Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Scalia's replacement

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Glad to see that you agree, it is the Senates responsibility to consider and vote on the presidents nominee.
    In due time, Jimmy. There is no time period spelled out.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      In due time, Jimmy. There is no time period spelled out.
      A time period doesn't need be spelled out. The Supreme Court is meant to be composed of 9 justices, not 8. If there is a vacancy, for whatever reason, then the court can not function as intended and that vacancy is meant to be filled. For that reason it is the current Presidents responsibility to nominate and the Senate's resposibility to vote. It makes no sense to leave the seat vacant for a year and a half.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        A time period doesn't need be spelled out. The Supreme Court is meant to be composed of 9 justices, not 8. If there is a vacancy, for whatever reason, then the court can not function as intended and that vacancy is meant to be filled. For that reason it is the current Presidents responsibility to nominate and the Senate's resposibility to vote. It makes no sense to leave the seat vacant for a year and a half.
        You can blather on all you'd like, but it doesn't change the truth. There is no time table spelled out by the constitution. Perhaps you should jump um and down and yell.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          You can blather on all you'd like, but it doesn't change the truth. There is no time table spelled out by the constitution. Perhaps you should jump um and down and yell.
          A time period would only need be spelled out for the benifit of idiots. I don't think that the authors had the interpretation of idiots in mind when they wrote it.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Adam View Post
            ... Particularly with Ruth Bader Ginsburg long overdue to have died of cancer.
            As much as I despise Ginsburg's politics, this is an utterly disgusting comment, Adam.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              A time period would only need be spelled out for the benifit of idiots.
              That would be "benefit", not "benifit". And, no, time periods are often spelled out in the law and procedure.

              I don't think that the authors had the interpretation of idiots in mind when they wrote it.
              Perhaps that's why you're having such a difficult time comprehending it.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                That would be "benefit", not "benifit". And, no, time periods are often spelled out in the law and procedure.
                According to your logic the Senate need never hold a hearing simply because the Constitution didn't specify a time period within which they are required to do so. That is just idiotic. The procedure commences as soon as the President hands down a nominee, not whenever, if ever, the Senate decides to consider that nominee.

                Perhaps that's why you're having such a difficult time comprehending it.
                No, its just that in order to comprehend some things, such as things that aren't literally spelled out for you, one needs to employ common sense. If the Constitution doesn't specify a time period for the confirmation process of a nominee to such an important position in government then common sense should tell you that time is of the essence.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  According to your logic
                  It's not "my logic", dear Jimmy - it's the facts.

                  the Senate need never hold a hearing simply because the Constitution didn't specify a time period within which they are required to do so. That is just idiotic. The procedure commences as soon as the President hands down a nominee, not whenever, if ever, the Senate decides to consider that nominee.
                  As always, you simply make up the laws or statutes you wish to exist. Doesn't work that way.

                  No, its just that in order to comprehend some things, such as things that aren't literally spelled out for you, one needs to employ common sense.
                  Then you certainly shouldn't rely on your own.

                  If the Constitution doesn't specify a time period for the confirmation process of a nominee to such an important position in government then common sense should tell you that time is of the essence.
                  Yeah, keep repeating that to yourself as, time and time again, the procedure has been protracted.

                  You live in a make-believe world, Jimmy.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    It's not "my logic", dear Jimmy - it's the facts.
                    Okay then, according to your understanding of the facts, the Senate need never hold confirmation hearings. Correct?


                    As always, you simply make up the laws or statutes you wish to exist. Doesn't work that way.
                    Wrong. I'm just doing what you are apparently unable to do. I use common sense when interpreting intention. When you abandon common sense, like you are doing here, what you end up with is nonsense such that a Senate hearing need never take place.


                    Then you certainly shouldn't rely on your own.
                    Well, actually the point was that you should try using common sense because as can be seen when you don't you end up with ridiculous notions such as (Supreme Court nominees need never be given a hearing.)


                    Yeah, keep repeating that to yourself as, time and time again, the procedure has been protracted.

                    You live in a make-believe world, Jimmy.
                    Common sense CP, common sense!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      As much as I despise Ginsburg's politics, this is an utterly disgusting comment, Adam.
                      I was speaking of the expectations by SCOTUS commentators, not my hopes. Are you having a problem with whom and what I amen? Or are you just having a bad day?
                      Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        JimL & CP. I think the argument over this has gone past it's usefulness. JimL is saying that the senate needs to consider the nomination put forward by the president which is correct and CP is saying that no time period has been defined by the constitution which is also correct. I think the president and the senate are just supposed to work these things out with each other. When the writers of the constitution were writing it I don't think they had in mind that America's politics would be represented by two different parties who hate each others guts.
                        “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Adam View Post
                          I was speaking of the expectations by SCOTUS commentators, not my hopes. Are you having a problem with whom and what I amen? Or are you just having a bad day?
                          You said she was "long overdue to die of cancer". That's disgusting. No bad day needed to identify things that simply should not be said.
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          - Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Well I don't like you either Bill. I guess I like Ruth Bader Ginsburg better than I like you. Happy now?
                            Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Adam View Post
                              Well I don't like you either Bill. I guess I like Ruth Bader Ginsburg better than I like you. Happy now?
                              Why are you so mean spirited?
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              - Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                Okay then, according to your understanding of the facts, the Senate need never hold confirmation hearings. Correct?
                                That's just dumb. They need to. There is no prescribed time limit.

                                Wrong. I'm just doing what you are apparently unable to do.
                                Yes, you're being a goofus.


                                I use common sense when interpreting intention.


                                So, how often does SCOTUS call you to weigh in on decisions?

                                When you abandon common sense, like you are doing here,
                                No, Jimmy, I'm not abandoning common sense - I'm just not pretending that it drives what the Senate is required to do.

                                what you end up with is nonsense such that a Senate hearing need never take place.
                                Well, you thunk that one up all by yourself, because I certainly made no such claim. You used your (cough/sputter) "common sense" to come up with that.

                                Well, actually the point was that you should try using common sense because as can be seen when you don't you end up with ridiculous notions such as (Supreme Court nominees need never be given a hearing.)
                                Jimmy, you can come up with a goofy idea, and call it common sense all you want -- there is still no time constraint on the Senate's responsibility to hold hearings.

                                Common sense CP, common sense!
                                Yes, maybe some day you'll acquire some.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X