Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Antonin Scalia dead
Comments
-
Open wide, then swallow.topdawgnc said:
Some issues are worth going to the mat for.dflea said:You need to learn how looking like a cunt doesn't play well for you if your seat is vulnerable.
If they will not consent on a candidate like Srinivasan, they look like cunts, and their seats become more vulnerable, and risk losing control of the Senate.
Which would be a stupid fucking thing to do - but they are Republicans, so..........................
This is one.
The GOP will lose regardless ... If they buckle they right stays home. Better to go down swinging.
Throw up the mattresses ... Time for war. -
The GOP will lose regardless
Might be time to reconsider what they have been doing, then. Demographically things are only getting worse for them -
Why?topdawgnc said:
Some issues are worth going to the mat for.dflea said:You need to learn how looking like a cunt doesn't play well for you if your seat is vulnerable.
If they will not consent on a candidate like Srinivasan, they look like cunts, and their seats become more vulnerable, and risk losing control of the Senate.
Which would be a stupid fucking thing to do - but they are Republicans, so..........................
This is one.
The GOP will lose regardless ... If they buckle they right stays home. Better to go down swinging.
Throw up the mattresses ... Time for war.
Going to war over transitions of power in the government is exactly what this country is NOT about.
You sound like a partisan fucktard. -
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different... -
I think that's called checks and balances. Reality is, judges shouldn't be liberal or conservative. They should be for the constitution. But we live in a world where 4 judges don't even open obamacare and say it's good. 4 other judges don't even open obamacare and say it's shit. And 1 judge is left to decide the fate of obamacare. And gets shit on because he's supposed to be conservative.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different... -
No. That's not the fucking point.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look. -
Agree, but there's no reason electorally for GOP senators to approve a nominee quickly. Maybe this is more prominent in the house with the gerrymandered districts, but still largely applies to the Senate. And yes, it's a massive fecking problem.ThomasFremont said:
Why?topdawgnc said:
Some issues are worth going to the mat for.dflea said:You need to learn how looking like a cunt doesn't play well for you if your seat is vulnerable.
If they will not consent on a candidate like Srinivasan, they look like cunts, and their seats become more vulnerable, and risk losing control of the Senate.
Which would be a stupid fucking thing to do - but they are Republicans, so..........................
This is one.
The GOP will lose regardless ... If they buckle they right stays home. Better to go down swinging.
Throw up the mattresses ... Time for war.
Going to war over transitions of power in the government is exactly what this country is NOT about.
You sound like a partisan fucktard. -
Shut up and read some history, justices have been appointed for "political reasons" for as long as the institution has been around, it's just that the political goals of (white) Americans used to align more closely to each other.2001400ex said:
I think that's called checks and balances. Reality is, judges shouldn't be liberal or conservative. They should be for the constitution. But we live in a world where 4 judges don't even open obamacare and say it's good. 4 other judges don't even open obamacare and say it's shit. And 1 judge is left to decide the fate of obamacare. And gets shit on because he's supposed to be conservative.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different... -
Holy shit that point went right over your head.doogsinparadise said:
Shut up and read some history, justices have been appointed for "political reasons" for as long as the institution has been around, it's just that the political goals of (white) Americans used to align more closely to each other.2001400ex said:
I think that's called checks and balances. Reality is, judges shouldn't be liberal or conservative. They should be for the constitution. But we live in a world where 4 judges don't even open obamacare and say it's good. 4 other judges don't even open obamacare and say it's shit. And 1 judge is left to decide the fate of obamacare. And gets shit on because he's supposed to be conservative.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different... -
Disagree.
