Oops!!!! Another dim-retard hypocrite surfaces.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

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....

Why? Because Biden says so? Was he lying then, or is he lying now? It's amusing to see how dim-retards squirm and equivocate now that the shoe is on the other foot, and you'd be one of their "#Grubered" minions.

“Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania offered the following paraphrase. The advice and consent clause, he said, would give the Senate the power `to appoint Judges nominated to them by the President.' Was his interpretation correct?

“Well, we can never know for sure, but it seems to be the overwhelming point of view among the scholars. But it is difficult to imagine that after four attempts to exclude the President from the selection process, the Framers intended anything less than the broadest role for the Senate--in choosing the Court and checking the President in every way.

“The ratification debates confirm this conclusion. No one was keener for a strong Executive than Alexander Hamilton. But in Federalist Papers 76 and 77, Hamilton stressed that even the Federalists intended an active and independent role for the Senate.

“In Federalist 76, Hamilton wrote that Senatorial review would prevent the President from appointing justices to be `the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.' And in Federalist 77, he responded to the argument that the Senate's power to refuse confirmation would give it an improper influence over the President by using the following words: `If by influencing the President, be meant restraining him, this is precisely what must have been intended. And it has been shown that the restraint would be salutary. '

“Now, this is the fellow, Hamilton, who argued throughout this entire process that we needed a very strong executive, making the case as to why the Senate was intended to restrain the President and play a very important role.

“Most of all, the Founders were determined to protect the integrity of the courts. In Federalist 78, Hamilton expressed a common concern: `The complete independence of the courts of justice,' he said, `is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.'

“So, in order to preserve an independent Judiciary, the Framers devised three important checks: life tenure, prohibition on reduction in salary and, most important, a self-correcting method of selection. As they relied on the Court to check legislative encroachments, so they relied on the Legislature to check Executive encroachments. In dividing responsibility for the appointment of judges, the Framers were entrusting the Senate with a solemn task: preventing the President from undermining judicial independence and from remaking the Court in his own image. That in the end is why the Framers intended a broad role for the Senate. I think it is beyond dispute from an historical perspective.” Former Senator Joseph Biden, June 25, 1992. (gov)

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

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.

Dim-retard candidates Hildabeast and Sanders are two white septuagenarians who need to be institutionalized for, respectively, criminality and mental infirmity with you, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

[Guest042616-1]

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.

You got me. If you go back 150 years, you can find a case where the senate voted to decrease the size of the SCOTUS rather than approving someone nominated by a president who was eventually impeached. This is pretty much exactly the same as the republicans keeping the seat vacant and refusing to hear any candidates from Obama because it happened with nearly a quarter of his term still left.

Totally makes what the republicans are doing typical and acceptable.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

You got me. If you go back 150 years, you can find a case where the senate voted to decrease the size of the SCOTUS rather than approving someone nominated by a president who was eventually impeached. This is pretty much exactly the same as the republicans keeping the seat vacant and refusing to hear any candidates from Obama because it happened with nearly a quarter of his term still left.

Totally makes what the republicans are doing typical and acceptable.

It's very apparent that you wish to *forget* how you and your ilk went back 240 years to try and make a point, but your problem is your asinine and bogus statement was patently false. BTW, Biden, Schumer and Odumbo's public statements serve to further repudiate your notion of what is "typical and acceptable".

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

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

+1

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's very apparent that you wish to *forget* how you and your ilk went back 240 years to try and make a point, but your problem is your asinine and bogus statement was patently false. BTW, Biden, Schumer and Odumbo's public statements serve to further repudiate your notion of what is "typical and acceptable".

Again, you are right. Totally not nit-picking or, as you would put it, "quibbling" at all. What the republicans are threatening to do is totally normal and typical behavior. I'm glad you were able to convince yourself of that.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Again, you are right. Totally not nit-picking or, as you would put it, "quibbling" at all. What the republicans are threatening to do is totally normal and typical behavior. I'm glad you were able to convince yourself of that.

Actually, former Senator Joe Biden's speech was quite convincing; as noted by Senator Grassley.

“[C]urrent Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), ... set out what he called ‘Biden Rules’: There ought to be no presidential Supreme Court nominations in an election year, and if there is such a nomination, the Senate ought to ‘seriously consider’ not holding hearings on the nominee….

“[Senator] Biden’s remarks were especially pointed, voluminous and relevant to the current situation. Embedded in the roughly 20,000 words he [Biden] delivered on the Senate floor that day were rebuttals to virtually every point Democrats have brought forth in the past week to argue for the consideration of Odumbo’s nominee.

“Biden anticipated, for instance, that he would be accused of blockading an embattled Republican president’s nominees out of political expediency. ‘That would not be our intention,” he said. “Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process.’”
(WaPo)

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

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 must agree with Assup on this. That debate was an embarrassment.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Dim-retard candidates Hildabeast and Sanders are two white septuagenarians who need to be institutionalized for, respectively, criminality and mental infirmity with you, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

I must agree with IB as well. Let's face it. We're screwed. Enjoy life anyway.

[Munchmasterman]

Hey OnlyTook4Words. You don't think well under pressure, do you?

And any time you make a big deal out of a grammatical error or spelling error it's always a tip off you're weak.

So let's get this over with.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Sounds just like blaming Bush. It is alright to do it if democrats did it? Monkey see monkey do.

He asked the question is it alright for repubs to do this if the dems did. No bias for either party there.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

What it means judy, is the right wing blaming dems for doing what they are advocating on doing themselves. Here on this board. Try to keep up.

He is correct. The repubs are advocating doing what the dems have done before. Any questions so far? They are the same so far.

Originally Posted by lustylad

So IvanLittledick - explain why you expect Republicans to observe standards or traditions or principles that the Dems have repeatedly trashed and refused to follow themselves...

if you can... otherwise don't embarrass yourself.

You've embarrassed yourself. Test question time. Using his actual words, explain where you got the idea he expects repubs to observe standards the dems don't.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Thought the republicans were head and shoulders above democrats. Thanks for clearing that up.

You must have said at some point that repubs frequently are in the wrong too. Because that would show a lack of bias. But I'll be damned if I can recall it. We'll go with you are totally biased against the dems. You admit it in the first line of the next post.
Prove me wrong if you want. Links?

Originally Posted by lustylad

They are. But they're not stupid enough to commit hara-kiri. Look at it this way - the Dems will lie and cheat and break any rules to win. You are projecting again. Because you will lie to try and prove you're right. You put words in people's mouths and you ignore things they have said to achieve the results you're looking for.The Repubs are loudly proclaiming - too bad you changed the rules last time... that means we're gonna have to play by your new rules now.

Karma's a bitch, right Ivan?

Or do you think it's ok for the Dems to move the goalposts but not the Republicans?

If you were an honest "Independent" you wouldn't be criticizing the wrong fucking party!

You're losing it again. If you weren't why would you see his questions as criticism? How can both parties doing the same thing be seen as criticism, for one party, when the act is pointed out? He was asking about both parties. You have yet to acknowledge they are the same and continue to claim the dems are the root of all evil.

You are so biased and hate filled your opinions are nothing more than strange footnotes.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

If you could have understood my original post, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it.

Might help if you read the OP.

"It's the good advise that you just didn't take."

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

So independents aren't independent unless they criticize the democrats? The wrong party?
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 feels they can sum up someone's character by who they vote for.

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? Oh my God. A double negative. You finally got on the board with a point

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 ...

Sorry I didn't post a video so you didn't have to actually read. There is a thing called "Google". You can find all kinds of cool things. When you use the link provided, a normal person would see something to the effect of "repubs breaking traditions" or something like that. I'm not going to dumb things down for the video crowd They would read a small portion of the Congressional record indicated and see that the repubs had already, on this particular occasion, used tactics, kind of like the ones currently being considered. There is no judgment as to right or wrong of the tactic. Only that it had occurred. You know douche-bag.
Unbiased.

Originally Posted by lustylad

.

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.No shit sherlock. I go issue by issue. That's why I have no comment on most of the threads. Where as if a thread has negative dem connotations, guess who can't wait to show his biased opinions?
Mr. OnlyTook4Words himself.

PS asshole. Take a look at my next comment in black. The one you used the content and meaning after a touch of rewording. 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?Of course I get it. You put words in people's mouths and make false statements based on words you falsely attribute to the other person.

No rules, remember? If we had to explain things so that you can comprehend then maybe you wouldn't add words and make shit up.
It's our fault, right?


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.How can you respect anyone else when it's obvious from your twisted outlook on life you have no respect for yourself?


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. So you understood what I meant but you still decided to mischaracterize my point of hari-kari and tried to distance yourself from trump. I asked 2 direct questions in the original post and you ignored both. Hara-kiri is the end of the campaign. It can be committed over many different issues. You said they weren't stupid enough to do it. You didn't specify an issue. I did. In other words douche-bag, putting trump on top of the ticket could be stupid. I stated an issue. You didn't


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? It's called Google douche-bag.You're as clueless and inarticulate as IvanLittleOne! Just like Ivan, you post a link and think you made a fucking point. Thank you for proving a key secondary point. You can't see info that's right in front of you. Worse, you aren't smart enough to keep digging for info I claim is there. If for no other reason than to prove it's not. Guess what - nobody knows what your point is, least of all you! Nobody else, huh?
Sorry. If you can't keep up OnlyTook4Words then stay in the sandbox' Or stay here and take your best shots. You're not much of a sparring partner but guess you're better than nothing.

Now fuck off.