(11-25-2025 02:29 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote: Nope. You said it, you back it up, ballgargle. Provide actual examples. Otherwise, take the L and go back to the Realignment board.
read the thread GC, there's barely any polysyllabic words for you to trip over.
(11-25-2025 03:36 AM)TripleA Wrote: Turley's opinion is that Trump can't daisy chain 120-day US Attorney appointments, but that the case can be remedied, and can go forward.
His final comment is that the case will remain in the court for years, and eventually, the next Dem president is likely to pardon all 3.
I almost always yield to Turley on the law, because he's that good, but the statute does not forbid the daisy chaining of 120 days. And the real reason this isnt a problem is because its not action of the executive branch but the inaction of the senate. If the senate wants to vote someone down, go right ahead. If the senate wants to sit on their hands and not do their job, then the president can re-up them for another 120 days until they do take action. The statute basically handles this by saying the president cant appoint someone already voted down by the senate. (In other words, you cant temporarily appoint someone and start another 130 day cycle of events on someone who was already denied. )
And you can just hear the libturd (including Tanq) ass-ache if this happens to a democratic president, where the senate cant take action because of a republican blue slip, the 120 days expire, and a trump appointed judge gets to make the appointment. Because thats what happens under this "no daisy chaining" interpretation.
This is exactly how I see it. The Senate does not get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. However the problem is putting a time limit on it. This is more on the Senate to get the job done than on the appointee.
(11-25-2025 03:36 AM)TripleA Wrote: Turley's opinion is that Trump can't daisy chain 120-day US Attorney appointments, but that the case can be remedied, and can go forward.
His final comment is that the case will remain in the court for years, and eventually, the next Dem president is likely to pardon all 3.
I almost always yield to Turley on the law, because he's that good, but the statute does not forbid the daisy chaining of 120 days. And the real reason this isnt a problem is because its not action of the executive branch but the inaction of the senate. If the senate wants to vote someone down, go right ahead. If the senate wants to sit on their hands and not do their job, then the president can re-up them for another 120 days until they do take action. The statute basically handles this by saying the president cant appoint someone already voted down by the senate. (In other words, you cant temporarily appoint someone and start another 130 day cycle of events on someone who was already denied. )
And you can just hear the libturd (including Tanq) ass-ache if this happens to a democratic president, where the senate cant take action because of a republican blue slip, the 120 days expire, and a trump appointed judge gets to make the appointment. Because thats what happens under this "no daisy chaining" interpretation.
This is exactly how I see it. The Senate does not get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. However the problem is putting a time limit on it. This is more on the Senate to get the job done than on the appointee.
hello Merrick Garland calling.
They 100% get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. its up to the President to work with the senate to find a candidate that gets BROAD appeal.
(11-25-2025 03:36 AM)TripleA Wrote: Turley's opinion is that Trump can't daisy chain 120-day US Attorney appointments, but that the case can be remedied, and can go forward.
His final comment is that the case will remain in the court for years, and eventually, the next Dem president is likely to pardon all 3.
I almost always yield to Turley on the law, because he's that good, but the statute does not forbid the daisy chaining of 120 days. And the real reason this isnt a problem is because its not action of the executive branch but the inaction of the senate. If the senate wants to vote someone down, go right ahead. If the senate wants to sit on their hands and not do their job, then the president can re-up them for another 120 days until they do take action. The statute basically handles this by saying the president cant appoint someone already voted down by the senate. (In other words, you cant temporarily appoint someone and start another 130 day cycle of events on someone who was already denied. )
And you can just hear the libturd (including Tanq) ass-ache if this happens to a democratic president, where the senate cant take action because of a republican blue slip, the 120 days expire, and a trump appointed judge gets to make the appointment. Because thats what happens under this "no daisy chaining" interpretation.
This is exactly how I see it. The Senate does not get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. However the problem is putting a time limit on it. This is more on the Senate to get the job done than on the appointee.
Whats ridiculous in this scenario is that it doesnt even matter, because Halligan wasnt appointed until September 20th. So she's barely halfway into the first 120 days.
The judge seriously erred when she claimed there was a vacancy in the post. There isnt and wasnt.
(11-25-2025 03:36 AM)TripleA Wrote: Turley's opinion is that Trump can't daisy chain 120-day US Attorney appointments, but that the case can be remedied, and can go forward.
His final comment is that the case will remain in the court for years, and eventually, the next Dem president is likely to pardon all 3.
I almost always yield to Turley on the law, because he's that good, but the statute does not forbid the daisy chaining of 120 days. And the real reason this isnt a problem is because its not action of the executive branch but the inaction of the senate. If the senate wants to vote someone down, go right ahead. If the senate wants to sit on their hands and not do their job, then the president can re-up them for another 120 days until they do take action. The statute basically handles this by saying the president cant appoint someone already voted down by the senate. (In other words, you cant temporarily appoint someone and start another 130 day cycle of events on someone who was already denied. )
And you can just hear the libturd (including Tanq) ass-ache if this happens to a democratic president, where the senate cant take action because of a republican blue slip, the 120 days expire, and a trump appointed judge gets to make the appointment. Because thats what happens under this "no daisy chaining" interpretation.
This is exactly how I see it. The Senate does not get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. However the problem is putting a time limit on it. This is more on the Senate to get the job done than on the appointee.
hello Merrick Garland calling.
They 100% get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. its up to the President to work with the senate to find a candidate that gets BROAD appeal.
Don’t go straight to moron. It’s a bad look.
No. The senate does not vote on broad appeal moron. It is supposed to vote on qualifications. Otherwise how did the democrat appointed morons on the SCOTUS get a vote from any republican?
If your outrage was genuine and not only party based you might get some traction. Instead you are just another moron who believes he’s playing some sort of stupid game.
(11-25-2025 03:36 AM)TripleA Wrote: Turley's opinion is that Trump can't daisy chain 120-day US Attorney appointments, but that the case can be remedied, and can go forward.
His final comment is that the case will remain in the court for years, and eventually, the next Dem president is likely to pardon all 3.
I almost always yield to Turley on the law, because he's that good, but the statute does not forbid the daisy chaining of 120 days. And the real reason this isnt a problem is because its not action of the executive branch but the inaction of the senate. If the senate wants to vote someone down, go right ahead. If the senate wants to sit on their hands and not do their job, then the president can re-up them for another 120 days until they do take action. The statute basically handles this by saying the president cant appoint someone already voted down by the senate. (In other words, you cant temporarily appoint someone and start another 130 day cycle of events on someone who was already denied. )
And you can just hear the libturd (including Tanq) ass-ache if this happens to a democratic president, where the senate cant take action because of a republican blue slip, the 120 days expire, and a trump appointed judge gets to make the appointment. Because thats what happens under this "no daisy chaining" interpretation.
This is exactly how I see it. The Senate does not get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. However the problem is putting a time limit on it. This is more on the Senate to get the job done than on the appointee.
hello Merrick Garland calling.
They 100% get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. its up to the President to work with the senate to find a candidate that gets BROAD appeal.
Don’t go straight to moron. It’s a bad look.
No. The senate does not vote on broad appeal moron. It is supposed to vote on qualifications. Otherwise how did the democrat appointed morons on the SCOTUS get a vote from any republican?
If your outrage was genuine and not only party based you might get some traction. Instead you are just another moron who believes he’s playing some sort of stupid game.
maybe you should think about your own knee jerk assertions again to get the answers you seek.
Unfortunately there's no real opportunity for me to give equal measure to democratic overstepping since Trump and MAGA are hogging all of them for themselves.
(11-25-2025 03:36 AM)TripleA Wrote: Turley's opinion is that Trump can't daisy chain 120-day US Attorney appointments, but that the case can be remedied, and can go forward.
His final comment is that the case will remain in the court for years, and eventually, the next Dem president is likely to pardon all 3.
I almost always yield to Turley on the law, because he's that good, but the statute does not forbid the daisy chaining of 120 days. And the real reason this isnt a problem is because its not action of the executive branch but the inaction of the senate. If the senate wants to vote someone down, go right ahead. If the senate wants to sit on their hands and not do their job, then the president can re-up them for another 120 days until they do take action. The statute basically handles this by saying the president cant appoint someone already voted down by the senate. (In other words, you cant temporarily appoint someone and start another 130 day cycle of events on someone who was already denied. )
And you can just hear the libturd (including Tanq) ass-ache if this happens to a democratic president, where the senate cant take action because of a republican blue slip, the 120 days expire, and a trump appointed judge gets to make the appointment. Because thats what happens under this "no daisy chaining" interpretation.
This is exactly how I see it. The Senate does not get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. However the problem is putting a time limit on it. This is more on the Senate to get the job done than on the appointee.
Whats ridiculous in this scenario is that it doesnt even matter, because Halligan wasnt appointed until September 20th. So she's barely halfway into the first 120 days.
The judge seriously erred when she claimed there was a vacancy in the post. There isnt and wasnt.
I'd say go research a timeline of events and the relevant laws to find out why you're wrong on the above.
(11-25-2025 03:36 AM)TripleA Wrote: Turley's opinion is that Trump can't daisy chain 120-day US Attorney appointments, but that the case can be remedied, and can go forward.
His final comment is that the case will remain in the court for years, and eventually, the next Dem president is likely to pardon all 3.
I almost always yield to Turley on the law, because he's that good, but the statute does not forbid the daisy chaining of 120 days. And the real reason this isnt a problem is because its not action of the executive branch but the inaction of the senate. If the senate wants to vote someone down, go right ahead. If the senate wants to sit on their hands and not do their job, then the president can re-up them for another 120 days until they do take action. The statute basically handles this by saying the president cant appoint someone already voted down by the senate. (In other words, you cant temporarily appoint someone and start another 130 day cycle of events on someone who was already denied. )
And you can just hear the libturd (including Tanq) ass-ache if this happens to a democratic president, where the senate cant take action because of a republican blue slip, the 120 days expire, and a trump appointed judge gets to make the appointment. Because thats what happens under this "no daisy chaining" interpretation.
This is exactly how I see it. The Senate does not get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. However the problem is putting a time limit on it. This is more on the Senate to get the job done than on the appointee.
Whats ridiculous in this scenario is that it doesnt even matter, because Halligan wasnt appointed until September 20th. So she's barely halfway into the first 120 days.
The judge seriously erred when she claimed there was a vacancy in the post. There isnt and wasnt.
I'd say go research a timeline of events and the relevant laws to find out why you're wrong on the above.
because if I were you would have already posted it.
(11-25-2025 09:36 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: I almost always yield to Turley on the law, because he's that good, but the statute does not forbid the daisy chaining of 120 days. And the real reason this isnt a problem is because its not action of the executive branch but the inaction of the senate. If the senate wants to vote someone down, go right ahead. If the senate wants to sit on their hands and not do their job, then the president can re-up them for another 120 days until they do take action. The statute basically handles this by saying the president cant appoint someone already voted down by the senate. (In other words, you cant temporarily appoint someone and start another 130 day cycle of events on someone who was already denied. )
And you can just hear the libturd (including Tanq) ass-ache if this happens to a democratic president, where the senate cant take action because of a republican blue slip, the 120 days expire, and a trump appointed judge gets to make the appointment. Because thats what happens under this "no daisy chaining" interpretation.
This is exactly how I see it. The Senate does not get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. However the problem is putting a time limit on it. This is more on the Senate to get the job done than on the appointee.
Whats ridiculous in this scenario is that it doesnt even matter, because Halligan wasnt appointed until September 20th. So she's barely halfway into the first 120 days.
The judge seriously erred when she claimed there was a vacancy in the post. There isnt and wasnt.
I'd say go research a timeline of events and the relevant laws to find out why you're wrong on the above.
because if I were you would have already posted it.
It’s already been posted in this thread multiple times actually. But I find most people are more satisfied when they do the bare modicum of research to find out anyway.
(11-25-2025 03:06 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote: This is exactly how I see it. The Senate does not get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. However the problem is putting a time limit on it. This is more on the Senate to get the job done than on the appointee.
Whats ridiculous in this scenario is that it doesnt even matter, because Halligan wasnt appointed until September 20th. So she's barely halfway into the first 120 days.
The judge seriously erred when she claimed there was a vacancy in the post. There isnt and wasnt.
I'd say go research a timeline of events and the relevant laws to find out why you're wrong on the above.
because if I were you would have already posted it.
It’s already been posted in this thread multiple times actually. But I find most people are more satisfied when they do the bare modicum of research to find out anyway.
(11-25-2025 09:36 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: I almost always yield to Turley on the law, because he's that good, but the statute does not forbid the daisy chaining of 120 days. And the real reason this isnt a problem is because its not action of the executive branch but the inaction of the senate. If the senate wants to vote someone down, go right ahead. If the senate wants to sit on their hands and not do their job, then the president can re-up them for another 120 days until they do take action. The statute basically handles this by saying the president cant appoint someone already voted down by the senate. (In other words, you cant temporarily appoint someone and start another 130 day cycle of events on someone who was already denied. )
And you can just hear the libturd (including Tanq) ass-ache if this happens to a democratic president, where the senate cant take action because of a republican blue slip, the 120 days expire, and a trump appointed judge gets to make the appointment. Because thats what happens under this "no daisy chaining" interpretation.
This is exactly how I see it. The Senate does not get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. However the problem is putting a time limit on it. This is more on the Senate to get the job done than on the appointee.
hello Merrick Garland calling.
They 100% get to deny an appointment by not voting on it. its up to the President to work with the senate to find a candidate that gets BROAD appeal.
Don’t go straight to moron. It’s a bad look.
No. The senate does not vote on broad appeal moron. It is supposed to vote on qualifications. Otherwise how did the democrat appointed morons on the SCOTUS get a vote from any republican?
If your outrage was genuine and not only party based you might get some traction. Instead you are just another moron who believes he’s playing some sort of stupid game.
maybe you should think about your own knee jerk assertions again to get the answers you seek.
Unfortunately there's no real opportunity for me to give equal measure to democratic overstepping since Trump and MAGA are hogging all of them for themselves.
(11-25-2025 07:07 PM)450bench Wrote: Libs taking a long victory lab on a short pier.
Shear entertainment
I don't see it that way. It's so pathetic watching these mental misfits hurt themselves over and over again.
You’re a better person than me.
I love seeing them make complete idiots of themselves and then completely melt down when called out. I actually love it.
I come here looking forward to it.
Here's to Darwin! A champion for idiots who praise him for his disbelief in God, and ignore the only truly useful thing he inspired, awards given to idiots who unwittingly contribute to their own destruction. Yet another reason you stay away from stupid people. Collateral damage can and often does occur!
You couldn't pay me enough to make me go to the Democratic Covention.
