The Supreme Court

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

 

From dire, above:

"It [the Constitution]says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” 

_____________________________________________

More smoke from you dire.  The Senate itself has adopted what is the sole existing process by which it advises and consents re the Presidential nominee for SCOTUS and that process requires a HEARING and the hearing will result in a VOTE and if the VOTE is to send the nominee's name to the full Senate, then there will be another VOTE. If the Senate refuses to implement the sole modality by which its advice and consent are to be effected, then the  Senate fails to carry out its Constitutionally-prescribed duty. Is there something about "shall be made" that you fail to understand?

I've presented statements by Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid to the contrary.  Obama contributed to a filibuster of Alito, which he now says he regrets. Contenduhh, take your argument up with those persons, not me.  Ask them were they lying then, or are they lying now.  For Dems its situational ethics, 24/7.  When opposing Republcans, anything is fair.  When, its their ox being gored, its not. Hypocrites, much!

_____

Cite all the past actions of Democrats or Republicans on this issue that you can dig  up and none of it will change what the Constitution prescribes and what the Senate itself has adopted to implement the appointment of justices to SCOTUS.  Just try to take the high road for once, dire and acknowledge that at the very least, the Senate is obliged to convene a hearing.  As to the voting from that point on, let the chips fall, but to deny a hearing is un-Constitutional. End of story.

The sad floundering of a Democrat faced with his own party's imbecilic statements.

We have educated ourselves to imbecility -- Malcom Muggeridge.  I suspect the good Welshman was pondering the Labour Party.

____

Dire, your deflection and smoke-screening seem to worsen with each occasion of your being pinned down. Pitiful and incompetent! Vagueness and caustic generalities don't of the job.

I've given you hard evidence, quotes from prominent Democrats within the Senate, one now VP, that they considered what the Republicans are now doing as fully appropriate.  If you fail to comprehend this or desire to deflect with wordiness, with no meaning as indicative of the above sentence I understand. Don't you realize anyone can see thru your silly rant? 

___

In all that fluff and all your prior fluff, you refuse to deal with the Constitutional issue and instead you substitute a litany of grievances against Democrats who in various ways opposed SCOTUS nominees.  This is not about WHO was right or wrong in past actions, dire; it is an issue of what the Constitution actually and factually requires and you refuse  address the constitutional issue in its pure and plain essence.  When, if ever, will you run out of smoke?

Contenduhh, you must really be thick today. I've stated that nothing the Republicans are doing in the Senate is against the Constituiton. Nor, is there anything in the Constitution to punish or force them into the action they have chosen, other than the will of the voters.

_____

Thus you "have stated."  But get this, dire--you may state all you wish on any subject you wish to "state" about.  But stating that a thing is so does not make it so.

Below is what I posted that you have simply ignored; try again:

The Senate itself has adopted what is the sole existing process by which it advises and consents re the Presidential nominee for SCOTUS and that process requires a HEARING and the hearing will result in a VOTE and if the VOTE is to send the nominee's name to the full Senate, then there will be another VOTE. If the Senate refuses to implement the sole modality by which its advice and consent are to be effected, then the  Senate fails to carry out its Constitutionally-prescribed duty. Is there something about "shall be made" that you fail to understand?"

Now make some honest effort to tell me just where anything I have said in the above analysis is incorrect and you will have actually PARTICIPATED in the discussion of this issue instead of simply shrugging it off.

There is no thickness in what I posted.  It is a clear and forthright analysis. Let's now have your clear and forthright rebuttal   Surely your smoke supply is getting low. 

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

 

From dire, above:

"It [the Constitution]says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” 

_____________________________________________

More smoke from you dire.  The Senate itself has adopted what is the sole existing process by which it advises and consents re the Presidential nominee for SCOTUS and that process requires a HEARING and the hearing will result in a VOTE and if the VOTE is to send the nominee's name to the full Senate, then there will be another VOTE. If the Senate refuses to implement the sole modality by which its advice and consent are to be effected, then the  Senate fails to carry out its Constitutionally-prescribed duty. Is there something about "shall be made" that you fail to understand?

I've presented statements by Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid to the contrary.  Obama contributed to a filibuster of Alito, which he now says he regrets. Contenduhh, take your argument up with those persons, not me.  Ask them were they lying then, or are they lying now.  For Dems its situational ethics, 24/7.  When opposing Republcans, anything is fair.  When, its their ox being gored, its not. Hypocrites, much!

_____

Cite all the past actions of Democrats or Republicans on this issue that you can dig  up and none of it will change what the Constitution prescribes and what the Senate itself has adopted to implement the appointment of justices to SCOTUS.  Just try to take the high road for once, dire and acknowledge that at the very least, the Senate is obliged to convene a hearing.  As to the voting from that point on, let the chips fall, but to deny a hearing is un-Constitutional. End of story.

The sad floundering of a Democrat faced with his own party's imbecilic statements.

We have educated ourselves to imbecility -- Malcom Muggeridge.  I suspect the good Welshman was pondering the Labour Party.

____

Dire, your deflection and smoke-screening seem to worsen with each occasion of your being pinned down. Pitiful and incompetent! Vagueness and caustic generalities don't of the job.

I've given you hard evidence, quotes from prominent Democrats within the Senate, one now VP, that they considered what the Republicans are now doing as fully appropriate.  If you fail to comprehend this or desire to deflect with wordiness, with no meaning as indicative of the above sentence I understand. Don't you realize anyone can see thru your silly rant? 

___

In all that fluff and all your prior fluff, you refuse to deal with the Constitutional issue and instead you substitute a litany of grievances against Democrats who in various ways opposed SCOTUS nominees.  This is not about WHO was right or wrong in past actions, dire; it is an issue of what the Constitution actually and factually requires and you refuse  address the constitutional issue in its pure and plain essence.  When, if ever, will you run out of smoke?

Contenduhh, you must really be thick today. I've stated that nothing the Republicans are doing in the Senate is against the Constituiton. Nor, is there anything in the Constitution to punish or force them into the action they have chosen, other than the will of the voters.

_____

Thus you "have stated."  But get this, dire--you may state all you wish on any subject you wish to "state" about.  But stating that a thing is so does not make it so.

Below is what I posted that you have simply ignored; try again:

The Senate itself has adopted what is the sole existing process by which it advises and consents re the Presidential nominee for SCOTUS and that process requires a HEARING and the hearing will result in a VOTE and if the VOTE is to send the nominee's name to the full Senate, then there will be another VOTE. If the Senate refuses to implement the sole modality by which its advice and consent are to be effected, then the  Senate fails to carry out its Constitutionally-prescribed duty. Is there something about "shall be made" that you fail to understand?"

Now make some honest effort to tell me just where anything I have said in the above analysis is incorrect and you will have actually PARTICIPATED in the discussion of this issue instead of simply shrugging it off.

There is no thickness in what I posted.  It is a clear and forthright analysis. Let's now have your clear and forthright rebuttal   Surely your smoke supply is getting low. 

Contehduhh, continue with this childish behavior, if you must. I've given my opinion, as well as, the fact that there is nothing to force the Senate to do otherwise than their present position -- which reflects the position of previous and present Democrat Senators. 

Do you claim there is a penumbra in the Constitution that would allow the President to swear in his choice, if the Senate refuses to act? Or, to send in armed agents of the Executive Branch to the Senate to force a vote?  Otherwise, that's it.

jtdavis posted:

Dire, you gave opinions, not facts                                                                                            ==================================

Selective memory? Oh my God, are you serious? Just answer our question.

Mr Gifted, I asked the question                                                                                                      ====================

Best, same old make somebody look bad slur. Of course I don't expect anything better from you.

 

 

Jt, YOU make yourself look bad with your asinine posts, and your refusal to answer questions while you insist you did. YOU do it to yourself. As for "slurs", you sling them pretty good yourself and what you send out you get back. Why do you think your slurs don't count?

Bestworking posted:

Ha!

Bestworking posted:

_

Ha!

To answer that question:  Yes, Trump is a narcissist with no political experience.

As further information:

<<<Barack Obama served in the Illinois State Senate for eight years representing a liberal district in Chicago.

He was chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Foundation and was in charge of fifty million dollars in grants for schools.

He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House of Representatives. Although Jesse Jackson Jr was the logical Democratic candidate for an open seat in the U.S. Senate, JJ Sr had antagonized a lot of downstate Illinois and JJ Jr gave his endorsement for Obama to run. Jack Ryan, the Republican candidate initially had a big lead in the polls but had to drop out of the race when details from his divorce from Jeri Ryan became public. Alan Keyes, the last minute Republican replacement, had neither the name recognition needed in Illinois nor the support to mount a credible campaign and Obama won in a landslide. Barack

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 and has served 8 years from January 1996 to January 2005 when he began serving in the US Senate. Less than two years after being elected to the US Senate, he started an exploratory committee to run for President, after his first book was promoted by Oprah Winfrey. He was appointed by the US Senate to various committees, including the Foreign Relations, Homeland Security, and Veteran Affairs committees.

Barack Obama has sponsored 121 bills in the US Senate since Jan 24, 2005. Obama has co-sponsored 490 bills in the US Senate during the same time period.>>>

And when I voted for him the second time, he had added other experience, namely four years as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! That does count and "political experience," does it not?

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_..._nomination_campaign

Contendahh posted:

Bestworking posted:

_

Ha!

To answer that question:  Yes, Trump is a narcissist with no political experience.

As further information:

<<<Barack Obama served in the Illinois State Senate for eight years representing a liberal district in Chicago.

He was chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Foundation and was in charge of fifty million dollars in grants for schools.

He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House of Representatives. Although Jesse Jackson Jr was the logical Democratic candidate for an open seat in the U.S. Senate, JJ Sr had antagonized a lot of downstate Illinois and JJ Jr gave his endorsement for Obama to run. Jack Ryan, the Republican candidate initially had a big lead in the polls but had to drop out of the race when details from his divorce from Jeri Ryan became public. Alan Keyes, the last minute Republican replacement, had neither the name recognition needed in Illinois nor the support to mount a credible campaign and Obama won in a landslide. Barack

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 and has served 8 years from January 1996 to January 2005 when he began serving in the US Senate. Less than two years after being elected to the US Senate, he started an exploratory committee to run for President, after his first book was promoted by Oprah Winfrey. He was appointed by the US Senate to various committees, including the Foreign Relations, Homeland Security, and Veteran Affairs committees.

Barack Obama has sponsored 121 bills in the US Senate since Jan 24, 2005. Obama has co-sponsored 490 bills in the US Senate during the same time period.>>>

And when I voted for him the second time, he had added other experience, namely four years as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! That does count and "political experience," does it not?

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_..._nomination_campaign

 

Jesse Jackson Jr went to the Big House.  Obama went to the WH. Where after four years of experience, he still exhibits the same dynamic combination of arrogance and incompetence.  Like the old House of Bourbon, he forgot nothing and he learned nothing.

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

Bestworking posted:

_

Ha!

To answer that question:  Yes, Trump is a narcissist with no political experience.

As further information:

<<<Barack Obama served in the Illinois State Senate for eight years representing a liberal district in Chicago.

He was chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Foundation and was in charge of fifty million dollars in grants for schools.

He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House of Representatives. Although Jesse Jackson Jr was the logical Democratic candidate for an open seat in the U.S. Senate, JJ Sr had antagonized a lot of downstate Illinois and JJ Jr gave his endorsement for Obama to run. Jack Ryan, the Republican candidate initially had a big lead in the polls but had to drop out of the race when details from his divorce from Jeri Ryan became public. Alan Keyes, the last minute Republican replacement, had neither the name recognition needed in Illinois nor the support to mount a credible campaign and Obama won in a landslide. Barack

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 and has served 8 years from January 1996 to January 2005 when he began serving in the US Senate. Less than two years after being elected to the US Senate, he started an exploratory committee to run for President, after his first book was promoted by Oprah Winfrey. He was appointed by the US Senate to various committees, including the Foreign Relations, Homeland Security, and Veteran Affairs committees.

Barack Obama has sponsored 121 bills in the US Senate since Jan 24, 2005. Obama has co-sponsored 490 bills in the US Senate during the same time period.>>>

And when I voted for him the second time, he had added other experience, namely four years as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! That does count and "political experience," does it not?

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_..._nomination_campaign

 

Jesse Jackson Jr went to the Big House.  Obama went to the WH. Where after four years of experience, he still exhibits the same dynamic combination of arrogance and incompetence.  Like the old House of Bourbon, he forgot nothing and he learned nothing.

______

We now have your predictably caustic and distorted opinion on record which, when accompanied by a dollar or so at some cheap lunch counter, will get you a lukewarm cup of inferior coffee.

I haven't read and studied every word on this subject. It seems to me that some wants the senate to be run by what a democratic senator said 10 years ago. Some wants to force senate acceptance right now. What is wrong with following the constitution?

jtdavis posted:

I haven't read and studied every word on this subject. It seems to me that some wants the senate to be run by what a democratic senator said 10 years ago. Some wants to force senate acceptance right now. What is wrong with following the constitution?

You are so clueless. That's your problem, you don't "read or study" you just go on what the gimmethats tell you to think. Gifted gave you the perfect answer, but because you didn't like it, you stay on your own silly course.

Not at all, Jt. The rule is, if it's legal, and Republicans choose to do it, how can Democrats protest when they have done the same? I know being fair never enters a Democrat's thoughts, but  try to think of it like Dems "playing fair and not being hypocritical" about it. You did it when it was your turn, how can you complain now?

jtdavis posted:

I haven't read and studied every word on this subject. It seems to me that some wants the senate to be run by what a democratic senator said 10 years ago. Some wants to force senate acceptance right now. What is wrong with following the constitution?

You either understand, exactly, which would make you a hypocrite. Or, you truly don't understand, which would make you clueless.  Either way, no use talking to you about this anymore. 

direstraits posted:

jtdavis posted:

I haven't read and studied every word on this subject. It seems to me that some wants the senate to be run by what a democratic senator said 10 years ago. Some wants to force senate acceptance right now. What is wrong with following the constitution?

You either understand, exactly, which would make you a hypocrite. Or, you truly don't understand, which would make you clueless.  Either way, no use talking to you about this anymore. 

He understands. How could even jt not understand? He's in his "game". He doesn't like the answer so he goes into his game.

What is wrong with following the constitution?

Dire and Best, what is wrong with following the constitution? Will either of you answer? Can either of you answer?

There is no constitutional time limit set on filling the positions in the court; that is why politicians of both parties get away with creating a backlog of vacancies in the court. For some, stonewalling nominations might be seen as fulfilling their oath of office to defend the Constitution from those who would turn it into just a suggestion.

jtdavis posted:

What is wrong with following the constitution?

Dire and Best, what is wrong with following the constitution? Will either of you answer? Can either of you answer?

We did answer, Gifted answered, you didn't like it so now you're "in your game".

The Hypocrite In Chief

We did answer, Gifted answered, you didn't like it so now you're "in your game".

Kindly take time to tell which post answered, "why not follow the constitution". I know you won't answer because you can't find where the question was answered

jtdavis posted:

We did answer, Gifted answered, you didn't like it so now you're "in your game".

Kindly take time to tell which post answered, "why not follow the constitution". I know you won't answer because you can't find where the question was answered

The answer in there, at least twice.  I don't know what you studied in school, but you do know that drawing a conclusion is not something one learns in art class.

direstraits posted:

jtdavis posted:

We did answer, Gifted answered, you didn't like it so now you're "in your game".

Kindly take time to tell which post answered, "why not follow the constitution". I know you won't answer because you can't find where the question was answered

The answer in there, at least twice.  I don't know what you studied in school, but you do know that drawing a conclusion is not something one learns in art class.

_____

JT, if he could answer, he would; he can't; so he doesn't. Standard dire smokes-creening and smart-alecky dodging.

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

jtdavis posted:

We did answer, Gifted answered, you didn't like it so now you're "in your game".

Kindly take time to tell which post answered, "why not follow the constitution". I know you won't answer because you can't find where the question was answered

The answer in there, at least twice.  I don't know what you studied in school, but you do know that drawing a conclusion is not something one learns in art class.

_____

JT, if he could answer, he would; he can't; so he doesn't. Standard dire smokes-creening and smart-alecky dodging.

I and others, have pointed out the Constitution is being followed.  If JT and you can't understand that, its your fault, not ours.

The answer in there, at least twice.

 I and others, have pointed out the Constitution is being followed.  If JT and you can't understand that, its your fault, not ours.

Dire, those were your last two posts. In reality, there have been no posts claiming the constitution was being followed. There has been several posts telling that the republicans are following procedure as democratic senators stated years ago. A democratic senators words don't change the constitutions words. There has been 8 posts that was slurs, there has been 4 posts wanting the constitution followed, there has been 14 posts stating the constitution need not be followed. Dire, you posted 11 of those.