funjumper101 15 #1 April 3, 2016 Sometimes the best demonstration of the absurdity of Republican Conservative "reasoning" comes from the young. I agree with the young man. Following the Republican line of "reasoning" on the status of Obama's SCOUS nominee means that any Republican who is up for re-election in November must recuse themselves from participating in the SCOTUS nomination process. Let the PEOPLE decide in November. What a load of hogwash. I cannot believe that Conservatives despise the Constitution so much that they allow their leaders to subvert it. Time to step aside, or follow the Constitution as it is written. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/03/29/grassley-step-aside-until-after-election/82255722/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #2 April 3, 2016 Oh, yes!!! "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #3 April 3, 2016 funjumper101 ..... ..... Time to step aside, or follow the Constitution as it is written ...... Good Grief! .....which is it with you guys!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #4 April 3, 2016 muff528 ***..... ..... Time to step aside, or follow the Constitution as it is written ...... Good Grief! .....which is it with you guys!?! That was my first thought as well.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #5 April 4, 2016 I know how you feel. Follow the Constitution as written? What a liberal concept... NOT. Tough concept, isn't it? People get elected to office, take an oath to perform that job, and then decide NOT to perform the job as written in the Constitution? Why would they not be expected to perform the tasks that are part of the job, as defined in the Constitution? Do tell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #6 April 4, 2016 funjumper101I know how you feel. Follow the Constitution as written? What a liberal concept... NOT. Tough concept, isn't it? People get elected to office, take an oath to perform that job, and then decide NOT to perform the job as written in the Constitution? Why would they not be expected to perform the tasks that are part of the job, as defined in the Constitution? Do tell. You mean like - Oh - Idunno - refusing to prosecute and uphold immigration law?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #7 April 4, 2016 turtlespeed***I know how you feel. Follow the Constitution as written? What a liberal concept... NOT. Tough concept, isn't it? People get elected to office, take an oath to perform that job, and then decide NOT to perform the job as written in the Constitution? Why would they not be expected to perform the tasks that are part of the job, as defined in the Constitution? Do tell. You mean like - Oh - Idunno - refusing to prosecute and uphold immigration law? OK, enough about G.W. Bush.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #8 April 4, 2016 kallend******I know how you feel. Follow the Constitution as written? What a liberal concept... NOT. Tough concept, isn't it? People get elected to office, take an oath to perform that job, and then decide NOT to perform the job as written in the Constitution? Why would they not be expected to perform the tasks that are part of the job, as defined in the Constitution? Do tell. You mean like - Oh - Idunno - refusing to prosecute and uphold immigration law? OK, enough about G.W. Bush. thank you for reinforcing the point. It's been going on so long that even the "blame bush" crowd think it's normal and ok. "bush did it, so it's ok for obama to do it too"-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #9 April 4, 2016 rhaig*********I know how you feel. Follow the Constitution as written? What a liberal concept... NOT. Tough concept, isn't it? People get elected to office, take an oath to perform that job, and then decide NOT to perform the job as written in the Constitution? Why would they not be expected to perform the tasks that are part of the job, as defined in the Constitution? Do tell. You mean like - Oh - Idunno - refusing to prosecute and uphold immigration law? OK, enough about G.W. Bush. thank you for reinforcing the point. It's been going on so long that even the "blame bush" crowd think it's normal and ok. "bush did it, so it's ok for obama to do it too" More illegals were deported in Obama's first term alone than in BOTH of GWB's terms in office. And Reagan is the only president to have signed an act giving amnesty to illegals. Clearly turtlespeed was referring to Republican presidents.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #10 April 4, 2016 kallend************I know how you feel. Follow the Constitution as written? What a liberal concept... NOT. Tough concept, isn't it? People get elected to office, take an oath to perform that job, and then decide NOT to perform the job as written in the Constitution? Why would they not be expected to perform the tasks that are part of the job, as defined in the Constitution? Do tell. You mean like - Oh - Idunno - refusing to prosecute and uphold immigration law? OK, enough about G.W. Bush. thank you for reinforcing the point. It's been going on so long that even the "blame bush" crowd think it's normal and ok. "bush did it, so it's ok for obama to do it too" More illegals were deported in Obama's first term alone than in BOTH of GWB's terms in office. And Reagan is the only president to have signed an act giving amnesty to illegals. Clearly turtlespeed was referring to Republican presidents. OK - just so we are clear. You think it's OK to not do the job as long as it involves the party you agree with, but then if it's not the party you agree with, you rage against the injustice.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #11 April 4, 2016 turtlespeed***************I know how you feel. Follow the Constitution as written? What a liberal concept... NOT. Tough concept, isn't it? People get elected to office, take an oath to perform that job, and then decide NOT to perform the job as written in the Constitution? Why would they not be expected to perform the tasks that are part of the job, as defined in the Constitution? Do tell. You mean like - Oh - Idunno - refusing to prosecute and uphold immigration law? OK, enough about G.W. Bush. thank you for reinforcing the point. It's been going on so long that even the "blame bush" crowd think it's normal and ok. "bush did it, so it's ok for obama to do it too" More illegals were deported in Obama's first term alone than in BOTH of GWB's terms in office. And Reagan is the only president to have signed an act giving amnesty to illegals. Clearly turtlespeed was referring to Republican presidents. OK - just so we are clear. You think it's OK to not do the job as long as it involves the party you agree with, but then if it's not the party you agree with, you rage against the injustice. Just clarifying what YOU posted. I endorsed no behavior.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #12 April 4, 2016 turtlespeed***************I know how you feel. Follow the Constitution as written? What a liberal concept... NOT. Tough concept, isn't it? People get elected to office, take an oath to perform that job, and then decide NOT to perform the job as written in the Constitution? Why would they not be expected to perform the tasks that are part of the job, as defined in the Constitution? Do tell. You mean like - Oh - Idunno - refusing to prosecute and uphold immigration law? OK, enough about G.W. Bush. thank you for reinforcing the point. It's been going on so long that even the "blame bush" crowd think it's normal and ok. "bush did it, so it's ok for obama to do it too" More illegals were deported in Obama's first term alone than in BOTH of GWB's terms in office. And Reagan is the only president to have signed an act giving amnesty to illegals. Clearly turtlespeed was referring to Republican presidents. OK - just so we are clear. You think it's OK to not do the job as long as it involves the party you agree with, but then if it's not the party you agree with, you rage against the injustice. If illegals are being deported in record numbers, why are you whining about people not doing their job relating to illegal immigration? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #13 April 4, 2016 SkyDekker******************I know how you feel. Follow the Constitution as written? What a liberal concept... NOT. Tough concept, isn't it? People get elected to office, take an oath to perform that job, and then decide NOT to perform the job as written in the Constitution? Why would they not be expected to perform the tasks that are part of the job, as defined in the Constitution? Do tell. You mean like - Oh - Idunno - refusing to prosecute and uphold immigration law? OK, enough about G.W. Bush. thank you for reinforcing the point. It's been going on so long that even the "blame bush" crowd think it's normal and ok. "bush did it, so it's ok for obama to do it too" More illegals were deported in Obama's first term alone than in BOTH of GWB's terms in office. And Reagan is the only president to have signed an act giving amnesty to illegals. Clearly turtlespeed was referring to Republican presidents. OK - just so we are clear. You think it's OK to not do the job as long as it involves the party you agree with, but then if it's not the party you agree with, you rage against the injustice. If illegals are being deported in record numbers, why are you whining about people not doing their job relating to illegal immigration? Because .... ODS.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #14 April 4, 2016 SkyDekker******************I know how you feel. Follow the Constitution as written? What a liberal concept... NOT. Tough concept, isn't it? People get elected to office, take an oath to perform that job, and then decide NOT to perform the job as written in the Constitution? Why would they not be expected to perform the tasks that are part of the job, as defined in the Constitution? Do tell. You mean like - Oh - Idunno - refusing to prosecute and uphold immigration law? OK, enough about G.W. Bush. thank you for reinforcing the point. It's been going on so long that even the "blame bush" crowd think it's normal and ok. "bush did it, so it's ok for obama to do it too" More illegals were deported in Obama's first term alone than in BOTH of GWB's terms in office. And Reagan is the only president to have signed an act giving amnesty to illegals. Clearly turtlespeed was referring to Republican presidents. OK - just so we are clear. You think it's OK to not do the job as long as it involves the party you agree with, but then if it's not the party you agree with, you rage against the injustice. If illegals are being deported in record numbers, why are you whining about people not doing their job relating to illegal immigration? Because the Feds are fighting the states, at obama's command, and not letting ten help.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #15 April 4, 2016 And in the mean time they are getting deported at record numbers. And you want more government involved, since you believe more government involvement will help the process? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #16 April 4, 2016 SkyDekkerAnd in the mean time they are getting deported at record numbers. And you want more government involved, since you believe more government involvement will help the process? I believe the states should have more involvement.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #17 April 4, 2016 Why? Do you immigrate to the US or to a state? Can the state grant residency? Green Card? Visa? Seems pretty clear it is a federal issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #18 April 4, 2016 turtlespeed***And in the mean time they are getting deported at record numbers. And you want more government involved, since you believe more government involvement will help the process? I believe the states should have more involvement. Says the guy who thinks we already have too much government. Perhaps the GOP senators could get off their lazy butts and do what the Constitution requires of them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #19 April 4, 2016 funjumper101I know how you feel. Follow the Constitution as written? What a liberal concept... NOT. Tough concept, isn't it? People get elected to office, take an oath to perform that job, and then decide NOT to perform the job as written in the Constitution? Why would they not be expected to perform the tasks that are part of the job, as defined in the Constitution? Do tell. The Senate is not Constitutionally duty-bound, compelled, or otherwise "expected" to "consent" to ANY appointment by the President. Neither are they required to consider (or even acknowledge) any appointment. As far as "advise" goes, (unless they cave) it seems they have already done that ....to wit, no appointments will be considered until after a new President takes office. They are doing their Constitutional "job", just not the way you would have it. Another definition of "lame duck" could be a President who doesn't have support of Congress through the end of his service. But the President must abide by the Senate's "advi(c)e and consent" clause. The President may make a recess appointment "if a vacancy occurs during a Recess of the Senate". Doesn't apply here if you decide to follow the Constitution "as written". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #20 April 4, 2016 muff528***I know how you feel. Follow the Constitution as written? What a liberal concept... NOT. Tough concept, isn't it? People get elected to office, take an oath to perform that job, and then decide NOT to perform the job as written in the Constitution? Why would they not be expected to perform the tasks that are part of the job, as defined in the Constitution? Do tell. The Senate is not Constitutionally duty-bound, compelled, or otherwise "expected" to "consent" to ANY appointment by the President. Neither are they required to consider (or even acknowledge) any appointment. As far as "advise" goes, (unless they cave) it seems they have already done that ....to wit, no appointments will be considered until after a new President takes office. They are doing their Constitutional "job", just not the way you would have it. Another definition of "lame duck" could be a President who doesn't have support of Congress through the end of his service. But the President must abide by the Senate's "advi(c)e and consent" clause. The President may make a recess appointment "if a vacancy occurs during a Recess of the Senate". Doesn't apply here if you decide to follow the Constitution "as written". Rubbish. Doing nothing is not advising.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #21 April 4, 2016 kallend ..... Rubbish. Doing nothing is not advising. Hey, I didn't write the Constitution. They have not done nothing. They pretty much said no "consent". They just haven't dropped the hammer. They are not required to give advice and consent for any appointment. But, saying they will not consider an appointment sounds like advice to me. So, doing nothing is equivalent to not consenting if consent is required to approve an appointment. Well, if I was a Senator, my "advice" for him would be to pick a conservative Justice. Maybe even suggest a specific person. I might then vote for "consent". Yours is the same argument as President Obama's "they refuse to act, so I will" comments re: gun control, etc. Not "acting" on a proposal can be an action which that side supports. Not everything needs a specific "action", depending on viewpoint or ideology ...and almost in every case, certainly not an action by the opposition who has a very different view of governance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,077 #22 April 6, 2016 >I believe the states should have more involvement. The states should not do anything until after the election. Deportations should stop as well, at least until the next president is sworn in. Otherwise you are just letting lame-duck laws force law enforcement to do a job they may not be doing in a year. Let the people's voice be heard! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #23 April 6, 2016 billvon>I believe the states should have more involvement. The states should not do anything until after the election. Deportations should stop as well, at least until the next president is sworn in. Otherwise you are just letting lame-duck laws force law enforcement to do a job they may not be doing in a year. Let the people's voice be heard! Wha - What? The correlation between the two situations only lives in your mind.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #24 April 6, 2016 turtlespeed***>I believe the states should have more involvement. The states should not do anything until after the election. Deportations should stop as well, at least until the next president is sworn in. Otherwise you are just letting lame-duck laws force law enforcement to do a job they may not be doing in a year. Let the people's voice be heard! Wha - What? The correlation between the two situations only lives in your mind. Nonsense. Anyone with superior intelligence would reach the same conclusion.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #25 April 6, 2016 kallend******>I believe the states should have more involvement. The states should not do anything until after the election. Deportations should stop as well, at least until the next president is sworn in. Otherwise you are just letting lame-duck laws force law enforcement to do a job they may not be doing in a year. Let the people's voice be heard! Wha - What? The correlation between the two situations only lives in your mind. Nonsense. Anyone with superior intelligence would reach the same conclusion. Your response proves the opposite.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
