Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free politics

by **The Savior** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:01:43

jerseyhoya wrote:
The Savior wrote:lol rule of law defense from the guy supporting the party that didn't let the president appoint a SC judge as was his constitutional right.

Gtfo

I must have missed that part of the constitution.

But did you miss that this happened?

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:01:55

JFLNYC wrote:
The Savior wrote:lol rule of law defense from the guy supporting the party that didn't let the president appoint a SC judge as was his constitutional right.

Gtfo

It would be as though Obama appointed a part-time, interim SC justice — who called the SCOTUS a “sad, sick joke” — to rule in cases until the Senate completed its advise & consent.

This is a pretty bad analogy. The executive and judicial branches are different things!

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:07:14

jerseyhoya wrote:
The Savior wrote:lol rule of law defense from the guy supporting the party that didn't let the president appoint a SC judge as was his constitutional right.

Gtfo

I must have missed that part of the constitution.

You missed the Appointments Clause? What Mitch did was a horrific misinterpretation of "Advice and Consent."

by **pacino** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:10:12

jerseyhoya wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
The Savior wrote:lol rule of law defense from the guy supporting the party that didn't let the president appoint a SC judge as was his constitutional right.

Gtfo

It would be as though Obama appointed a part-time, interim SC justice — who called the SCOTUS a “sad, sick joke” — to rule in cases until the Senate completed its advise & consent.

This is a pretty bad analogy. The executive and judicial branches are different things!

he could've done a recess appointment and you'd have been apoplectic

by **thephan** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:11:36

jerseyhoya wrote:
The Savior wrote:lol rule of law defense from the guy supporting the party that didn't let the president appoint a SC judge as was his constitutional right.

Gtfo

I must have missed that part of the constitution.

That's the argument, right? The constitution' Article II, Section 2, says the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint” various high-level executive and judicial officers." The argument is what advice, and consent man as there is no requirement to act, but there is clear preservation of the separation of powers assuring that the president may not appoint a justice without the Senate’s input. It is not a written requirement, in fact there is no requirement for congress to act on anything ever, but there has been a tradition in pre-broken Washington that matters were considered, public debate, then publicly voted on. Part of that tradition was to assess the fitness of office of the individual representing the citizens to inform their votes. The closest we get to this is soundbite cinema, which is hardly meeting that fairly low bar.

Understand that this is not a partisan issue, and all you need to do is look at the democrats mode of operation with ACA, which dictates the back alley, operation in the dark actions of today's GOP. The fact is that we need a general reset, and votes need to demand transparency, accountability, and, God forbid, action by our elected representation.

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:14:02

jerseyhoya wrote:
slugsrbad wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
CalvinBall wrote:What's the farce?

A seemingly determined belief that Donald Trump is not the president of the United States and the head of the executive branch of government.

I think there was a serious question of law whether the FVRA or Dodd-Frank Act ruled when it came to immediate vacancies. I did not read the recent ruling, but I do not think it was a farcical challenge.

There's some ambiguity, though I think the idea that absence or unavailability would extend to a resignation seems ridiculous, especially given the nature of her appointment. The board's GC sided with the admin.

I think there is more than "some" ambiguity. The two acts seem counter to each other, and the legislative history of the Dodd-Frank Act makes it seem clear that Congress' intent was to have Dodd-Frank's succession rule. As to your question of whether or not resignation fits the absence/unavailability criteria, that's another question that should be left to the courts. A quick (and probably ineffective) Google Fu could not find anything definitive on that matter. I don't think it is ridiculous, just unanswered.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:16:59

pacino wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
The Savior wrote:lol rule of law defense from the guy supporting the party that didn't let the president appoint a SC judge as was his constitutional right.

Gtfo

It would be as though Obama appointed a part-time, interim SC justice — who called the SCOTUS a “sad, sick joke” — to rule in cases until the Senate completed its advise & consent.

This is a pretty bad analogy. The executive and judicial branches are different things!

he could've done a recess appointment and you'd have been apoplectic

Especially since the Senate wasn't in recess and the Supreme Court had already unanimously ruled against the Obama administration for making such appointments.

by **JFLNYC** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:29:18

jerseyhoya wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
The Savior wrote:lol rule of law defense from the guy supporting the party that didn't let the president appoint a SC judge as was his constitutional right.

Gtfo

It would be as though Obama appointed a part-time, interim SC justice — who called the SCOTUS a “sad, sick joke” — to rule in cases until the Senate completed its advise & consent.

This is a pretty bad analogy. The executive and judicial branches are different things!

Swing and a miss! The procedure for Presidential appointments for both SC justices and the CFPB head with the advice and consent of the Senate are the same.

by **thephan** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:31:08

The Savior wrote:Trump tweeting anti Muslim videos that promote violence and distrust of an entire religion.

Your move republicans.

This cannot get lost in the other noise.

This stuff is completely insane. There should be some legitimate concern in DC about this thought process. Couple this with yesterdays reveal around his whispering about the legitimacy of his words, and today's stories about him being back on the birther thing and you can see that he is really changing in a very disturbing way.

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:31:36

JFLNYC wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
The Savior wrote:lol rule of law defense from the guy supporting the party that didn't let the president appoint a SC judge as was his constitutional right.

Gtfo

It would be as though Obama appointed a part-time, interim SC justice — who called the SCOTUS a “sad, sick joke” — to rule in cases until the Senate completed its advise & consent.

This is a pretty bad analogy. The executive and judicial branches are different things!

Swing and a miss! The procedure for Presidential appointments for both SC justices and the CFPB with the advice and consent of the Senate are the same.

There is no Federal Vacancy Reform Act for the Supreme Court. Trump has the authority to appoint a previously Senate confirmed official into another Senate confirmed position.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:32:48

JFLNYC wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
The Savior wrote:lol rule of law defense from the guy supporting the party that didn't let the president appoint a SC judge as was his constitutional right.

Gtfo

It would be as though Obama appointed a part-time, interim SC justice — who called the SCOTUS a “sad, sick joke” — to rule in cases until the Senate completed its advise & consent.

This is a pretty bad analogy. The executive and judicial branches are different things!

Swing and a miss! The procedure for Presidential appointments for both SC justices and the CFPB head with the advice and consent of the Senate are the same.

(But the procedure for interim vacancies are not)

by **CalvinBall** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:33:43

slugsrbad wrote:Trump also spent the morning re-tweeting a far right political movement Britain First. Of course these videos were anti-Islamic and racist.

dont these people put out fake videos and conspiracy garbage regularly? insane that our president is openly promoting them and their agenda.

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:43:46

CalvinBall wrote:
slugsrbad wrote:Trump also spent the morning re-tweeting a far right political movement Britain First. Of course these videos were anti-Islamic and racist.

dont these people put out fake videos and conspiracy garbage regularly? insane that our president is openly promoting them and their agenda.

Yes. The one video he retweeted showed a "Muslim migrant" beat up a Dutch boy on crutches. In fact, the assaulter was a 16-year old Dutch boy who was arrested a day after the incident.

by **pacino** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:50:50

Understand that this is not a partisan issue, and all you need to do is look at the democrats mode of operation with ACA, which dictates the back alley

huh

by **pacino** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:52:54

jerseyhoya wrote:
pacino wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
The Savior wrote:lol rule of law defense from the guy supporting the party that didn't let the president appoint a SC judge as was his constitutional right.

Gtfo

It would be as though Obama appointed a part-time, interim SC justice — who called the SCOTUS a “sad, sick joke” — to rule in cases until the Senate completed its advise & consent.

This is a pretty bad analogy. The executive and judicial branches are different things!

he could've done a recess appointment and you'd have been apoplectic

Especially since the Senate wasn't in recess and the Supreme Court had already unanimously ruled against the Obama administration for making such appointments.

Mr Norms

this is pretty pathetic stuff overall. you defend the idea that the Senate doesn't have to take up a supreme court nominee simply because you didn't like who the president was that nominated them then want THE NORMS with the current president because he fake nominates someone to show up a few days a week at the agency and there actually is doubt as to whether the vacancies act applies to the agency since Dodd-Frank was passed by Congress.

Neil Gorsuch is the largest stain on the Republican party. it's not Trump, he's really little different in action than what a lot of republican presidents would be at this point in time, it's Gorsuch.

Never Trump is the most useless movement I've ever seen because there are really no end goals that are different than Trump.

by **JUburton** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:55:10

thems the breaks said the guy supporting unprecedented obstruction of judicial nominations just because they technically can.

by **JUburton** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 09:59:06

textualism is extremely good and important to me. 'advise and consent' says the constitution. well mitch advised president obama to go fuck himself so all is well here. also dont forget the biden rule.

by **pacino** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:00:08

slugsrbad wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
The Savior wrote:lol rule of law defense from the guy supporting the party that didn't let the president appoint a SC judge as was his constitutional right.

Gtfo

It would be as though Obama appointed a part-time, interim SC justice — who called the SCOTUS a “sad, sick joke” — to rule in cases until the Senate completed its advise & consent.

This is a pretty bad analogy. The executive and judicial branches are different things!

Swing and a miss! The procedure for Presidential appointments for both SC justices and the CFPB with the advice and consent of the Senate are the same.

There is no Federal Vacancy Reform Act for the Supreme Court. Trump has the authority to appoint a previously Senate confirmed official into another Senate confirmed position.

and when this is over another interim will be named. and another. and another.

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:04:18

pacino wrote:
slugsrbad wrote:
There is no Federal Vacancy Reform Act for the Supreme Court. Trump has the authority to appoint a previously Senate confirmed official into another Senate confirmed position.

and when this is over another interim will be named. and another. and another.

There are only so many Senate-confirmed appointees for Trump. Eventually he'll have to nominate someone, or the Dodd-Frank Succession Plan will happen and Ms. English will be the Acting Head.

Also, as a reminder for everyone, all that happened in this case was the denial of the TRO. There is still a legal issue on whether or not Ms. English or Mr. Mulvaney is the rightful Acting Director. As of now, Mr. Mulvaney is in the position, but a court could rule against the Trump administration (JH already explained why this may be unlikely, but there are unsettled questions here).

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:04:46

Donald Trump wrote:So now tha Matt Lauer is gone when will the Fake News practitioners at NBC be terminating the contract of Phil Griffin? And will they terminate low ratings Joe Scarborough based on the “unsolved mystery” that took place in Florida years ago? Investigate!

Archived

Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free politics

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli

Re: Pocahontas, pedos, polls, prosecutors, and pun-free poli