You’ve made this point several times. What about the fact that there is no explicit law forcing the Senate to hold confirmation hearings makes it right that there are 90 unfilled judicial posts due to Senate inaction? Are you claiming that it is right that this state of affairs exists? State your intent. What exactly is your position on judicial confirmations?
[QUOTE=D’Anconia]
If you think there’s only been one bad law in the last 16 years, you need to share whatever it is that you’re smoking.
[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t mean that ALL laws are bad, or that ALL change is bad because certain changes have been. But that appears to be what you are claiming, and that you are advocating no change at all, ever. Please feel free to make your positions clear instead of throwing around uninformative, attempted insults.
Ah yes, the non-answer answer. Do you claim that is the proper state of affairs? Are you advocating leaving judicial posts unfilled? What is your motivation in bringing up a standard Republican Senator’s talking point justifying inaction? Are you attempting to justify inaction? Are you ever going to give a straight answer to the question?
I’ve already given a straight answer. “Do your Job” is a political slogan, propagated by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Chihuahua, Luis Gutierrez, et. al. It’s not a legal requirement.
Also, his whole argument here is the same as a child in the back seat of a car repeatedly pointing out that he’s not actually touching his sister and therefor doing nothing wrong.
And you are under no obligation whatsoever to breathe. But I bet you make that decision because it’s good for your health. Similarly, for the health of the country, judges need to get appointed. The fact that it’s legal for them to remain unfilled is a moot point. You can state it’s legal as much as you want, but absolutely no one is arguing that it’s illegal.
The whole point of the argument is that the Republican Senate is being derelict in its duty of confirming judges. There is no one else who is able to confirm judges. That they choose not to confirm judges is like being an accounts payable clerk that refuses to pay bills. It’s completely legal. They certainly aren’t going to get arrested. No one is going to go in there and force them to act under any penalty of law. All that will happen is that their job performance will be judged to be inadequate. We are those who are judging the Senate’s job performance to be inadequate just as the supervisor of that AP clerk will indicate that the clerk’s ability to carry out their duty is inadequate and recommends to HR that they be fired. We are stating that we as American people believe the Senate has the duty, if not the legal obligation, to approve judges, and that we believe they should be removed from their job if they don’t do so at the next available opportunity by those who are able to remove them: the voters.
HR is going to come in and ask the clerk what their problem is such that they are not doing one of their duties that is assigned to them. Is the clerk justified in saying that it’s perfectly legal to not pay the bills, and they think it’s better if the bills aren’t getting paid? You are acting like someone in HR that would say “OK, if you think it’s better that way, then I guess we’ll do it your way” instead wanting to get things moving so that the company’s bills get paid so that they maintain their credit in good standing with their vendors.
Please go ahead and tell me why the Senate should not do something that they are uniquely tasked to do, framed from the point of view of their job supervisor determining if their job performance is adequate.
How is this relevant at all? If I say “Yes” will you then proceed with trying to refute our actual argument? I am no ultra-fan of the Democrats. I don’t think it was right for them to disrupt the orderly progress of the House, if that’s what they did. I don’t know, I wasn’t paying attention. I have in fact, though, constantly seen you repeat the same specious argument that “it’s legal” when not a single person is complaining that what they are doing is illegal. All you are able to to do is deflect the topic of conversation.
Funny thing is, I’m not even a Democrat. I just require a cogent argument, and have a low threshold for bullshit. Hence I’m done wasting my time trying to extract teeth from D’Anconia.
Its Barbara Boxer, isn’t it! Because she’s like, four-eleven, so its the opposite of a big dog! Snappy shit, right there! And people say tighty righty guys don’t have a sense of humor!
I am so glad you took the time to make sure that you were correct in the one area of this topic where you may have a point. However, if you wish to actually try to convince anyone of anything you might want to try to justify your position in the actual argument in relation to the scenario I set out above.
I suppose you’re not trying to convince anyone at all, you’re just under a compulsion to repeatedly say “It’s legal not to” whenever someone says “The Republicans should hold hearings.” I will not publicly speculate motives as to this compulsion, but I certainly can guess.