Merrick Garland gets the nod to be Attorney General

[Jake]

...never heard of him.


>>BOOM<<

 

[LotusBud]

Yeah. The CONs have never heard of him either.

 

[Lokmar]

LOL! Thats the RINO in democRAT clothing that president reggin wanted to stuff into the court! :LMAO:

 

[Jake]

No, it's the moderate centrist that President B.H. Obama nominated (as a constitutional duty) to replace Scalia on the high court, but Moscow Mitch refused to do his constitutional duty and consider the nomination -- only to change his colors four years later when Justice RBG croaked shortly before the election.

*BOOM* CHUKKA LUKKA LUKKA

 

[Oerdin]

No, it's the moderate centrist that President B.H. Obama nominated (as a constitutional duty) to replace Scalia on the high court, but Moscow Mitch refused to do his constitutional duty and consider the nomination -- only to change his colors four years later when Justice RBG croaked shortly before the election.

*BOOM* CHUKKA LUKKA LUKKA

Unconditional? Do you know what that even means? 36 Supreme Court nominees have been nominated but failed to get confirmed going all the way back to 1789. In nine cases the Senate simply refused to hold a vote. I dare say the people who wrote and voted on the constitution knew if something was unconstitutional or not yet they themselves refused to allow votes on some nominees. So what does that tell you?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Lokmar]

No, it's the moderate centrist that President B.H. Obama nominated (as a constitutional duty) to replace Scalia on the high court, but Moscow Mitch refused to do his constitutional duty and consider the nomination -- only to change his colors four years later when Justice RBG croaked shortly before the election.

*BOOM* CHUKKA LUKKA LUKKA

"moderate"....BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! More like fukin libtard!

 

[Oerdin]

He was a Clinton nominee so he wasn't full on into the woke retardation and unlike the worst activists he actually did try to find proper justification in the law for his rulings rather than just imagine "rights" which never existed. He is still pretty far left though.

 

[Jake]

Unconditional? Do you know what that even means? 36 Supreme Court nominees have been nominated but failed to get confirmed going all the way back to 1789. In nine cases the Senate simply refused to hold a vote. I dare say the people who wrote and voted on the constitution knew if something was unconstitutional or not yet they themselves refused to allow votes on some nominees. So what does that tell you?
[

Without studying the material you offered, it tells me that you are comparing apples and oranges. That is, if I assume that you meant to begin your post with the word Unconstitutional, rather than with Unconditional which was not a word I used and also not a word that makes any sense in this context.

And yes, I know what both words mean. I also know that some three dozen SCOTUS nominations have failed, for a variety of reasons, and I doubt (without looking at the full history of this function) that many of them have failed because the Senate simply refused to take ANY ACTION at all on them.

Further, I do express the opinion that McConnell acted unconstitutionally and many scholars pointed it out at the time. If it IS the case that there is a previous occurrence just like that one, I will say that it, too, was unconstitutional even if nothing happened in consequence. The constitutional language is unambiguous and clear, and it gives the Senate an affirmative duty to advise and perhaps to consent to the nomination. It does not give the Senate approval to piss on the nomination and flush it down the toilet without any discussion by anyone save the majority leader grandstanding.

If you want to discuss it further with me, kindly don't fucking talk to me as if I had the brains of a tuna salad sammich.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

No, it's the moderate centrist that President B.H. Obama nominated (as a constitutional duty) to replace Scalia on the high court, but Moscow Mitch refused to do his constitutional duty and consider the nomination -- only to change his colors four years later when Justice RBG croaked shortly before the election.

*BOOM* CHUKKA LUKKA LUKKA

Unconditional? Do you know what that even means? 36 Supreme Court nominees have been nominated but failed to get confirmed going all the way back to 1789. In nine cases the Senate simply refused to hold a vote. I dare say the people who wrote and voted on the constitution knew if something was unconstitutional or not yet they themselves refused to allow votes on some nominees. So what does that tell you?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Reads like a scene outta the movie "A Cunting"

 

[Jake]

No, it's the moderate centrist that President B.H. Obama nominated (as a constitutional duty) to replace Scalia on the high court, but Moscow Mitch refused to do his constitutional duty and consider the nomination -- only to change his colors four years later when Justice RBG croaked shortly before the election.

*BOOM* CHUKKA LUKKA LUKKA

Unconditional? Do you know what that even means? 36 Supreme Court nominees have been nominated but failed to get confirmed going all the way back to 1789. In nine cases the Senate simply refused to hold a vote. I dare say the people who wrote and voted on the constitution knew if something was unconstitutional or not yet they themselves refused to allow votes on some nominees. So what does that tell you?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Reads like a scene outta the movie "A Cunting"

TRANSLATION: "I wish someone would do what I can't."

Meanwhile, your actions only serve to derail a thread whose OP seeks a serious discussion, Forum Killer.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

No, it's the moderate centrist that President B.H. Obama nominated (as a constitutional duty) to replace Scalia on the high court, but Moscow Mitch refused to do his constitutional duty and consider the nomination -- only to change his colors four years later when Justice RBG croaked shortly before the election.

*BOOM* CHUKKA LUKKA LUKKA

Unconditional? Do you know what that even means? 36 Supreme Court nominees have been nominated but failed to get confirmed going all the way back to 1789. In nine cases the Senate simply refused to hold a vote. I dare say the people who wrote and voted on the constitution knew if something was unconstitutional or not yet they themselves refused to allow votes on some nominees. So what does that tell you?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Reads like a scene outta the movie "A Cunting"

TRANSLATION: "I wish someone would do what I can't."

Meanwhile, your actions only serve to derail a thread whose OP seeks a serious discussion, Forum Killer.

There there

 

[Jake]

Fuck off with your trolling, forum killer.

 

[Frood]

Dry your eyes....er....nose.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Fuck off with your trolling, forum killer.

 

[Joe]

Unconditional? Do you know what that even means? 36 Supreme Court nominees have been nominated but failed to get confirmed going all the way back to 1789. In nine cases the Senate simply refused to hold a vote. I dare say the people who wrote and voted on the constitution knew if something was unconstitutional or not yet they themselves refused to allow votes on some nominees. So what does that tell you?
[

Without studying the material you offered, it tells me that you are comparing apples and oranges. That is, if I assume that you meant to begin your post with the word Unconstitutional, rather than with Unconditional which was not a word I used and also not a word that makes any sense in this context.

And yes, I know what both words mean. I also know that some three dozen SCOTUS nominations have failed, for a variety of reasons, and I doubt (without looking at the full history of this function) that many of them have failed because the Senate simply refused to take ANY ACTION at all on them.

Further, I do express the opinion that McConnell acted unconstitutionally and many scholars pointed it out at the time. If it IS the case that there is a previous occurrence just like that one, I will say that it, too, was unconstitutional even if nothing happened in consequence. The constitutional language is unambiguous and clear, and it gives the Senate an affirmative duty to advise and perhaps to consent to the nomination. It does not give the Senate approval to piss on the nomination and flush it down the toilet without any discussion by anyone save the majority leader grandstanding.

If you want to discuss it further with me, kindly don't fucking talk to me as if I had the brains of a tuna salad sammich.

Plus McConnell went back on his word when he stated that he would not appoint a Judge in an election year, and when the opportunity came along, he did it anyway.

 

[Oerdin]

Unconditional? Do you know what that even means? 36 Supreme Court nominees have been nominated but failed to get confirmed going all the way back to 1789. In nine cases the Senate simply refused to hold a vote. I dare say the people who wrote and voted on the constitution knew if something was unconstitutional or not yet they themselves refused to allow votes on some nominees. So what does that tell you?
[

Without studying the material you offered, it tells me that you are comparing apples and oranges. That is, if I assume that you meant to begin your post with the word Unconstitutional, rather than with Unconditional which was not a word I used and also not a word that makes any sense in this context.

And yes, I know what both words mean. I also know that some three dozen SCOTUS nominations have failed, for a variety of reasons, and I doubt (without looking at the full history of this function) that many of them have failed because the Senate simply refused to take ANY ACTION at all on them.

Further, I do express the opinion that McConnell acted unconstitutionally and many scholars pointed it out at the time. If it IS the case that there is a previous occurrence just like that one, I will say that it, too, was unconstitutional even if nothing happened in consequence. The constitutional language is unambiguous and clear, and it gives the Senate an affirmative duty to advise and perhaps to consent to the nomination. It does not give the Senate approval to piss on the nomination and flush it down the toilet without any discussion by anyone save the majority leader grandstanding.

If you want to discuss it further with me, kindly don't fucking talk to me as if I had the brains of a tuna salad sammich.

Ok, I am sorry if I came off snarky, it is a failure on my part that I do that sometimes, and one of my new year's resolutions is to do it less in 2021. It seems we disagree on a substantive point (what exactly is or is not unconstitutional) but at least you offered a reasoned position for why you held a certain belief/opinion. That is better than most folks on the internet.

BTW that was indeed meant to say "unconstitutional" however fat fingers on a touch screen combined with a not great Samsung spellchecker to change it to what you saw.

 

[Oerdin]

Unconditional? Do you know what that even means? 36 Supreme Court nominees have been nominated but failed to get confirmed going all the way back to 1789. In nine cases the Senate simply refused to hold a vote. I dare say the people who wrote and voted on the constitution knew if something was unconstitutional or not yet they themselves refused to allow votes on some nominees. So what does that tell you?
[

Without studying the material you offered, it tells me that you are comparing apples and oranges. That is, if I assume that you meant to begin your post with the word Unconstitutional, rather than with Unconditional which was not a word I used and also not a word that makes any sense in this context.

And yes, I know what both words mean. I also know that some three dozen SCOTUS nominations have failed, for a variety of reasons, and I doubt (without looking at the full history of this function) that many of them have failed because the Senate simply refused to take ANY ACTION at all on them.

Further, I do express the opinion that McConnell acted unconstitutionally and many scholars pointed it out at the time. If it IS the case that there is a previous occurrence just like that one, I will say that it, too, was unconstitutional even if nothing happened in consequence. The constitutional language is unambiguous and clear, and it gives the Senate an affirmative duty to advise and perhaps to consent to the nomination. It does not give the Senate approval to piss on the nomination and flush it down the toilet without any discussion by anyone save the majority leader grandstanding.

If you want to discuss it further with me, kindly don't fucking talk to me as if I had the brains of a tuna salad sammich.

Plus McConnell went back on his word when he stated that he would not appoint a Judge in an election year, and when the opportunity came along, he did it anyway.

Let us be honest, dems would have done exactly the same. We know this is true because both parties switch their bull shit self serving talking points depending upon if they are the majority or the minority. It is like clock work.

 

[Master Pu]

Unconditional? Do you know what that even means? 36 Supreme Court nominees have been nominated but failed to get confirmed going all the way back to 1789. In nine cases the Senate simply refused to hold a vote. I dare say the people who wrote and voted on the constitution knew if something was unconstitutional or not yet they themselves refused to allow votes on some nominees. So what does that tell you?
[

Without studying the material you offered, it tells me that you are comparing apples and oranges. That is, if I assume that you meant to begin your post with the word Unconstitutional, rather than with Unconditional which was not a word I used and also not a word that makes any sense in this context.

And yes, I know what both words mean. I also know that some three dozen SCOTUS nominations have failed, for a variety of reasons, and I doubt (without looking at the full history of this function) that many of them have failed because the Senate simply refused to take ANY ACTION at all on them.

Further, I do express the opinion that McConnell acted unconstitutionally and many scholars pointed it out at the time. If it IS the case that there is a previous occurrence just like that one, I will say that it, too, was unconstitutional even if nothing happened in consequence. The constitutional language is unambiguous and clear, and it gives the Senate an affirmative duty to advise and perhaps to consent to the nomination. It does not give the Senate approval to piss on the nomination and flush it down the toilet without any discussion by anyone save the majority leader grandstanding.

If you want to discuss it further with me, kindly don't fucking talk to me as if I had the brains of a tuna salad sammich.

Plus McConnell went back on his word when he stated that he would not appoint a Judge in an election year, and when the opportunity came along, he did it anyway.

He's gone.
Buh-Bye Mitch!