In Reality...

[Derelict_Drvr]

...there are only two reasons the Democrats are threatening to block Neil Gorsuch.

1). He's an OriginalIst Republican Judge
2). They have massive amounts of baboon ass butt hurt over Judge Garland.

Reason #1 is not surprise. Democrat will be Democrat, and they have a long history of blocking Republican nominees. (See Bush 43).

Democrats Move to Block Bush Appointments

Ted Kennedy Part of Long Senate Democrat Precedent Of Blocking Judicial Nominees
https://www.conservativereview.com/...-long-precedent-of-blocking-judicial-nominees
#2 is very apparent. On any news channel/show if Gorsuch is brought up, the first words out of a Democrat's mouth is "Yeah, but Garland... <enter rant here>

With what appears to be happening the Democrats have conveniently forgotten one important item:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

I rest my case, so let the name calling and flaming begin.

 

[brummelben]

...there are only two reasons the Democrats are threatening to block Neil Gorsuch.

1). He's an OriginalIst Republican Judge
2). They have massive amounts of baboon ass butt hurt over Judge Garland.

Reason #1 is not surprise. Democrat will be Democrat, and they have a long history of blocking Republican nominees. (See Bush 43).

Democrats Move to Block Bush Appointments

Ted Kennedy Part of Long Senate Democrat Precedent Of Blocking Judicial Nominees
#2 is very apparent. On any news channel/show if Gorsuch is brought up, the first words out of a Democrat's mouth is "Yeah, but Garland... <enter rant here>

With what appears to be happening the Democrats have conveniently forgotten one important item:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

I rest my case, so let the name calling and flaming begin.

Was there ever a SC judge who wasn't voted on in a Presidents last year in office?

 

[task0778]

For democrats it's always different when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[brummelben]

For democrats it's always different when the shoe is on the other foot.

There is no shoe on the other foot. Talk is cheap, Democrats NEVER failed to vote on a SC nominee.

 

[task0778]

For democrats it's always different when the shoe is on the other foot.

There is no shoe on the other foot. Talk is cheap, Democrats NEVER failed to vote on a SC nominee.

Joe Biden, 1992?

 

[brummelben]

For democrats it's always different when the shoe is on the other foot.

There is no shoe on the other foot. Talk is cheap, Democrats NEVER failed to vote on a SC nominee.

Joe Biden, 1992?

Bullshye sis

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

...there are only two reasons the Democrats are threatening to block Neil Gorsuch.

1). He's an OriginalIst Republican Judge
2). They have massive amounts of baboon ass butt hurt over Judge Garland.

Reason #1 is not surprise. Democrat will be Democrat, and they have a long history of blocking Republican nominees. (See Bush 43).

Democrats Move to Block Bush Appointments

Ted Kennedy Part of Long Senate Democrat Precedent Of Blocking Judicial Nominees
#2 is very apparent. On any news channel/show if Gorsuch is brought up, the first words out of a Democrat's mouth is "Yeah, but Garland... <enter rant here>

With what appears to be happening the Democrats have conveniently forgotten one important item:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

I rest my case, so let the name calling and flaming begin.

Was there ever a SC judge who wasn't voted on in a Presidents last year in office?

First, USSC Justices aren't "voted" in. They are confirmed.

The last SC Justice confirmed in an election year was Anthony Kennedy in Feb. 1988, however, Reagan nominated him in 1987.

 

[BULLDOG]

For democrats it's always different when the shoe is on the other foot.

There is no shoe on the other foot. Talk is cheap, Democrats NEVER failed to vote on a SC nominee.

Joe Biden, 1992?

Which Supreme court nominee did the Democrats block like the Republicans blocked Merick Garland? When did Democrats refuse to even allow a vote for any candidate?

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Democrats NEVER failed to vote on a SC nominee.

I think you had better look up Robert Bork. The Democrats "Borked" him. While you're in a research mood look up the definition of Borked, too.

 

[brummelben]

For democrats it's always different when the shoe is on the other foot.

There is no shoe on the other foot. Talk is cheap, Democrats NEVER failed to vote on a SC nominee.

Joe Biden, 1992?

Bullshye sis

make that clear- bull shit

Democrats NEVER failed to vote on a SC nominee.

I think you had better look up Robert Bork. The Democrats "Borked" him. While you're in a research mood look up the definition of Borked, too.

Did the Democrats refuse to vote on Borks nomination? This is the best you got?

 

[Timmy]

Why vote for a nominee for a lame duck prez ? Trump has a year max before he's gone .

 

[BULLDOG]

Democrats NEVER failed to vote on a SC nominee.

I think you had better look up Robert Bork. The Democrats "Borked" him. While you're in a research mood look up the definition of Borked, too.

Democrats NEVER failed to vote on a SC nominee. Bork did get a vote, but he didn't even get the votes of all Republicans.

On October 23, 1987, the Senate denied Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Two Democratic Senators, David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC), voted in his favor, with 6 Republican Senators (John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA), and Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT) voting against him.[34]

 

[jillian]

...there are only two reasons the Democrats are threatening to block Neil Gorsuch.

1). He's an OriginalIst Republican Judge
2). They have massive amounts of baboon ass butt hurt over Judge Garland.

Reason #1 is not surprise. Democrat will be Democrat, and they have a long history of blocking Republican nominees. (See Bush 43).

Democrats Move to Block Bush Appointments

Ted Kennedy Part of Long Senate Democrat Precedent Of Blocking Judicial Nominees
#2 is very apparent. On any news channel/show if Gorsuch is brought up, the first words out of a Democrat's mouth is "Yeah, but Garland... <enter rant here>

With what appears to be happening the Democrats have conveniently forgotten one important item:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

I rest my case, so let the name calling and flaming begin.

They should have approved president Obama nominee. Until they do that screw them and you

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

This might answer some of the up coming questions:

Historical precedent supports this deference in an election year under a divided government, in which opposing parties control the White House and the Senate. 1880 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a presidential election year with a divided government, when Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed William Burnham Woods, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. To provide further historical perceptive, less than 50 votes were cast in that vote in the Senate.

It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to fill a vacancy that arose in the presidential election year.

Historical Precedent Favors Letting Our Next President Appoint Justice Scalia’s Replacement | American Center for Law and Justice

And let us see if you appreciate this

Some of the best arguments defending the Senate’s right to act or not act on judicial nominees have been made by leading liberals serving in the Senate – Vice President Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy.

When these men were U.S. Senators and faced judicial nominations from the opposing party’s President, they articulately laid out the compelling constitutional basis for the Senate to hold no hearings and no votes as part of its broad “advice and consent” power.

Democrats and Republicans Agree: Senate Should Hold No Hearings and No Votes on Supreme Court Nominee | American Center for Law and Justice

I hope this helps to clear a few thing up.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

...there are only two reasons the Democrats are threatening to block Neil Gorsuch.

1). He's an OriginalIst Republican Judge
2). They have massive amounts of baboon ass butt hurt over Judge Garland.

Reason #1 is not surprise. Democrat will be Democrat, and they have a long history of blocking Republican nominees. (See Bush 43).

Democrats Move to Block Bush Appointments

Ted Kennedy Part of Long Senate Democrat Precedent Of Blocking Judicial Nominees
#2 is very apparent. On any news channel/show if Gorsuch is brought up, the first words out of a Democrat's mouth is "Yeah, but Garland... <enter rant here>

With what appears to be happening the Democrats have conveniently forgotten one important item:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

I rest my case, so let the name calling and flaming begin.

They should have approved president Obama nominee. Until they do that screw them and you

You would love to, wouldn't you jillian.

C'mon, girl, argue points, and read the post just after yours.

 

[BULLDOG]

This might answer some of the up coming questions:

Historical precedent supports this deference in an election year under a divided government, in which opposing parties control the White House and the Senate. 1880 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a presidential election year with a divided government, when Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed William Burnham Woods, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. To provide further historical perceptive, less than 50 votes were cast in that vote in the Senate.

It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to fill a vacancy that arose in the presidential election year.

Historical Precedent Favors Letting Our Next President Appoint Justice Scalia’s Replacement | American Center for Law and Justice

And let us see if you appreciate this

Some of the best arguments defending the Senate’s right to act or not act on judicial nominees have been made by leading liberals serving in the Senate – Vice President Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy.

When these men were U.S. Senators and faced judicial nominations from the opposing party’s President, they articulately laid out the compelling constitutional basis for the Senate to hold no hearings and no votes as part of its broad “advice and consent” power.

Democrats and Republicans Agree: Senate Should Hold No Hearings and No Votes on Supreme Court Nominee | American Center for Law and Justice

I hope this helps to clear a few thing up.

You know the American Center for Law and Justice is nothing more than a bible thumping version of Glen Beck, don't you? No credibility from any of their crap.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

What Joe Biden stated in 1992 is now called The Biden Rule so, the Republicans followed the rules by not giving Garland a hearing.

The Democrats fought confirming Justice Kennedy and he wasn't even nominated in an election year.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

This might answer some of the up coming questions:

Historical precedent supports this deference in an election year under a divided government, in which opposing parties control the White House and the Senate. 1880 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a presidential election year with a divided government, when Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed William Burnham Woods, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. To provide further historical perceptive, less than 50 votes were cast in that vote in the Senate.

It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to fill a vacancy that arose in the presidential election year.

Historical Precedent Favors Letting Our Next President Appoint Justice Scalia’s Replacement | American Center for Law and Justice

And let us see if you appreciate this

Some of the best arguments defending the Senate’s right to act or not act on judicial nominees have been made by leading liberals serving in the Senate – Vice President Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy.

When these men were U.S. Senators and faced judicial nominations from the opposing party’s President, they articulately laid out the compelling constitutional basis for the Senate to hold no hearings and no votes as part of its broad “advice and consent” power.

Democrats and Republicans Agree: Senate Should Hold No Hearings and No Votes on Supreme Court Nominee | American Center for Law and Justice

I hope this helps to clear a few thing up.

You know the American Center for Law and Justice is nothing more than a bible thumping version of Glen Beck, don't you? No credibility from any of their crap.

Says you. They are right-leaning, I agree, but can you refute what is written?

 

[BULLDOG]

What Joe Biden stated in 1992 is now called The Biden Rule so, the Republicans followed the rules by not giving Garland a hearing.

The Democrats fought confirming Justice Kennedy and he wasn't even nominated in an election year.

So?

 

[BULLDOG]

This might answer some of the up coming questions:

Historical precedent supports this deference in an election year under a divided government, in which opposing parties control the White House and the Senate. 1880 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a presidential election year with a divided government, when Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed William Burnham Woods, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. To provide further historical perceptive, less than 50 votes were cast in that vote in the Senate.

It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to fill a vacancy that arose in the presidential election year.

Historical Precedent Favors Letting Our Next President Appoint Justice Scalia’s Replacement | American Center for Law and Justice

And let us see if you appreciate this

Some of the best arguments defending the Senate’s right to act or not act on judicial nominees have been made by leading liberals serving in the Senate – Vice President Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy.

When these men were U.S. Senators and faced judicial nominations from the opposing party’s President, they articulately laid out the compelling constitutional basis for the Senate to hold no hearings and no votes as part of its broad “advice and consent” power.

Democrats and Republicans Agree: Senate Should Hold No Hearings and No Votes on Supreme Court Nominee | American Center for Law and Justice

I hope this helps to clear a few thing up.

You know the American Center for Law and Justice is nothing more than a bible thumping version of Glen Beck, don't you? No credibility from any of their crap.

Says you. They are right-leaning, I agree, but can you refute what is written?

Yes. Their conclusions are not backed up by facts. They presented no reason to believe Democrats believe there should be no votes on any supreme court nominee. They did note one remark by one Democrat about waiting until after an election before a vote, but that wouldn't preclude a vote between the election and the inauguration of the next president, and there has never been a time when the practice was actually done before the republicans this time.