June 21, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: It literally just lays out what happened when this woman was unable to have an abortion. If you see it as a good thing, since she has two babies, then okay, that's a legitimate position. Or, if you see it as a bad thing that the state made this decision for her, then that's also legit. Instead, you went straight to LIbeRL MEdiA bAAD! because you're retarded. lmfao "if you see it as a good thing that those twins were allowed to live..." Holy ish, dude.
June 21, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, Kz! said: lmfao "if you see it as a good thing that those twins were allowed to live..." Holy ish, dude. So you're doing the thing where you just repeat the same point over and over again and then pretend like you think it's funny every time. Got it.
June 21, 20223 yr 18 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: The Constitution does not specify how it is obtained, but the Senate instituted a process by which it is obtained through a process of holding a confirmation hearing and voting. If they wanted to, they could change the nomination process, but they didn't. Mitch broke the rules. And so your claims of unconstitutionality are baseless. Thanks for playing.
June 21, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: So you're doing the thing where you just repeat the same point over and over again and then pretend like you think it's funny every time. Got it. Bruhh... 1 hour ago, VanHammersly said: How dare a media outlet show the consequences of actions taken by the government! 1 hour ago, VanHammersly said: How dare a newspaper write a story about how people's lives have changed based on a new law! Literally an hour ago.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 3 minutes ago, TEW said: And so your claims of unconstitutionality are baseless. Thanks for playing. Wrong. The Constitution says that the Senate shall institute a process to provide advice and consent, which they did, but failed to adhere to. At the absolute least, the legality of what Mitch did is highly questionable. Seriously, Bork? What a ridiculous comparison, not to mention whataboutism. You're either arguing in bad faith or incapable of grasping the difference between propriety and legality.
June 21, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, Kz! said: Bruhh... Literally an hour ago. Yet another Vanns self own, - nothing new about this. Its his one defining characteristic.
June 21, 20223 yr Just now, Ipiggles said: Yet another Vanns self own, - nothing new about this. It is one defining characteristic. He's the undisputed king of the self-own, that's for sure.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 13 minutes ago, TEW said: And so your claims of unconstitutionality are baseless. Thanks for playing. Also, "advice and consent of the Senate" means the entire Senate, not one guy or one half of 100 Senators. Seriously, you're picking an odd hill to die on, Mr. Libertarian
June 21, 20223 yr 9 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Wrong. The Constitution says that the Senate shall institute a process to provide advice and consent, which they did, but failed to adhere to. At the absolute least, the legality of what Mitch did is highly questionable. Seriously, Bork? What a ridiculous comparison, not to mention whataboutism. You're either arguing in bad faith or incapable of grasping the difference between propriety and legality. Please show me where in the constitution it says that the senate shall institute a process to provide advice and consent. 2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Also, "advice and consent of the Senate" means the entire Senate, not one guy or one half of 100 Senators. Seriously, you're picking an odd hill to die on Mr. Libertarian And you didn’t have the "entire” senate if that’s your interpretation. I’m not dying on any hill dude. You’re making claims about things in the constitution which do not exist. This is up there with a right to vote, only dumber and less informed.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 15 minutes ago, TEW said: Please show me where in the constitution it says that the senate shall institute a process to provide advice and consent. I already showed you. How would they provide advice and consent without a process? How would the Senate, a governing body, provide their consent, without doing so as a governing body (i.e., voting)? A single Senator can deny a President a SCOTUS nomination? You think that's what the Framers intended? You're right, this is getting really dumb. 'Round and 'round we go...
June 21, 20223 yr 15 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I already showed you. How would they provide advice and consent without a process? How would the Senate, a governing body, provide their consent, without doing so as a governing body (i.e., voting)? A single Senator can deny a President a SCOTUS nomination? You think that's what the Framers intended? You're right, this is getting really dumb. 'Round and 'round we go... Any way they wished. A letter. Verbally telling POTUS. They could use any means to do it because the constitution does not specify. Again, you’re out of your depth here.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 27 minutes ago, TEW said: Again, you’re out of your depth here. No, that is most definitely you. I'm well within my area of expertise this matter. Like I just said, "Advice and consent" of the Senate clearly means the entire Senate. Not just the Majority Leader and his fellow travelers. The Constitution leaves the particulars up to the determination of how advice and consent is transmitted up to the determination of that governing body. More specifically, in our government, advice and consent means a vote on the matter, as established by Senate rules. Quote The U.S. Senate's advice and consent authority for Presidential nominations is located in the Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2, which reads:[1] " and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law... [2] ” The consideration of appointments constitutes executive business under Senate rules. Rule XXIX governs executive business generally while Rule XXXI of the United States Senate governs Senate consideration of treaties specifically. Rule XXXI reads:[9] " 1. When nominations shall be made by the President of the United States to the Senate, they shall, unless otherwise ordered, be referred to appropriate committees; and the final question on every nomination shall be, "Will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination?" which question shall not be put on the same day on which the nomination is received, nor on the day on which it may be reported by a committee, unless by unanimous consent. 2. All business in the Senate shall be transacted in open session, unless the Senate as provided in rule XXI by a majority vote shall determine that a particular nomination, treaty, or other matter shall be considered in closed executive session, in which case all subsequent proceedings with respect to said nomination, treaty, or other matter shall be kept secret: Provided, That the injunction of secrecy as to the whole or any part of proceedings in closed executive session may be removed on motion adopted by a majority vote of the Senate in closed executive session: Provided further, That any Senator may make public his vote in closed executive session. 3. When a nomination is confirmed or rejected, any Senator voting in the majority may move for a reconsideration on the same day on which the vote was taken, or on either of the next two days of actual executive session of the Senate; but if a notification of the confirmation or rejection of a nomination shall have been sent to the President before the expiration of the time within which a motion to reconsider may be made, the motion to reconsider shall be accompanied by a motion to request the President to return such notification to the Senate. Any motion to reconsider the vote on a nomination may be laid on the table without prejudice to the nomination, and shall be a final disposition of such motion. 4. Nominations confirmed or rejected by the Senate shall not be returned by the Secretary to the President until the expiration of the time limited for making a motion to reconsider the same, or while a motion to reconsider is pending unless otherwise ordered by the Senate. 5. When the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all motions to reconsider a vote upon a nomination which has been confirmed or rejected by the Senate, which shall be pending at the time of taking such adjournment or recess, shall fall; and the Secretary shall return all such nominations to the President as confirmed or rejected by the Senate, as the case may be. 6. Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President. 7. (a) The Official Reporters shall be furnished with a list of nominations to office after the proceedings of the day on which they are received, and a like list of all confirmations and rejections. (b) All nominations to office shall be prepared for the printer by the Official Reporter, and printed in the Congressional Record, after the proceedings of the day in which they are received, also nominations recalled, and confirmed. (c) The Secretary shall furnish to the press, and to the public upon request, the names of nominees confirmed or rejected on the day on which a final vote shall be had, except when otherwise ordered by the Senate. [2] https://ballotpedia.org/Advice_and_Consent Quote Nomination & Confirmation Process Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that the Presidents "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..." U.S. Const. art. 2 § 2, cl. 2. The Process The President usually will consult with Senators before announcing a nomination. When the President nominates a candidate, the nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration. The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. The Committee usually takes a month to collect and receive all necessary records, from the FBI and other sources, about the nominee and for the nominee to be prepared for the hearings. During the hearings, witnesses, both supporting and opposing the nomination, present their views. Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy. The Judiciary Committee then votes on the nomination and sends its recommendation (that it be confirmed, that it be rejected, or with no recommendation) to the full Senate. The full Senate debates the nomination. The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the votes of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture vote). In April 2017, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required votes to 51 to end debate on Supreme Court nominations (this is commonly known as "the nuclear option"). When the debate ends, the Senate votes on the nomination. A simple majority of the Senators present and voting is required for the judicial nominee to be confirmed. If there is a tie, the Vice President who also presides over the Senate casts the deciding vote.https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070 Mitch. Broke. The. Rules.
June 21, 20223 yr 17 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: No, that is most definitely you. I'm well within my area of expertise this matter. Like I just said, "Advice and consent" of the Senate clearly means the entire Senate. Not just the Majority Leader and his fellow travelers. The Constitution leaves the particulars up to the determination of how advice and consent is transmitted up to the determination of that governing body. More specifically, in our government, advice and consent means a vote on the matter, as established by Senate rules. Mitch. Broke. The. Rules. Yet that’s not a constitutional mandate, like you claimed. You’re moving the goal posts.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 6 minutes ago, TEW said: Yet that’s not a constitutional mandate, like you claimed. You’re moving the goal posts. If you can't understand the relationship at this point, then it's hopeless. The Constitution says the Senate shall provide advice and consent; Senate rules establish how that is done. Thus, McConnell obstructed the Senate from performing its Constitutional obligations. You just won't admit that it is a Constitutional violation, because it would undermine your position.
June 21, 20223 yr Just now, EaglesRocker97 said: If you can't understand the relationship, then I can't help you. The Constitution says the Senate shall provide advice and consent; Senate rules establish how that is done. Thus, McConnell obstructed the Senate from performing its Constitutional obligation. You just won't admit that it is a Constitutional violation, because it would undermine your position. There is no relationship. The constitution says nothing about how consent is given. Simply put, you are wrong. You made the claim that there were gross violations of the constitution. This is false. You then made the claim that the constitution demands that consent is obtained by voting. Also flagrantly false. You have no idea what you’re talking about, so stop invoking the constitution — not like you give a flying F about it anyway — and stick to something you have a clue about.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 18 minutes ago, TEW said: There is no relationship. The constitution says nothing about how consent is given. Simply put, you are wrong. You made the claim that there were gross violations of the constitution. This is false. You then made the claim that the constitution demands that consent is obtained by voting. Also flagrantly false. You have no idea what you’re talking about, so stop invoking the constitution — not like you give a flying F about it anyway — and stick to something you have a clue about. I asserted that the Constitution says that the Senate shall provide advice and consent, and that the Senate has established rules for how that is done. Since Mitch violated the rules for providing advice and consent and denied the opportunity for the Senate to do so, he thus violated the Constitution. Forget knowing how to read law, this basic logic is apparently lost on you. The projection here is hilarious. You literally have zero clue what you're talking about, but I'm happy to make you look like clueless in this thread. Speaking of advice, here's some: Stick to things you actually have a background in, like econ and finance. You are so, so far removed from your area of expertise in this matter that it's embarrassingly obvious. You'd be better off admitting that you don't really care about whether elected officials play by the rules and want them to do whatever it takes to seize power, because the low-key white nationalism that you display on this forum goes right in line with that. You're not fooling anyone.
June 21, 20223 yr 23 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I asserted that the Constitution says that the Senate shall provide advice and consent, and that the Senate has established rules for how that is done. Since Mitch violated the rules for providing advice and consent and denied the opportunity for the Senate to do so, he thus violated the Constitution. Forget knowing how to read law, this basic logic is apparently lost on you. The projection here is hilarious. You literally have zero clue what you're talking about, but I'm happy to make you look like clueless in this thread. Speaking of advice, here's some: Stick to things you actually have a background in, like econ and finance. You are so, so far removed from your area of expertise in this matter that it's embarrassingly obvious. You'd be better off admitting that you don't really care about whether elected officials play by the rules and want them to do whatever it takes to seize power, because the low-key white nationalism that you display on this forum goes right in line with that. You're not fooling anyone. You’re acting like we can’t read your own posts from two hours ago What you asserted was this: 2 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Once again, TEW is flexing his libertarian wings by emphatically supporting gross violations of a republic's constitution. There is no violation of the constitution. No where in the constitution does it specify any formal procedures when nominating a judge. you also asserted this: 2 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Consent is obtained through voting. Mitch clearly obstructed the mechanism for obtaining advice and consent. No where in the constitution does it state anything about voting when nominating a judge. You just made all of this crap up. And the funnies part is, you even admitted it! 2 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: The Constitution does not specify how it is obtained But, predictably, when confronted with how wrong you are, rather than say "gee, I was wrong about the constitution,” you fall back on the lamest ad hominem possible.
June 21, 20223 yr Author I am done wasting my time with your nonsense. The Constitution says the Senate has to do something, but the Senate did not do it, because its leadership obstructed it from doing so. That is a violation of the Constitution. Remember back when you used to pull this act on the old board every time I called Trump a fascist? Now the whole world (the sane part) knows that that's exactly what he is. 'Member "120 IQ" I own mental midgets like you on the reg. It's so, so easy, and quite entertaining.
June 21, 20223 yr 19 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I am done wasting my time with your nonsense. The Constitution says the Senate has to do something, but the Senate did not do it, because its leadership obstructed it from doing so. That is a violation of the Constitution. Remember back when you used to pull this act on the old board every time I called Trump a fascist? Now the whole world (the sane part) knows that that's exactly what he is. 'Member "120 IQ" I own mental midgets like you on the reg. It's so, so easy, and quite entertaining. The constitution literally does not say the senate must do anything. You keep making things up that don’t exist and declaring victory.
June 21, 20223 yr You lose this one. Quoting the constitution, Article II: …he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, He shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed. …. Its not Mitch that violated the constitution, it’s Obama. The onus of action here is on Obama. There’s plenty of Justices I’m sure Mitch would have agreed to. Obama is the one that had to pick one. The fact that he didn’t amounts to a high crime and could have been impeached Youre not going to tell me an obligation of Congress is contained in Article II
June 21, 20223 yr Author 16 minutes ago, TEW said: The constitution literally does not say the senate must do anything. You keep making things up that don’t exist and declaring victory. Ummm, yeah, let's just say that your ability to read and interpret 18th-Century English common law is clearly deficient. I'd recommend taking a college course or two, but I know that that would just be too humbling for a Dunning-Kruger type.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 8 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: You lose this one. Quoting the constitution, Article II: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, He shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed. …. Its not Mitch that violated the constitution, it’s Obama. The onus of action here is on Obama. There’s plenty of Justices I’m sure Mitch would have agreed to. Obama is the one that had to pick one. The fact that he didn’t amounts to a high crime and could have been impeached You're a joke, dude. Let the adults handle this conversation. Obama nominated (picked) a widely respected Republican for the seat. Mitch was just a little b*tch who wanted to cheat in order to institute minority rule, so he refused to allow him a hearing.
June 21, 20223 yr Just now, EaglesRocker97 said: Ummm, yeah, let's just say that your ability to read and interpret 18th-Century English common law is clearly deficient. I'd recommend taking a college course or two, but I know that that would just be too humbling for a Dunning-Kruger type. Evidently, by the looks of who Congress appoints to the Supreme Court, you need a degree from Harvard or Yale to interpret the constitution. Have you been to Harvard or Yale?
June 21, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Ummm, yeah, let's just say that your ability to read and interpret 18th-Century English common law is clearly deficient. I'd recommend taking a college course or two, but I know that that would just be too humbling for a Dunning-Kruger type. What is with you and fabricating things that don’t exist? Where in this text is the senate commanded to do something: and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.
June 21, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: You're a joke, dude. Let the adults handle this conversation. Obama nominated (picked) a widely respected Republican for the seat. Mitch was just a little b*tch who wanted to cheat in order to institute minority rule, so he refused to allow him a hearing. Now you’re telling me Garland pulls for the Republicans?
Create an account or sign in to comment