Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So now Madison DID Have something to do with the Bill of Rights? Okay, that's not what you claimed previously.

You seem confused.

Madison wrote the Constitution. It did not have a Bill of Rights. Madison obviously thought the Bill of Rights was already contained in the Constitution. Madison wanted the Constitution ratified, so probably he was extremely helpful as far as the Bill of Rights.

The "miserable failure" of the Articles of Confederation is Leftist propaganda.

originally posted by: fshrrex
a reply to: xuenchen

Sorry Republicans...you cant change the rules in the Fourth Quarter.

What rules would that be ?

Rules in which you (or Obama) get whatever you demand ?

There are no rules other than the constitution, which gives the senate complete and total control to vote or not vote, and to vote up or down, whoever the president nominates.

Just because they've been afraid to use their constitutional authority for several years, doesn't means there are new rules against it.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
Ted Cruz ( who is every bit as narcissistic as Donald Trump) is already saying he will see to it that a new justice is not appointed until after the next election.

Kind of makes me want to slap him.

Yes, apparently I've become violent. Bite me.

It would be better to simply apply the constitution, rather than angry fantasies, to the situation.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So, you're going under the long-standing standard of kindergarten jurisprudence then?

"They did it to us first!"

Nice.

President nominates, senate accepts that nomination or does not. If not, rinse and repeat.

Thus, a compromise is reached at some point.

What's "kindergarten" about that ? That makes less than zero sense.

What's "kindergarten" is demanding that either side get whatever they demand out of the gate. Which basically sounds like what you think it should be. Of course in favor of Obama. When did we change the constitution and entire government to ditch the checks and balances, and give one of the 3 branches whatever they demand ? Now THAT's "kindergarten".

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So, you're going under the long-standing standard of kindergarten jurisprudence then?

"They did it to us first!"

Nice.

If Obama nominates an unpalatable progressive judicial activist, it won't be childish to reject them. The mature adult response will be to send them away and demand someone better.

But it's fine and dandy for a Senator to state that the Senate will stand in abeyance of the President's Constitutional power to appoint WHATEVER the nature of the appointee, right?

uh, yes, it is "fine and dandy".........not to mention freedom of speech. If enough senators disagree, the statement will mean nothing.

If enough senators agree, the statement will have meaning.

That's kind of how representative, democratic, government works.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: vor78

The President doesn't "nominate" he or she (might as well get used to saying it) APPOINTS.

The action of the Senate is supposed to be a formality, not an unconstitutional block to the President's power.

You may need to brush up on the constitution and the processes that it defines.

There's no "formalities", only responsibilities, authority, and checks / balances / means of compromise.

Man, how can you have such a ridiculous interpretation of it all ?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: vor78

Yeah "what is"?

The Senate can fail to confirm the appointment, sure. It's happened, occasionally, for good and pertinent reasons.

Article II addresses the powers given to the President, it is not addressing a power given to the Senate (that'd be Article I).

The Senate in this matter clearly has a secondary or subordinate role. For any Senator to say that they will act to block the President's power and CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY to appoint a new Justice no matter who it is ... borders on treason.

haha, it's treason when Obama doesn't get his way, with the complete dissolution of everybody else's authority, and all checks and balances.

lmao bro, you're not even trying to be taken seriously.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96


The word "property" is in the Constitution and it refers to the property of the United States.

Where do you get this stuff?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...

Perhaps you would highlight "property" in that ... which is a prohibition on illegal search.

(Besides, Neo beat you to the punch. The Fourteenth Amendment does refer to "property." I've ceded the point because I was not precise in my original statement. Nice try though.)

Can you be more obtuse? First you can't understand that 'arms' means guns, then you can't admit that 'houses, papers, and effects' means property. The Founders wrote in the language of 18th century colonial America. To distort the reality of vocabulary like this takes willing ignorance on the part of the reader, or someone who doesn't study history and foolishly believes the Founders wrote in 21st century English. Which are you?

Taqquiyah is not exclusively the purview of the muslims.

Cheap little SOB's like Alinsky, Cloward-Piven, et al have extolled the virtues of just lying like hell and repeating absolute nonsense endlessly, until enough stupid people side with them. Or the people who tell the truth just give up out of sheer aggravation and frustration.

That's how the left wins most of their little victories.

It may not have any dignity, self respect, or honor whatsoever. But it does get little wins here and there.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So now Madison DID Have something to do with the Bill of Rights? Okay, that's not what you claimed previously.

You seem confused.

Madison wrote the Constitution. It did not have a Bill of Rights. Madison obviously thought the Bill of Rights was already contained in the Constitution. Madison wanted the Constitution ratified, so probably he was extremely helpful as far as the Bill of Rights.

The "miserable failure" of the Articles of Confederation is Leftist propaganda.

The confusion continues I see.

Actually, no, the Constitutional Convention(1787) "wrote" (i.e. drafted) the Constitution.

No, neither James Madison nor anyone else thought the "Bill of Rights" was already within the Constitution.

I would agree with you that our Founders held philosophies that would be called "leftist" today, however, your statement is utterly belied bythe facts.

Speaking of which, please allow me to quote from the opening remarks made by Edmund Randolph of Virginia from James Madison's "Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1787""

Mr. Randolph then opened the main business.

He expressed his regret, that it should fall to him, rather than those, who were of longer standing in life and political experience, to open the great subject of their mission. But, as the convention had originated from Virginia, and his colleagues supposed that some proposition was expected from them, they had imposed this task on him.

He then commented on the difficulty of the crisis, and the necessity of preventing the fulfilment of the prophecies of the American downfal.

He observed that in revising the fœderal system we ought to inquire 1. into the properties, which such a government ought to possess, 2. the defects of the confederation, 3. the danger of our situation & 4. the remedy.

1. The Character of such a government ought to secure 1. against foreign invasion: 2. against dissensions between members of the Union, or seditions in particular States: 3. to procure to the several States various blessings, of which an isolated situation was incapable: 4. to be able to defend itself against encroachment: & 5. to be paramount to the state constitutions.

2. In speaking of the defects of the confederation he professed a high respect for its authors, and considered them as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science, of constitutions, & of confederacies,—when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown—no commercial discord had arisen among any States—no rebellion had appeared as in Massts—foreign debts had not become urgent—the havoc of paper money had not been foreseen—treaties had not been violated—and perhaps nothing better could be obtained from the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.

So, it seems once again, actual historical facts do not agree with your opinion.

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: vor78

Yeah "what is"?

The Senate can fail to confirm the appointment, sure. It's happened, occasionally, for good and pertinent reasons.

Article II addresses the powers given to the President, it is not addressing a power given to the Senate (that'd be Article I).

The Senate in this matter clearly has a secondary or subordinate role. For any Senator to say that they will act to block the President's power and CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY to appoint a new Justice no matter who it is ... borders on treason.

haha, it's treason when Obama doesn't get his way, with the complete dissolution of everybody else's authority, and all checks and balances.

lmao bro, you're not even trying to be taken seriously.

Nope, you have it backwards, not unexpectedly. Review Article II, Constitution of the United States.

Stick to comments about the topic, not me ... "bro"

a reply to: stevieray

LOL ... any actual citation from the Constitution (or any other actual documents, facts, evidence, etc.) would be welcome.

Your unfounded opinions are fairly meaningless to me in this instance to be honest.

Facts. Evidence. Quote the Constitution.

As to the very slight oblique value in your comment, let me expand. Article II enumerates the powers of the President. The Powers of Congress are in Article I. If the Framers had intended the power of determining who gets appointed to the Supreme Court to rest in Congress, the citation would be found in Article I.

With me?

So the power to nominate and appoint is a POWER of the President, not Congress. The Congress provides Advice and Consent. They can also refuse to provide Consent, but ONLY after consideration of the President's nominee. Theirs is quite obviously a secondary or dependent or derivative "power" ... and was never intended to force a President to "wait until your successor" to exercise his or her Constitutional mandate.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: vor78

Yeah "what is"?

The Senate can fail to confirm the appointment, sure. It's happened, occasionally, for good and pertinent reasons.

Article II addresses the powers given to the President, it is not addressing a power given to the Senate (that'd be Article I).

The Senate in this matter clearly has a secondary or subordinate role. For any Senator to say that they will act to block the President's power and CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY to appoint a new Justice no matter who it is ... borders on treason.

haha, it's treason when Obama doesn't get his way, with the complete dissolution of everybody else's authority, and all checks and balances.

lmao bro, you're not even trying to be taken seriously.

Nope, you have it backwards, not unexpectedly. Review Article II, Constitution of the United States.

Stick to comments about the topic, not me ... "bro"

I was talking about the content of your post bro, and how it can not be taken seriously. Try again if you think you'll be telling me how to post.

No thanks on your "assigned reading".

Anyone with a rudimentary command of logic will agree that none of the authorities or responsibilities in the constitution are "formalities".

It's a brilliant, extremely clear set of rules that makes sure that no president ever acts as a king or dictator.

IOW, never appoints or nominates whoever he wants for the highest offices in the land with no opposition allowed.

I mean, come on man.

a reply to: stevieray

Yet, you think you can tell me how to post? LOL.

Your post fills the screen with yet another screed about your opinion of me. No one cares.

Funny, Article II creates and establishes the powers of the President. The other six regard the other functions of Government as well as the Constitution itself.

The irrational fear evidenced in your post that the elected President of the United States is going to do something you don't like notwithstanding, your understanding of what Constitution actually does seems severely lacking, not to put too fine an edge on it.

Your post argues nothing more than semantics. You don't like the word "formality" fine. Your exception is noted.

Deal with the actual arguments made, not your critique of the vocabulary .. .if you can.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: stevieray

LOL ... any actual citation from the Constitution (or any other actual documents, facts, evidence, etc.) would be welcome.

Your unfounded opinions are fairly meaningless to me in this instance to be honest.

Facts. Evidence. Quote the Constitution.

As to the very slight oblique value in your comment, let me expand. Article II enumerates the powers of the President. The Powers of Congress are in Article I. If the Framers had intended the power of determining who gets appointed to the Supreme Court to rest in Congress, the citation would be found in Article I.

With me?

So the power to nominate and appoint is a POWER of the President, not Congress. The Congress provides Advice and Consent. They can also refuse to provide Consent, but ONLY after consideration of the President's nominee. Theirs is quite obviously a secondary or dependent or derivative "power" ... and was never intended to force a President to "wait until your successor" to exercise his or her Constitutional mandate.

Sorry, but you can not redefine the word "consent", just to empower Obama to regal status.

Maybe Johnny Cochran would have said "if it don't consent, it get bent".

Logically speaking, of course nobody in the senate, and nothing that anybody's said, can mean that Obama can't nominate until he's blue in the face. That's HIS enumerated power.

The senate's power (whether or not you want to play word games and claim "hahaha they didn't say power") is to accept or reject the nominee.

They can do this for years if they choose. Nothing un-constitutional, illegal, or even unkind about it. Don't like it, figure out how to change the constitution to give a president-king unfettered, unlimited powers.

OR.......meet in the middle in compromise.

Of course the Obama fans have grown happy with the senate and congress refusing to use their powers and give Obama king-like reign for the past few years. It's a shame that they let him appoint justices who think that America is subservient to World Court, UN, IMF, etc.

Sadly for you guys, past incompetence and butt-kissing is not a guarantee for the future.

It's like little kids lol. Let them eat cookies for breakfast lunch & dinner for a year.....of course they'll freak out when you finally announce that maybe it was a bad idea, and won't be happening anymore.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: stevieray

Yet, you think you can tell me how to post? LOL.

Your post fills the screen with yet another screed about your opinion of me. No one cares.

Funny, Article II creates and establishes the powers of the President. The other six regard the other functions of Government as well as the Constitution itself.

The irrational fear evidenced in your post that the elected President of the United States is going to do something you don't like notwithstanding, your understanding of what Constitution actually does seems severely lacking, not to put too fine an edge on it.

Your post argues nothing more than semantics. You don't like the word "formality" fine. Your exception is noted.

Deal with the actual arguments made, not your critique of the vocabulary .. .if you can.

I don't think I can tell you how to post. That's a liberal tactic / POV. I'm for what the constitution says.

If I lampoon what you say, it's up to you to change or double down. Simple.

I have no fear of people doing things. We are discussing what the constitution allows certain goverment figures to do. Simple.

My understanding of the constitution is just fine. It limits what the various entities can do to the people or independent of the people's consent (through representation), and it limits what various people can do in relationship to other people's powers and consent.

It's awesome. The whole concept is that nobody just gets what they wake up and demand. I'm sorry you think differently.

This is such a partisan farce... I can't believe the GOP would stoop this low...

GOP Cynicism on the Supreme Court Reaches a New Low

A spokesman for Mitch McConnell said that the Senate should confirm judicial appointees through at least the summer. The cutoff for confirming judges in an election year, known as the “Thurmond Rule,” “doesn’t need to be June, especially because we’re so far behind on the legislative calendar,” he said.

Similarly, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, “Let me say this about the Thurmond Rule. It is a myth. It does not exist. There is no reason for stopping the confirmation of judicial nominees in the second half of a year in which there is a presidential election.”

Even a Bush spokesperson said that the “only thing clear about the so-called ‘Thurmond Rule’ is that there is no such defined rule.”

Of course, all that was in 2008, when George W. Bush was the lame-duck president and Democrats controlled the Senate.

First, the Thurmond Rule has never been extended back this far. In 2008, Democrats didn’t invoke it until the late summer; Sen. Dianne Feinstein said it kicks in after the first party convention. It’s February now, and even the longest Supreme Court confirmation in history—that of Justice Brandeis, in 1916—took 125 days. (Brandeis was called a “radical” and bitterly opposed by conservatives, with anti-Semitism even more overt than Fortas later faced.) So this would be an unprecedented expansion of the “Rule.”

Second, the “Rule” has never been applied to Supreme Court vacancies. On the contrary, when President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the court, he was confirmed 97-0 on Feb. 3, 1988, with Sen. McConnell voting in favor.

Third, the statistics cut sharply against Republicans.

According to a detailed study by the Brookings Institute, the Senate has already slowed the pace of judicial confirmations to record levels. In the case of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, confirmations didn’t slow until the second half of the presidents’ eighth year in office. In their seventh years, the Senate confirmed 23, 17, and 29 judges, respectively. In Obama’s seventh year? 10.

In other words, the two-term Republican presidents fared almost twice as well as the two-term Democrat presidents, with Obama faring the worst by far.

Wait never mind. Yes, yes I can believe they'd stoop this low.

a reply to: stevieray

Still arguing semantics.

I didn't redefine anything; that seems to be what your posts are concentrated on.

There is zero historical basis for the Senate refusing to perform its Constitutional mandate which is to offer Advice and provide Consent.

Your argument is the one implying that the Congress should have plenipotentiary powers not assigned to it.

You're absolutely incorrect about the Senate ignoring it's duties. Comments about your personal dislike of the President, are, utterly unimportant in regard to the facts of the Constitution.

As to the rest ... yada.

a reply to: stevieray

LOL ... your posts don't even address what the Constitution says ... more in "the world according to Stevie."

Lampoon? Thank you for the good belly-laugh. That's a good one.

Right-wingers have been peeing themselves over the "Tyrant Obama" for seven years.

It continues, and it continues to be farcical.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah the political ideology of "block everything that guy tries to do" is rather tedious, tiring, and doesn't help anything. I wish the GOP would grow up for a change... Not that Democrats aren't guilty of these shenanigans, but as I just showed in my link that this is definitely lopsided against the GOP.

We're discussing what the constitution says and allows.

Not historical basis. I'm sure you want "historical basis" to mean "do what Obama says". But it doesn't.

Your interpretation of "exercising constitutional authority" appears to be "ignoring it's duties".

Sorry, not so. "Not doing what Obama wants" is not "ignoring it's duties".

"It's duties" isn't "agree with Obama".

lol, this is getting pitiful at this point.