Not explaining it again. You are a layperson when it comes to reading legal documents, clearly.

nomination is the initiation, appointment is the result. One is done unilaterally and the other collectively. Not sure what you’re confused about.

You did. I won’t repeat the explanation.

Agreed. Not sure what your point is.

And my point is that the future has not come to pass no matter how many times you say it. Again, when the senate actually follows through, you may gleefully claim “this has never been done before,” and you will be right.

No...you have to read the whole sentence:

blanket refusal from senate to deny hearings is an infringement on the former.

Looks like you factually incorrectly used the wrong word. Glad you admit it.

That’s ironic coming from someone who is ignorant of what the constitution actually says compared to what Gawker paraphrases it.

I had no idea that when other words specifically modify “SHALL,” such as, oh, I don’t know, “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,” you could say “FUCK IT THERE WAS A SHALL IN THERE, NOTHING ELSE MATTERSLOL!”

You are slow, and beginning to annoy me.

How can the Senate advise and consent, if Obama hasn’t even named a nominee yet?

Bork wasn’t the best example, but an example of general opposition.

No, you never proved me factually incorrect. Both parties have obstructed and delayed nominees.

I have to say, your commitment to exclusively ad hominem is impressive.

I need about tree-fiddy now.

Finally, a self-conscious response. Thanks.

I should not have included it in my examples, you are right.

And you are incapable of having a discussion past your talking points. Got it.

You’re probably right about that, but that doesn’t make you right about the other thing.