Democrats Don't Support Impeachment - Pelosi Backs Down - No Vote

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because the Republicans are not changing anything about the court. They simply waited until they had the opportunity. Democrats want to change the court by changing the amount of people on it.

View attachment 284988

So? Both are methods of stacking the court. It matters not that one changes the number of justices while the other doesn't. The end game is still the same. And there's certainly nothing etched in stone that we have to have 9 justices. We've had other numbers over the years.

What's good for Republicans is good for Democrats.

Fine, then write to your commie friends and tell them to pass that in the House. Then Trump will nominate several conservative judges, and then you'll be happy.

You must have a reading disorder. I said Democrats can do it next time they control the Executive branch and the Congress. Where exactly do you see trump fitting into that picture?

Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.

Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.

Of course I do. Just how rightarded arecyoubto think I want more justices under a Republican president?

And again, you support Republicans stacking that bench but bitch & moan when Democrats want to even the score. TFB.

You must be mentally retarded or something. I said it's fine to stack the bench, but not change the number of justices to do so. Republicans play by the rules. Democrats want to change the rules when they lose.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A few months? Biden said a few seasons.

Liar. It was 4 months before the election, one of which, Congress was on recess. And he suggested the Senate wait until after the election to convene confirmation hearings. That's 3 months the Senate would wait. WTF did you hear putting off hearings for a few "seasons?"

From his mouth. He said the preceding fall and summer.

He said no such thing. You're fucking crazy.

On September 25, 1992, little more than 4 months before the election, Biden suggested the president hold off nominating a replacement until after the election. That's the following 4 months, not the preceding fall and summer. Emphasis mine...

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed." ~ Joe Biden, 9.25.1992​

So unlike Republicans in 2016 who denied the sitting president confirmation hearings, Biden suggested the president wait to nominate someone.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who held up a replacement for nearly all of Obama's final year, Biden suggested waiting 4 months.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who said Obama would not get to appoint another replacement, Biden suggested Bush would get to nominate someone the Senate would consider.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who actually did deny a sitting president nearly 25% of his term to appoint a USSC justice, Biden spoke only of a hypothetical which never actually happened.

First off, sleepy Joe said "in an election year" which it was. Secondly, he said the "beginning of summer" in that instance, which officially, starts June 20th. Ears nominated Garland in late February. That means the Republicans didn't entertain his nominee only four months (March, April, May, June) more than sleepy Joe outlined.

Secondly, the Republicans didn't have to confirm anybody. They can refuse to confirm a nominee eight months or three years if they wanted. According to Mitch, it would have been nothing but a waste of time going through the procedure that would have put the nominee in the same position, which the Senate has every right to do.

Dumbfuck, he said it on 6.25.92. It's even on the video you posted. The election was on 11.3.92. That's 4 months & one week. And there was no open seat, so the clock didn't even start ticking yet. So who the fuck knows were you got "previous seaons" from?

Obama went from February through January, 11 months.

Biden never said Bush wouldn't get confirmation hearings. He just suggested Bush not nominate anyone until after the election. Whereas Obama was told not to nominate anyone for the rest of his presidency because the Senate wouldn't hold confirmation hearings if he did. Obama did and the Senate didn't.

You're completely fucked in the head, i.e., a typical conservative, to compare the two situations.

Dumbfuck. What he said are two seasons: summer and fall. That is in the video. Nobody stopped Ears from nominating anybody, the Senate said they wouldn't entertain his nominee. Even if they did, Garland would have never gotten confirmation, and you'd still be bitching like the snowflake you are.

 

[Faun]

"It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9"

No? It's nothing like that. That would be against the rules. Adding seats to the Supreme Court is not against the rules.

Really? So why would the Democrats want to do that? Can you give us the reason if not because of power loss?

For the same reason Republicans denied Obama his Constitutional privilege of appointing a justice, to stack the court. I never gave any other reason. I'm still baffled why you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the court but then you cry like a little girl at the notion of Democrats doing it?

There is nothing to not understand. We won, you lost. Elections have consequences. That's all you have to understand, but like a typical leftist, refuse to accept.

We have every right to stack the court because we will be doing so under the same provisions we always had; not creating new ones to favor our side. Big difference.

And if the commies get the Senate and White House, they can do the same if the opportunity presents itself. Nothing wrong with that either.

What you want to do is change the rules of the game to favor your side, and that's now how our government works. There is absolutely no reason to expand the court other than your side getting power we voters didn't provide to you.

It's not changing any rules. There's nothing in the Constitution that stipulates the Supreme Court has to have nine justices. There were times we had less and to.es we had more. It's up to Congress to decide.

Right now the court leans 5-4 in favor of conservatives. Next time Democrats control Congress and the Executive branch, there's nothing to stop them from adding 2 seats so the Democrat president can grant 2 life time appointments to two Liberals and tip the scale 6-5 in favor of Liberals.

If we're both still posting here at that time, I'll be sure to remind you how elections have consequences.

So how is that not changing the rules? I didn't say they couldn't. What I said is they would be doing so to cheat the system we've been using for decades. They cannot give any judicial reason for adding justices.

But as we all know, Democrats cannot compete against Republicans without rigging the game. Democrats never liked fair competition. When they lose, it's time to change everything so they don't lose the next time.

Nothing but criminals, and that's why we need to divide this country into two countries instead of one. Democrats on one side, and conservatives on the other.

Because there's no rule that says Congress can't make it any number they want.

And it's not criminal, the Constitution, which you clearly know nothing about, Grant's the Congress to determine the number of seats.

 

[Faun]

So? Both are methods of stacking the court. It matters not that one changes the number of justices while the other doesn't. The end game is still the same. And there's certainly nothing etched in stone that we have to have 9 justices. We've had other numbers over the years.

What's good for Republicans is good for Democrats.

Fine, then write to your commie friends and tell them to pass that in the House. Then Trump will nominate several conservative judges, and then you'll be happy.

You must have a reading disorder. I said Democrats can do it next time they control the Executive branch and the Congress. Where exactly do you see trump fitting into that picture?

Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.

Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.

Of course I do. Just how rightarded arecyoubto think I want more justices under a Republican president?

And again, you support Republicans stacking that bench but bitch & moan when Democrats want to even the score. TFB.

You must be mentally retarded or something. I said it's fine to stack the bench, but not change the number of justices to do so. Republicans play by the rules. Democrats want to change the rules when they lose.

View attachment 285167

Wut? What rule where Republicans playing by when they told Obama he gets to appoint a SC justice for only 3 years of his 4 year term?

 

[Faun]

Liar. It was 4 months before the election, one of which, Congress was on recess. And he suggested the Senate wait until after the election to convene confirmation hearings. That's 3 months the Senate would wait. WTF did you hear putting off hearings for a few "seasons?"

From his mouth. He said the preceding fall and summer.

He said no such thing. You're fucking crazy.

On September 25, 1992, little more than 4 months before the election, Biden suggested the president hold off nominating a replacement until after the election. That's the following 4 months, not the preceding fall and summer. Emphasis mine...

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed." ~ Joe Biden, 9.25.1992​

So unlike Republicans in 2016 who denied the sitting president confirmation hearings, Biden suggested the president wait to nominate someone.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who held up a replacement for nearly all of Obama's final year, Biden suggested waiting 4 months.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who said Obama would not get to appoint another replacement, Biden suggested Bush would get to nominate someone the Senate would consider.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who actually did deny a sitting president nearly 25% of his term to appoint a USSC justice, Biden spoke only of a hypothetical which never actually happened.

First off, sleepy Joe said "in an election year" which it was. Secondly, he said the "beginning of summer" in that instance, which officially, starts June 20th. Ears nominated Garland in late February. That means the Republicans didn't entertain his nominee only four months (March, April, May, June) more than sleepy Joe outlined.

Secondly, the Republicans didn't have to confirm anybody. They can refuse to confirm a nominee eight months or three years if they wanted. According to Mitch, it would have been nothing but a waste of time going through the procedure that would have put the nominee in the same position, which the Senate has every right to do.

Dumbfuck, he said it on 6.25.92. It's even on the video you posted. The election was on 11.3.92. That's 4 months & one week. And there was no open seat, so the clock didn't even start ticking yet. So who the fuck knows were you got "previous seaons" from?

Obama went from February through January, 11 months.

Biden never said Bush wouldn't get confirmation hearings. He just suggested Bush not nominate anyone until after the election. Whereas Obama was told not to nominate anyone for the rest of his presidency because the Senate wouldn't hold confirmation hearings if he did. Obama did and the Senate didn't.

You're completely fucked in the head, i.e., a typical conservative, to compare the two situations.

Dumbfuck. What he said are two seasons: summer and fall. That is in the video. Nobody stopped Ears from nominating anybody, the Senate said they wouldn't entertain his nominee. Even if they did, Garland would have never gotten confirmation, and you'd still be bitching like the snowflake you are.

LOLOL

Now you're changing what you said. A clear indication even you have a clue you're retarded.

You claimed he said, "previous fall and summer."

 

[Thunk]

I heard on the radio today that the demographics of Trump's rally included 12% of people that didn't vote for a President the last four elections, and 24% of the rally attendees were Democrats.

I heard that as well.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fine, then write to your commie friends and tell them to pass that in the House. Then Trump will nominate several conservative judges, and then you'll be happy.

You must have a reading disorder. I said Democrats can do it next time they control the Executive branch and the Congress. Where exactly do you see trump fitting into that picture?

Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.

Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.

Of course I do. Just how rightarded arecyoubto think I want more justices under a Republican president?

And again, you support Republicans stacking that bench but bitch & moan when Democrats want to even the score. TFB.

You must be mentally retarded or something. I said it's fine to stack the bench, but not change the number of justices to do so. Republicans play by the rules. Democrats want to change the rules when they lose.

View attachment 285167

Wut? What rule where Republicans playing by when they told Obama he gets to appoint a SC justice for only 3 years of his 4 year term?

The rule that allows them not to confirm his nomination. They could have done that the entire time they had leadership of the Senate. The Democrats can do the same to a Republican President. The only thing different is they didn't go through the process which would have wasted a lot of time since they had no intent of confirming the nominees in the first place.

It's just like this stupid impeachment inquiry. It's never been done before. Piglosi and gang decided to make it up, and there is nothing the Republicans can do about it.

 

[Faun]

You must have a reading disorder. I said Democrats can do it next time they control the Executive branch and the Congress. Where exactly do you see trump fitting into that picture?

Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.

Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.

Of course I do. Just how rightarded arecyoubto think I want more justices under a Republican president?

And again, you support Republicans stacking that bench but bitch & moan when Democrats want to even the score. TFB.

You must be mentally retarded or something. I said it's fine to stack the bench, but not change the number of justices to do so. Republicans play by the rules. Democrats want to change the rules when they lose.

View attachment 285167

Wut? What rule where Republicans playing by when they told Obama he gets to appoint a SC justice for only 3 years of his 4 year term?

The rule that allows them not to confirm his nomination. They could have done that the entire time they had leadership of the Senate. The Democrats can do the same to a Republican President. The only thing different is they didn't go through the process which would have wasted a lot of time since they had no intent of confirming the nominees in the first place.

It's just like this stupid impeachment inquiry. It's never been done before. Piglosi and gang decided to make it up, and there is nothing the Republicans can do about it.

Great, so we agree. Not giving a president confirmation hearings is allowed and changing the number of seats is allowed. Both for the purpose of stacking the court.

As far as the impeachment inquiry, yes, this has been done before. I was just reading about some judges back in the 80's who were impeached and there was no House vote to launch an impeachment inquiry.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.

Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.

Of course I do. Just how rightarded arecyoubto think I want more justices under a Republican president?

And again, you support Republicans stacking that bench but bitch & moan when Democrats want to even the score. TFB.

You must be mentally retarded or something. I said it's fine to stack the bench, but not change the number of justices to do so. Republicans play by the rules. Democrats want to change the rules when they lose.

View attachment 285167

Wut? What rule where Republicans playing by when they told Obama he gets to appoint a SC justice for only 3 years of his 4 year term?

The rule that allows them not to confirm his nomination. They could have done that the entire time they had leadership of the Senate. The Democrats can do the same to a Republican President. The only thing different is they didn't go through the process which would have wasted a lot of time since they had no intent of confirming the nominees in the first place.

It's just like this stupid impeachment inquiry. It's never been done before. Piglosi and gang decided to make it up, and there is nothing the Republicans can do about it.

Great, so we agree. Not giving a president confirmation hearings is allowed and changing the number of seats is allowed. Both for the purpose of stacking the court.

As far as the impeachment inquiry, yes, this has been done before. I was just reading about some judges back in the 80's who were impeached and there was no House vote to launch an impeachment inquiry.

I never said it wasn't allowed, what I said is they are changing the court do to it, because Democrats have a child mentally and can't take losing. When they start to lose, change the rules of the game so they can win. Imagine how crappy sports would be if they allowed that to happen in professional baseball of football. Nobody would agree with it except the losers.

 

[daveman]

Because the Republicans are not changing anything about the court. They simply waited until they had the opportunity. Democrats want to change the court by changing the amount of people on it.

View attachment 284988

If we need to expand the SCOTUS Trump should do so now and nominate 3-4 new SCOTUS justices. Right libs? Watch them shit themselves.

It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9.

Democrats love when its their turn to win, but have a huge problem when the opponents win at the same game. When Democrats lose, it's time to change the game entirely.

It happened during the Bush/ Gore race where nearly the entire country had to spend God knows how many millions by replacing punch card machines with electronic. Then when Kerry lost, they blamed it on the Diebold company because Bush had associations with them. So once again, we had to spend God knows how many millions to replace the Diebold machines, even though it was proven those machines had nothing to do with the outcome.

They based it on exit polls, which clearly showed Kerry beating Trump. So then they wanted to have us count votes by using exit polling.

Now that Trump lost the popular vote, a few states changed their electoral college system to winner takes all, that is to say, make the popular vote manipulate the electoral college vote.

Democrats are the sorest losers we have in this country. It's not a wonder why liberal schools stopped keeping scores in sporting events, and got rid of dodge ball in gym class.

"It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9"

No? It's nothing like that. That would be against the rules. Adding seats to the Supreme Court is not against the rules.

Really? So why would the Democrats want to do that? Can you give us the reason if not because of power loss?

For the same reason Republicans denied Obama his Constitutional privilege of appointing a justice, to stack the court. I never gave any other reason. I'm still baffled why you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the court but then you cry like a little girl at the notion of Democrats doing it?

One might ask you the reverse question, but one is pretty sure you'll just huff self-importantly and never offer a rational answer.

 

[daveman]

Because the Republicans are not changing anything about the court. They simply waited until they had the opportunity. Democrats want to change the court by changing the amount of people on it.

View attachment 284988

So? Both are methods of stacking the court. It matters not that one changes the number of justices while the other doesn't. The end game is still the same. And there's certainly nothing etched in stone that we have to have 9 justices. We've had other numbers over the years.

What's good for Republicans is good for Democrats.

Fine, then write to your commie friends and tell them to pass that in the House. Then Trump will nominate several conservative judges, and then you'll be happy.

You must have a reading disorder. I said Democrats can do it next time they control the Executive branch and the Congress. Where exactly do you see trump fitting into that picture?

Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.

Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.

Of course I do. Just how rightarded arecyoubto think I want more justices under a Republican president?

And again, you support Republicans stacking that bench but bitch & moan when Democrats want to even the score. TFB.

It's not evening the score if you want to create more seats then fill them. It's stacking the bench.

At least try to be honest about your motives.

 

[Faun]

So? Both are methods of stacking the court. It matters not that one changes the number of justices while the other doesn't. The end game is still the same. And there's certainly nothing etched in stone that we have to have 9 justices. We've had other numbers over the years.

What's good for Republicans is good for Democrats.

Fine, then write to your commie friends and tell them to pass that in the House. Then Trump will nominate several conservative judges, and then you'll be happy.

You must have a reading disorder. I said Democrats can do it next time they control the Executive branch and the Congress. Where exactly do you see trump fitting into that picture?

Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.

Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.

Of course I do. Just how rightarded arecyoubto think I want more justices under a Republican president?

And again, you support Republicans stacking that bench but bitch & moan when Democrats want to even the score. TFB.

You must be mentally retarded or something. I said it's fine to stack the bench, but not change the number of justices to do so. Republicans play by the rules. Democrats want to change the rules when they lose.

View attachment 285167

I understood your point, it's just idiotic. Both methods are within the Constitution and the rules of the House & Senate. It's just TFB for you that Democrats have a way to even the score.

And again, changing the number of seats is not changing any rules. Not a single rule will be changed by adding 2 seats.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fine, then write to your commie friends and tell them to pass that in the House. Then Trump will nominate several conservative judges, and then you'll be happy.

You must have a reading disorder. I said Democrats can do it next time they control the Executive branch and the Congress. Where exactly do you see trump fitting into that picture?

Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.

Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.

Of course I do. Just how rightarded arecyoubto think I want more justices under a Republican president?

And again, you support Republicans stacking that bench but bitch & moan when Democrats want to even the score. TFB.

You must be mentally retarded or something. I said it's fine to stack the bench, but not change the number of justices to do so. Republicans play by the rules. Democrats want to change the rules when they lose.

View attachment 285167

I understood your point, it's just idiotic. Both methods are within the Constitution and the rules of the House & Senate. It's just TFB for you that Democrats have a way to even the score.

And again, changing the number of seats is not changing any rules. Not a single rule will be changed by adding 2 seats.

It is changing the rules, the rules we've been playing by for a very long time. But I'm not worried, at least for another five years. And if Democrats don't stop their crap, they may not even have the majority in the House to advance their idea to the President.

 

[Faun]

Liar. It was 4 months before the election, one of which, Congress was on recess. And he suggested the Senate wait until after the election to convene confirmation hearings. That's 3 months the Senate would wait. WTF did you hear putting off hearings for a few "seasons?"

From his mouth. He said the preceding fall and summer.

He said no such thing. You're fucking crazy.

On September 25, 1992, little more than 4 months before the election, Biden suggested the president hold off nominating a replacement until after the election. That's the following 4 months, not the preceding fall and summer. Emphasis mine...

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed." ~ Joe Biden, 9.25.1992​

So unlike Republicans in 2016 who denied the sitting president confirmation hearings, Biden suggested the president wait to nominate someone.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who held up a replacement for nearly all of Obama's final year, Biden suggested waiting 4 months.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who said Obama would not get to appoint another replacement, Biden suggested Bush would get to nominate someone the Senate would consider.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who actually did deny a sitting president nearly 25% of his term to appoint a USSC justice, Biden spoke only of a hypothetical which never actually happened.

First off, sleepy Joe said "in an election year" which it was. Secondly, he said the "beginning of summer" in that instance, which officially, starts June 20th. Ears nominated Garland in late February. That means the Republicans didn't entertain his nominee only four months (March, April, May, June) more than sleepy Joe outlined.

Secondly, the Republicans didn't have to confirm anybody. They can refuse to confirm a nominee eight months or three years if they wanted. According to Mitch, it would have been nothing but a waste of time going through the procedure that would have put the nominee in the same position, which the Senate has every right to do.

Dumbfuck, he said it on 6.25.92. It's even on the video you posted. The election was on 11.3.92. That's 4 months & one week. And there was no open seat, so the clock didn't even start ticking yet. So who the fuck knows were you got "previous seaons" from?

Obama went from February through January, 11 months.

Biden never said Bush wouldn't get confirmation hearings. He just suggested Bush not nominate anyone until after the election. Whereas Obama was told not to nominate anyone for the rest of his presidency because the Senate wouldn't hold confirmation hearings if he did. Obama did and the Senate didn't.

You're completely fucked in the head, i.e., a typical conservative, to compare the two situations.

Dumbfuck. What he said are two seasons: summer and fall. That is in the video. Nobody stopped Ears from nominating anybody, the Senate said they wouldn't entertain his nominee. Even if they did, Garland would have never gotten confirmation, and you'd still be bitching like the snowflake you are.

No, Biden never said "seasons," you did. Even worse, YOU idiotically said, "previous seasons." What Biden said was if a seat were to open in the summer, Bush would have to wait until after the election, 4 months and one week.

Dumbfuck, 4 months a one week is not, "previous seasons."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

From his mouth. He said the preceding fall and summer.

He said no such thing. You're fucking crazy.

On September 25, 1992, little more than 4 months before the election, Biden suggested the president hold off nominating a replacement until after the election. That's the following 4 months, not the preceding fall and summer. Emphasis mine...

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed." ~ Joe Biden, 9.25.1992​

So unlike Republicans in 2016 who denied the sitting president confirmation hearings, Biden suggested the president wait to nominate someone.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who held up a replacement for nearly all of Obama's final year, Biden suggested waiting 4 months.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who said Obama would not get to appoint another replacement, Biden suggested Bush would get to nominate someone the Senate would consider.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who actually did deny a sitting president nearly 25% of his term to appoint a USSC justice, Biden spoke only of a hypothetical which never actually happened.

First off, sleepy Joe said "in an election year" which it was. Secondly, he said the "beginning of summer" in that instance, which officially, starts June 20th. Ears nominated Garland in late February. That means the Republicans didn't entertain his nominee only four months (March, April, May, June) more than sleepy Joe outlined.

Secondly, the Republicans didn't have to confirm anybody. They can refuse to confirm a nominee eight months or three years if they wanted. According to Mitch, it would have been nothing but a waste of time going through the procedure that would have put the nominee in the same position, which the Senate has every right to do.

Dumbfuck, he said it on 6.25.92. It's even on the video you posted. The election was on 11.3.92. That's 4 months & one week. And there was no open seat, so the clock didn't even start ticking yet. So who the fuck knows were you got "previous seaons" from?

Obama went from February through January, 11 months.

Biden never said Bush wouldn't get confirmation hearings. He just suggested Bush not nominate anyone until after the election. Whereas Obama was told not to nominate anyone for the rest of his presidency because the Senate wouldn't hold confirmation hearings if he did. Obama did and the Senate didn't.

You're completely fucked in the head, i.e., a typical conservative, to compare the two situations.

Dumbfuck. What he said are two seasons: summer and fall. That is in the video. Nobody stopped Ears from nominating anybody, the Senate said they wouldn't entertain his nominee. Even if they did, Garland would have never gotten confirmation, and you'd still be bitching like the snowflake you are.

No, Biden never said "seasons," you did. Even worse, YOU idiotically said, "previous seasons." What Biden said was if a seat were to open in the summer, Bush would have to wait until after the election, 4 months and one week.

Dumbfuck, 4 months a one week is not, "previous seasons."

Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to, so let me be more precise for those who count aloud with Big Bird. I meant previous summer, you know, the summer just before the election?

 

[Faun]

So? Both are methods of stacking the court. It matters not that one changes the number of justices while the other doesn't. The end game is still the same. And there's certainly nothing etched in stone that we have to have 9 justices. We've had other numbers over the years.

What's good for Republicans is good for Democrats.

Fine, then write to your commie friends and tell them to pass that in the House. Then Trump will nominate several conservative judges, and then you'll be happy.

You must have a reading disorder. I said Democrats can do it next time they control the Executive branch and the Congress. Where exactly do you see trump fitting into that picture?

Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.

Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.

Of course I do. Just how rightarded arecyoubto think I want more justices under a Republican president?

And again, you support Republicans stacking that bench but bitch & moan when Democrats want to even the score. TFB.

It's not evening the score if you want to create more seats then fill them. It's stacking the bench.

At least try to be honest about your motives.

It's evening the score with stacking the bench. Republicans did that in 2016, next turn will be Democrats'.

"It's stacking the bench. At least try to be honest about your motives."

Your brain has short circuited. About what do you b'lieve I've not been honest?

 

[Faun]

You must have a reading disorder. I said Democrats can do it next time they control the Executive branch and the Congress. Where exactly do you see trump fitting into that picture?

Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.

Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.

Of course I do. Just how rightarded arecyoubto think I want more justices under a Republican president?

And again, you support Republicans stacking that bench but bitch & moan when Democrats want to even the score. TFB.

You must be mentally retarded or something. I said it's fine to stack the bench, but not change the number of justices to do so. Republicans play by the rules. Democrats want to change the rules when they lose.

View attachment 285167

I understood your point, it's just idiotic. Both methods are within the Constitution and the rules of the House & Senate. It's just TFB for you that Democrats have a way to even the score.

And again, changing the number of seats is not changing any rules. Not a single rule will be changed by adding 2 seats.

It is changing the rules, the rules we've been playing by for a very long time. But I'm not worried, at least for another five years. And if Democrats don't stop their crap, they may not even have the majority in the House to advance their idea to the President.

Dumbfuck, it's not changing any rules. Here are the Senate rules...

Rules Of The Senate | U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration

And here are the House rules...

http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/house-rules.pdf

... show me what rule that changes ... or you prove you're an idiot ...

 

[Faun]

He said no such thing. You're fucking crazy.

On September 25, 1992, little more than 4 months before the election, Biden suggested the president hold off nominating a replacement until after the election. That's the following 4 months, not the preceding fall and summer. Emphasis mine...

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed." ~ Joe Biden, 9.25.1992​

So unlike Republicans in 2016 who denied the sitting president confirmation hearings, Biden suggested the president wait to nominate someone.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who held up a replacement for nearly all of Obama's final year, Biden suggested waiting 4 months.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who said Obama would not get to appoint another replacement, Biden suggested Bush would get to nominate someone the Senate would consider.

Unlike Republicans in 2016 who actually did deny a sitting president nearly 25% of his term to appoint a USSC justice, Biden spoke only of a hypothetical which never actually happened.

First off, sleepy Joe said "in an election year" which it was. Secondly, he said the "beginning of summer" in that instance, which officially, starts June 20th. Ears nominated Garland in late February. That means the Republicans didn't entertain his nominee only four months (March, April, May, June) more than sleepy Joe outlined.

Secondly, the Republicans didn't have to confirm anybody. They can refuse to confirm a nominee eight months or three years if they wanted. According to Mitch, it would have been nothing but a waste of time going through the procedure that would have put the nominee in the same position, which the Senate has every right to do.

Dumbfuck, he said it on 6.25.92. It's even on the video you posted. The election was on 11.3.92. That's 4 months & one week. And there was no open seat, so the clock didn't even start ticking yet. So who the fuck knows were you got "previous seaons" from?

Obama went from February through January, 11 months.

Biden never said Bush wouldn't get confirmation hearings. He just suggested Bush not nominate anyone until after the election. Whereas Obama was told not to nominate anyone for the rest of his presidency because the Senate wouldn't hold confirmation hearings if he did. Obama did and the Senate didn't.

You're completely fucked in the head, i.e., a typical conservative, to compare the two situations.

Dumbfuck. What he said are two seasons: summer and fall. That is in the video. Nobody stopped Ears from nominating anybody, the Senate said they wouldn't entertain his nominee. Even if they did, Garland would have never gotten confirmation, and you'd still be bitching like the snowflake you are.

No, Biden never said "seasons," you did. Even worse, YOU idiotically said, "previous seasons." What Biden said was if a seat were to open in the summer, Bush would have to wait until after the election, 4 months and one week.

Dumbfuck, 4 months a one week is not, "previous seasons."

Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to, so let me be more precise for those who count aloud with Big Bird. I meant previous summer, you know, the summer just before the election?

You claimed Biden said, "the preceding fall and summer."

I can only go by what you say, no matter how stupid it is.

And again, it was not "seasons," it was 4 months and a week.

 

[daveman]

Fine, then write to your commie friends and tell them to pass that in the House. Then Trump will nominate several conservative judges, and then you'll be happy.

You must have a reading disorder. I said Democrats can do it next time they control the Executive branch and the Congress. Where exactly do you see trump fitting into that picture?

Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.

Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.

Of course I do. Just how rightarded arecyoubto think I want more justices under a Republican president?

And again, you support Republicans stacking that bench but bitch & moan when Democrats want to even the score. TFB.

It's not evening the score if you want to create more seats then fill them. It's stacking the bench.

At least try to be honest about your motives.

It's evening the score with stacking the bench. Republicans did that in 2016, next turn will be Democrats'.

"It's stacking the bench. At least try to be honest about your motives."

Your brain has short circuited. About what do you b'lieve I've not been honest?

How many seats did the GOP create out of thin air?

None?

Well, then. Looks like you're full of crap, as usual.

It should tell you something that Democrats can't win without changing the rules.

It should...but you're just not bright enough to get it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.

Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.

Of course I do. Just how rightarded arecyoubto think I want more justices under a Republican president?

And again, you support Republicans stacking that bench but bitch & moan when Democrats want to even the score. TFB.

You must be mentally retarded or something. I said it's fine to stack the bench, but not change the number of justices to do so. Republicans play by the rules. Democrats want to change the rules when they lose.

View attachment 285167

I understood your point, it's just idiotic. Both methods are within the Constitution and the rules of the House & Senate. It's just TFB for you that Democrats have a way to even the score.

And again, changing the number of seats is not changing any rules. Not a single rule will be changed by adding 2 seats.

It is changing the rules, the rules we've been playing by for a very long time. But I'm not worried, at least for another five years. And if Democrats don't stop their crap, they may not even have the majority in the House to advance their idea to the President.

Dumbfuck, it's not changing any rules. Here are the Senate rules...

Rules Of The Senate | U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration

And here are the House rules...

http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/house-rules.pdf

... show me what rule that changes ... or you prove you're an idiot ...

No idiot, by changing the rules of the game, I said repeatedly that they have the ability to do it, but want to add justices to stack the court.

When a party is in power, of course they select their own justices. You don't see a Republican picking a liberal for the court and you don't see a Democrat picking a conservative. So by simply being in power when judges are selected, does not define stacking the court. It means they are selecting judges according to their ideology

Adding justices to the court IS stacking the court because it hasn't been done in over 150 years! That's changing the rules of the game.