- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pam Bondi confirmation hearing.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 3:36 pm to MFn GIMP
Posted on 1/15/25 at 3:36 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
A QAnon question! What a farce.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. I'm DYING for one of these uppity frauds to ask Kash if he's a member of the Q Team.
0
Posted on 1/15/25 at 3:37 pm to Chazreinhold
quote:
It would have been hard for Matt to get Confirmed because he would have taken a F'ing blowtorch to these assholes,
Senate confirmation isn't a requirement, but rather a ceremonial endorsement.
That said, Special Counsel Matt Gaetz has a glorious ring to it.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 4:25 pm to VoxDawg
Posted on 1/15/25 at 4:28 pm to Placekicker
Just wait till Kash Patel get in...
Posted on 1/15/25 at 4:42 pm to Lark225
Why were the dems afraid of what she was going to say about Pennsylvania?
Posted on 1/15/25 at 5:08 pm to MMauler
AG Bondi put the fear of God in Democrats and all the lawfare participants. She laid it pretty bare that she does not need to target anyone or make up a crime to prosecute, she is just going to follow the law.
I think there is a lot of law for her to follow and that is what scares all the lib activist organ that have been protected by the Dems and establishment Rino's.
I think there is a lot of law for her to follow and that is what scares all the lib activist organ that have been protected by the Dems and establishment Rino's.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 5:11 pm to fwtex
Fvck em all. Build more prisons, gallows, guillotines and walls.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 5:31 pm to Houag80
POS Biden will be giving our pardons to democrats in the next few days for crimes uncommitted
Posted on 1/15/25 at 5:44 pm to Wednesday
Schiffhead should be in her crosshairs from Day One
This post was edited on 1/15/25 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 1/15/25 at 5:53 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
Senate confirmation isn't a requirement
it actually is, the Constitution says 'advise and consent'
Posted on 1/15/25 at 5:56 pm to jimmarley
quote:
Schiffhead should be in her crosshairs from Day One
No.
Much bigger fish to fry.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 6:13 pm to Goforit
Because they know she knows everything they have covered up and lied about
Posted on 1/15/25 at 7:14 pm to CSATiger
quote:
the Constitution says 'advise and consent'
You could've just told us you have multiple NPR tote bags.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 7:24 pm to VoxDawg
For those who are unfamiliar, it's only been within the last 50 years or so that the Senate confirmation vote has held any sort of sway over appointments made by the executive branch.
The advise and consent line from the Constitution has been leveraged to make Senate confirmation a tool to be held over the heads of presidents that the uniparty doesn't agree with.
The advise and consent line from the Constitution has been leveraged to make Senate confirmation a tool to be held over the heads of presidents that the uniparty doesn't agree with.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 1/15/25 at 7:25 pm to VoxDawg
Posted on 1/15/25 at 7:47 pm to MMauler
EVERY president appoints loyal people!!!!!!
Why would you appoint an unloyal person?
DEMS ARE STUPID and have no legs to stand on!
Why would you appoint an unloyal person?
DEMS ARE STUPID and have no legs to stand on!
Posted on 1/15/25 at 9:24 pm to VoxDawg
the Constitution says what it says, you are the revisionist, the guy you quoted said hearings are new, not a vote to confirm.
The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for." (Article II, section 2).
what I do have is a degree in Poli Sci and 25 years of teaching civics. Bottom line, the Senate CAN vote no and not allow the appointment
The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for." (Article II, section 2).
what I do have is a degree in Poli Sci and 25 years of teaching civics. Bottom line, the Senate CAN vote no and not allow the appointment
Posted on 1/15/25 at 10:01 pm to CSATiger
quote:
what I do have is a degree in Poli Sci
quote:
and 25 years of teaching civics.
So you’re a high school teacher pretending to have some deep understanding of Constitutional law…
This post was edited on 1/15/25 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:38 am to CSATiger
So the whole separation of powers thing is completely fricking you up then, right?
In what universe does it make any sense for the legislative branch to be able to derail the executive's choices to head the various cabinet departments?
Checks and balances are one thing. Being able to hold entire cabinet departments hostage because the Senate doesn't agree with the president's choices for cabinet heads is an entirely different matter, and grossly unconstitutional.
If the Senate hearings are held their vote should serve no more than a formal "I told you so" in the event that the nominee performs poorly as their respective cabinet member position.
Thanks for reinforcing our point about the collective retardation being pumped out in our government schools.
In what universe does it make any sense for the legislative branch to be able to derail the executive's choices to head the various cabinet departments?
Checks and balances are one thing. Being able to hold entire cabinet departments hostage because the Senate doesn't agree with the president's choices for cabinet heads is an entirely different matter, and grossly unconstitutional.
If the Senate hearings are held their vote should serve no more than a formal "I told you so" in the event that the nominee performs poorly as their respective cabinet member position.
Thanks for reinforcing our point about the collective retardation being pumped out in our government schools.
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News