i do both.Doug wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:11 pmI'm sure that's true, but
Music
POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
with love, your good friend, seathesee
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
It even goes out its way to start the clause with "shall nominate", then says appoint with advise and consent. The power that is clearly the President's is the power to nominate. The appointment power is clearly shared.Rylinks wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:09 pmbut the president "by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint". the obligation is conditional, and without the consent of the senate, there is no obligation.seathesee wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:59 pmthe president "shall have the power" and the president "shall appoint" are different. "shall" means mandatory. if i say "you shall push in the chair" that is different from saying "you shall have the power to push in the chair".Rylinks wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:56 pm
this is like 100% irrelevant language parsing but i read the language "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" to mean that if the president lacks the consent of the senate, he also lacks the power. I def think this is the only way to read the treaty part.
moreover the language says "the president shall" it does not at any time say that the senate "shall" do anything, unlike many other places in the constitution where the framers meant to bind the senate.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
If you promise your child ice cream in the afternoon he gets ice cream in the afternoon even if he burns the house down at lunchtime. Promise is a promise.
-
- .
How'd you know that loving kittens is my one defining trait? - Posts: 11770
- Joined: Sep 03, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
An actual email I got
wow, [you]. that all sounds terrible. i hope it gets better for you
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
I fully believe that you internalize such feelings of entitlement
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
I fully believe that once given, your word is worth nothing.Doug wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:59 pmI fully believe that you internalize such feelings of entitlement
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Naah, I have a job and everything
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
I'm sure that you're very good at fulfilling your promises to people who can enforce them.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
i realize i undermined my position by agreeing with this. i needed to calm down off of the dantes stuff.seathesee wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:13 pmthis, and the fact that this is all in the presidential powers section of the constitution, supports my argument to my mind. this is a presidential power that the senate is involved in.Rylinks wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:09 pmbut the president "by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint". the obligation is conditional, and without the consent of the senate, there is no obligation.
moreover the language says "the president shall" it does not at any time say that the senate "shall" do anything, unlike many other places in the constitution where the framers meant to bind the senate.
i dont agree, as intended, the language is conditional and that the senate is not obligated to do anything. lets compare the treaties power:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"
it uses the word "provided". that is conditional language. this is clearly conditional. the president has the power to make treaties IF (provided) the senate votes with a 2/3 majority.
now look at the appointment clause:
"and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint"
to me it reads he must nominate, and with the senate doing this other thing, must appoint. the conditional language is not there. the rules on a quorum are not there.
i think the "shall" walks through the sentence and commands the senate to exercise their advice and consent ability. i also think the framers intended the government to work on some level, and for the branches to be checks and balances on how the powers of the others are used, not if they are allowed to use them in general. an interpretation that the senate can just ignore nominations of the president, hypothetically with the effect that the supreme court is inoperable for decades or more, would go against this.
i think reasonable minds can differ on this and they have in the past.
with love, your good friend, seathesee
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Well there's a value inherent in that
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Having a good credit rating means you’re very good at keeping your promises to people who can’t enforce them.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
-
- "I don’t believe that we will lose life or have to discard cards ourselves."
- Posts: 4497
- Joined: Nov 30, 2019
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Dantes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:38 pmBased on what?seathesee wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:36 pmmy understanding is that they did, but the democrats waived it out of, once more, hubris. i dont think its ever been tested. there is no precedent making clear whether a violation of the established rules ever took place. i think it was a violation of the constitution as intended by the drafters.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
the implication when i promise my son something is that he doesn't burn my house down in the time before now and then
he's only four and yet he's fully of aware of this implication
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
this works for adults too. i might promise to do something for you, but then if you call me a prick i might decide not to fulfill that promise. and society won't even label me as untrustworthy, or a liar, or whatever
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
like everything it depends on the details
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
There is one caveat to this I feel like I should call out. The state can make that decision however it sees fit, but it needs to stand by whatever system was in place on election day. Passing a law to change to another slate of electors after the votes are counted should be right out. I'm not entirely clear if it would be unconstitutional or not though.Rylinks wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:43 pmoh, your answer to the question is 'yes'? I didn't know the answer was that at allDantes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:42 pmI'm just going by the actual rules in the constitution, and then the laws we've built on top of that. If a state wants to change it's election scheme to move its choice of electors to selection by legislators, they can. Then they can all give up their offices in the next election.Rylinks wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:31 pm
because i read 'actual rules' to mean like, the rules written down in the constitution. If the actual rules include subjective judgement of what is acceptable conduct it's kind of hard to tell people that their own subjective judgements of good conduct aren't a reason to be disillusioned
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
well, for example, if you have a known bad relationship with someone, that might already be priced in and further insults would not be a reason to renege on the promise
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
if a guy gave you $250 and in exchange you promised to deliver him a flatscreen TV on Monday, you should still deliver the TV even if he calls you a prick
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
yes thank you rylinks
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
im hepling
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
But if he's my son, he's in Time Out
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
-
- "I don’t believe that we will lose life or have to discard cards ourselves."
- Posts: 4497
- Joined: Nov 30, 2019
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
If my son in time out can procure $250 then im letting him out of time out
Thats an important lesson about how the world works
-
- "I don’t believe that we will lose life or have to discard cards ourselves."
- Posts: 4497
- Joined: Nov 30, 2019
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
I should note that he cant have like, pinched the money from me or anything. I won't let you out of time out if you do that. But im not sure why I would have $250 lying around in the first place
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court’s legitimacy.
The new bill, seen by Reuters, would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for the Supreme Court after the death on Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election.
https://ca.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c ... SKCN26F3L3
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/