Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Guest042616-1 · 02-25-2016, 09:38 AM

The reality is that there are hypocrites in speech on this issue on both sides of the aisle when it comes to this.

The reality is also that if the republicans refuse to even have a hearing or even meet with a nominee, and proceed to block it for more than 125 days, they will have done something that has never happened in our history. They will have become the only party, ever, to stop a president from filling a vacancy in the court for such a long period of time.

I'm hoping that they aren't so ridiculous and blatantly obstructionist and at least give his nominee(s) the right to a hearing so that the country can hear their responses and make a decision for themselves whether or not the Republicans are being fair by blocking them.

I B Hankering · 02-25-2016, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatfibo

The reality is that there are hypocrites in speech on this issue on both sides of the aisle when it comes to this.

The reality is also that if the republicans refuse to even have a hearing or even meet with a nominee, and proceed to block it for more than 125 days, they will have done something that has never happened in our history. They will have become the only party, ever, to stop a president from filling a vacancy in the court for such a long period of time.

I'm hoping that they aren't so ridiculous and blatantly obstructionist and at least give his nominee(s) the right to a hearing so that the country can hear their responses and make a decision for themselves whether or not the Republicans are being fair by blocking them.

Your little petty rant is historically wrong. The 39th Congress categorically refused to entertain a solitary nominee from President Andrew Johnson. So take your little Occupy Democrat meme and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

Guest042616-1 · 02-25-2016, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your little petty rant is historically wrong. The 39th Congress categorically refused to entertain a solitary nominee from President Andrew Johnson. So take your little Occupy Democrat meme and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

An indefinite postponement is effectively a rejection. The president can then go pull the nominee and nominate someone else if he wishes, which Jackson decided to not do until after the election. Read that again, it was Jackson who decided not to nominate anyone else, not the Senate blocking any and every nomination. There are plenty of cases of rejecting certain candidates.

On top of that, Jackson also had a candidate confirmed a week before the "postponement" of Taney. Obviously, the exception was with the nominee, Taney, and not with blocking the president from nominating anyone.

The comparison between this case, where the senate postponed a specific candidate and the president chose not to nominate anyone else, to the current case, where a party is outright rejecting any nominee from the president, is weak, at best.

Also, do you realize that you had to go back 181 years to find a strained (at best) comparison? Doesn't that scream at you how unusual this is, especially considering the comparisons almost don't exist at all?

I B Hankering · 02-25-2016, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatfibo

An indefinite postponement is effectively a rejection. The president can then go pull the nominee and nominate someone else if he wishes, which Jackson decided to not do until after the election. Read that again, it was Jackson who decided not to nominate anyone else, not the Senate blocking any and every nomination. There are plenty of cases of rejecting certain candidates.

On top of that, Jackson also had a candidate confirmed a week before the "postponement" of Taney. Obviously, the exception was with the nominee, Taney, and not with blocking the president from nominating anyone.

The comparison between this case, where the senate postponed a specific candidate and the president chose not to nominate anyone else, to the current case, where a party is outright rejecting any nominee from the president, is weak, at best.

Also, do you realize that you had to go back 181 years to find a strained (at best) comparison? Doesn't that scream at you how unusual this is, especially considering the comparisons almost don't exist at all?

You ignorantly quibble about "181 years" when it was your insupportable absolute which embraced a period of 240 years. Hence, anything that happened during your prescribed period of 240 years that is contrary to your absolute invalidates your absolute and makes your absolute false and a lie. Furthermore, Andrew Johnson is NOT Andrew Jackson.

Guest042616-1 · 02-25-2016, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Furthermore, Andrew Johnson is NOT Andrew Jackson. [/SIZE][/COLOR]

My apologies for misreading. But you do realize that he was rejected because congress decided to reduce the number of seats, correct? There was no seat for him to be nominated to. Is congress planning to reduce the number of seats now? Did I miss that?

I B Hankering · 02-25-2016, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatfibo

My apologies for misreading. But you do realize that he was rejected because congress decided to reduce the number of seats, correct? There was no seat for him to be nominated to. Is congress planning to reduce the number of seats now? Did I miss that?

The 39th Congress reduced the number in 1866 AFTER Johnson had made a nomination, Henry Stanbery, and Congress reduced the number of justices to a level (from 10 to 7) that prohibited Johnson from ever again making a nomination during his three years -- THREE YEARS -- he remained as president. After, Johnson left office, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices back to nine. Hence, what you did miss is that it is obvious that Congress DID refuse to consider judicial nominees from a previous president, e.g., President Andrew Johnson, proving your absolute -- and Occupy Democrats' meme -- is historically wrong; thus, propagating otherwise is a lie.

Rey Lengua · 02-25-2016, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The 39th Congress reduced the number in 1866 AFTER Johnson had made a nomination, Henry Stanbery, and Congress reduced the number of justices to a level (from 10 to 7) that prohibited Johnson from ever again making a nomination during his three years -- THREE YEARS -- he remained as president. After, Johnson left office, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices back to nine. Hence, what you did miss is that it is obvious that Congress DID refuse to consider judicial nominees from a previous president, e.g., President Andrew Johnson, proving your absolute -- and Occupy Democrats' meme -- is historically wrong; thus, propagating otherwise is a lie.

ANOTHER lying Shrillary backer on here ? Say it ain't so !!!

lustylad · 02-25-2016, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

So independents aren't independent unless they criticize the democrats? The wrong party?

Allow me to spell it out for you, munchbrain... a true independent criticizes whichever party is in the wrong, issue by issue. When both parties are wrong, an independent criticizes both parties and doesn't take a side. IvanLittleOne is criticizing the GOP alone on an issue where AT BEST both parties are blame-worthy. So IvanLittleOne is not a true independent. Get it now, idiot?

An honest independent knows there's something wrong with all of the parties. They all have their own version of people like you. All parties are made up of individuals. Good ones, bad ones, and assholes like you who feel they can sum up someone's character by who they vote for.

Actually I discerned your complete lack of character without ever asking who you voted for... And since you only find fault with Republicans, by your own definition you're a dishonest partisan asshole.

And you don't think putting donald trump at the top of their ticket isn't committing hara-kiri? Does the name sarah palin ring a bell?

Hey moron, you just put a double negative in your sentence. "You don't think (it) isn't" is another way of saying "You DO think it IS"... think before you write, dipshit. I'm not a trumpster. And elections are not judicial nominations.

Here's a link to what your "independents", I mean, the republicans have done. They're no different.

Congressional Record, V. 150, PT. 13, July 22, 2004 to ...

WTF? Do you work in the Library of Congress now? Do you pore through decades-old copies of the Congressional Record? You're as clueless and inarticulate as IvanLittleOne! Just like Ivan, you post a link and think you made a fucking point. Guess what - nobody knows what your point is, least of all you!

.

i'va biggen · 02-25-2016, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lustylad

.

As usual you are full of shit!!!

lustylad · 02-25-2016, 11:47 PM

The GOP's refusal to consider a nominee makes it unlikely Odumbo will find anyone qualified to nominate. Think about it. Who would accept, knowing they won't be confirmed? Only a hack willing to sacrifice him/herself to help Odumbo and the Dems try to score a political point. And that's not someone who deserves to be on the Supreme Court anyway.

i'va biggen · 02-26-2016, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lustylad

The GOP's refusal to consider a nominee makes it unlikely Odumbo will find anyone qualified to nominate. Think about it. Who would accept, knowing they won't be confirmed? Only a hack willing to sacrifice him/herself to help Odumbo and the Dems try to score a political point. And that's not someone who deserves to be on the Supreme Court anyway.

Or not....
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/2...ull-get-rolled

lustylad · 02-26-2016, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Or not....
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/2...ull-get-rolled

Thanks for making my point, IvanLittleBrain...

"(UPDATE: Sandoval has since said he does not wish to be considered for the high court.)"

Evidently there was no upside for a former Republican Governor of Arizona to seek or accept a nomination for which the confirmation outcome is already a foregone conclusion.

andymarksman · 02-26-2016, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I should seriously consider his remarks mere BS. That works....

Obama will niminate Srikanth Srinivasan, calling McConnell's bluff, and use it to motivate voters in the battleground states....

Yssup Rider · 02-26-2016, 08:53 AM

After last night's display of statesmanship at the Houston debate, it is apparent that the GOP doesn't have a single grown-up to offer voters.

Trump, KKKruz and Rufio.

Not one of them will lead America or command the respect of the world.

So you keep squealing and bawling. This shit's over before it starts.

i'va biggen · 02-26-2016, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lustylad

Thanks for making my point, IvanLittleBrain...

"(UPDATE: Sandoval has since said he does not wish to be considered for the high court.)"

Evidently there was no upside for a former Republican Governor of Arizona to seek or accept a nomination for which the confirmation outcome is already a foregone conclusion.

You are welcome Adolph.