Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy,

I don't know what the hell you're gibbering about this time.



You give yourself away with lowbrow words like "gibbering". I'm sure
any moment now, you'll be writing "drivel", "ilk" and "sniveling".


You're gibbering.

You're using typically lowbrow, semi-educated
right-wing crank speak: "gibbering", "drivel", "ilk",
"sniveling", and probably any day now
"maggot-infested". It's really hard to believe people
use such trite, hackneyed speech, but here you are!




Pope Secola was the one who said that there needed to be a vote to
undo a recess appointment.



No, he did *not* write that, you slob.


(Slob? LOL!)

Yes. You are a slob.



While you're at it, you can also admit that you were wrong about:
1) The constitution saying it is the supreme law of the land.

It doesn't say it. You are wrong.


2) The constitution is a contract between the people and the government,
as evidenced by the preamble.

It isn't. There is no mention of a contract, nor is
there *any* mention of a government. There is nothing
that mentions the *relationship* between the people and
the government. No contract. You are wrong, again.

You are so ****ing ignorant, it's amazing you're
permitted to have a computer.


I'm not going to hold my breath

Good. You'd die. I wasn't wrong. You are wrong.



BTW, I did some research on this. In a way, Pope S is right. The way the
game has been played is that the recess apointee holds office until he
is either voted down,

Just voted on. The next session of the Senate would
have the *same* members as the session that just ended.


or the next session of congress ENDS.

Almost right, dummy. The next session of the Senate,
*not* of Congress. Only the Senate votes on
appointments. Sessions of the Senate and of the House
do not necessarily have to coincide to the day.

The next *session* is not the next *Senate*. The next
*session* is when the Senate comes back after their recess.