Yertle the Turtle on the upcoming SCOTUS nomination

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're an idiot. And you don't pay attention. Probably spending too much time with AssupTrump.

When will you write a review?

[CuteOldGuy]

You can't even copy and paste correctly. LittleEva, you need help.

[i'va biggen]

Hummm, was there yesterday dull knife sorry you missed it.

[i'va biggen]

Turtle you are up.
http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/...rt-nomination/

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Turtle you are up.
http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/...rt-nomination/

Your lame-ass article's authors are biased Odumbo appointees and dim-retards, like you, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. FYI, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, no where in the Constitution does it dictate or prescribe a timeline for Congress to follow when considering a judicial nominee.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your lame-ass article's authors are biased Odumbo appointees and dim-retards, like you, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. FYI, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, no where in the Constitution does it dictate or prescribe a timeline for Congress to follow when considering a judicial nominee.

When is the last time the people have voted on a nominee chimp?


Hank the chimp.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

When is the last time the people have voted on a nominee chimp?


Hank the chimp.

The same date you didn't stupidly deflect and last pulled your head out of your ass, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The same date you didn't stupidly deflect and last pulled your head out of your ass, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

You mean like you chimp?

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/e...1&noRedirect=1

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You mean like you chimp?

Your self-portraits only serve to illustrate your stupidity, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. A true independent wouldn't suggest that an article written by dim-retard Odumbo appointees was meaningful or unbiased, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. But since you're so dead set on subscribing to what dim-retards have to say, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, you really do need to listen to the comments and speeches made by Odumbo, Schumer and Biden:

“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 Joe Biden, 25 June 1992.

FYI, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, there's still no where in the Constitution where it dictates or prescribes a timeline for the Senate to follow when considering a judicial nominee.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your self-portraits only serve to illustrate your stupidity, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. A true independent wouldn't suggest that an article written by dim-retard Odumbo appointees was meaningful or unbiased, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. But since you're so dead set on subscribing to what dim-retards have to say, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, you really do need to listen to the comments and speeches made by Odumbo, Schumer and Biden:




FYI, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, there's still no where in the Constitution does it dictate or prescribe a timeline for Congress to follow when considering a judicial nominee.

There is nowhere where it says "let the people decide", like the turtle said chicken dick.
http://k2radio.com/u-w-law-prof-dela...rly-two-years/

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

There is nowhere where it says "let the people decide", like the turtle said chicken dick.
http://k2radio.com/u-w-law-prof-dela...rly-two-years/

There's still no where in the Constitution where it dictates or prescribes a timeline for the Senate to follow when considering a judicial nominee; whereas, the Constitution quite clearly mandates that confirmation by the Senate is required, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

[Yssup Rider]

This is another case of he said/he shat himself?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

There's still no where in the Constitution where it dictates or prescribes a timeline for the Senate to follow when considering a judicial nominee; whereas, the Constitution quite clearly mandates that confirmation by the Senate is required, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

You are spinning your wheel again chicken dick.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You are spinning your wheel again chicken dick.

You'd be the jackass going in circles again, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, because there's still no where in the Constitution where it dictates or prescribes a timeline for the Senate to follow when considering a judicial nominee, and the Constitution clearly mandates that confirmation by the Senate is required, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

This is another case of he said/he shat himself?

That would be your usual conversation with your nurse, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

[Yssup Rider]