Gaetz for AG
- Thread starter dbmhoosier
- Start date
We can do this the easy way or the hard way but make no mistake, Trump will do it.
So you want Trump to bypass the constitutional requirement of consent of the Senate?
Congress hasn't functioned for 20+ years. What's the difference?
Just declare something a national emergency and the constitution isn't worth scrap paper. That's what the supreme court says.
I get it. You don’t feel the Constitution is important or should be followed.
Why would you care? You don’t believe in following it.
Of course, you didn't bother to read up on the act to see what can and can't be done. Gaetz cannot be appointed under the standard guidelines of the act. He could appoint someone already in that Department (like the current Deputy), since Gaetz doesn't fit the guidelines, he can't be. He either must be confirmed or appointed during recess of 10 days or more (this is the exception included in the act). I don't think Thune and the Senate are going to permit that. He'll need to go through the confirmation process and get all his dirty laundry exposed. I would put money on this one - he won't be confirmed by a vote of the Senate. My guess is that Gaetz will pull his nomination before his dirty laundry is thoroughly exposed or Trump will pull it.
Last edited:
I do. The supreme court doesn't nor does Congress. We are at war with how many countries right now? And how many of these actions were approved by Congress? And your concern is about recess appointments? What is more fundamental than article 1 section 8. Talk about dereliction of duties.
If you find it wrong if the other side did it, you shouldn’t be OK if your side does it. Especially with something this significant. It would be a very bad precedent.
I feel the same about Reid removing the 60 votes requirement.
No, you don’t. A Constitutionalist believes the document should be followed no matter how politically inexpedient and no matter who might have violated it in the past. They don’t make excuses for continuing to violate it.
You and DBM don’t believe in that principle. There are many people on both sides like you.
I think Congress has ignored so many of their fundamental responsibilities and the Supreme Court has become so politicized that I'm not about to get up in arms about Trump's cabinet picks. This is small potatoes compared to other transgressions. The judiciary and congressional have willingly abdicated a large portion of their responsibilities to the executive. Moreover, the little constitutional knowledge I have says that the constitution only means what the supreme court says it means. It changes on the whims of 9 robes. One day that's red and one day that's black. Let Trump choose his team and pass or fail on their merits. I voted for a straight D ticket, but I'll leave you the outrage over how Trump appoints his cabinet picks which may be anti-constitutional. That's my non-legal opinion.
I think you've got a lot of good reasons for your position. I'm just pointing out that you aren't a Constitutionalist. Neither is DBM.
Again, many, many D's and R's and I's are not. Doesn't make you a bad person or a dumb one.
Gaetz will not be confirmed by the Senate. Reports are that at least six Senators will not vote to confirm. It'll be more if they have hearings because he really does have plenty of dirty laundry.
I guess props to him if he lost weight. That's hard to do, with all of those dinner dates with teens, where the menu was some combo of juice boxes, lunchables, and Happy Meals. Plus you have to win their confidence by playing Barbies, which doesn't burn many calories.
Was the 2020 election constitutional? Were you okay with it?
Trump won fair and square this year and I give Biden credit for treating him like a gentleman. I find it unacceptable that Trump couldn't behave the same in 2020. You should too.
My beliefs are irrelevant as to whether you are a Constitutionalist. You are not, as you've made clear here.
But, yes, of course, the 2020 election was "constitutional."
Such a dumb question. Of course, 2020 election was constitutional, and Trump lost. Only morons believe otherwise.
I think the point is, what point is there in following the Constitution when your political opponents ignore it?
I don't agree with temporarily appointing a Cabinet member for however many days, but recess appointments are covered in the Constitution, although with conditions, of course.
This is the danger of Democrat lawfare. When you find clever ways to circumvent the Constitution, don't be surprised when Republicans play that game. It's not right, but you can't expect one side to follow one set of rules and the other side another.
Because it doesn't matter if Republicans follow the Constitution - Democrats gonna Democrat.
And for some people, that's apparently what it means to drain the swamp. 🤷♂️
Last edited:
Again, I understand that. And Dems would be wise to understand that, as well. But you can't call yourself a Constitutionalist at that point.
Let me analogize: Jesus preaches that you love your enemies and turn the other cheek. If you believe that if your enemy does not do that to you, that you don't have to love them or turn the other cheek when they harm you, then you are not a follower of Jesus and don't believe his teachings. (This applies to a lot of internet posters who also claim to be Christian, by the way, as if the teachings don't apply on the internet or something.)
I'm not saying you have to be a Constitutionalist. To be one, comes with a cost. I'm just saying that if you believe it's OK to violate it if the other side does, then you aren't one.
Here's my case. And I disagree with DanC on what he terms democratic lawfare. In my view, the supreme court justices no longer serve as as objective arbitrators but are instead corrupt partisan hacks. In this view the Constitution functionally ceases to exist as decisions are not made based on objective factual evidence but partisan whims. This cuts across both sides.
I would also bring to your attention that our various wars continue to be fought without congressional approval on the basis of a 2001 executive order. Constitutional?
We aren't at war with any nation on earth, as far as I know.
Well for starters are you aware that we have bases inside Syria? Or that we have trainers on the ground in Ukraine?
Last edited:
Similar threads
