I was a teenager 15 years ago, hey andy does this mean I can date one of your daughters? I mean we're basically the same age.dbackjon wrote:GannonFan wrote:
White came to the bench in 1962, Stewart a few years earlier than that. So that just leaves Clarence Thomas as the youngest when selected for the bench in the past 54 years. And clearly, his was not a very easy approval process.
And both were still on the bench in the 1980s so that is recent history, I am perfectly refutes your point
Cuellar was one of 4 starters for the O's that won at least 20 games in 1971 (Palmer, Dobson, McNally). This has only happened twice in history (1920 White Sox).AshevilleApp wrote:The Yankee bastard and the Cuban star!CAA Flagship wrote:
We are looking for a Supreme Court Justice, not pitchers.
I'll answer your question with another question:CAA Flagship wrote:Question:
Why would anyone want to be nominated by Obama knowing that the Senate will shoot you down?
Would this create a dead end in the career? Has anyone ever been confirmed after losing in a previous Senate vote?
My guess is that the GOP is so divided that there is fear that some of the jackasses will actually vote yes.Grizalltheway wrote:I'll answer your question with another question:CAA Flagship wrote:Question:
Why would anyone want to be nominated by Obama knowing that the Senate will shoot you down?
Would this create a dead end in the career? Has anyone ever been confirmed after losing in a previous Senate vote?
Why are all these conks, who praised Scalia as a strict constructionist, trying to shirk their constitutional duties to a least hold a hearing on the sitting president's SCOTUS nominee?
Oh, so there's a clause in the Constitution that says you have to do it unless they nominate someone you don't like and there's a chance they'll be confirmed?CAA Flagship wrote:My guess is that the GOP is so divided that there is fear that some of the jackasses will actually vote yes.Grizalltheway wrote:
I'll answer your question with another question:
Why are all these conks, who praised Scalia as a strict constructionist, trying to shirk their constitutional duties to a least hold a hearing on the sitting president's SCOTUS nominee?
I think they need to hold the vote.
Now, i want an answer to my question. Is getting to a vote and being denied a career killer?
No. You're an instant hero to one side. Like Bork.CAA Flagship wrote:Question:
Why would anyone want to be nominated by Obama knowing that the Senate will shoot you down?
Would this create a dead end in the career? Has anyone ever been confirmed after losing in a previous Senate vote?
Too liberal.Grizalltheway wrote:Oh, so there's a clause in the Constitution that says you have to do it unless they nominate someone you don't like and there's a chance they'll be confirmed?CAA Flagship wrote: My guess is that the GOP is so divided that there is fear that some of the jackasses will actually vote yes.
I think they need to hold the vote.
Now, i want an answer to my question. Is getting to a vote and being denied a career killer?
And no, I doubt it, given that Scalia's body was still warm when the GOP made it clear they wouldn't play ball even if Obama nominated Jesus.
Hey, dickwad. Pay the fuck attention. I asked the question about the person being nominated. And wondering if anyone has ever been shot down only to get confirmed later.Grizalltheway wrote:Oh, so there's a clause in the Constitution that says you have to do it unless they nominate someone you don't like and there's a chance they'll be confirmed?CAA Flagship wrote: My guess is that the GOP is so divided that there is fear that some of the jackasses will actually vote yes.
I think they need to hold the vote.
Now, i want an answer to my question. Is getting to a vote and being denied a career killer?
And no, I doubt it, given that Scalia's body was still warm when the GOP made it clear they wouldn't play ball even if Obama nominated Jesus.
And I'm saying being nominated and rejected probably wouldn't be a career killer, given the circumstances.CAA Flagship wrote:Hey, dickwad. Pay the fuck attention. I asked the question about the person being nominated. And wondering if anyone has ever been shot down only to get confirmed later.Grizalltheway wrote:
Oh, so there's a clause in the Constitution that says you have to do it unless they nominate someone you don't like and there's a chance they'll be confirmed?
And no, I doubt it, given that Scalia's body was still warm when the GOP made it clear they wouldn't play ball even if Obama nominated Jesus.
This leads to whether or not someone will actually accept the nomination given the headwinds. Or does Obama choose a JV player to be sacrificed.
To me, this is the most interesting part.
It's nuanced(Kalm probably sees it).Grizalltheway wrote:Oh, so there's a clause in the Constitution that says you have to do it unless they nominate someone you don't like and there's a chance they'll be confirmed?CAA Flagship wrote: My guess is that the GOP is so divided that there is fear that some of the jackasses will actually vote yes.
I think they need to hold the vote.
Now, i want an answer to my question. Is getting to a vote and being denied a career killer?
And no, I doubt it, given that Scalia's body was still warm when the GOP made it clear they wouldn't play ball even if Obama nominated Jesus.
Well played!Ibanez wrote:It's nuanced(Kalm probably sees it).Grizalltheway wrote:
Oh, so there's a clause in the Constitution that says you have to do it unless they nominate someone you don't like and there's a chance they'll be confirmed?
And no, I doubt it, given that Scalia's body was still warm when the GOP made it clear they wouldn't play ball even if Obama nominated Jesus.
Grizalltheway wrote:And I'm saying being nominated and rejected probably wouldn't be a career killer, given the circumstances.CAA Flagship wrote: Hey, dickwad. Pay the fuck attention. I asked the question about the person being nominated. And wondering if anyone has ever been shot down only to get confirmed later.
This leads to whether or not someone will actually accept the nomination given the headwinds. Or does Obama choose a JV player to be sacrificed.
To me, this is the most interesting part.
Which happened first? The Senate taking their ball home or dback calling him a scumbag asshole whom should rot in hell?Grizalltheway wrote: And no, I doubt it, given that Scalia's body was still warm when the GOP made it clear they wouldn't play ball even if Obama nominated Jesus.
After his failed nomination, he became a law professor at George Mason. So, yeah.andy7171 wrote:Did Bork's career end in the 80's?
He's such a hypocritical conktard.HI54UNI wrote:Does Obama have a conflict of interest....
Let’s face it.
When it comes to nominating a new Supreme Court nominee, President Obama is facing a huge conflict of interest.
Maybe the biggest of his presidency.
And I’m going to do everything I can to make sure the Senate does what is necessary to uphold the Constitution.
Many of the president’s own executive actions on immigration, climate change, and Obamacare, are under review by the Supreme Court right now.
We already know how Obama wants them to rule.
He thinks he should have the power basically to create immigration law out nothing.
He thinks he has the power to basically cripple entire industries like coal without ever having been given that power by Congress.
It’s a complete Constitutional debate on whose powers it is to legislate right now. Is it the president or Congress?
His entire philosophy of law is up for debate and it will be decided where? At the Supreme Court.
What I see here is a huge conflict of interest.
The president will need to choose a sympathetic character while the court is trying to decide whether or not he’s usurped power unconstitutionally.
He has every motivation to choose a nominee who supports the notion that the executive branch should be more powerful than the legislative-- that the president is the ultimate authority and that Congress, the voice of the people, doesn’t matter at all.
I will not let this happen.
It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to get me to vote for a SCOTUS nomination from this president.
I’m not going to take it lying down and let the president have his way.
I’m not going to let him change the entire process of law in this country without one heck of a fight.
Will you stand with me as I do everything I can to block President Obama’s attempt to silence the opinion of the American public?
In Liberty,
Rand Paul
FIFY.dbackjon wrote:He's such a hypocritical conktard who happens to be right on this critical issue.HI54UNI wrote:Does Obama have a conflict of interest....
Let’s face it.
When it comes to nominating a new Supreme Court nominee, President Obama is facing a huge conflict of interest.
Maybe the biggest of his presidency.
And I’m going to do everything I can to make sure the Senate does what is necessary to uphold the Constitution.
Many of the president’s own executive actions on immigration, climate change, and Obamacare, are under review by the Supreme Court right now.
We already know how Obama wants them to rule.
He thinks he should have the power basically to create immigration law out nothing.
He thinks he has the power to basically cripple entire industries like coal without ever having been given that power by Congress.
It’s a complete Constitutional debate on whose powers it is to legislate right now. Is it the president or Congress?
His entire philosophy of law is up for debate and it will be decided where? At the Supreme Court.
What I see here is a huge conflict of interest.
The president will need to choose a sympathetic character while the court is trying to decide whether or not he’s usurped power unconstitutionally.
He has every motivation to choose a nominee who supports the notion that the executive branch should be more powerful than the legislative-- that the president is the ultimate authority and that Congress, the voice of the people, doesn’t matter at all.
I will not let this happen.
It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to get me to vote for a SCOTUS nomination from this president.
I’m not going to take it lying down and let the president have his way.
I’m not going to let him change the entire process of law in this country without one heck of a fight.
Will you stand with me as I do everything I can to block President Obama’s attempt to silence the opinion of the American public?
In Liberty,
Rand Paul
Yeah well didn't I just correct the mighty clizzoris from there to their without disagreeing with himChizzang wrote:Rand Pauls team wrote that with missing words and punctuation errors..?
God I hope they did
Dumb fvcks want to pick the nominee they should win the election.HI54UNI wrote:Does Obama have a conflict of interest....
Let’s face it.
When it comes to nominating a new Supreme Court nominee, President Obama is facing a huge conflict of interest.
Maybe the biggest of his presidency.
And I’m going to do everything I can to make sure the Senate does what is necessary to uphold the Constitution.
Many of the president’s own executive actions on immigration, climate change, and Obamacare, are under review by the Supreme Court right now.
We already know how Obama wants them to rule.
He thinks he should have the power basically to create immigration law out nothing.
He thinks he has the power to basically cripple entire industries like coal without ever having been given that power by Congress.
It’s a complete Constitutional debate on whose powers it is to legislate right now. Is it the president or Congress?
His entire philosophy of law is up for debate and it will be decided where? At the Supreme Court.
What I see here is a huge conflict of interest.
The president will need to choose a sympathetic character while the court is trying to decide whether or not he’s usurped power unconstitutionally.
He has every motivation to choose a nominee who supports the notion that the executive branch should be more powerful than the legislative-- that the president is the ultimate authority and that Congress, the voice of the people, doesn’t matter at all.
I will not let this happen.
It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to get me to vote for a SCOTUS nomination from this president.
I’m not going to take it lying down and let the president have his way.
I’m not going to let him change the entire process of law in this country without one heck of a fight.
Will you stand with me as I do everything I can to block President Obama’s attempt to silence the opinion of the American public?
In Liberty,
Rand Paul
Since all the Donks have are an Alzheimer riddled fucktard, and sleazy grimy lying cunt, the Conks are gonna win the election...hence the delay.houndawg wrote:Dumb fvcks want to pick the nominee they should win the election.HI54UNI wrote:Does Obama have a conflict of interest....
Let’s face it.
When it comes to nominating a new Supreme Court nominee, President Obama is facing a huge conflict of interest.
Maybe the biggest of his presidency.
And I’m going to do everything I can to make sure the Senate does what is necessary to uphold the Constitution.
Many of the president’s own executive actions on immigration, climate change, and Obamacare, are under review by the Supreme Court right now.
We already know how Obama wants them to rule.
He thinks he should have the power basically to create immigration law out nothing.
He thinks he has the power to basically cripple entire industries like coal without ever having been given that power by Congress.
It’s a complete Constitutional debate on whose powers it is to legislate right now. Is it the president or Congress?
His entire philosophy of law is up for debate and it will be decided where? At the Supreme Court.
What I see here is a huge conflict of interest.
The president will need to choose a sympathetic character while the court is trying to decide whether or not he’s usurped power unconstitutionally.
He has every motivation to choose a nominee who supports the notion that the executive branch should be more powerful than the legislative-- that the president is the ultimate authority and that Congress, the voice of the people, doesn’t matter at all.
I will not let this happen.
It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to get me to vote for a SCOTUS nomination from this president.
I’m not going to take it lying down and let the president have his way.
I’m not going to let him change the entire process of law in this country without one heck of a fight.
Will you stand with me as I do everything I can to block President Obama’s attempt to silence the opinion of the American public?
In Liberty,
Rand Paul
conks.
