DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... GOP prepares to fight Obama nominee, no matter whom he picks

Damn, politicians don't even care about being this blatant nowadays. Lol jeez

Tulsa, if I'm reading that right, it's simply saying that the president, upon advice (which he can take or not)should nominate (in this case a justice) and that congress can "VEST" (which I take to mean, vote down) any nominee it sees fit.

Now if I have this right, it is exactly what I said in another post. All congress has to do is have a hearing and reject (vote down or vest) the nominee.

Do I have that right? Am I reading the word "Vest" correctly?

I was just curious about who actually appointed judges to the Supreme Court. I thought it was the president and the senate. Come to find out, it's the NRA.

I don't see that in the Constitution either. lol

It means to confer or bestow

I guess now we can refer to that as "The NRA rule".

There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the Senate from seeking the advice or opinions of the NRA and others in the making of their decision to accept, reject, or ignore any nomination from the President.

That dude is out of touch with reality

I agree, there is probably nothing that says they can't seek advice from anyone.. But honestly, The NRA has sooooo much to lose, that the opinion they put forth may ont be good for anyone but them,.

Talk about one sided buffonery

Oh, I do see the Buffonery in your post alright but this is what Mitch actually said...

‘I can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association and the National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB].’

The Buffonery lies with you guys in taking that as saying the NRA is picking the SC Judge.

ummm...that's damn near exactly what he's saying.

unless the NRA approves than it's a nogo.

Yea yea, notice the Buffoonery of you guys never mentioning the NFRB. NRA is the hot ticket item so that is what you libs focus on.

Not born yesterday.
I prefer the facts.

Well, let me try this another way, maybe this will wipe some cobwebs out of your brain or jar something loose.

How about the next republican president nominates a justice in his final year in office and some democratic senator says,, Sorry, but I can't imagine any supreme court justice being acceptable unless we first run it past Planned Parenthood. Would you be ok with that?

40 I get the point you're trying to make but lets face it, this is exactly the reason McConnell shouldn't be in control of a republican led anything. He may think it, fine, but to let that come out of his mouth on a televised show is the height of stupidity.

You have not been paying attention at all as your emotions have gotten the best of you. This is EXACTLY what the Democrats said they would do during Bush's term, hence the "Biden Rule".

"In a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

Tell me exactly what he said, what words came out of his mouth?

Here, let me help you...

‘I can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association and the National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB].’

Nothing stupid there except in the folks who think he said the NRA would pick the SC Judge. People need to learn to COMPREHEND what they are reading.

And yet it never happened.

I don't need to tell you, you know what is being referenced, you're a smart guy, just a little stubborn sometimes.

No, I only know what you think it referenced.

From my reading and rereading what he actually said, he didn't say the NRA would pick the SC Judge.

‘I can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association and the National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB].’

The NRA and the NFIB are big contributors to Republican Senators so I can't imagine they would want to confirm a Judge who is opposed by those two groups.

You're right. It's all about the money.

Now there is some facts!

What did I say before,... Do you remember, I said that when the democrats did it it was wrong and unacceptable.

NOW DAMN IT, answer my freaking question.

If we're in the last year of a republican presidents last term and he had to pick a justice, how would you feel about a Democratic Senator saying, oh, we can't imagine approving anyone for the Supreme Court unless PlanneD Parenthood agreed.

NOW, ANSWER THAT SIMPLE QUESTION.

THAT'S IF YOU GOT THE SACK FOR IT.

Och aye Damanshot I shall show ye the sack!

I would gather my loins and stand before all the Nation and Proclaim in a Strong and Booming voice...

Follow the "Biden Rule!!!"

and I would fully expect them to seek the advice of their allies and as Democrats I would not be surprised if they consorted with Satan himself in their mission of wholesale slaughter of the Human race.

I didn't think you could accept it...and with ever attempt to evade the question, you prove it.

It's a waste of time speaking to someone that can't answer a simple question.

I got nothing else, I'm arguing with someone that doesn't actually have a clue. it would be better if you just use that little sack of yours a slunk away

The 'article' fails to do any such thing. It doesn't even come close to proving that the Senate is acting in a constitutional manner by refusing to engage in the steps prescribed for it. Nor was it even designed to be, as far as I can tell.

I use the word article in quotes because it's not a scholarly publication at all. It's an op-ed by a newspaper editor. He essentially took Hamilton's words regarding the constitution and used them to bolster/legitimize his own take on today's judicial impasse. His 'article' should be considered on equal terms as any one of the posts found in this thread: Pure Opinion.

His "history lesson" certainly outlines the mood and set of the times, but he fails to use those facts in any compelling way to legitimize congress' inaction on this matter of constitutional law. He essentially described Hamilton's aversion to "affording the President kingly powers," but fails to directly tie anything Hamilton actually said to Congress 2016's behavior.

Then, he quotes Hamilton out-of-context:


...and re-interprets the meaning of the sentence to support the point of his editorial.


All this article really said was that the Senate was making it hard for POTUS to get an appointment, and he thinks it's pretty cool. Matter of fact, he decisively steers clear of ANY talk of constitutionality in his op-ed... because he wasn't trying to press a point of law- he was trying to press an opinion about separation of powers.


This was a rather sloppy piece of intellectually lazy journalism. I'm surprised that you referenced it to help outline your take on this subject. Truth is, you were doing a better job than this guy did... and all he managed to do was confuse (not clarify) your point(s)

IMO, you were better off without Seth Lipsky's help.

Tisk tisk tisk Damanshot! It's not the size of the sack that makes one an idiot but the ability to form rational coherent thoughts and use critical thinking to weigh the potential risk of one's actions.

And I know you to be a good person and the same of 40. BUT You would never belittle and autistic child for their ability to communicate on your level or their lack there of; no you would not use harsh words like "SLUNK AWAY LITTLE SACK" in a situation like that. Well my friend, we have to look at the underlying condition here too, 40 is suffering from a temporary disability known as Trumpism.

Trumpism is a disease that makes people orate in nonsensical ways, often expressing belief in whimsical governmental policies involving no thought process, akin to one believing in unicorns. You can easily spot one who suffers from Trumpism as they will be jumping from policy position to policy position so fast they look like they are doing the jitterbug. All the while rationalizing this with statements of denial in ever taking the last positions or making the last comment.

And similar to Tourette syndrome, one might spew racial or hateful rhetoric and fail to realize it even sounds so disgusting. Often employing denial tactics to suppress their own anxiety of being capable of such low brow concepts; they will say "I love the Brown people and they love me" or "I'm thankful for the uneducated, I love uneducated people".

The last symptom and probably the easiest to recognized is the ability to use childish one liner counter attacks that demean or outright slander another as a defense against facing the reality of their own foolishness. There is a deep seeded fear of facing reality once you have fallen into the clutches of Trumpism, because reality would undermine the entire essence of your being.

Fortunately Trumpism doesn't last long, it should subside buy July or November at the very latest. Then we will have our silly comrades back once again believing only in voodoo economics and inactive government. Until then, a thin coating of hot sauce will keep the windows from being licked.

Old, Just get him to answer the simple question.. IT's just that easy.

Am I missing your question or is it that you can not accept my answer? I think I have answered it multiple times.

You asked...
"If we're in the last year of a republican presidents last term and he had to pick a justice, how would you feel about a Democratic Senator saying, oh, we can't imagine approving anyone for the Supreme Court unless PlanneD Parenthood agreed."


I answered...
"I would fully expect them to seek the advice of their allies."

Oh, wait a minute, You and Old Cold One can't understand unless I answer emotionally, I forgot, Libs.

No, I would not like it. How's that?
It is their right but I would not like it.

Ummm, excuse me! The Old Cold One just loves to jerk your chain my friend, I couldn't have cared less about the answer you gave or the question asked But hey I guess I got an answer out of you so Damanshot will be happy

Got nothing but love and respect for you 40, just wish we could fix your political thinking and beers could be in our future! lol Hell might have one with you someday anyway, at a redneck bar of your choosing.

The question you ask about who's job it is a straw man. It is not about who's job it is. It is not about doing a job. It is about a Constitutional process. There should be no political consideration for the court nomination. However, the President has created a political atmosphere and created a hostile relationship with the Republicans. The President has villainized the Republicans and now expects politics to not be involved in the process. As for refusing to meet with the President on a nominee is not the saving grace for the President now that he has created the division between the Senate and the White House. He cannot call a do over and offer an olive branch in order to get his nominee. He gets to live with his actions. The Senate is under no obligation to act at all. Nothing the President can do about the Senate inaction either.





McConnell is not that smart. I will not defend him. However, I believe he means that the people are voting for a President this year and they can make clear their desires. The reasoning for the Senate advise and consent was not as a means to protect the government process. It was devised so as to protect the liberties of the people and the separation of powers both between the states and the Feds but also the different branches of the Federal government. You mention who's job it is. It is not about a job. It is about a process.



Totally irrelevant. Some may think the President is a nut job. I find this statement to be facetious. It may get those who agree with you to feel better but it really has no meaning.




Again irrelevant. I do not understand why you feel this is relevant. Who the person is that is nominated is not important other than what they will rule once approved. Who really cares who is nominated? The only person who cares is the President and the Senate. If you feel you care who the nominee is, you then have politicized the Supreme Court. Any nominee should be for protecting your liberties and freedoms and not acting to enact through judicial ruling the policies unable to be legislated. I understand your point of view. It is not difficult to understand.



Again the problem appears to be the Constitution. The Constitution does not require the Senate to act on some timeline. There is no requirement to give any nominee a hearing. If one wants a up or down vote and does not want to follow the Constitutional process, they do not want a Constitutional Republic.



This is just rhetoric and not worthy to be added to the topic. In fact, I find the entire rational posted in this message to be a straw man.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

So it's the president's fault that he's doing his JOB, which the people elected him to do TWICE?

you're not making a lick of sense.

the people already made their decision on who can pick the next SC judge.

last time i checked, Obama's presidency doesn't end in March 2016.

People elected Bush twice too.

I wouldn't hang my hat on who people vote into power this century.

doesn't matter though bro.

the people elected bush, he has a right to nominated a judge, and the senate needed to do their damn jobs.

Look at the upside. Now we'll have the Biden/McConnell rule and have shared sacrifice.

What I have learned through all of this is that every time a politician makes a statement, we can call it a rule.

As the prez becomes not a rule but a doctrine.

It is an "unwritten Rule" you should never pee in the sink!

I never said anything like that Swish. What I am stating is that it is not the job of anyone to do anything just for the sake of doing something. The Constitution means what it means. It has been twisted to mean what politicians want it to mean for so long that people start to believe it means what the government or politicians says it means.

For example, the First Amendment says you have a right to free speech. However, today in America, you cannot just speak your mind. The government has created "Hate Speech". Political organizations have created the right to not only speak but the right to be heard, ex. Occupy Whatever, Black Lives Matter, Code Pink, etc... They demand they be allowed to speak, protest others speech, interfere with the political process all in the name of Free speech. It is a twisted joke now.

The Right to bear arms. Yet the government has found it upon itself to limit what you can buy. How many you can own. What process you must follow in order to own them. Regulate the creation of arms. Do you see a contradiction here?

Religious freedoms. You can have your religious freedoms as long as they are not practiced in the public square. You can practice your religious beliefs as long as you do not use your faith as a means to make moral judgments upon others... (baking cakes for homosexual weddings). The government has taken upon itself to define what the Constitution means. It no longer protects you from the government. It is a tool to use against the people. There is no Constitutional separation of the Church and state not as it is being used today. I have my religious beliefs and it is not the place of the government to in any way infringe upon my right of conscience or spirituality in any manner. However, the government seems to think that any moral judgment based upon faith is an affront to the government. How ludicrous can that be? I can practice my faith. I just cannot act upon it lest the government comes and imprison or fine me.

Illegal seizures and searches. I need to see your phone records. I need to see your emails. I need to spy on the people of the USA for potential insurrections and terrorism. You no longer have the protects of the 4th Amendment if the government decides you do not. You see no problem here?

The 5th Amendment, the government shall imprison people without a grand jury or take their property without just compensation. The government owns most of the western USA and has no real claim to it. The government imprisons people for drug violations where it really has no business being involved. The government takes private property through the Bureau of Land Management and the citizen has to show why the government should not have possession of the land. Again the Constitution means nothing more than the government says it means.

The 9th Amendment. The exercise of your rights shall not allow you to deny the exercise of the rights of others. This is not even considered by the government today unless of course you consider the government to have rights and it can be used to restrict the rights of the citizenry by claiming the exercising of their rights infringed on the government's rights.

And let us not forget the Tenth Amendment. All powers not delegated by the Constitution nor prohibited by the states are relegated to the States or to the people themselves. The government has no power to act against you unless it has that power delegated by the Constitution. The reason the government finds it hard to act Constitutionally is because the Constitution is meant to limit government not expand it. Your compliance is needed for your own enslavement.

I know this has been a long and tedious post. For that I am sorry. However, what my point is that the Constitution has been twisted and played with by the Feds for decades and centuries. The Constitution states that the President has the right to appoint a Supreme Court judge with the advise and consent of the Senate. It does not state that the President has a power to appoint a nominee and the Senate has a duty to give a hearing and an up or down vote on the President's nominee. This whole notion that the President has a "JOB" to nominate someone and the Senate has a "JOB" to give a hearing to and a vote to that nominee is not only not stated in the Constitution. It is not the intention of the Constitution to give this power to the President. The Constitution is being twisted to mean what politicians want it to mean just as it has with the Bill of Rights.

Voleur

Yer gonna go far, kid.

Now let me check today's rolls...
8 yep 8.
More than enough to get the job done.
Just think of the salary we are saving.
Biden will be pleased.

Hey, this thread fell all the way to page 2 and I felt sorry for it so I thought I would check in...

Its been a while, How many Supreme Court Justices do we have now?

8, and so far there has been two 4-4 decisions that has helped unions and something else liberal....

oh yea, that dumbass lawsuit that nebraska and oklahoma filed against colorado because of weed.

thanks bro.