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 ...
Bump to term limiting judges. Lower court judges, six years, SCOTUS, 10 years.
And let’s term limit Congress while we’re at it.
I’ve got no problem with it. 8 years president, house, or senate.
Too short.
The reason for some unlimited terms was to lend the possibility of stability.
That is wise.
Some terms probably should be limited, but not that short. We’d be bouncing all over the place.
18th century England had a two-party system with many of the failings of our own.
You’re right. The Senate should confirm Judge Garland because Trump.
(;-)
Then they weren’t as prescient as they should have been
They knew their classics. They knew that, even with their best efforts, the chance of ultimate failure of the system approached 100%.
“I read somewhere that “nunnery” in this case meant “brothel.””
I don’t think so. That sounds like the kind of thing despicable leftard scoundrels invent.
All sarcasm on my part. I love Sowell, and I don't think I've ever seen an opinion of his that I didn't agree with. He's the most consistent conservative going.
I was mocking so-called "conservatives" who thought highly of Sowell and praised him to the skies until he said something against their demigod, at which point he became a worthless piece of trash.
Do you ever wonder if they’d be pleased if they saw what we are now?
“Just because of his audacity in disagreeing with you on who is the best Republican candidate?”
I am baffled and saddened by his consistent support, election after election, for some drooling GOPe moron who wouldn’t make a hundredth as good a prez as Sowell would.
Can’t say they are all inclusive, just 1 party with different roles BUT
When the Florida chad thing was going on and ‘we’ were waiting the answer of whether algore or W would assume the head of the biparty, I had figured that if algore would have been declared the victor, both sides of the aisle would just switch notes and carry on without missing a beat.
I have a feeling in my gut that if Trump gets screwed and Bernie keeps getting screwed, THEY will run on an independent ticket.
Now that would be a ‘mess’ and also a fun thing to observe.
Of course if Trump-Bernie would win it there would have to be a steel cage death match to determine who sits in the ‘seat’ But can just see the Liberal and GOPe heads im/exploding.....
Ahh..
My son bought a TrumpSanders2016 bumper sticker for a lark.
Yikes!
That’s exactly the way I interpreted your post, Agnes.
I take it your son is as cynical/sarcastic/sardonic as I.
It makes as much sense as the foolz that are saying Ksick (sic) can handily whip Mrs Clinton OR Bernie but he has trouble doing ANYTHING against Trump/Cruz and the cast of thousands that came before him.
Am afraid we are going to get stuck with Romney or worse - not that the ‘leaders’ are any better...
Look at the 5 people now engaged in the Run for President and one must scratch head/arse wondering where we have went wrong if these are the BEST we - out of 300million people have to offer
And you can see what happens when an ‘anointed’ one crashes their party.
We all understand that Trump really has them scared when both parties, ALL the press etc are out to sink him.
Hope it takes a while before the MSM realizes that every time they rag Trump, he picks up more votes from either side. Just afraid they won’t automatically transfer into ballot box votes..
Almost as bad as the W - Jf’nK race where the top two contenders were members of ‘Skull & Bones’.....
What are the odds?????
Nope, I don’t wonder.
I just looked up some online analyses of this passage. The longest and most serious one concluded that Shakespeare meant “nunnery” in its normal meaning here, but there is evidence of it being used in the other meaning in this time period (by Thomas Nashe, 1567-1601).
Thanks for the info.
Thanks. Perhaps I ought to have used the sarcasm tag, but that takes all the effect out of it!
You would be incorrect, then. The backlash against Catholics (along with the nationalization of the church by Henry VIII) meant that all convents had been abolished in England by the time of Elizabeth I. So no one could have gotten to a nunnery, as they were officially banned. And before you respond with "But maybe Shakespeare was trying to be historically accurate for Denmark in Hamlet's time," it would be the first time for the Bard. He was notoriously anachronistic in his plays, emphasizing understandability for his contemporary audience. They had very different expectations than modern audiences do (or considering most "historical" movies nowadays... maybe not).
Because of the anti-Catholic sentiment of the time, "nunnery" was a well-known slang for brothels. It described a place where only women lived, plus got in a Papist slur in the bargain. It shows up used that way in dozens of Elizabethan plays and texts, by many different authors. So you are categorically wrong.
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.