[The Urban Sombrero]

If the role of the Senate is "advise and Consent," how is it Constitutional to refuse to have a debate and a vote on a Supreme Court nominee?

[TheRealThing]

If the role of the Senate is "advise and Consent," how is it Constitutional to refuse to have a debate and a vote on a Supreme Court nominee?

IDK, ask Harry Reid about that. He blocked the workings of the US Congress from 2010 through 2014.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Judge Bork got a hearing, didn't he?

[TheRealThing]

Judge Bork got a hearing, didn't he?

Uncle Joe made certain that the track for that particular 'Rail Road', because that's what it was, went right over a cliff.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Uncle Joe made certain that the track for that particular 'Rail Road', because that's what it was, went right over a cliff.

Judge Bork got a hearing, right?

[TheRealThing]

Judge Bork got a hearing, right?

I'm not saying I agree with McConnell, Cruz, Rubio et-al, in employing that tactic. Just that it is beyond hypocritical for any Democrat, least of all Reid, Pelosi or most of all Obama, all participants in an administration which will likely go down as being the mother of all stonewallers, to demand adherence to the rules governing the US Congress. Especially in light of what happened or didn't happen there between 2010 - 2014.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Agree..."we all doin' it, but it really 'ain't' cool when you do it."

[Hoot Gibson]

There is no Constitutional duty to consent to any nominee for the Supreme Court. The Senate may get weak in the knees and cave, but for now it is advising Obama that it will not be consenting to any nominee until after the election.

A few years ago, Schumer was advocating blocking any Bush appointment to the SC 18 months before the end of his term. Now Schumer is lecturing the Republicans on their Constitutional "duty" to confirm an Obama nominee to the Court.

[Truth]

Judge Bork was probably one of the half dozen most qualified jurists to ever be nominated for the USSC. He was rejected by the Democrat controlled US Senate solely because of his strict constructionist philosophy. The Democrats feared Bork because he developed his judicial philosophy strictly through his superior intellect. He was not known as a "religious man" so such beliefs were not involved in his intellectual development as they are with most other conservative jurists. Religious considerations, of course, are never associated with liberal nominees.

In light of all of this, there is a clear precedent for rejection on the sole grounds of judicial philosophy. The treatment of Bork is that precedent.

Thus, I believe that McConnell shot off his mouth too quickly which is in character for McConnell. Let Obama nominate one of his young, minority, amoral, radically liberal sucklings. Give that person a no holds barred hearing before the judiciary committee. Then, reject the nominee which would, just like Bork, be done strictly along party lines.

Thereafter, if necessary, repeat the procedure on the next Obama nominee who would, of course, be young, minority, amoral, radically liberal, and just another suckling.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Judge Bork was probably one of the half dozen most qualified jurists to ever be nominated for the USSC. He was rejected by the Democrat controlled US Senate solely because of his strict constructionist philosophy. The Democrats feared Bork because he developed his judicial philosophy strictly through his superior intellect. He was not known as a "religious man" so such beliefs were not involved in his intellectual development as they are with most other conservative jurists. Religious considerations, of course, are never associated with liberal nominees.

In light of all of this, there is a clear precedent for rejection on the sole grounds of judicial philosophy. The treatment of Bork is that precedent.

Thus, I believe that McConnell shot off his mouth too quickly which is in character for McConnell. Let Obama nominate one of his young, minority, amoral, radically liberal sucklings. Give that person a no holds barred hearing before the judiciary committee. Then, reject the nominee which would, just like Bork, be done strictly along party lines.

Thereafter, if necessary, repeat the procedure on the next Obama nominee who would, of course, be young, minority, amoral, radically liberal, and just another suckling.

McConnell is concerned how it's all going to play out for control of Senate, Presidential race. Both parties playing political chess.

[Truth]

McConnell is concerned how it's all going to play out for control of Senate, Presidential race. Both parties playing political chess.

You are correct. These talking heads of both parties are filling up the airways with manure. There isn't a scintilla of truth being spoken by any of them. I know it and I suspect you know it. However, the general electorate is unsophisticated, uninformed, under educated, disinterested, and, to be blunt, ignorant. So they are easily fooled since they are merely waiting for the next television rendition of the Kardashians or some other similar mindless offering.

If honest, we know that this is true and, of course, McConnell and Reid and their underlings know it, too. Both are out to cover their own butts and keep their own power. Doing what is best for the country went out of vogue long ago.

And, the bottom line is that those people, whom I describe two paragraphs above, vote. Thus, our elections are usually decided by the lowest common denominator. It is a wonder we have survived this long. As the number paying the bills diminishes and the number living off those who actually pay increases, the country will not and cannot sustain the insanity much longer.

[TheRealThing]

Agree..."we all doin' it, but it really 'ain't' cool when you do it."

Not at all. The United States can well function without one of nine SC Justices for less than a year. Not so where the US Congress is concerned, especially for four. Reid is no patriot

[The Urban Sombrero]

Not at all. The United States can well function without one of nine SC Justices for less than a year. Not so where the US Congress is concerned, especially for four. Reid is no patriot

Both parties play games, treat the country like their own private chess game, then scream that the other is lower than a frog's arse for doing exactly what it did when in the majority/minority. I really hate to think our Reps and Senators are not people who love this country, but having a lot of power and access to power and money, and then, of course, wanting to keep that power and access...pretty easy to get lost somewhere along the way. And I think our political class is lost, and the citizenry is pretty lost, and when the blind lead the blind, well, there's a lot of muck and filth in a ditch.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You are correct. These talking heads of both parties are filling up the airways with manure. There isn't a scintilla of truth being spoken by any of them. I know it and I suspect you know it. However, the general electorate is unsophisticated, uninformed, under educated, disinterested, and, to be blunt, ignorant. So they are easily fooled since they are merely waiting for the next television rendition of the Kardashians or some other similar mindless offering.

If honest, we know that this is true and, of course, McConnell and Reid and their underlings know it, too. Both are out to cover their own butts and keep their own power. Doing what is best for the country went out of vogue long ago.

And, the bottom line is that those people, whom I describe two paragraphs above, vote. Thus, our elections are usually decided by the lowest common denominator. It is a wonder we have survived this long. As the number paying the bills diminishes and the number living off those who actually pay increases, the country will not and cannot sustain the insanity much longer.

I wish all high school students were required to pass a citizenship test...what I'm getting at is even a basic knowledge of civics seems hard to come by, and a democracy isn't very secure when the masses are ignorant of the very checks and balances and processes that maintain it.

[TheRealThing]

Both parties play games, treat the country like their own private chess game, then scream that the other is lower than a frog's arse for doing exactly what it did when in the majority/minority. I really hate to think our Reps and Senators are not people who love this country, but having a lot of power and access to power and money, and then, of course, wanting to keep that power and access...pretty easy to get lost somewhere along the way. And I think our political class is lost, and the citizenry is pretty lost, and when the blind lead the blind, well, there's a lot of muck and filth in a ditch.

It is true as they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, I remind you that Republicans have not pushed something like ObamaCare through knowing "the People" did not want it. And the US military were treated like a sub-life form in being relegated to not much more than the US 'coming out' zone for homosexuals, for having to suffer the repeal of DADT. Joint Chiefs, and anybody over 22 years old associated with the military hated what Obama did to our once proud services.

Without going into everything, those who serve us in government are beholden to the people. They are to answer to us when we demand transparency. Stonewalling, destroying data bases and hard drives, deleting emails by the hundreds of thousands that are by law part of the official record of this sovereign nation, and likewise using the various agencies and departments to regulate a resistant citizenry into subjection, all are forms of tyranny if you ask me. So, let's not hang that particular burden around Republican necks though in the interest of survival until the present administration is over, they have funded many of the above mentioned programs.

In short, the federal government does not have the power to 'legislate' the masses into submission by forcing them by law to accept gay marriage or the kingly rule of the executive.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Does the Constitution exist within the checks and balances process to protect the minority from the tyranny and oppression of the "masses?" (See Madison in ANNALS).

[The Urban Sombrero]

It is true as they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, I remind you that Republicans have not pushed something like ObamaCare through knowing "the People" did not want it. And the US military were treated like a sub-life form in being relegated to not much more than the US 'coming out' zone for homosexuals, for having to suffer the repeal of DADT. Joint Chiefs, and anybody over 22 years old associated with the military hated what Obama did to our once proud services.

Without going into everything, those who serve us in government are beholden to the people. They are to answer to us when we demand transparency. Stonewalling, destroying data bases and hard drives, deleting emails by the hundreds of thousands that are by law part of the official record of this sovereign nation, and likewise using the various agencies and departments to regulate a resistant citizenry into subjection, all are forms of tyranny if you ask me. So, let's not hang that particular burden around Republican necks though in the interest of survival until the present administration is over, they have funded many of the above mentioned programs.

In short, the federal government does not have the power to 'legislate' the masses into submission by forcing them by law to accept gay marriage or the kingly rule of the executive.

"Beholden to the people"... And if the people demand laws that violate the principles of Justice? There is much more to right and wrong than a showing of hands, and thankfully the Founders encoded that wisdom. As to the Affordable Care Act, my guess is elections to come will decide to what degree it remains intact.

[TheRealThing]

"Beholden to the people"... And if the people demand laws that violate the principles of Justice? There is much more to right and wrong than a showing of hands, and thankfully the Founders encoded that wisdom. As to the Affordable Care Act, my guess is elections to come will decide to what degree it remains intact.

Well let's see. :pondering: Should I like a mindless Greyhound, give chase to your ridiculous hypothetical liberally stuffed rabbit? No, I think I'll stick around here in reality if it's all the same to you.

[TheRealThing]

Does the Constitution exist within the checks and balances process to protect the minority from the tyranny and oppression of the "masses?" (See Madison in ANNALS).

You mean from having to go to work? (See Franklin "A penny saved is a penny earned")

[The Urban Sombrero]

You mean from having to go to work? (See Franklin "A penny saved is a penny earned")

Let's see, world population circa 2013...7.125 billion, of which around 4.5% live in United States. Now, around the mountains of Appalachia, the New Deal surely did produce cyclical poverty and a fair amount of folks who view "work" as figuring out how to live off the government. True enough. However, poor people often work, mopping the floor Bill Gates walks across, making the bed Zuckerberg sleeps in at a five star hotel, etc. No sin or shame in that. A married couple who both work full time at Walmart (if possible as Walmart likes "parties") will barely escape the poverty line if they have a few kids, etc. And, in broader perspective, as the world doesn't end at Pikeville, the overwhelming majority of the world's populace are poor not because some Appalachian small business owner makes a couple hundred grand a year with seventeen employees, but because the flow of resources and allocation of resources is skewed and because corruption is rampant and because a hundred other reasons that include " too sorry to work" as a miniscule fraction of the whole.

[TheRealThing]

Let's see, world population circa 2013...7.125 billion, of which around 4.5% live in United States. Now, around the mountains of Appalachia, the New Deal surely did produce cyclical poverty and a fair amount of folks who view "work" as figuring out how to live off the government. True enough. However, poor people often work, mopping the floor Bill Gates walks across, making the bed Zuckerberg sleeps in at a five star hotel, etc. No sin or shame in that. A married couple who both work full time at Walmart (if possible as Walmart likes "parties") will barely escape the poverty line of the have a few kids, etc. And, in broader perspective, as the world doesn't end at Pikeville, the overwhelming majority of the world's populace are poor not because some Appalachian small business owner makes a couple hundred grand a year with seventeen employees, but because the flow of resources and allocation of resources is skewed and because corruption is rampant and because a hundred other reasons that include " too sorry to work" as a miniscule fraction of the whole.

We have here in this land the following. Equality of opportunity (except in cases where affirmative action has skewed vocational success and the access to free education). One can therefore, achieve his slice albeit perhaps a thin one, of the American dream through work. Or, they can go the route which sidesteps personal responsibility and claim foul by virtue of race or whatever. Your fraction must be the work product of new math I guess. Because this is the actual equation according to Forbes; "Thus, perhaps 52 percent of U.S. households—more than half—now receive benefits from the government, thanks to President Obama. And Mr. Entitlement is just getting started. If Obamacare is not repealed millions more will join the swelling rolls of those dependent on government handouts."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatth...16c3456233

In other words, more takers than providers.

[The Urban Sombrero]

We have here in this land the following. Equality of opportunity (except in cases where affirmative action has skewed vocational success and the access to free education). One can therefore, achieve his slice albeit perhaps a thin one, of the American dream through work. Or, they can go the route which sidesteps personal responsibility and claim foul by virtue of race or whatever. Your fraction must be the work product of new math I guess. Because this is the actual equation according to Forbes; "Thus, perhaps 52 percent of U.S. households—more than half—now receive benefits from the government, thanks to President Obama. And Mr. Entitlement is just getting started. If Obamacare is not repealed millions more will join the swelling rolls of those dependent on government handouts."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatth...16c3456233

In other words, more takers than providers.

If 52% is accurate, it would be correct to say "a slight majority of American households." It would be self-serving, sensationalistic, and inaccurate to say, "most." But, "more takers than providers" is a problem, no doubt. However, it is not so simple a problem as "too sorry to work." American jobs booked it to Mexico and China and India and Thailand, leaving behind a wasteland of subsistence living jobs. When maximizing profits becomes the Mammon Ethic that is the be all end all of the corporate elite, and the world leaders who get in bed with them, a shrinking middle class happens, a "selling guns to where business interest runs" happens. Yes, "too sorry to work" is an issue, but, geez, open your eyes, man.

[TheRealThing]

If 52% is accurate, it would be correct to say "a slight majority of American households." It would be self-serving, sensationalistic, and inaccurate to say, "most." But, "more takers than providers" is a problem, no doubt. However, it is not so simple a problem as "too sorry to work." American jobs booked it to Mexico and China and India and Thailand, leaving behind a wasteland of subsistence living jobs. When maximizing profits becomes the Mammon Ethic that is the be all end all of the corporate elite, and the world leaders who get in bed with them, a shrinking middle class happens, a "selling guns to where business interest runs" happens. Yes, "too sorry to work" is an issue, but, geez, open your eyes, man.

Mine was not to open up a new debate front regarding US industry, which BTW went to Mexico and Thailand because they were regulated to death by the EPA. Government cannot regulate utopia in spite of John Lennon's recording successes. Nor should they be trying to regulate morality. You said (to me) that there are a tiny fraction of people who won't work. The ratio of takers is certainly not miniscule by comparison to those who work. And I disagree, it really is just that simple.

If the people had to suffer the realities of having voted for those who are listing at a fatal degree toward socialism, they would snap out of it. But no, the goodies still come, the ax is still ground, and the US ship of state still sails in an ever tightening circle.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Mine was not to open up a new debate front regarding US industry, which BTW went to Mexico and Thailand because they were regulated to death by the EPA. Government cannot regulate utopia in spite of John Lennon's recording successes. Nor should they be trying to regulate morality. You said (to me) that there are a tiny fraction of people who won't work. The ratio of takers is certainly not miniscule by comparison to those who work. And I disagree, it really is just that simple.

If the people had to suffer the realities of having voted for those who are listing at a fatal degree toward socialism, they would snap out of it. But no, the goodies still come, the ax is still ground, and the US ship of state still sails in an ever tightening circle.

A man drives from Jackson to Georgetown and works his body worn at Toyota. Receives very good pay and benefits. Another man from Jackson has this attitude that life shucked him a raw deal and government and society owe him. His kids are on free lunch and wear free braces and glasses. I say "his kids" but he is with another woman now. Obviously, the "it is the government's job to see that me and my kids eat" mindset will kill a nation's productivity. No question. It is also true that a society needs safety nets because people do get sick, get hurt, get old, get left behind by an ever-changing economy and world. I'm not saying the man driving from Jackson to work at Toyota until his body hurts all the time doesn't have a right to be angry. But multinationals who care nothing about anything but higher profits may scam the public into blaming unions and the EPA and blah, blah, blah, but providing jobs does not give them carte blanche to pollute water and air and treat human beings like yoked oxen.

[TheRealThing]

A man drives from Jackson to Georgetown and works his body worn at Toyota. Receives very good pay and benefits. Another man from Jackson has this attitude that life shucked him a raw deal and government and society owe him. His kids are on free lunch and wear free braces and glasses. I say "his kids" but he is with another woman now. Obviously, the "it is the government's job to see that me and my kids eat" mindset will kill a nation's productivity. No question. It is also true that a society needs safety nets because people do get sick, get hurt, get old, get left behind by an ever-changing economy and world. I'm not saying the man driving from Jackson to work at Toyota until his body hurts all the time doesn't have a right to be angry. But multinationals who care nothing about anything but higher profits may scam the public into blaming unions and the EPA and blah, blah, blah, but providing jobs does not give them carte blanche to pollute water and air and treat human beings like yoked oxen.

LOL, you even spell carte blanche the way I do.

But by way of shaking my head like my dog does when he gets a bath, in this you have posed the quintessential, mutually exclusive, would be argument. There ain't no vast right wing conspiracy, Unions made their bed when they laid with politicians, and unfortunately, we get the multinational treatment when we run everybody else out of town. And now would be a good time to point out that the EPA, rains on everybody's parade, including people from Japan. :biggrin:

[The Urban Sombrero]

LOL, you even spell carte blanche the way I do.

But by way of shaking my head like my dog does when he gets a bath, in this you have posed the quintessential, mutually exclusive, would be argument. There ain't no vast right wing conspiracy, Unions made their bed when they laid with politicians, and unfortunately, we get the multinational treatment when we run everybody else out of town. And now would be a good time to point out that the EPA, rains on everybody's parade, including people from Japan. :biggrin:

There is no vast right wing conspiracy, but groupthink is about as old as the human race. The idea that a solitary worker needs a powerful voice of solidarity in the face of Big Coal, or Big Sugar, or Big Auto etc. seems obvious. No denying unions suffer from corruption. The idea that the Big Mammon set can be trusted to protect streams and air quality etc. is laughable. What is happening pollution wise in China is a mirror to our own industrial past before environmental protectionist legislation reversed the worst of the abuse.

[TheRealThing]

There is no vast right wing conspiracy, but groupthink is about as old as the human race. The idea that a solitary worker needs a powerful voice of solidarity in the face of Big Coal, or Big Sugar, or Big Auto etc. seems obvious. No denying unions suffer from corruption. The idea that the Big Mammon set can be trusted to protect streams and air quality etc. is laughable. What is happening pollution wise in China is a mirror to our own industrial past before environmental protectionist legislation reversed the worst of the abuse.

I give, you're too slippery for me and I have no interest in dancing around every liberal talking point. We just went from welfare and sloth to global warming in four posts. The premise of which is hauntingly familiar to attributing every good thing happening in the US in the past 25 years to Bill Clinton. Men and women in industry are largely responsible for cleaning up the environment. They did not need protectionists looking over their shoulder to get that done. Your suggesting the only people of conscience are liberals which I reject out of hand.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I give, you're too slippery for me and I have no interest in dancing around every liberal talking point. We just went from welfare and sloth to global warming in four posts. The premise of which is hauntingly familiar to attributing every good thing happening in the US in the past 25 years to Bill Clinton. Men and women in industry are largely responsible for cleaning up the environment. They did not need protectionists looking over their shoulder to get that done. Your suggesting the only people of conscience are liberals which I reject out of hand.

Absolutely not. I am suggesting that Big Mammon has turned Chinese cities into Smog Central. I would hope no label would delineate who cares or doesn't care about cities choking on their own bowels. Plenty of businesses are conscientious partners and good neighbors. The NT is run through with admonition and warning about what the worship of Mammon does to people and society. Funny thing, that hardly ever gets mentioned.

[Truth]

Not to change the flow of discussion but is anyone else infuriated by the fact that, although he met with the Black Lives Matter reprobates today and may well play golf this weekend, the half breed sob in the White House is not attending the funeral of Justice Scalia? And, of course, he is meeting with his Communist cohorts in Cuba next month.

This will be the first time in over 65 years that a president has skipped such a funeral. He shows no respect. He exhibits his open animosity toward conservatives, Christians, traditionalists, and the constitution. Republicans better go to school on all of this and the fire back at this reprobate with absolutely no holds barred. Burn his skinny butt. Give him nothing. Respect must be earned and this piece of excrement has earned nothing but our disdain and ridicule. He is dangerous. To hell with the little amoral fairy and I mean that literally.

[TheRealThing]

Not to change the flow of discussion but is anyone else infuriated by the fact that, although he met with the Black Lives Matter reprobates today and may well play golf this weekend, the half breed sob in the White House is not attending the funeral of Justice Scalia? And, of course, he is meeting with his Communist cohorts in Cuba next month.

This will be the first time in over 65 years that a president has skipped such a funeral. He shows no respect. He exhibits his open animosity toward conservatives, Christians, traditionalists, and the constitution. Republicans better go to school on all of this and the fire back at this reprobate with absolutely no holds barred. Burn his skinny butt. Give him nothing. Respect must be earned and this piece of excrement has earned nothing but our disdain and ridicule. He is dangerous. To hell with the little amoral fairy and I mean that literally.

I think I understand the level of Obama's contempt. That is to say the intensity of same, but it may be even greater than I have perceived. The thought I had before I read your post was that Obama was thumbing his nose at a man who has been a thorn in his side for the entirety of his Presidency.

The thing that scares me even more than Obama is the fact that so many openly mocked Marco Rubio for saying that Obama is anything but inept. And that he has known exactly what he has been doing from the start. A point that I believe should be made with great emphasis and one which is long overdue. But you saw the majority of the pundits and politicians mocking him, (Rubio) for it, not the least of which was none other than Chris Christie. The very man whose campaign was built upon the notion that he stood alone in his ability to discern danger to our nation and could best protect Americans.

Rubio's point totally got by Christie whose big mouth was open so far he couldn't have heard it if he'd wanted to.