After “Wrong, friend,” I should have added something along the lines of “I may have omitted it, but it doesn’t really matter - I rebutted it anyway:”
You get the idea.
Oh dear, have you ever seen such rapscallions engaged in such debate over the very quintessence of mediocrity? Hence, here am I, The Scarlet Pimpernel, to give you the lambasting that you deserve.
My God people! I believe that I have never seen such a waste of the English language on something so obviously trivial as this thread. Man by his (or her [no angry lesbians please]) very nature is duplicitous. It is the amount hypocrisy that one lives with that draws the distinction amongst men.
This going to happen any time soon, because there’s no sign of it yet?
You’ve lived a sheltered life, clearly.
I’m guessing you don’t have cable oh scarlet pimple.
We seek him here, we seek him there, those Frenchies seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven? Is he in hell? That demmed elusive Pimpernel?
“He’s behind the couch!”
:Cries of disbelief come from the aristocrats:
“Look, you can see the tip of his hat!”
::As the gendarmes take him away, Scott yells:
“Good-bye, Percy.”
So now there’s a limited quantity? Should I stop saying “your welcome” and “good morning” so as to stop wasting our ever-dwindling word supply?
The ironic part is that we’re importing all the English we’re so extravagantly wasting from Islamist countries whose citizens would like to see us dead. If they cut off the English supply, we’re toast. And between English refinery capacity problems and market manipulations by Big English, dictionaries now cost three times what they did five years ago!
Rit imediatly to yor Congrescriter in suport of H.R. 23432, An Act to Rashon Leters in English. This desperatly neded bil wil eliminat duble leters and silent vowels, therbi enabling the languag to last wel into the curent senturi.
Clearly, he means the senate has to agree unanimously on a judge. If just one senator does not approve of a judge, then the president does not have the consent of the senate, the whole thing, and can not appoint the judge.
You really should include a smiley so we can know you are kidding. Because if you are not… 
I’m well aware that WeirdDave doesn’t advocate a needed unanimous vote, I just thought a unanimous vote would be the logical conclusion to
And it’s funny how none of the people (whether political big-shots in the news, or our own Weirddave) who are suddenly demanding enforcement of an extremely rigorous definition of ‘consent’ aren’t nearly as concerned about the ‘advice’ part. After all, the Senate can hardly give ‘advice’ on nominations after they’re made.
Seems that if we were applying equally high standards to both words, it would behoove the White House to consult with every Senator over any possible judicial nominee, and solicit their thoughts before officially nominating someone to the bench. But everybody knows that’s not what the Constitution means, anymore than the Senate’s denial of consent Constitutionally requires a majority vote against each nominee.
For some reason, this line made me think of: