Supreme Court Nominee

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

These people understood the question better than you did, chicken dick the retarded chimp.
http://news.yahoo.com/key-republican...1&noRedirect=1

You're too damn stupid to understand that the Senate has until January to consider or not consider Garland, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. There's no reason to rush anything, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

FFS, on this very issue, McConnell is a huge hypocrite... He also wrote early in his career (quoting someone else) "ideology of the nominee is the responsibility of the president. The Senate’s judgment should be made, therefore, solely upon the grounds of qualifications.”

Was that statement made before or after Bork? If you Dimotards hadn't moved the goalposts, McConnell and the Republicans would still be playing by those rules!

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're too damn stupid to understand that the Senate has until January to consider or not consider Garland, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. There's no reason to rush anything, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

You are so stupid that you keep babbling about this year, when the question was about next year. Remove head from ass, chimp.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

The ACA was voted on by the legislature, and passed, signed by the president and upheld by courts. To claim that this was some kind of partisanship bypassing the republicans doesn't make any sense. Especially considering that Obama started with a moderate position on the ACA, instead of starting from single payer. The vague reference to "immigration" can't really be addressed properly.


This is the problem. You think of filling open seats in the court as doing "Obama a favor" when, in reality, it is doing our country a favor. The problem with 8 justices is that it has the possibility of leading to "hung" decisions that set no precedent and simply uphold the lower court's ruling. This leaves questions unnecessarily open for a longer time.


You're right, they absolutely do.


Yes, Alito was a very good candidate who was easily and rightfully confirmed.


Not true. Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, Reagan's last year of presidency, by a democratically controlled Senate, with a vote of 97-0. He wasn't nominated in the last year, but he absolutely was confirmed in the last year. Winning the overwhelming majority of democratic votes.

But it is a silly point never-the-less because there were no cases since 1900 of seat being left unfilled until after the election because it was an election year.

On that note, you would have to go back before 1900 to find anything close to a case where a nomination was held up for 8 months.


No. I think they should follow the precedence of the last 100+ years and give him his hearing, and then an up or down vote. If someone wants to filibuster it, they can go ahead because the democrats have done that recently and thus there is (bad) precedence for that.


Obama is still president. It is still the president's pick. The electorate already decided who they want to be in charge of such choices when they elected Obama. The Republicans are taking that out of the electorate's hand because Obama cannot serve as president again, so no one could vote for him if they wanted him to pick it.

A few errors: Obamacare was written by the White House. Afterwards, the fees were described as TAXES. Only the House can originate tax law. Parts of it were upheld by the courts but only by changing some definitions (like fees becoming taxes). In courts past, if the entire law cannot be upheld then the entire law was thrown out. The court did not work to force a square peg into a round hole.

A choice for Supreme Court Justice is up to the Senate and not the White House. Think of it like two separate but equal partners; one can bring up a choice but the other has absolute veto power. In this case the president has the option of nominating anyone he wants to the office but it is completely and absolutely up to the Senate if they actually move into the office.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

A few errors: Obamacare was written by the White House. Afterwards, the fees were described as TAXES. Only the House can originate tax law. Parts of it were upheld by the courts but only by changing some definitions (like fees becoming taxes). In courts past, if the entire law cannot be upheld then the entire law was thrown out. The court did not work to force a square peg into a round hole.

A choice for Supreme Court Justice is up to the Senate and not the White House. Think of it like two separate but equal partners; one can bring up a choice but the other has absolute veto power. In this case the president has the option of nominating anyone he wants to the office but it is completely and absolutely up to the Senate if they actually move into the office.

The big joke was the Obama Administration spent countless waking hours explaining to voters why none of this WAS a tax.
But SCOTUS reminded Congress that it had the power to raise revenue by taxes, but not by fines, fees, or any other method not laid out in the Constitution.

So, the simple solution......Just change the wording. Bingo. All of the fines, fees, and mandates are really taxes.

Thank you, Chief Justice Roberts. You actually violated the Constitution when you "made law" by changing a Bill to suite the needs of the moment.

[CuteOldGuy]

There is nothing in the Constitution or other law that mandates a time frame for the Senate to perform its "advise and consent" duties.

I'll bet LittleLiberalEva didn't "no" that!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

The ACA was voted on by the legislature, and passed, signed by the president and upheld by courts. To claim that this was some kind of partisanship bypassing the republicans doesn't make any sense.

You're kidding, right? Or are you deliberately trying to spread misinformation again? You do know anyone can look up the ACA voting record, right?

Not a single Republican in the House or Senate cast a vote for the ACA. And you say they weren't bypassed and the vote wasn't partisan?

WTF???


House Vote........Yes........No

Democrats........219........34
Republicans..........0......178


Senate Vote.......Yes........No........Abstain

Democrats..........58......... 0
Republicans..........0........39............1
Independent.........2......... 0

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Republicans are currently in charge, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, and will be until at least next January, you ridiculously moronic jackass. Regardless of what happens in the election, the Republicans still have a lame-duck session before any new president takes office, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. In the event the Republicans do capture additional Senate seats, they can damn well tell a dim-retard president to take his nominees and go to hell, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.




+1

"[C]urrently [Hildabeast has a FBI investigation and] at least 38 lawsuits, including one filed by The Associated Press."

Wouldn't ya know it'd be Ekim posting about " going down " !!!!! He sure DID learn something more than dingle berry picking ( with his ONE tooth ! ) and " grass roots efforts " from his hero and mentor, woomby !

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

How do you know republicans will be in charge dildo breath? They may go down with Trump.

But NOT like YOU will go down on Babblin Bernie, hey EKIM !!!! Pick THOSE dingle berries !!

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Lol! Sounds like Prolapse is a closet il Duce sympathizer. No love for the political class.

The Hildabeast set a record for miles logged on the taxpayers' dime as SOS. Did she do any real work? Oh yeah, she protected our people in Libya!

But, but, but Shrillary SAID that there were NO deaths in Libya ! And she dodged sniper fire in Kosovo ! Gotta be true right ? Let's ask the resident Clinton expert, Lil Cotex ( Mr. " Triple Crown ! ) 'bout THAT record !!!!!! Mebbe she could do with some of Lil Cotex's polling " expertise " !!!

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by bambino

And another thing Fido, just as the Biden rule has come back to kick Obama in the balls, Reid's dirty move on the ACA will too. What about this don't you understand? You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

And I hope the sword is dull and rusty on the day they hack his, Ekim, assup and Lil Cotex's " nads off ! But, out of( ahem ) real concern, I hope that the sword bearer will pour alcohol on the wound immediately to prevent infection on them.......................... ...THEN LIGHT IT !!!! :roflmao : cauterizing, YA KNOW !!!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You are so stupid that you keep babbling about this year, when the question was about next year. Remove head from ass, chimp.

The Republicans are currently in charge, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, and will be until at least next January, you ridiculously moronic jackass. The Republicans still have multiple options regardless of what happens in the election, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans still have a lame-duck session before any new president takes office, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. In the event the Republicans manage to capture additional Senate seats, they can damn well tell any potential dim-retard president to take his nominees and go to hell, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Was that statement made before or after Bork? If you Dimotards hadn't moved the goalposts, McConnell and the Republicans would still be playing by those rules!

+1

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

A few errors: Obamacare was written by the White House. Afterwards, the fees were described as TAXES. Only the House can originate tax law. Parts of it were upheld by the courts but only by changing some definitions (like fees becoming taxes). In courts past, if the entire law cannot be upheld then the entire law was thrown out. The court did not work to force a square peg into a round hole.

A choice for Supreme Court Justice is up to the Senate and not the White House. Think of it like two separate but equal partners; one can bring up a choice but the other has absolute veto power. In this case the president has the option of nominating anyone he wants to the office but it is completely and absolutely up to the Senate if they actually move into the office.

+1

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The big joke was the Obama Administration spent countless waking hours explaining to voters why none of this WAS a tax.
But SCOTUS reminded Congress that it had the power to raise revenue by taxes, but not by fines, fees, or any other method not laid out in the Constitution.

So, the simple solution......Just change the wording. Bingo. All of the fines, fees, and mandates are really taxes.

Thank you, Chief Justice Roberts. You actually violated the Constitution when you "made law" by changing a Bill to suite the needs of the moment.

+1

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There is nothing in the Constitution or other law that mandates a time frame for the Senate to perform its "advise and consent" duties.

I'll bet LittleLiberalEva didn't "no" that!

+1

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're kidding, right? Or are you deliberately trying to spread misinformation again? You do know anyone can look up the ACA voting record, right?

Not a single Republican in the House or Senate cast a vote for the ACA. And you say they weren't bypassed and the vote wasn't partisan?

WTF???


House Vote........Yes........No

Democrats........219........34
Republicans..........0......178


Senate Vote.......Yes........No........Abstain

Democrats..........58......... 0
Republicans..........0........39............1
Independent.........2......... 0

+1

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Wouldn't ya know it'd be Ekim posting about " going down " !!!!! He sure DID learn something more than dingle berry picking ( with his ONE tooth ! ) and " grass roots efforts " from his hero and mentor, woomby !

+1

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Yeah, yeah, everybody does it so it's no biggie, right?

No. But your double-standard seems backwards consider we are talking about the words of the democrats vs the actions of the republicans.

The difference is when you point out an inconsistency on the right, it bothers them and they try to fix it.

You are getting worked up by what some democrats have said hypocritically, while you have completely ignored what republicans actually have done hypocritically.

But, I guess, from this statement you believe that the republicans should and will give him a vote? Because unless McConnell thinks Kennedy should be removed from the court and revoted on, that is the only way to fix this blatant hypocrisy of his.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Was that statement made before or after Bork? If you Dimotards hadn't moved the goalposts, McConnell and the Republicans would still be playing by those rules!

The democrats have never done this. That's what you don't seem to understand. They huffed and puffed, but have done nothing. You can claim that it is because they never had the opportunity, but the reality is that you don't know what they would have done. If they follow through, the republicans will be the ones moving the goal post. If they follow through with this, it will be McConnell not only talking, but acting hypocritically as well.

And I would like to note, again, that Obama has reached across the aisle and instead of offering up a left candidate for the position, he offered up a centrist. Obama, once again, has compromised and, once again, due to childish partisanship, the republicans are knee-capping our government instead of doing what is best for us all and giving the candidate their up or down vote and, as McConnell said, voting on whether or not they qualified for the position, not on the fact that they don't like the president.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

What will your ilk do if Hillary is elected, and nominates a real liberal???

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There is nothing in the Constitution or other law that mandates a time frame for the Senate to perform its "advise and consent" duties.

I'll bet LittleLiberalEva didn't "no" that!

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;1057927540]The Republicans are currently in charge, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, and will be until at least next January, you ridiculously moronic jackass. The Republicans still have multiple options regardless of what happens in the election, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans still have a lame-duck session before any new president takes office, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. In the event the Republicans manage to capture additional Senate seats, they can damn well tell any potential dim-retard president to take his nominees and go to hell, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.




Neither of you brain dead clowns apparently could understand the question, so fuck off with your dim comments.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

No. But your double-standard seems backwards consider we are talking about the words of the democrats vs the actions of the republicans.


You are getting worked up by what some democrats have said hypocritically, while you have completely ignored what republicans actually have done hypocritically.

But, I guess, from this statement you believe that the republicans should and will give him a vote? Because unless McConnell thinks Kennedy should be removed from the court and revoted on, that is the only way to fix this blatant hypocrisy of his.


The democrats have never done this. That's what you don't seem to understand. They huffed and puffed, but have done nothing. You can claim that it is because they never had the opportunity, but the reality is that you don't know what they would have done. If they follow through, the republicans will be the ones moving the goal post. If they follow through with this, it will be McConnell not only talking, but acting hypocritically as well.

And I would like to note, again, that Obama has reached across the aisle and instead of offering up a left candidate for the position, he offered up a centrist. Obama, once again, has compromised and, once again, due to childish partisanship, the republicans are knee-capping our government instead of doing what is best for us all and giving the candidate their up or down vote and, as McConnell said, voting on whether or not they qualified for the position, not on the fact that they don't like the president.

I don't understand why you think it is so important that they didn't get the chance to do something monumental that they said they would do? So if Trump threatens to do something but doesn't get the chance, do you give him a free pass?