• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cory Booker's 'I am Spartacus' moment

hanger4 said:
You can't make a point via factually incorrect statement. You were corrected. Try harder.
Click to expand...

...again, he's correct.......you're wrong.......and it doesn't matter whether you like it, or agree with it, or not. :lamo
 
ultmd said:
Don't be a moron. He didn't say anything about "Constitutional right to nominate". He spoke of Republicans' lack of respect for "rules and norms" with regard to the nomination of Merrick Garland. And he was absolutely correct. Obviously, you're one of those right wingers who pretends to love and respect the Constitution...but has never actually READ it. So, I suggest that you take a look at Article II, Section II, clause II of the Constitution....and "learn from it", yourself. The Senate's CONSTITUTIONAL responsibility is to "advise and consent", neither of which was provided during Garland nomination process. Republicans refused to hold hearings........refused to meet with the nominee.......refused to offer ANY "advice" or "consent". They, instead, fabricated a "precedent" about election year nominations that was quickly debunked. What the GOP did to the Garland nomination was simply unprecedented in our history. And anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant, or lying.

So the simple fact of the matter is that republicans who have the nerve (or, more accurately, the lack of character) to complain about tactics being used by Democrats during the Kavanaugh hearings.....are hypocrites of the absolute highest order.

He's right, and you know it. Just stop arguing. It makes you look foolish.
Click to expand...

OscarLevant was quite pointed in his statement;

OscarLevant said:
You mean the kind of disregard for rules and/or norms like depriving a sitting president his right to nominate, get a hearing on, get a vote on, a Supreme Court Justice?
Click to expand...

The President made a nomination, obviously that right was not denied and there is no right to hearing or vote.

It might behove the two of you to actually read the what the Constitution says about Presidential nominations.
 
ultmd said:
...again, he's correct.......you're wrong.......and it doesn't matter whether you like it, or agree with it, or not. :lamo
Click to expand...

OscarLevant said the President was denied his right (actually a mandate) to nominate. Obama nominated what's his name, therefore nothing denied.

You were saying ??
 
MrMike said:
Actually...no, they aren't.

I'll be smiling as SCOTUS member Kavanaugh is sworn in.

Have a nice day!
Click to expand...



All the matters is what Murkowski and Collins think and if no dems cross the line, and we shall see
 
hanger4 said:
You can't make a point via factually incorrect statement. You were corrected. Try harder.
Click to expand...



Yes you can when that which is incorrect is not an essential part of the point. You're harping whether or not Obama's appointing a SCOTUS judge is a right or not is beside the point. Read my comment again.

Moreover, that the pres appoints SCOTUS judges is in article two of the constitution, therefore, it is his right.

But, I don't think that is the issue, the issue is whether or not the senate can reject a SCOTUS justice for political reasons. Of course they can, and they have been doing it, for sure. However,

I doubt sincerely that forefathers ever meant that "advise and consent" to mean "ignore completely without just cause for pure political reasons all the way back a year before a presidents term is over" and that is how McConnell has interpreted it. All this talk about "originalism", is pure BS, and hypocrisy.

EVEN if McConnell did this legally, it doesn't negate the fact that what he did is scumbaggery, reducing the selection of a SC justice without a 2/3 majority, which has been the tradition.

The idea that a judge can sit on the highest court, who will be there for some 40 years, and be nominated by only one party, nominated by a president who didn't even get the popular vote, nominated by a president who completely outsourced the nomination to some society who was not elected, and therefore this selection is not in accordance with the will of the people, this is not justice. This is scumbaggery.

You can argue "legal' all you want, but it's despicable, and from here on out, there will be no reconciliation among parties, it's war.

War.

That's what your party have brought to politics.

But you don't give a damn, nor does anyone on the right, nor does Trump. Trump is not the people's president, he's the president of only 35% - 40% of the people, and that's all he wants to be president of. He speaks only to them, and DOES NOT CARE about anyone else. He is truly the worst president in history.

You want war, you got it.

I got bad news for you, the country is moving to the left, not the right.

You guys have cheated your way into power, and this crap is going to be halted, and the crows
are coming home to roost on the GOP

Cya in november.
 
Last edited:
hanger4 said:
OscarLevant was quite pointed in his statement;



The President made a nomination, obviously that right was not denied and there is no right to hearing or vote.

It might behove the two of you to actually read the what the Constitution says about Presidential nominations.
Click to expand...

Oh please, spare me the patronizing tone.

The issue is the meaning of senatorial "advise and consent" on scotus nominations. I doubt sincerely that the forefathers mean that advise and consent means "ignore completely a nomination without a hearing and a vote a full year before a president's end of term for pure political reasons, i.e., the hope that the next president will be the one we want to be president so he can make the appointment".

It's called "penumbra rights", and it could argued that the president has a penumbra right to at least get a hearing and a vote.

The right talks about "originalist" interpretation of the constitutions, well, nuts to that, you guys are hypocrites.
 
OscarLevant said:
Yes you can when that which is incorrect is not an essential part of the point. You're harping whether or not Obama's appointing a SCOTUS judge is a right or not is beside the point. Read my comment again.

Moreover, that the pres appoints SCOTUS judges is in article two of the constitution, therefore, it is his right.

But, I don't think that is the issue, the issue is whether or not the senate can reject a SCOTUS justice for political reasons. Of course they can, and they have been doing it, for sure. However,

I doubt sincerely that forefathers ever meant that "advise and consent" to mean "ignore completely without just cause for pure political reasons all the way back a year before a presidents term is over" and that is how McConnell has interpreted it. All this talk about "originalism", is pure BS, and hypocrisy.

EVEN if McConnell did this legally, it doesn't negate the fact that what he did is scumbaggery, reducing the selection of a SC justice without a 2/3 majority, which has been the tradition.

The idea that a judge can sit on the highest court, who will be there for some 40 years, and be nominated by only one party, nominated by a president who didn't even get the popular vote, nominated by a president who completely outsourced the nomination to some society who was not elected, and therefore this selection is not in accordance with the will of the people, this is not justice. This is scumbaggery.

You can argue "legal' all you want, but it's despicable, and from here on out, there will be no reconciliation among parties, it's war.

War.

That's what your party have brought to politics.

But you don't give a damn, nor does anyone on the right, nor does Trump. Trump is not the people's president, he's the president of only 35% - 40% of the people, and that's all he wants to be president of. He speaks only to them, and DOES NOT CARE about anyone else. He is truly the worst president in history.

You want war, you got it.

I got bad news for you, the country is moving to the left, not the right.

You guys have cheated your way into power, and this crap is going to be halted, and the crows
are coming home to roost on the GOP

Cya in november.
Click to expand...
I'm not harping on anything, you plainly stated the President was deprived of his right to nominate, you were wrong, he nominated what's his name.

OscarLevant said:
You mean the kind of disregard for rules and/or norms like depriving a sitting president his right to nominate, get a hearing on, get a vote on, a Supreme Court Justice?
Click to expand...

Article Two of the United States Constitution requires the President of the United States to nominate Supreme Court Justices and with Senate confirmation, requires Justices to be appointed. 'he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint' Judges of the supreme Court. The Senate denied "consent".

Stop digging
 
OscarLevant said:
Oh please, spare me the patronizing tone.

The issue is the meaning of senatorial "advise and consent" on scotus nominations. I doubt sincerely that the forefathers mean that advise and consent means "ignore completely a nomination without a hearing and a vote a full year before a president's end of term for pure political reasons, i.e., the hope that the next president will be the one we want to be president so he can make the appointment".

It's called "penumbra rights", and it could argued that the president has a penumbra right to at least get a hearing and a vote.

The right talks about "originalist" interpretation of the constitutions, well, nuts to that, you guys are hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does it say nominees get hearings and votes ?? Hell, the first public hearing wasn't until 1916, the first time a nominee even showed up was 1925 and the first televised hearing was 1981.

History and the Constitution is all right there before you, open your eyes.
 
hanger4 said:
Where in the Constitution does it say nominees get hearings and votes ?? Hell, the first public hearing wasn't until 1916, the first time a nominee even showed up was 1925 and the first televised hearing was 1981.

History and the Constitution is all right there before you, open your eyes.
Click to expand...

Ah, one of those things that's not in "that book you carry"?;)
 
hanger4 said:
I'm not harping on anything, you plainly stated the President was deprived of his right to nominate, you were wrong, he nominated what's his name.



Article Two of the United States Constitution requires the President of the United States to nominate Supreme Court Justices and with Senate confirmation, requires Justices to be appointed. 'he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint' Judges of the supreme Court. The Senate denied "consent".

Stop digging
Click to expand...

Like I said, I sincerely doubt the framers when they wrote ' advise and consent' on justice appointments I doubt they meant: "ignore completely an appointment without a hearing or a vote a full year before the president's end of term so that the next guy can choose a judge".

Stop playing games.

You want war, you got it.
 
hanger4 said:
Where in the Constitution does it say nominees get hearings and votes ?? Hell, the first public hearing wasn't until 1916, the first time a nominee even showed up was 1925 and the first televised hearing was 1981.

History and the Constitution is all right there before you, open your eyes.
Click to expand...



if you think "advise and consent" means "ignore completely a president's nominee without a hearing and a vote a full year before a president's end of term so that the next guy can select a judge", no reasonable person with a sense of what is fair and just would take that position, and so you guys are playing games, and if you want war, you got it.

I sincerely doubt the framers would approve of such a thing, for they never, in their wildest imagination, could have predicted just how corrupt a party could become, as it have become today, and the kind of crap they are pulling on the us electorate.


The crows are coming home to roost on republicans, cya in november.
 
OscarLevant said:
Like I said, I sincerely doubt the framers when they wrote ' advise and consent' on justice appointments I doubt they meant: "ignore completely an appointment without a hearing or a vote a full year before the president's end of term so that the next guy can choose a judge".

Stop playing games.

You want war, you got it.
Click to expand...

Garland wasn't ignored, consent was denied, it matters not whether before, during or after a hearing. If the framers had meant advise and consent were hearings and votes they would have said so. The framers left that up to the Senate to decide.

I'm not playing games, your misstatement was corrected.

Grow up.
 
Bucky said:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/06/cor...ment-release-not-as-defiant-as-it-seemed.html

:lamo

What an epic dissapointment from Senator Booker.
Click to expand...

Retardicus is more like it.
cory_spartacus.jpg
 
Last edited:
hanger4 said:
Garland wasn't ignored, consent was denied, it matters not whether before, during or after a hearing. If the framers had meant advise and consent were hearings and votes they would have said so. The framers left that up to the Senate to decide.

I'm not playing games, your misstatement was corrected.

Grow up.
Click to expand...


Bullcrap, GOP is engaging in a radical shrewdness for SCOTUS nominations at a level hitherto unseen and thus unprecedented in modern politics, from the filibuster nuke on SCOTUS nominations, to the denial of a hearing and a vote for spurious reasons.

You want a divisive irreconcilable government, you got it.

You want a take no prisoners environment in the body politic, you got it.

You want war, you got it.
 
OscarLevant said:
Bullcrap, GOP is engaging in a radical shrewdness for SCOTUS nominations at a level hitherto unseen and thus unprecedented in modern politics, from the filibuster nuke on SCOTUS nominations, to the denial of a hearing and a vote for spurious reasons.

You want a divisive irreconcilable government, you got it.

You want a take no prisoners environment in the body politic, you got it.

You want war, you got it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you run with your feelings, I'll stick with the facts.

WTF is "You want war, you got it" ?? Divisiveness in politics has been from the beginning and not when you became aware of your surroundings. Grow up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom