Koko78 Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: So are you a lawyer? I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Koko78 said: I am. Can you explain your justification for McConnell's 100% unprecedented action in the previous 240 years of history in the United States of America and your dissent from the public opinion of several hundred constitutional lawyers and professors then? Or do you just want to keep namecalling? Edited June 2, 2019 by transplantbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Procedural question. Do "Trump Lies" apply only to lies told by Trump or do they also apply to lies told about Trump 3 years ago we were told a Trump Presidency would result in the re-implementation of segregation, mass deportations of Hispanics, gays/lesbians rounded up into concentration camps, wars with Iran and North Korea, and an economic collapse on the scale of the Great Depression 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 5 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Can you explain your justification for McConnell's 100% unprecedented action in the previous 240 years of history in the United States of America and your dissent from the public opinion of several hundred constitutional lawyers and professors then? Or do you just want to keep namecalling? The Senate's role is to 'advise and consent'. The procedure for "advise and consent" is up to the Senate to decide. The Senate was never required to consent to the nominee. The Senate was never required to hold a vote, committee meeting, or do anything other than receive the document appointing Garland, which they did. McConnell's act in invoking the 'Biden Rule' was not unconstitutional. Breaking Senate "precedent" is not an unconstitutional act, no matter how hard you cross your fingers and wish it to be. Don't whine because the Democrats were, once again, hoist by their own petard. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Koko78 said: I'd wager heavily that I've practiced more constitutional law than they have, chief. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/nearly_250_corporate_lawyers_sign_letter_urging_obama_and_senate_leaders_to/ When a vacancy on the court arises, the Constitution is clear ... Article II, Section 2 states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court' ... Though the Senate may ultimately choose not to consent to the president's nominee, it would be unprecedented for the Senate to refuse to perform its 'advice and consent' role in this context. Not only does the Constitution direct the sitting president to nominate an individual to fill a vacancy on the court no matter whether it is an election year, nearly one third of all presidents have nominated a justice in an election year who was eventually confirmed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 2 hours ago, Koko78 said: I'd wager heavily that I've practiced more constitutional law than they have, chief. Just curious... was this wager based on your combined years vs ALL the added combined years of the 400+... actually now more like 700 lawyers, Deans, law professors, etc. I've referenced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 12 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Though the Senate may ultimately choose not to consent to the president's nominee... Congratulations, you finally stumbled upon what McConnell did. Refusing to consent still wasn't unconstitutional. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Koko78 said: The Senate's role is to 'advise and consent'. The procedure for "advise and consent" is up to the Senate to decide. The Senate was never required to consent to the nominee. The Senate was never required to hold a vote, committee meeting, or do anything other than receive the document appointing Garland, which they did. McConnell's act in invoking the 'Biden Rule' was not unconstitutional. Breaking Senate "precedent" is not an unconstitutional act, no matter how hard you cross your fingers and wish it to be. Don't whine because the Democrats were, once again, hoist by their own petard. Again. The whole "Biden rule" thing is mythology. “If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate [in naming a Supreme Court nominee], or moderates his selection absent consultation, then his nominee may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.” Literally the speech from which the Biden rule was adopted. Edited June 2, 2019 by transplantbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Just now, transplantbillsfan said: Just curious... was this wager based on your combined years vs ALL the added combined years of the 400+... actually now more like 700 lawyers, Deans, law professors, etc. I've referenced? The most experienced professor I had in law school worked at a firm in Chicago for 5 years in the about 30 years prior. Don't confuse "professor" for "practicing lawyer" (and no, adjuncts don't count). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Congratulations, you finally stumbled upon what McConnell did. Refusing to consent still wasn't unconstitutional. Look at it from another point of view. McConnell knew Garland would not be confirmed and was trying to spare the American taxpayers from the cost of a failed hearing Edited June 2, 2019 by /dev/null 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Koko78 said: The most experienced professor I had in law school worked at a firm in Chicago for 5 years in the about 30 years prior. Don't confuse "professor" for "practicing lawyer" (and no, adjuncts don't count). Bro. There are plenty of practicing/practiced lawyers from those lists. So that was an empty wager then. But puff out your chest some more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Just now, transplantbillsfan said: Bro. There are plenty of practicing/practiced lawyers from those lists. So that was an empty wager then. But puff out your chest some more Pal, doesn't mean they know their ass from a hole in the ground, dude. Still wasn't unconstitutional what McConnell did, no matter how hard you wish upon that little star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Pal, doesn't mean they know their ass from a hole in the ground, dude. Still wasn't unconstitutional what McConnell did, no matter how hard you wish upon that little star. Well you lost that wager you arrogant moron. Yes, you must be the lawyer who knows all and they know nothing. You can't even concede something simple that might help you out like that reading the constitution 240+ years after it was written involves interpretation of the words of men living in a vastly different world under vastly different conditions. Pathetic. Glad you aren't my lawyer. Edited June 2, 2019 by transplantbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Glad you aren't my lawyer. Thankfully I have never needed a lawyer at any point in my life. But if I ever did need one, the kind of person that I'm "Glad you aren't my lawyer" in the best of times are probably the kind of person you need in the worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 7 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Well you lost that wager you arrogant moron. I lost nothing, and stand by my assertion. So, dipschiff, do you understand that you are wrong about it being unconstitutional? Of course, I noticed that you backed way off your bullschiff, once again. Can't defend your point, teach? C'mon man, you said it was unconstitutional, please show the rest of us where in the constitution it says that McConnell had to hold a vote. Oh, what were you saying about us making this a "cesspool", you blithering idiot. Maybe look in the mirror once in awhile. 9 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Glad you aren't my lawyer. You couldn't afford me. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 40 minutes ago, Koko78 said: C'mon man, you said it was unconstitutional, please show the rest of us where in the constitution it says that McConnell had to hold a vote. Geez, 400 people signed an online form. What don’t you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 45 minutes ago, Koko78 said: I lost nothing, and stand by my assertion. So, dipschiff, do you understand that you are wrong about it being unconstitutional? Of course, I noticed that you backed way off your bullschiff, once again. Can't defend your point, teach? C'mon man, you said it was unconstitutional, please show the rest of us where in the constitution it says that McConnell had to hold a vote. Oh, what were you saying about us making this a "cesspool", you blithering idiot. Maybe look in the mirror once in awhile. Ah.... a misunderstanding apparently. When I said "unprecedented, even unconstitutional," the "arguably" was rhetorically implicit before the "even." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 23 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Ah.... a misunderstanding apparently. When I said "unprecedented, even unconstitutional," the "arguably" was rhetorically implicit before the "even." So... it was constitutional then. Court adjourned. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: So... it was constitutional then. Court adjourned. Nay... Clearly arguable. Strongly arguable. But I already posted a handful of arguments and don't care to spend more time here... So have your fun! Edited June 2, 2019 by transplantbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 3 hours ago, /dev/null said: Thankfully I have never needed a lawyer at any point in my life. But if I ever did need one, the kind of person that I'm "Glad you aren't my lawyer" in the best of times are probably the kind of person you need in the worst Never needed a lawyer in my life, either. Doubt I ever will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts