Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Merrick Garland needs to answer one question. "What is your stance on the 2d Amendment"?
Anything short of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", .......show him the door.
I think he'll be like a fish out of water. He'll flip flop on all kinds of issues including the 2nd Amendment until he's on his back gasping for air, at which time we'll all know he's a douche working for the "Man" .
Congress will do what has always been done and if Senator choose to filibuster the nomination, then Obama can cry in his near beer with regrets for doing the same.
Should it be called the revenge of Bork?
The truth of the matter is that you never know what you are going to get once they put those robes on but, if he has ever made a decision that was based on anything other than the constitution and the law that has even the slightest hint of being biased as a liberal, you can bet your ass the Republicans will roll over like they always do and take it firmly up the ass for it is not their ass but ours that will get fucked.
"Elections have consequences"...remember those words if Shillary gets elected. It's actually possible for Repoobs to look stupider than they do now.
And I don't give a shit about Obamacare, Repulicare, we care you care...I'm going on Medicare!!!
You really ought to read what you post: "Elections have consequences". FYI, the Republicans control of the Senate. The Constitution states that a justice can only be appointed with the consent of the Senate. The Constitution doesn't prescribe that the Senate must consent, nor does it stipulate any timeline for consent. And don't forget what the Senate might do during the lame-duck session ... unless Odumbo retracts his nomination before the election.
And here's another dim-retard wanting to enforce the "Biden Rule" eighteen months before the end of W's presidency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eatfibo
We've had this debate already. People point to the fact that 150 years ago they decreased the size of the court temporarily to block the nomination of a president they were about to impeach. So this action by the Republicans is totally reasonable and common.
The reality is that they don't want hearings because then the people of the US will see how reasonable of a choice this is and how qualified he is for the position, and the republicans would have to reveal themselves as the childish partisans they are by blocking him for the next 10 months. It's better for them to pretend that the president shouldn't get to nominate people in the last year of his presidency because some people will slurp this kool-aid down, and then turn around and say how much they love the constitution.
You're a liar, eatbibeau. The example of the 39th Congress was used to repudiate your lie that the Senate had never refused to consider a supreme court nominee.
If the democrats did the same thing (that the republicans are threatening to do), they would absolutely be childish partisans. And I wouldn't put it past them. However, this seems like a pretty hollow criticism considering the nominee that Obama has put forth. He could have nominated someone far left, but he chose a very moderate candidate. He's not acting "partisan" right now, he is acting like someone putting forth a nominee that everyone should reasonably support to have our court at full capacity. . .and we'll see if the republicans choose to act reasonably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
As you said, we've had this debate already...
It never fails to amaze me how you Dimotards think you can say anything anytime and not be held to it down the road...
Here's Crazy Uncle Joe in 1992:
Here's Chucky Schumer in 2007:
Here's Dirty Harry in 2005:
Now who are you gonna believe - eatfido or your lying eyes & ears?
I fail to see which of these videos shows them refusing to even give a nominee a hearing. I won't say they aren't hypocrites, at least in speech, because they absolutely are. But talk is cheap, action is different. But the proof is in the pudding. One has to go back to 150 years to find a similar move. Let's not pretend that the democrats have actually done this any time recently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
I believe the constitution is being followed. its not a question but that the senate has its constitutional privileges
if not, obama should file a lawsuit
that's what the congress or the states or the little sisters of the poor have to do
Sure, they have their privileges, and they probably have the constitutional right to simply avoid the hearing altogether. But if they do so, with such a centrist and well qualified candidate, they aren't doing so because the candidate is bad, but because they want to stick it to Obama. They would be literally hamstringing our government because of partisanship.
If the democrats did the same thing (that the republicans are threatening to do), they would absolutely be childish partisans. And I wouldn't put it past them. However, this seems like a pretty hollow criticism considering the nominee that Obama has put forth. He could have nominated someone far left, but he chose a very moderate candidate. He's not acting "partisan" right now, he is acting like someone putting forth a nominee that everyone should reasonably support to have our court at full capacity. . .and we'll see if the republicans choose to act reasonably.
I fail to see which of these videos shows them refusing to even give a nominee a hearing. I won't say they aren't hypocrites, at least in speech, because they absolutely are. But talk is cheap, action is different. But the proof is in the pudding. One has to go back to 150 years to find a similar move. Let's not pretend that the democrats have actually done this any time recently.
Sure, they have their privileges, and they probably have the constitutional right to simply avoid the hearing altogether. But if they do so, with such a centrist and well qualified candidate, they aren't doing so because the candidate is bad, but because they want to stick it to Obama. They would be literally hamstringing our government because of partisanship.
You seem like a smart fellow, so perhaps you would like to know the reason for the obstructionism, as you describe it.
Conservatives have lost every liberal social issue of the last fifty years. There is nothing left for us in this country if we do not draw a line in the sand, much like William B. Travis did at the Alamo way back when, or we are going to be stuffed further into the pile of shit you liberals have set for us.
You (liberals, not necessarily you in particular) cram shit down our throats and demean us for opposing your programs. You talk down to us like we are uneducated morons. You laugh at and insult us. Is it any wonder we oppose you back with hatred and anger?
You have made the US almost unlivable for us and I'm really surprised any conservative wants to join the army and fight for this country while they indoctrinate you with political correctness and promote inferior people for political reasons to rule over you.
Peaceful succession is my dream. Let us be free. That is change I can believe in.
If the democrats did the same thing (that the republicans are threatening to do), they would absolutely be childish partisans. And I wouldn't put it past them. However, this seems like a pretty hollow criticism considering the nominee that Obama has put forth. He could have nominated someone far left, but he chose a very moderate candidate. He's not acting "partisan" right now, he is acting like someone putting forth a nominee that everyone should reasonably support to have our court at full capacity. . .and we'll see if the republicans choose to act reasonably.
I fail to see which of these videos shows them refusing to even give a nominee a hearing. I won't say they aren't hypocrites, at least in speech, because they absolutely are. But talk is cheap, action is different. But the proof is in the pudding. One has to go back to 150 years to find a similar move. Let's not pretend that the democrats have actually done this any time recently.
Sure, they have their privileges, and they probably have the constitutional right to simply avoid the hearing altogether. But if they do so, with such a centrist and well qualified candidate, they aren't doing so because the candidate is bad, but because they want to stick it to Obama. They would be literally hamstringing our government because of partisanship.
Blow me Fido. Obama and Reid have been been fucking the Republicans and the country with shady actions. Obamacare and imigration. Elections do have consequences. Why would McConnell do Obama any favors? The Senate is under no obligation to give a hearing. They have no constitutional duty to do it. Didn't Obama filibuster judge Alito? Was he acting childish? Is the Biden rule childish? As I said before with citation, the opposing party hasn't confirmed a justice in the last year of a presidency since 1888. But what are you worried about? Wouldn't you prefer Hillary or Bernie pick the next justice? They will propose a lefty jurist. Seems like the Republicans are acting responsible. They don't know who the next POTUS will be. They'll let the electorate decide. Seems fair to me.
Blow me Fido. Obama and Reid have been been fucking the Republicans and the country with shady actions. Obamacare and imigration.
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.
Quote:
Why would McConnell do Obama any favors?
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.
Quote:
The Senate is under no obligation to give a hearing. They have no constitutional duty to do it
You're right, they absolutely do.
Quote:
Didn't Obama filibuster judge Alito? Was he acting childish?
Yes, Alito was a very good candidate who was easily and rightfully confirmed.
Quote:
As I said before with citation, the opposing party hasn't confirmed a justice in the last year of a presidency since 1888.
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.
Quote:
But what are you worried about? Wouldn't you prefer Hillary or Bernie pick the next justice? They will propose a lefty jurist.
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.
Quote:
Seems like the Republicans are acting responsible. They don't know who the next POTUS will be. They'll let the electorate decide. Seems fair to me.
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.
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.
Kennedy was the third nominee from 1987, and Bork had been the first, right, eatbibeau? Guess you'd be a little bit on the hypocritical side if you still wanna talk about "fairness" after you consider what the dim-retards did to Bork, right, eatbibeau? BTW, eatbibeau, W was still president with 18 months left to serve when Schumer advocated blocking any W nominations.
