I should seriously consider his remarks mere BS. That works....Why? Because Biden says so? Was he lying then, or is he lying now? It's amusing to see how dim-retards squirm and equivocate now that the shoe is on the other foot, and you'd be one of their "#Grubered" minions.
Obama will niminate Srikanth Srinivasan, calling McConnell's bluff, and use it to motivate voters in the battleground states.... Originally Posted by andymarksman
“Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania offered the following paraphrase. The advice and consent clause, he said, would give the Senate the power `to appoint Judges nominated to them by the President.' Was his interpretation correct?
“Well, we can never know for sure, but it seems to be the overwhelming point of view among the scholars. But it is difficult to imagine that after four attempts to exclude the President from the selection process, the Framers intended anything less than the broadest role for the Senate--in choosing the Court and checking the President in every way.
“The ratification debates confirm this conclusion. No one was keener for a strong Executive than Alexander Hamilton. But in Federalist Papers 76 and 77, Hamilton stressed that even the Federalists intended an active and independent role for the Senate.
“In Federalist 76, Hamilton wrote that Senatorial review would prevent the President from appointing justices to be `the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.' And in Federalist 77, he responded to the argument that the Senate's power to refuse confirmation would give it an improper influence over the President by using the following words: `If by influencing the President, be meant restraining him, this is precisely what must have been intended. And it has been shown that the restraint would be salutary. '
“Now, this is the fellow, Hamilton, who argued throughout this entire process that we needed a very strong executive, making the case as to why the Senate was intended to restrain the President and play a very important role.
“Most of all, the Founders were determined to protect the integrity of the courts. In Federalist 78, Hamilton expressed a common concern: `The complete independence of the courts of justice,' he said, `is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.'
“So, in order to preserve an independent Judiciary, the Framers devised three important checks: life tenure, prohibition on reduction in salary and, most important, a self-correcting method of selection. As they relied on the Court to check legislative encroachments, so they relied on the Legislature to check Executive encroachments. In dividing responsibility for the appointment of judges, the Framers were entrusting the Senate with a solemn task: preventing the President from undermining judicial independence and from remaking the Court in his own image. That in the end is why the Framers intended a broad role for the Senate. I think it is beyond dispute from an historical perspective.” Former Senator Joseph Biden, June 25, 1992. (gov)
After last night's display of statesmanship at the Houston debate, it is apparent that the GOP doesn't have a single grown-up to offer voters.Dim-retard candidates Hildabeast and Sanders are two white septuagenarians who need to be institutionalized for, respectively, criminality and mental infirmity with you, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.
Trump, KKKruz and Rufio.
Not one of them will lead America or command the respect of the world.
So you keep squealing and bawling. This shit's over before it starts. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
