Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
1. Trying to expose hypocrisy because the other side did it in the past doesn't justify or excuse problematic actions from your party.I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??
If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?
Maybe Joe Biden could explain it to you, Obama and the leftist media then:
Biden in 1992, if there was an opening on the Supreme Court, HW 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.”
So what if the left did it? That doesn't give you a pass to do it. They teach us this principle in elementary school
2. Biden's was referring to a totally different situation that involved coordinating a Justice to retire at the end of a presidential term so that president could replace him with a like minded candidate. He was trying to block political manipulation of the system. This is a different case then this vacancy that was cause because of a death.
The pundants and politicians are totally politicizing this situation... Its an embarrassment.
There's already a 5 Justice majority on liberal progressive activists on the Court. One more would seal the Court's fate forever....and the country along with it..
Besides, if you think that nomination would be conservative in any way, consider that he was blubbering and crying when Obama announced he was the nominee. I'm sure he's a staunch and sober conservative.. NOTJesus H. Christ..
The Court, like our political system, absolutely must have balance between an accelerator and braking system. Any other vehicle is quite dangerous...
Then Vote NO on the nomination... This does not justify blocking a hearing and vote all together.
I agree, spite is the purpose behind the stand off... Not this "Leave it up to the people" BS. This attitude is whats spinning our government down the drain.Obama will be denied the opportunity to put another justice on the SCOTUS, he could nominate God and it will be request denied, out of spite!
The word you are searching for is 'consequences' as in, Obama behaves like an ass for the last 7 years and now there are consequences.
The consequences will be hillary and dem congress selecting the next Justice.
Thank you for demonstrating their hypocrisy AGAIN!!!!! We had a gazillion threads already about this. They've been whining about this since Scalia's passing... WTF?????I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??
If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?
Maybe Joe Biden could explain it to you, Obama and the leftist media then:
Biden in 1992, if there was an opening on the Supreme Court, HW 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.”
I'm not whining about anything you stupid bitch. I agree with Biden in 1992 and I agree with the Republicans now. The Supreme Court doesn't give a shit about the law, they have a lifetime political appointment. Our country is too divided to be filling Supreme Court seats in the environment.
You're the whining hypocrite. Where do you think Biden was wrong exactly?
Thank you for demonstrating their hypocrisy AGAIN!!!!! We had a gazillion threads already about this. They've been whining about this since Scalia's passing... WTF?????I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??
If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?
Maybe Joe Biden could explain it to you, Obama and the leftist media then:
Biden in 1992, if there was an opening on the Supreme Court, HW 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.”
I'm not whining about anything you stupid bitch. I agree with Biden in 1992 and I agree with the Republicans now. The Supreme Court doesn't give a shit about the law, they have a lifetime political appointment. Our country is too divided to be filling Supreme Court seats in the environment.
You're the whining hypocrite. Where do you think Biden was wrong exactly?
So ignore the constitution and ignore we already voted on who should select the next justice. Obama won, stop crying.
I agree, spite is the purpose behind the stand off... Not this "Leave it up to the people" BS. This attitude is whats spinning our government down the drain.Obama will be denied the opportunity to put another justice on the SCOTUS, he could nominate God and it will be request denied, out of spite!
The word you are searching for is 'consequences' as in, Obama behaves like an ass for the last 7 years and now there are consequences.
The consequences will be hillary and dem congress selecting the next Justice.
So then why do you have your undies in a wad about it?
Up to now, the hypocrites in the GOP have been saying the appointment should be for "the next President" and that a President should not be allowed to appoint a judge in his last 12 months.
Why this is so is never rationally explained. When you listen to their pontificating, none of it makes sense. What the fuck does an election year have to do with Obama? He isn't running for office, and he would have chosen the same guy last year that he is choosing now. So what the FUCK?!?!
But now they are saying if Clinton wins the election, they will move forward with this appointment in Obama's last TWO months, because they are afraid Clinton will appoint a more liberal judge.
Thus, they have exposed their bullshit as nothing more than political gamesmanship, and this will one day blow up in their faces.
I agree, spite is the purpose behind the stand off... Not this "Leave it up to the people" BS. This attitude is whats spinning our government down the drain.Obama will be denied the opportunity to put another justice on the SCOTUS, he could nominate God and it will be request denied, out of spite!
The word you are searching for is 'consequences' as in, Obama behaves like an ass for the last 7 years and now there are consequences.
The consequences will be hillary and dem congress selecting the next Justice.
So then why do you have your undies in a wad about it?
I think moderates are better for the country. You morons setting us up for a raging liberal.
I agree, spite is the purpose behind the stand off... Not this "Leave it up to the people" BS. This attitude is whats spinning our government down the drain.
The word you are searching for is 'consequences' as in, Obama behaves like an ass for the last 7 years and now there are consequences.
The consequences will be hillary and dem congress selecting the next Justice.
So then why do you have your undies in a wad about it?
I think moderates are better for the country. You morons setting us up for a raging liberal.
This is going to be difficult, so sit here and let me explain this to you. You are ... a raging liberal. Note you and they vote the same way. Sorry man, but someone had to let you know
How many cups of coffee did you have this morning? You make no sense1. Trying to expose hypocrisy because the other side did it in the past doesn't justify or excuse problematic actions from your party.I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??
If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?
Maybe Joe Biden could explain it to you, Obama and the leftist media then:
Biden in 1992, if there was an opening on the Supreme Court, HW 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.”
Oh fuck you, libertarians had nothing to do with it. It was you and your twin Republicans who did it. BTW, I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party either, but since I generally vote for them whatever
So what if the left did it? That doesn't give you a pass to do it. They teach us this principle in elementary school
You're the one screaming hypocrisy while you're a hypocrite. You don't get to ignore that, sorry, Nancy. Man up to your own actions first
2. Biden's was referring to a totally different situation that involved coordinating a Justice to retire at the end of a presidential term so that president could replace him with a like minded candidate. He was trying to block political manipulation of the system. This is a different case then this vacancy that was cause because of a death.
The pundants and politicians are totally politicizing this situation... Its an embarrassment.
you made that up. He didn't say that, he said any nomination. Listen to the clip, it's all over the internet
The word you are searching for is 'consequences' as in, Obama behaves like an ass for the last 7 years and now there are consequences.
The consequences will be hillary and dem congress selecting the next Justice.
So then why do you have your undies in a wad about it?
I think moderates are better for the country. You morons setting us up for a raging liberal.
This is going to be difficult, so sit here and let me explain this to you. You are ... a raging liberal. Note you and they vote the same way. Sorry man, but someone had to let you know
Really? Who have in voted for? Do you ever not talk out of your ass?
Perhaps if you read more than the conservative news headlines you'd gain an objective view and an accurate analysis of the situation. Here are the FACTS from JUNE 1992:Up to now, the hypocrites in the GOP have been saying the appointment should be for "the next President" and that a President should not be allowed to appoint a judge in his last 12 months.
Why this is so is never rationally explained. When you listen to their pontificating, none of it makes sense. What the fuck does an election year have to do with Obama? He isn't running for office, and he would have chosen the same guy last year that he is choosing now. So what the FUCK?!?!
But now they are saying if Clinton wins the election, they will move forward with this appointment in Obama's last TWO months, because they are afraid Clinton will appoint a more liberal judge.
Thus, they have exposed their bullshit as nothing more than political gamesmanship, and this will one day blow up in their faces.
Outside the beltway, no one knows or cares about this. The Republicans shouldn't do it for the same reason the Democrats wouldn't have done it in 1992. You can ask Biden to explain that to you.
You getting your game on and getting ready to call me a "Republican" again to insult me? LOL
Perhaps if you read more than the conservative news headlines you'd gain an objective view and an accurate analysis of the situation. Here are the FACTS from JUNE 1992:Up to now, the hypocrites in the GOP have been saying the appointment should be for "the next President" and that a President should not be allowed to appoint a judge in his last 12 months.
Why this is so is never rationally explained. When you listen to their pontificating, none of it makes sense. What the fuck does an election year have to do with Obama? He isn't running for office, and he would have chosen the same guy last year that he is choosing now. So what the FUCK?!?!
But now they are saying if Clinton wins the election, they will move forward with this appointment in Obama's last TWO months, because they are afraid Clinton will appoint a more liberal judge.
Thus, they have exposed their bullshit as nothing more than political gamesmanship, and this will one day blow up in their faces.
Outside the beltway, no one knows or cares about this. The Republicans shouldn't do it for the same reason the Democrats wouldn't have done it in 1992. You can ask Biden to explain that to you.
You getting your game on and getting ready to call me a "Republican" again to insult me? LOL
1. There were no Supreme Court vacancies.
2. Clinton had just won the nomination to take on Bush. The right could smell the defeat coming
3. There was talk about getting an older justice to retire so Bush could appoint a new one before he was out of office.
4. Bush was running for reelection, which would have intertwined this whole process right in the middle of the election.
4. Bidden's statement was under these circumstances trying to avoid the political manipulation of the appointment of a SC justice in the middle of an election.
Prove me wrong.
It's apples and oranges. How stupid does the GOP think we are using this as a talking point?
I didn't make anything up. Smelling defeat was opinion, but regardless, They wanted to hedge their bets. The situation was regarding retiring a justice to replace that justice... This is an opening due to death. Why are you defending the hold out and how do you justify it? Why not just vote?Perhaps if you read more than the conservative news headlines you'd gain an objective view and an accurate analysis of the situation. Here are the FACTS from JUNE 1992:Up to now, the hypocrites in the GOP have been saying the appointment should be for "the next President" and that a President should not be allowed to appoint a judge in his last 12 months.
Why this is so is never rationally explained. When you listen to their pontificating, none of it makes sense. What the fuck does an election year have to do with Obama? He isn't running for office, and he would have chosen the same guy last year that he is choosing now. So what the FUCK?!?!
But now they are saying if Clinton wins the election, they will move forward with this appointment in Obama's last TWO months, because they are afraid Clinton will appoint a more liberal judge.
Thus, they have exposed their bullshit as nothing more than political gamesmanship, and this will one day blow up in their faces.
Outside the beltway, no one knows or cares about this. The Republicans shouldn't do it for the same reason the Democrats wouldn't have done it in 1992. You can ask Biden to explain that to you.
You getting your game on and getting ready to call me a "Republican" again to insult me? LOL
1. There were no Supreme Court vacancies.
2. Clinton had just won the nomination to take on Bush. The right could smell the defeat coming
3. There was talk about getting an older justice to retire so Bush could appoint a new one before he was out of office.
4. Bush was running for reelection, which would have intertwined this whole process right in the middle of the election.
4. Bidden's statement was under these circumstances trying to avoid the political manipulation of the appointment of a SC justice in the middle of an election.
Prove me wrong.
It's apples and oranges. How stupid does the GOP think we are using this as a talking point?
Yet you know that's specifically what he was referring to when he just said there shouldn't be any nominee, got it. You'll make up whatever shit you can for the Democrats.
BTW, HW would have won easily if Perot hadn't run, so that's ridiculous that he knew Democrats would win.
You got any more shit you want to make up?
I didn't make anything up. Smelling defeat was opinion, but regardless, They wanted to hedge their bets. The situation was regarding retiring a justice to replace that justice... This is an opening due to death. Why are you defending the hold out and how do you justify it? Why not just vote?Perhaps if you read more than the conservative news headlines you'd gain an objective view and an accurate analysis of the situation. Here are the FACTS from JUNE 1992:Up to now, the hypocrites in the GOP have been saying the appointment should be for "the next President" and that a President should not be allowed to appoint a judge in his last 12 months.
Why this is so is never rationally explained. When you listen to their pontificating, none of it makes sense. What the fuck does an election year have to do with Obama? He isn't running for office, and he would have chosen the same guy last year that he is choosing now. So what the FUCK?!?!
But now they are saying if Clinton wins the election, they will move forward with this appointment in Obama's last TWO months, because they are afraid Clinton will appoint a more liberal judge.
Thus, they have exposed their bullshit as nothing more than political gamesmanship, and this will one day blow up in their faces.
Outside the beltway, no one knows or cares about this. The Republicans shouldn't do it for the same reason the Democrats wouldn't have done it in 1992. You can ask Biden to explain that to you.
You getting your game on and getting ready to call me a "Republican" again to insult me? LOL
1. There were no Supreme Court vacancies.
2. Clinton had just won the nomination to take on Bush. The right could smell the defeat coming
3. There was talk about getting an older justice to retire so Bush could appoint a new one before he was out of office.
4. Bush was running for reelection, which would have intertwined this whole process right in the middle of the election.
4. Bidden's statement was under these circumstances trying to avoid the political manipulation of the appointment of a SC justice in the middle of an election.
Prove me wrong.
It's apples and oranges. How stupid does the GOP think we are using this as a talking point?
Yet you know that's specifically what he was referring to when he just said there shouldn't be any nominee, got it. You'll make up whatever shit you can for the Democrats.
BTW, HW would have won easily if Perot hadn't run, so that's ridiculous that he knew Democrats would win.
You got any more shit you want to make up?
I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??
If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?
Sorry, so what's your rationale for the hold out again? Besides, Biden said so?I didn't make anything up. Smelling defeat was opinion, but regardless, They wanted to hedge their bets. The situation was regarding retiring a justice to replace that justice... This is an opening due to death. Why are you defending the hold out and how do you justify it? Why not just vote?Perhaps if you read more than the conservative news headlines you'd gain an objective view and an accurate analysis of the situation. Here are the FACTS from JUNE 1992:Up to now, the hypocrites in the GOP have been saying the appointment should be for "the next President" and that a President should not be allowed to appoint a judge in his last 12 months.
Why this is so is never rationally explained. When you listen to their pontificating, none of it makes sense. What the fuck does an election year have to do with Obama? He isn't running for office, and he would have chosen the same guy last year that he is choosing now. So what the FUCK?!?!
But now they are saying if Clinton wins the election, they will move forward with this appointment in Obama's last TWO months, because they are afraid Clinton will appoint a more liberal judge.
Thus, they have exposed their bullshit as nothing more than political gamesmanship, and this will one day blow up in their faces.
Outside the beltway, no one knows or cares about this. The Republicans shouldn't do it for the same reason the Democrats wouldn't have done it in 1992. You can ask Biden to explain that to you.
You getting your game on and getting ready to call me a "Republican" again to insult me? LOL
1. There were no Supreme Court vacancies.
2. Clinton had just won the nomination to take on Bush. The right could smell the defeat coming
3. There was talk about getting an older justice to retire so Bush could appoint a new one before he was out of office.
4. Bush was running for reelection, which would have intertwined this whole process right in the middle of the election.
4. Bidden's statement was under these circumstances trying to avoid the political manipulation of the appointment of a SC justice in the middle of an election.
Prove me wrong.
It's apples and oranges. How stupid does the GOP think we are using this as a talking point?
Yet you know that's specifically what he was referring to when he just said there shouldn't be any nominee, got it. You'll make up whatever shit you can for the Democrats.
BTW, HW would have won easily if Perot hadn't run, so that's ridiculous that he knew Democrats would win.
You got any more shit you want to make up?
You're making up all this shit that Biden didn't say. He put no conditions on it, he said no Republican should be submitted and if one is the Democrats wouldn't vote on it
