Posted on 03/28/2016 11:08:09 AM PDT by jazusamo
If there is one thing that is bipartisan in Washington, it is brazen hypocrisy.
Currently there is much indignation being expressed by Democrats because the Republican-controlled Senate refuses to hold confirmation hearings on President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
The Democrats complain, and the media echo their complaint, that it is the Senate's duty to provide "advice and consent" on the President's appointment of various federal officials. Therefore, according to this claim, the Senate is neglecting its Constitutional duty by refusing even to hold hearings to determine whether the nominee is qualified, and then vote accordingly.
First of all, the "advice and consent" provision of the Constitution is a restriction on the President's power, not an imposition of a duty on the Senate. It says nothing about the Senate's having a duty to hold hearings, or vote, on any Presidential nominee, whether for the Supreme Court or for any other federal institution. The power to consent is the power to refuse to consent, and for many years no hearings were held, whether the Senate consented or did not consent.
Nor have Democrats hesitated, when they controlled the Senate, to refuse to hold hearings or to vote when a lame-duck President nominated someone for some position requiring Senate confirmation during a Presidential election year.
When the shoe was on the other foot, the Republicans made the same arguments as the Democrats are making today, and the Democrats made the same arguments as the Republicans are now making.
The obvious reason, in both cases, is that the party controlling the Senate wants to save the appointment for their own candidate for the Presidency to make after winning the upcoming election. The rest is political hypocrisy on both sides.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
“So you are categorically wrong.”
You have to repeat it twice in the same post? The person I was originally talking to managed to say essentially the same thing without being obnoxious about it.
Now that I think about it, though, I was right about one thing: it does *sound* like the kind of thing despicable leftard scoundrels invent.
That why you have your panties in a knot about it?
Wonder how they imagined change over time, or if they even thought of it at all.
Hey, you're the one who seems to be comfortable thinking like a "despicable leftist scoundrel," so you tell me. And if your ego is so fragile that my correction of your error caused you to be triggered, I'm sure there is a safe space available at the nearest public university that you could borrow...
My son is convinced it’s all rigged but he’ll still vote.
“Hey, you’re the one who seems to be comfortable thinking like a “despicable leftist scoundrel”
Road apples. It was my use of that phrase that caused you to shriek like a rabid banshee over a question of 400-year-old word usage.
“And if your ego is so fragile that my correction of your error caused you to be triggered”
Triggered? Conservatives don’t talk like that.
I took issue with your overreaction. In turn, you came back with a counter-accusation of overreaction. Conservatives don’t act like that.
I joined FR when I lived in Japan. Eight years before I moved back. Odd that I don’t recall you.
Ehhh, I’ve asked the mods to delete my last post. There’s nothing to be gained by more snark, If you want to be offended by my previous posts, that’s your choice. Have a nice evening.
“I’m sorry my mockery of your over-sensitivity went over your head.”
Who mocks what is not only acts the fool.
“And I’ve been on FR since Drudge broke the Monica story. Surely a FR veteran like you can use the link on my profile and trace me back (at least up to the point where FR lost the older archives).”
I no longer trust those archives.
“I really don’t remember you, either, so you must not be that important.”
I personally am utterly insignificant, except to my dependents, but conservatism is not, and neither is that sort of conduct from someone who claims to be a conservative.
I was correct when I said that conservatives don’t talk or act “like that.” Shape up, and stop disgracing conservatism.
Unless, of course, that is why you are here in the first place.
“If you want to be offended by my previous posts, that’s your choice.”
Horse chestnuts. You intended them to be offensive, and as far as I remember, you had no grounds for the attack.
Sounds like he may have written my earliers....
About voting, believe that is the ultimate goal.
Get enough gimmees to vote - by any means necessary - keep running enough idiots and bad apples so anyone with a lick of sense starts to figure ‘why bother’ - WHICH is what they want.
Even if I don’t vote for Prez -should we get stuck with a slug - it is still important for ALL to at least go out and vote for the Congress/Senate and local to keep the ‘damage’ as low as possible and hopefully a Trump type will show up that doesn’t need his twit/tweet/twat/twitter or whatever they call it taken away.
For sure they are whores. and the politicians are as well.
But they didn't elect themselves, did they?
Bump! :)
Are you being sarcastic or are you truly that stupid?
Sorry, just saw your post #29. Glad you were being sarcastic!
Welcome to the world you created, Democrats. If you hadn’t invested judges with powers they were never intended to have, making them all-powerful philosopher God-Kings imposing your world view on the country, legislating from the bench and making up laws as you go, a Supreme Court nomination might not be as dire a crisis as it now is.
Some times subtlety is good but in this case needed a sarc tag I guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.