Should the Judiciary Hearing Be Scrapped & Just A Confirmation Vote Be Held?

[Billiejeens]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

 

[Slade3200]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

 

[Billiejeens]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

 

[Slade3200]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

That’s comedy and not in line with the facts. By their shifting excuses and complete flip flop in statements between 2016 and now it renders any statements made by any of them meaningless. I don’t care what Mitch says now, he has no credibility. They basically flipped from the “election year, let the people decide” to the “the senate was given a majority by the people to protect the court.” So that’s the mandate that they are setting. Party that controls the senate get the scotus pick. Welcome to the circus

 

[Billiejeens]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

That’s comedy and not in line with the facts. By their shifting excuses and complete flip flop in statements between 2016 and now it renders any statements made by any of them meaningless. I don’t care what Mitch says now, he has no credibility. They basically flipped from the “election year, let the people decide” to the “the senate was given a majority by the people to protect the court.” So that’s the mandate that they are setting. Party that controls the senate get the scotus pick. Welcome to the circus

The facts simply do not agree with your position -
I dismiss you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

Also, do you have any idea how many times in our history, going all the way back to the Presidency of John Quincy Adams, the Senate has simply chosen to ignore Supreme Court nominations? 15. Anyone who claims that the Garland situation was unprecedented or outside the norms of the Senate is either a lying sack, or hasn't read history.

 

[Slade3200]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

That’s comedy and not in line with the facts. By their shifting excuses and complete flip flop in statements between 2016 and now it renders any statements made by any of them meaningless. I don’t care what Mitch says now, he has no credibility. They basically flipped from the “election year, let the people decide” to the “the senate was given a majority by the people to protect the court.” So that’s the mandate that they are setting. Party that controls the senate get the scotus pick. Welcome to the circus

The facts simply do not agree with your position -
I dismiss you.

The facts absolutely agree with what i just laid out. The current excuse has nothing to do with lame duck or election year... it is a mandate by the people that gave the senate a majority. Welcome to the new precedent brought to you by a gang of retards

 

[Billiejeens]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

That’s comedy and not in line with the facts. By their shifting excuses and complete flip flop in statements between 2016 and now it renders any statements made by any of them meaningless. I don’t care what Mitch says now, he has no credibility. They basically flipped from the “election year, let the people decide” to the “the senate was given a majority by the people to protect the court.” So that’s the mandate that they are setting. Party that controls the senate get the scotus pick. Welcome to the circus

The facts simply do not agree with your position -
I dismiss you.

The facts absolutely agree with what i just laid out. The current excuse has nothing to do with lame duck or election year... it is a mandate by the people that gave the senate a majority. Welcome to the new precedent brought to you by a gang of retards

You are simply wrong -

 

[Slade3200]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

Also, do you have any idea how many times in our history, going all the way back to the Presidency of John Quincy Adams, the Senate has simply chosen to ignore Supreme Court nominations? 15. Anyone who claims that the Garland situation was unprecedented or outside the norms of the Senate is either a lying sack, or hasn't read history.

Here read this...

Study Calls Snub of Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Unprecedented (Published 2016)

Republicans’ categorical refusal to consider any nominee is new in the nation’s history, two professors said, though a conservative legal writer disagreed.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Slade3200]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

That’s comedy and not in line with the facts. By their shifting excuses and complete flip flop in statements between 2016 and now it renders any statements made by any of them meaningless. I don’t care what Mitch says now, he has no credibility. They basically flipped from the “election year, let the people decide” to the “the senate was given a majority by the people to protect the court.” So that’s the mandate that they are setting. Party that controls the senate get the scotus pick. Welcome to the circus

The facts simply do not agree with your position -
I dismiss you.

The facts absolutely agree with what i just laid out. The current excuse has nothing to do with lame duck or election year... it is a mandate by the people that gave the senate a majority. Welcome to the new precedent brought to you by a gang of retards

You are simply wrong -

Why? Explain it.

 

[Billiejeens]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

Also, do you have any idea how many times in our history, going all the way back to the Presidency of John Quincy Adams, the Senate has simply chosen to ignore Supreme Court nominations? 15. Anyone who claims that the Garland situation was unprecedented or outside the norms of the Senate is either a lying sack, or hasn't read history.

Here read this...

Study Calls Snub of Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Unprecedented (Published 2016)

Republicans’ categorical refusal to consider any nominee is new in the nation’s history, two professors said, though a conservative legal writer disagreed.

www.nytimes.com

It is a nonfactual story

 

[Slade3200]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

Also, do you have any idea how many times in our history, going all the way back to the Presidency of John Quincy Adams, the Senate has simply chosen to ignore Supreme Court nominations? 15. Anyone who claims that the Garland situation was unprecedented or outside the norms of the Senate is either a lying sack, or hasn't read history.

Here read this...

Study Calls Snub of Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Unprecedented (Published 2016)

Republicans’ categorical refusal to consider any nominee is new in the nation’s history, two professors said, though a conservative legal writer disagreed.

www.nytimes.com

It is a nonfactual story

It was written by the most factual fact writers writing facts

 

[Billiejeens]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

That’s comedy and not in line with the facts. By their shifting excuses and complete flip flop in statements between 2016 and now it renders any statements made by any of them meaningless. I don’t care what Mitch says now, he has no credibility. They basically flipped from the “election year, let the people decide” to the “the senate was given a majority by the people to protect the court.” So that’s the mandate that they are setting. Party that controls the senate get the scotus pick. Welcome to the circus

The facts simply do not agree with your position -
I dismiss you.

The facts absolutely agree with what i just laid out. The current excuse has nothing to do with lame duck or election year... it is a mandate by the people that gave the senate a majority. Welcome to the new precedent brought to you by a gang of retards

You are simply wrong -

Why? Explain it.

Well
First off there is no current excuse - the nomination is moving forward
In 2016 the lame duck assertion was the reason - look it up.

You seems really confused.
If i had to declare anyone a retatd as you are doing, I would be forced to announce that it's you not them.

 

[Billiejeens]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

Also, do you have any idea how many times in our history, going all the way back to the Presidency of John Quincy Adams, the Senate has simply chosen to ignore Supreme Court nominations? 15. Anyone who claims that the Garland situation was unprecedented or outside the norms of the Senate is either a lying sack, or hasn't read history.

Here read this...

Study Calls Snub of Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Unprecedented (Published 2016)

Republicans’ categorical refusal to consider any nominee is new in the nation’s history, two professors said, though a conservative legal writer disagreed.

www.nytimes.com

It is a nonfactual story

It was written by the most factual fact writers writing facts

It was not

 

[Slade3200]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

That’s comedy and not in line with the facts. By their shifting excuses and complete flip flop in statements between 2016 and now it renders any statements made by any of them meaningless. I don’t care what Mitch says now, he has no credibility. They basically flipped from the “election year, let the people decide” to the “the senate was given a majority by the people to protect the court.” So that’s the mandate that they are setting. Party that controls the senate get the scotus pick. Welcome to the circus

The facts simply do not agree with your position -
I dismiss you.

The facts absolutely agree with what i just laid out. The current excuse has nothing to do with lame duck or election year... it is a mandate by the people that gave the senate a majority. Welcome to the new precedent brought to you by a gang of retards

You are simply wrong -

Why? Explain it.

Well
First off there is no current excuse - the nomination is moving forward
In 2016 the lame duck assertion was the reason - look it up.

You seems really confused.
If i had to declare anyone a retatd as you are doing, I would be forced to announce that it's you not them.

Ive heard interview and after interview of these GOPers trying to spin up an excuse for their flip flop and the most common one is that “elections have consequences” the American people voted for a Republican majority in the senate and it is their job to move forward with a conservative justice. Do you deny this. Please say yes so I can embarrass you with quotes and videos of them saying these things.

 

[Slade3200]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

Also, do you have any idea how many times in our history, going all the way back to the Presidency of John Quincy Adams, the Senate has simply chosen to ignore Supreme Court nominations? 15. Anyone who claims that the Garland situation was unprecedented or outside the norms of the Senate is either a lying sack, or hasn't read history.

Here read this...

Study Calls Snub of Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Unprecedented (Published 2016)

Republicans’ categorical refusal to consider any nominee is new in the nation’s history, two professors said, though a conservative legal writer disagreed.

www.nytimes.com

It is a nonfactual story

It was written by the most factual fact writers writing facts

It was not

It was

 

[Nostra]

After

Usually I don't pay attention to anything Rush Limbaugh says because he is more often than not a pompous arrogant windbag....but I just read the headline talking about how Limbaugh made this suggestion.

He makes a great point - we know how this is going to go. In the coming confirmation hearings Democrats are going to do their very best to top their immoral, unethical, despicable assault they perpetrated against Kavanaugh.

The Kavanaugh hearings were a complete, disgusting, heinous waste of time...so why bother?!

Why put any candidate through such a despicable process when we already know in the end, even if the candidate displayed the wisdom of Solomon and walked on water, the Democrats would still NOT vote for them?

Complete the necessary legal background checks and just vote.

Everything from the moment the nominee is named to the moment the vote is held will be nothing but an immoral, unethical character / job / family / life assassination attempt by the Democrats who only want to prevent the vacancy from being filled by President Trump.

Why allow the Democrats do that to anyone?!

Limbaugh calls on Senate GOP to scrap Judiciary Committee hearing for Trump SCOTUS nominee

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee should proceed directly to a vote on President Trump's forthcoming Supreme Court nominee without bothering to hold a confirmation hearing, syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday.

www.foxnews.com

Go for it. Just remember you won’t always be the minority party in power, you’ll be the minority party out of power.

Link us up to when the minority Republican party pulled the bullshit you clowns pulled on Kavanaugh during the hearings.

After the bullshit pulled with Garland's nomination, Republicans deserve what they get.

Not what I asked, Simpleton.

Read my post as many times as it takes for you to figure out WTF I asked, then decide if you are smart enough to answer.

I'm not holding my breath.

Oh please do hold your breath. I'm sure those around you will appreciate it.

Brett the Rapist O'Kavanagh got a hearing. What was so terrible about that? He wasn't properly vetted to begin with.

You are still dodging.

I'll try again,

Link us up to when the minority Republican party pulled the bullshit you clowns pulled on Kavanaugh during the hearings.

 

[Billiejeens]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

Also, do you have any idea how many times in our history, going all the way back to the Presidency of John Quincy Adams, the Senate has simply chosen to ignore Supreme Court nominations? 15. Anyone who claims that the Garland situation was unprecedented or outside the norms of the Senate is either a lying sack, or hasn't read history.

Here read this...

Study Calls Snub of Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Unprecedented (Published 2016)

Republicans’ categorical refusal to consider any nominee is new in the nation’s history, two professors said, though a conservative legal writer disagreed.

www.nytimes.com

It is a nonfactual story

It was written by the most factual fact writers writing facts

It was not

It was

Well it may be the best that the bubblecult can do
They say - unprecedented if unprecedented means it happens 90% of the time in this situation, then yes it is unprecedented.
Otherwise - no.

 

[Slade3200]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is

Only if you are asking a question other than the one that I answered.

What precedent do you think was set by how they handled Garland?

That in the final year of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controls the Senate the nomination will not move forward.

It not just what I think
it was McConnell's stated position.

Also, do you have any idea how many times in our history, going all the way back to the Presidency of John Quincy Adams, the Senate has simply chosen to ignore Supreme Court nominations? 15. Anyone who claims that the Garland situation was unprecedented or outside the norms of the Senate is either a lying sack, or hasn't read history.

Here read this...

Study Calls Snub of Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Unprecedented (Published 2016)

Republicans’ categorical refusal to consider any nominee is new in the nation’s history, two professors said, though a conservative legal writer disagreed.

www.nytimes.com

It is a nonfactual story

It was written by the most factual fact writers writing facts

It was not

It was

Well it may be the best that the bubblecult can do
They say - unprecedented if unprecedented means it happens 90% of the time in this situation, then yes it is unprecedented.
Otherwise - no.

On the contrary 0% of the time as laid out by the case study

 

[FA_Q2]

Usually I don't pay attention to anything Rush Limbaugh says because he is more often than not a pompous arrogant windbag....but I just read the headline talking about how Limbaugh made this suggestion.

He makes a great point - we know how this is going to go. In the coming confirmation hearings Democrats are going to do their very best to top their immoral, unethical, despicable assault they perpetrated against Kavanaugh.

The Kavanaugh hearings were a complete, disgusting, heinous waste of time...so why bother?!

Why put any candidate through such a despicable process when we already know in the end, even if the candidate displayed the wisdom of Solomon and walked on water, the Democrats would still NOT vote for them?

Complete the necessary legal background checks and just vote.

Everything from the moment the nominee is named to the moment the vote is held will be nothing but an immoral, unethical character / job / family / life assassination attempt by the Democrats who only want to prevent the vacancy from being filled by President Trump.

Why allow the Democrats do that to anyone?!

Limbaugh calls on Senate GOP to scrap Judiciary Committee hearing for Trump SCOTUS nominee

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee should proceed directly to a vote on President Trump's forthcoming Supreme Court nominee without bothering to hold a confirmation hearing, syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday.

www.foxnews.com

easy, are you still to fucking lazy to read the Constitution? Your dumb ass needs to get a 4th grader to "advise" you about Article 2, Sec 2, Cls 2 to enlighten your ignorant ass about the "advise and consent " requirements in the Constitution; especially as it pertains to judges. Oh, and pass that on to that idiot Rush and your idiotic brethren who responded to the OP with such vacuous un-Constitutional suggestions!

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

It should be obvious to anyone who could read and understand what I cited from the OP and replied to in my oh so complex response. Obviously, you're having the same difficulty in your grasp of 18th Century English. If you are unable to comprehend those few words perhaps you can get together with easyT and share the time and costs of his 4th grade tutor!

So nothing.

So nothing.

So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

I'll make it easy on you and point you toward the Framers'explanation of "advise and consent". Hamilton wrote about that in The Federalist #75 & #76. Ever hear about checks and balances being part of the Constitution, Bunkey? Read those two arguments and learn something about the Law of the Land you ignorant fuck!

What advise and consent did Garland get?

It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.

That’s a nice attempt to spin but no it was not congresses job to advise the President to not perform his constitutional duty... that’s not how the process was designed to work and you know it. Obama nominated a judge. It was congresses job to advise him on the pick and consent or not consent. Had they held a hearing and not consented through a vote then the president should then nominate somebody else. This is not what happened as we well know. The GOP side of Congress blankety stonewalled the nomination in the name of the election year and wanting the people to decide. Most of us knew then that their excuse was bullshit and it’s concretely confirmed now that it was bullshit as they all flat out lied. Get it?

You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:


'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'
Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'

That’s fine if that’s your view on how things should work. Just don’t complain next time the Dems take power and abuse it. You best believe that a move like this validates the Dems to add seats to the court and fill them should they take the majority

Nothing warrants packing the courts. That signals the absolute end to everything the judiciary stands for.

For me, that is no less a threat than the president refusing to pass power onto the next president. The fact the democrats even allow such an evil concept to pass their lips is strongly driving me to vote for republicans and do not kid yourself - they are not threatening this because the republicans are going to appoint a replacement for RGB. This is NOT the first time they have threatened such.

Your own words demonize the GOP with what they did to the courts over the last 8 years. Block Obama’s nominations and then expedite Trumps.

Adding two seats doesn’t pack the court it balances it. And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems

Yes what they did was wrong - they should have held a hearing. Beyond that, the shenanigans they pulled changed, quite literally, nothing at all. Garland was not going to get nominated. The answer to them doing something wrong is NOT burning the entire institution to the damn ground. That is absolutely nuts.

And yes, adding justices to ensure you control the court politics is the very definition of packing the court. How can you claim otherwise with a straight face?

It is massively ironic that you post this half a page later as well:

What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity

Why was my comment ironic?

That can't be a serious question....

'And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems'