0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: ednksu on March 30, 2016, 01:21:07 AMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 29, 2016, 05:38:29 PMQuote from: ednksu on March 29, 2016, 03:18:15 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 29, 2016, 02:29:41 PMCharging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.You people are rough ridin' crazyExcept this isn't occurring in your fantasy vacuum. This is a concerted effort on your party's part to destroy the basic moorings of the NLRB. It's your party damaging the district courts to an unprecedented level. It's your party objecting to their constitutional duties under a bullshit excuse to prevent Obama from moving this country forward. You have ZERO historical examples of this occurring before but the logical side has many examples of a nominee being put through. Once again, everything you're spewing, is an utter lie.What is your foundation for these accusations? This is so crazyif you don't know about any of these examples you're a low information voter and it's a shame your vote counts the same as mine. I mean these examples have spurred recent Supreme Court decisions.You've accused me of numerous things without any foundation. I'm not sure what specific supreme Court rulings have to do with confirming this garland guy (probably a "strawman"), but you are so "incoherent" it's difficult to see the trees through your streaming flow of consciousness.
Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 29, 2016, 05:38:29 PMQuote from: ednksu on March 29, 2016, 03:18:15 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 29, 2016, 02:29:41 PMCharging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.You people are rough ridin' crazyExcept this isn't occurring in your fantasy vacuum. This is a concerted effort on your party's part to destroy the basic moorings of the NLRB. It's your party damaging the district courts to an unprecedented level. It's your party objecting to their constitutional duties under a bullshit excuse to prevent Obama from moving this country forward. You have ZERO historical examples of this occurring before but the logical side has many examples of a nominee being put through. Once again, everything you're spewing, is an utter lie.What is your foundation for these accusations? This is so crazyif you don't know about any of these examples you're a low information voter and it's a shame your vote counts the same as mine. I mean these examples have spurred recent Supreme Court decisions.
Quote from: ednksu on March 29, 2016, 03:18:15 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 29, 2016, 02:29:41 PMCharging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.You people are rough ridin' crazyExcept this isn't occurring in your fantasy vacuum. This is a concerted effort on your party's part to destroy the basic moorings of the NLRB. It's your party damaging the district courts to an unprecedented level. It's your party objecting to their constitutional duties under a bullshit excuse to prevent Obama from moving this country forward. You have ZERO historical examples of this occurring before but the logical side has many examples of a nominee being put through. Once again, everything you're spewing, is an utter lie.What is your foundation for these accusations? This is so crazy
Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 29, 2016, 02:29:41 PMCharging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.You people are rough ridin' crazyExcept this isn't occurring in your fantasy vacuum. This is a concerted effort on your party's part to destroy the basic moorings of the NLRB. It's your party damaging the district courts to an unprecedented level. It's your party objecting to their constitutional duties under a bullshit excuse to prevent Obama from moving this country forward. You have ZERO historical examples of this occurring before but the logical side has many examples of a nominee being put through. Once again, everything you're spewing, is an utter lie.
Charging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.You people are rough ridin' crazy
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting
No foundation. Okay, thanks.
So, is Garland still the nominee? If Clinton wins and Democrats take back the Senate, Republicans will wish they had "done their job" and given Garland a vote.
