Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/13/17 at 11:15 am to Giant Leaf
Dear GiantLeef -
You're an fagg0t.
You're an fagg0t.
Posted on 12/13/17 at 12:11 pm to Crimson Legend
quote:
"Whataboutism", the favorite tool of the right
Just as hypocrisy is embedded in the DNA of the left.
This whole "whataboutism" mantra is nothing more than a feeble attempt to excuse their hypocrisy.
This post was edited on 12/13/17 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 12/13/17 at 12:54 pm to Crimson Legend
Calling someone a party loyalist moron, whilst frothing at the mouth in defense of “your side” is pretty moronic in my estimation.
Posted on 12/13/17 at 1:01 pm to MindRiot
The frick is going on in here? I honestly thought for a minute while reading this thread that I had accidentally clicked on the Poli Board.
Posted on 12/13/17 at 1:15 pm to Crimson Legend
quote:
unconstitutionally refused any hearings on Obama's nominee,
Please cite where in the Constitution this provision is.
(I think you'll find that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about congressional hearings of any kind, and that hearings or the lack thereof is entirely a prerogative of the rules that Congress makes for itself.)
Posted on 12/13/17 at 1:20 pm to BamaGradinTn
At this point, the identity political left doesn’t even care if you call them hypocrites. The name of the game in politics right now is hyperbole. Call your opponent the worst thing you can think of, so there is nowhere for them to go. Border and immigration is a text book example. It’s a policy issue, but instead of disagreeing and countering, you just call them a bigot that’s racially motivated, and leave no room to breath. Unfortunately for this country, if one side does it effectively, the other side will follow, and insanity ensues.
Posted on 12/13/17 at 1:26 pm to BammerDelendaEst
The Constitution does not specifically mention hearings, but confirmation hearings are the method by which the Senate provides "advice and consent" as specified in Article II, Section 2. By refusing to hold those hearings not only for Obama's nominee, but by declaring a refusal to consider ANY nominee for the rest of Obama's term, they effectively undermined a critical power granted the President in the Constitution.
And then, of course, changing the Senate rules to eliminate filibusters so they could push through Trump's nominee was the cherry on top.
And then, of course, changing the Senate rules to eliminate filibusters so they could push through Trump's nominee was the cherry on top.
Posted on 12/13/17 at 1:46 pm to Crimson Legend
In other words, hearings are not required, or even mentioned in the Constitution. So not holding hearings cannot be "unconstitutional".
In fact, in the past the Senate has confirmed some nominees, including SC Justices, without any hearings at all.
The President has the power to nominate, and the Senate has the power to refuse consent, which they effectively chose to do.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional.
In fact, in the past the Senate has confirmed some nominees, including SC Justices, without any hearings at all.
The President has the power to nominate, and the Senate has the power to refuse consent, which they effectively chose to do.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Posted on 12/13/17 at 3:08 pm to Crimson Legend
quote:
The Constitution does not specifically mention hearings, but confirmation hearings are the method by which the Senate provides "advice and consent" as specified in Article II, Section 2. By refusing to hold those hearings not only for Obama's nominee, but by declaring a refusal to consider ANY nominee for the rest of Obama's term, they effectively undermined a critical power granted the President in the Constitution.
Holy frick you need to pick up a book or two.
Come on over to the PoliBoard. I promise it will be fun.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News