Originally posted by JimL
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Scalia's replacement
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostIn due time, Jimmy. There is no time period spelled out.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostA 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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYou 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adam View Post... Particularly with Ruth Bader Ginsburg long overdue to have died of cancer.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
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostA 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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThat would be "benefit", not "benifit". And, no, time periods are often spelled out in the law and procedure.
Perhaps that's why you're having such a difficult time comprehending it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAccording 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.
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.
You live in a make-believe world, Jimmy.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostIt's not "my logic", dear Jimmy - it's the facts.
As always, you simply make up the laws or statutes you wish to exist. Doesn't work that way.
Then you certainly shouldn't rely on your own.
Yeah, keep repeating that to yourself as, time and time again, the procedure has been protracted.
You live in a make-believe world, Jimmy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostAs much as I despise Ginsburg's politics, this is an utterly disgusting comment, Adam.Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by Adam View PostI 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?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
-
Originally posted by Adam View PostWell I don't like you either Bill. I guess I like Ruth Bader Ginsburg better than I like you. Happy now?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
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOkay then, according to your understanding of the facts, the Senate need never hold confirmation hearings. Correct?
Wrong. I'm just doing what you are apparently unable to do.
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,
what you end up with is nonsense such that a Senate hearing need never take place.
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.)
Common sense CP, common sense!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
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
379 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment