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

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
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''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''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.
They need to be held politically accountable as well. It’s not always about pure legality
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
4,993
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?
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
So you agree with Graham and me.
He has a different position and you are holding it against him as he said that you should.
He answers to the votes of South Carolina - only they really matter.
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
4,993
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?
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

I really feel as if this is a fairly minor incident and pales by comparison to normal Democrat abuse.
Dems are fixated because they use the SC to push positions they could never get the people's representatives
(Congress) to pass actual legislation on.
That is a far more significant abuse of power, for certain.
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
4,993
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?
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''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.
The last four years have been a pretty significant effort to move the power back to the people.
One reason President Trump has been so vilified.
 

wamose

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
5,956
Reaction score
4,667
Points
2,015
Location
Pennsylvania
I don't know. Dems. don't seem to have any logic any more. They're only going to use these hearings to make stupid and predictable arguments that they hope will enrage the electorate. There's a good chance they will look like assholes again, just like during the impeachment or the Kavanaugh conformation. But lying and exaggerating isn't as bad as what they did to those two cops in Louisville last night. I'm really getting sick of their violent and destructive ways. MAGA
 
Last edited:

JustAGuy1

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
5,234
Reaction score
3,367
Points
940
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?!


Absolutely.
 

Whodatsaywhodat.

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
822
Reaction score
778
Points
873
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?!


Ask yourself one question, would the DEMOCRATS care one bit what anyone else thought if they were in charge ? No , no they would not . Vote now . No hearings . Screw the democrats, cuz they been screwing America for decades.
 

Diver Diva

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2019
Messages
631
Reaction score
315
Points
870
Location
Florida
If the Dems did what the GOP did then they would be just as wrong. And yes I have little doubt they would have done the same thing. Doesn’t make this situation any different
It's either Constitutional or un-Constititional. There is no "wrong". And expecting the Dems to follow some "rule" is stupid. In fact, I wish McConnell would ditch the filibuster rule now while the GOP has the majority, because the Dems are going to do it first chance they get.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
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
So you agree with Graham and me.
He has a different position and you are holding it against him as he said that you should.
He answers to the votes of South Carolina - only they really matter.
Not sure what part you think I agree with. If it’s that Graham and the others are flaming hypocrites whose words can’t be trusted then yes we agree.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
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''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''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

I really feel as if this is a fairly minor incident and pales by comparison to normal Democrat abuse.
Dems are fixated because they use the SC to push positions they could never get the people's representatives
(Congress) to pass actual legislation on.
That is a far more significant abuse of power, for certain.
I don’t mind conservative judges. Our system is set up to legislate through Congress and not the courts. It’s unfortunate that congress is so bad at their jobs and incapable of getting a respectable amount of work done. These divisive power grab games that the GOP has been pulling for the past 8 years is only making the stagnation worse. At some point you gotta stop blaming everything on the evil Dems and look in the mirror.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
Points
1,140
I don't know. Dems. don't seem to have any logic any more. They're only going to use these hearings to make stupid and predictable arguments that they hope will enrage the electorate. There's a good chance they will look like assholes again, just like during the impeachment or the Kavanaugh conformation. But lying and exaggerating isn't as bad as what they did to those two cops in Louisville last night. I'm really getting sick of their violent and destructive ways. MAGA
When that Nazi killed that girl in Charlottesville would you think it a fair characterization for me to say that I’m sick of these Republicans killing people in the streets?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
Points
1,140
If the Dems did what the GOP did then they would be just as wrong. And yes I have little doubt they would have done the same thing. Doesn’t make this situation any different
It's either Constitutional or un-Constititional. There is no "wrong". And expecting the Dems to follow some "rule" is stupid. In fact, I wish McConnell would ditch the filibuster rule now while the GOP has the majority, because the Dems are going to do it first chance they get.
Sounds like you want to dig the hole deeper instead of trying to crawl out. It’s a shame
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
4,993
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?
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''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''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''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

I really feel as if this is a fairly minor incident and pales by comparison to normal Democrat abuse.
Dems are fixated because they use the SC to push positions they could never get the people's representatives
(Congress) to pass actual legislation on.
That is a far more significant abuse of power, for certain.
I don’t mind conservative judges. Our system is set up to legislate through Congress and not the courts. It’s unfortunate that congress is so bad at their jobs and incapable of getting a respectable amount of work done. These divisive power grab games that the GOP has been pulling for the past 8 years is only making the stagnation worse. At some point you gotta stop blaming everything on the evil Dems and look in the mirror.

Our system is set up to legislate through Congress and not the courts

Unfortunately the Democrats have continually ( and effectively) bypassed using legislation that they knew would never be accepted by mainstream voters, in favor of Judicial fiat.
They have affectively ruled against the majority of the country outside of NYCity and LACounty.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
46,602
Reaction score
8,289
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
Afraid that whatever looney bird is willing to stand for nomination and participate in this travesty might not be up to the standards we should expect of a SC justice? You ought to be.
I prefer the hearings. What do you mean travesty?
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
4,993
Points
290
I don't know. Dems. don't seem to have any logic any more. They're only going to use these hearings to make stupid and predictable arguments that they hope will enrage the electorate. There's a good chance they will look like assholes again, just like during the impeachment or the Kavanaugh conformation. But lying and exaggerating isn't as bad as what they did to those two cops in Louisville last night. I'm really getting sick of their violent and destructive ways. MAGA
When that Nazi killed that girl in Charlottesville would you think it a fair characterization for me to say that I’m sick of these Republicans killing people in the streets?
Not sure that it was a Nazi that killed the girl that wasn't minding her own business, if it was Blame Bernie, Nazi's are socialists.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
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''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''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''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''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''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''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''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''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

I really feel as if this is a fairly minor incident and pales by comparison to normal Democrat abuse.
Dems are fixated because they use the SC to push positions they could never get the people's representatives
(Congress) to pass actual legislation on.
That is a far more significant abuse of power, for certain.
I don’t mind conservative judges. Our system is set up to legislate through Congress and not the courts. It’s unfortunate that congress is so bad at their jobs and incapable of getting a respectable amount of work done. These divisive power grab games that the GOP has been pulling for the past 8 years is only making the stagnation worse. At some point you gotta stop blaming everything on the evil Dems and look in the mirror.

Our system is set up to legislate through Congress and not the courts

Unfortunately the Democrats have continually ( and effectively) bypassed using legislation that they knew would never be accepted by mainstream voters, in favor of Judicial fiat.
They have affectively ruled against the majority of the country outside of NYCity and LACounty.
So have republicans genius. How many executive orders has Trump thrown out? How many times has he been sued for illegally executing his power? Open your eyes. Congress is stagnant and both Obama and Trump got creative to try and make change.

As for judges there are multiple legitimate viewpoints and interpretations of law. It’s important to have all those viewpoints represented by our best people to debate and deliberate in our highest court. Read some of what Scalia and RBG wrote about that. He saw her as an asset not a poison pill despite their differences. It’s a shame you don’t understand why.
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
65,164
Reaction score
21,980
Points
2,290
How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority
They gave the GOP the 'Nuclear Option'......damn, Karma is a bitch! :p
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
Points
1,140
I don't know. Dems. don't seem to have any logic any more. They're only going to use these hearings to make stupid and predictable arguments that they hope will enrage the electorate. There's a good chance they will look like assholes again, just like during the impeachment or the Kavanaugh conformation. But lying and exaggerating isn't as bad as what they did to those two cops in Louisville last night. I'm really getting sick of their violent and destructive ways. MAGA
When that Nazi killed that girl in Charlottesville would you think it a fair characterization for me to say that I’m sick of these Republicans killing people in the streets?
Not sure that it was a Nazi that killed the girl that wasn't minding her own business, if it was Blame Bernie, Nazi's are socialists.
nice try but that spin fell flat
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top