well, and far too often all they do is swan around, lecturing the rest of us on how morally superior they are to us and how we "rubes" need to change the way we live our lives to meet their standards. This one circumstance, though, they are crucial in and we cannot do without them. I don't think it's any exaggeration to say that if the election is allowed to degenerate into endless, unsolvable fights, the United States will collapse. We simply can't afford to have our last bulwark of the law sidelined because of petty bullshit.

So the President and the Senate need to suck it up, strap on a pair, and do what's in the Constitution, fuck all this other nonsense that isn't in there. If they need a reason to explain why they've changed their minds from four years ago, they're welcome to quote me.

The primary concern in regards to the federal government should be what's best for the country and the American people.

Lovely idea -
Since the American People are not anywhere near reaching a consensus on what is "best" for the country and the people -
That's really a fools errand there.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,758
Reaction score
9,990
Points
2,030
You keeping focusing on what GRAHAM said. I am going to focus on what the CONSTITUTION says.
Except that the Constitution doesn't say anything about this situation. There's nothing about times, so all we can do is go with precedent and what people like Graham have said. You're not fooling anyone but the brain dead.
The Constitution says nothing about this situation? I'm pretty sure it does.

Here it is:

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

We have a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Constitution says that the President nominates someone, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, that person is appointed.

Seems pretty clear and simple to me. Where are you getting confused?
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
65,321
Reaction score
22,377
Points
2,290
There is no fucking way you could have read, understood digested and evaluated both of those docs, especially having been written in 18th Century English...and then posted.
Speaking of 'thought crimes'.....
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,749
Reaction score
5,182
Points
290
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?!


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!
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 -
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 -
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!

So nothing.
So nothing.
So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

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!

Well -
you sure that you meant 75 and 76?
They don't appear to buttress your position.
Well -
you sure that you meant 75 and 76?
They don't appear to buttress your position.
You fucking fraud! Seven (7) minutes elapsed between the time I posted and you replied, check out the time stamps!

There is no fucking way you could have read, understood digested and evaluated both of those docs, especially having been written in 18th Century English...and then posted. That is disgusting behavior you Damn Fraud! Hell, your dumb ass didn't even provide an example of your asinine assertion!

So just piss off you bloody fraud!
So was it a different one that you had in mind?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,939
Reaction score
4,362
Points
1,140
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?!


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!
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 -
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 -
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!

So nothing.
So nothing.
So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

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!
What advise and consent did Garland get?
It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.
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?
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,758
Reaction score
9,990
Points
2,030
Did graham acknowledge his mistake and take back his statement? Did any of the other GOPers? Cause I sure as hell didn’t hear any of them stick up for Garland in 2016
Failed attempt to keep focusing on the insignificant / irrelevant. The only thing important is the fact that, as RBG herself stated, a President does not stop being a President his 4th year in office and that A President has the right and OBLIGATION to fill a vacancy.

You keeping focusing on what GRAHAM said. I am going to focus on what the CONSTITUTION says.
I'm going to make a radical suggestion here. Everyone hold onto your seats.

The primary concern in regards to the federal government should be what's best for the country and the American people.

I'll pause for the gasps of shock, horror, and confusion.

The Senate exists to serve the country and the people in it. It does not exist for the Senators to make new friends, or congratulate themselves on how many little collegial handshakes they give out, or how well they follow this or that obscure unwritten rule.

I don't actually give a fuck what previous Senates have done. For the most part, I didn't vote for those people, because I wasn't alive then. I also don't give much of a fuck about "Well, LAST time they did THIS and said THAT!" Last time ain't this time. Different players, different circumstances, over and done and not now. Also, the primary purpose of the Senate and the Senators in it is not to "be consistent in the eyes of the media". Their purpose is to do what's best for the country in THIS time and THESE circumstances. If doing so means you have to live with being called a hypocrite, suck it the fuck up.

We have been through a chaotic and catastrophic year that has brought our nation to the brink of implosion. And now the flaming dumpster fire we have become is tottering its way into a hotly-disputed Presidential election in which one side has vowed to trash anything and everything in its way to get what they want. You think Bush v. Gore was a long, drawn-out, tense mess? Try on the Biden campaign trying an amped-up version of that trick in every single battleground state at once.

Now imagine that with no one having the ability to decide the fight one way or another, because the Supreme Court has an even split (which means no decision is rendered at all).

The American people need a functioning Supreme Court right now. They exist to serve us and the country, as well, and far too often all they do is swan around, lecturing the rest of us on how morally superior they are to us and how we "rubes" need to change the way we live our lives to meet their standards. This one circumstance, though, they are crucial in and we cannot do without them. I don't think it's any exaggeration to say that if the election is allowed to degenerate into endless, unsolvable fights, the United States will collapse. We simply can't afford to have our last bulwark of the law sidelined because of petty bullshit.

So the President and the Senate need to suck it up, strap on a pair, and do what's in the Constitution, fuck all this other nonsense that isn't in there. If they need a reason to explain why they've changed their minds from four years ago, they're welcome to quote me.

The primary concern in regards to the federal government should be what's best for the country and the American people.

Lovely idea -
Since the American People are not anywhere near reaching a consensus on what is "best" for the country and the people -
That's really a fools errand there.
I didn't say anything about the American people reaching any sort of consensus on anything. We don't govern this country by "consensus". We govern by electing representative officeholders who then are supposed to go about the business of the country for the country's best interests, as far as they can determine what that is.

Well, we had elections, didn't we? And we picked the representative officeholders. And now we have business that needs to be tended to, and they need to stop jawing about all this extraneous nonsense that has fuck and all to do with that business, and get the fuck on with it.

Again, seems pretty clear to me.
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,749
Reaction score
5,182
Points
290
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?!


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!
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 -
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 -
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!

So nothing.
So nothing.
So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

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!
What advise and consent did Garland get?
It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.
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 sounds as if you are either agreeing with me, or you're upset that politicians do political things.

Are you upset if a plumber does plumbing things or a car mechanic does car mechanic things?
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
65,321
Reaction score
22,377
Points
2,290
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?!


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!
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 -
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 -
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!

So nothing.
So nothing.
So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

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!
What advise and consent did Garland get?
It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.
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?
You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:

Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'
'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'

Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'


:p
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,758
Reaction score
9,990
Points
2,030
Just as it is within the power of the president to appoint a judge, it is totally within the power of the senate to refuse to confirm them.
That might be the dumbest f*ing thing I hear all day, even dumber than what Slade keeps repeating. Now why in the hell would the GOP want to throw the Democrats - who illegally spied on everyone, conducted a failed political coup attempt, who continued to conduct failed coup attempts, who savagely and immorally put Kavanaugh through hell - a bone and refuse to fill the vacancy?!


Bwuhahahahaha.....
You might want to read that again, it says EXACTLY the opposite of what you think it says.
You are correct, and I apologize. McConnell had an obligation to bring Garland up for hearings. His decision not to falls more under 'Elections have consequences...but who has the votes rule.' The Democrats were kind enough to do away with the filibuster and institute the 'nuclear option, one decision I am sure they now regret.

Judges like Garland and Kavanaugh are unfortunately used and abused - victims of partisan politics.Garland, however, was spared the immoral 'politics of destruction' Kavanaugh was forced to endure.
I disagree. I don't think he had any obligation whatsoever to hold hearings. It wasn't going to happen, and it's not like the Senate has nothing else they need to be doing.
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
28,239
Reaction score
4,312
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
You keeping focusing on what GRAHAM said. I am going to focus on what the CONSTITUTION says.
Except that the Constitution doesn't say anything about this situation. There's nothing about times, so all we can do is go with precedent and what people like Graham have said. You're not fooling anyone but the brain dead.
The Constitution says nothing about this situation? I'm pretty sure it does.

Here it is:

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

We have a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Constitution says that the President nominates someone, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, that person is appointed.

Seems pretty clear and simple to me. Where are you getting confused?
The discussion was about the time aspect. Did you miss that? I suggest you go back and read the whole thread. Shooting from the hip just makes you look foolish. There's NOTHING in the Constitution says that it has to be done before the election, as many Republicans let us know in '16.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,939
Reaction score
4,362
Points
1,140
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?!


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!
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 -
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 -
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!

So nothing.
So nothing.
So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

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!
What advise and consent did Garland get?
It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.
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 sounds as if you are either agreeing with me, or you're upset that politicians do political things.

Are you upset if a plumber does plumbing things or a car mechanic does car mechanic things?
Upset isn’t the right word. I expect politicians to do these things. But that doesn’t mean I think it should get ignored. It should get called out and they should be held accountable. Accountability doesn’t come with silence
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,939
Reaction score
4,362
Points
1,140
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?!


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!
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 -
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 -
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!

So nothing.
So nothing.
So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

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!
What advise and consent did Garland get?
It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.
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?
You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:

Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections''s message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'
'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'

Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'


:p
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 majority
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
65,321
Reaction score
22,377
Points
2,290
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?!


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!
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 -
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 -
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!

So nothing.
So nothing.
So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

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!
What advise and consent did Garland get?
It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.
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 sounds as if you are either agreeing with me, or you're upset that politicians do political things.

Are you upset if a plumber does plumbing things or a car mechanic does car mechanic things?
Upset isn’t the right word. I expect politicians to do these things. But that doesn’t mean I think it should get ignored. It should get called out and they should be held accountable. Accountability doesn’t come with silence
Accountability doesn't come with silence....

....or partisan defense of collusion with foreign spies and enemies in attempted political coups....

...or partisan defense of illegals spying on Americans, reporters, the media, US Senators, USSC Justices....

...or partisan defense of FISA Court crimes for decades...

...or partisan defense of strong-arming / extorting foreign Prime Ministers, selling influence, or facilitating Chinese espionage for decades - as Diane Feinstein was proven to have done...
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
65,321
Reaction score
22,377
Points
2,290
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?!


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!
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 -
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 -
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!

So nothing.
So nothing.
So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

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!
What advise and consent did Garland get?
It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.
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?
You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:

Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections''s message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections''s message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections''s message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'
'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'

Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'


:p
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 majority
Need a f*ing tissue, snowflake? The Democrats have gotten beaten for the last 4 years and are getting beat now because they never thought the GOP had it in them to do what the Democrats have done for decades and are still doing.

We are both grown-ups. You can admit the GOP has gotten the better of the Democrats THIS TIME....but it isn't over....and it will never be over until the American people reign both parties in and retake power, restoring them to their intended & proper place as 'SERVANTS of the people'...& that is going to require a lot of top dirty politicians on both sides being taken down.

Eliminate the partisanship & hold them all equally legally accountable for a change...or lose all hope of saving this country.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,939
Reaction score
4,362
Points
1,140
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?!


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!
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 -
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 -
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!

So nothing.
So nothing.
So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

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!
What advise and consent did Garland get?
It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.
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 sounds as if you are either agreeing with me, or you're upset that politicians do political things.

Are you upset if a plumber does plumbing things or a car mechanic does car mechanic things?
Upset isn’t the right word. I expect politicians to do these things. But that doesn’t mean I think it should get ignored. It should get called out and they should be held accountable. Accountability doesn’t come with silence
Accountability doesn't come with silence....

....or partisan defense of collusion with foreign spies and enemies in attempted political coups....

...or partisan defense of illegals spying on Americans, reporters, the media, US Senators, USSC Justices....

...or partisan defense of FISA Court crimes for decades...

...or partisan defense of strong-arming / extorting foreign Prime Ministers, selling influence, or facilitating Chinese espionage for decades - as Diane Feinstein was proven to have done...
What’s your point?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top