CDZ What's Your Honest Take On Garland Block

What Do You Think Of The GOP Refusing To Consider Garland For SC?

  • I think it was justified.

    Votes: 18 78.3%
  • I think it was an abuse of power.

    Votes: 5 21.7%

  • Total voters
    23

LoneLaugher

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2011
61,306
9,453
2,040
Inside Mac's Head
The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?
 
Last edited:
Block is a liberal anti gun nut.

We already have 4 of these -- Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

We don't need another wacko like this.

We need less not more.

Ginsberg needs to be impeached.
 
Block is a liberal anti gun nut.

We already have 4 of these -- Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

We don't need another wacko like this.

We need less not more.

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.
 
It was the smartest thing I've ever seen McConnell do.



The democrats did it to themselves. Harry Reid used the nuclear option to ram an appointee through, this is karma tied up in a red bow from the GOP.
 
Last edited:
Block is a liberal anti gun nut.

We already have 4 of these -- Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

We don't need another wacko like this.

We need less not more.

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.


That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.
 
Last edited:
They did give him consideration and decided not to go forward.....they did their job...considering he would not have supported the constitution which is the job of a Supreme Court justice....
 
Block is a liberal anti gun nut.

We already have 4 of these -- Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

We don't need another wacko like this.

We need less not more.

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.


That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.
 
They did give him consideration and decided not to go forward.....they did their job...considering he would not have supported the constitution which is the job of a Supreme Court justice....

Yuh huh.
When were those hearings again? I seem to have missed them.
 
Block is a liberal anti gun nut.

We already have 4 of these -- Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

We don't need another wacko like this.

We need less not more.

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.


That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.

It's ideology and the left lost.
 
Block is a liberal anti gun nut.

We already have 4 of these -- Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

We don't need another wacko like this.

We need less not more.

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.


That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.

It's ideology and the left lost.

No, it's a Court appointment, which is how the Constitution declares things work, and it was blocked. We don't have any idea what "ideology" there was, since there was no hearing.

Why do you suppose they were afraid to hold hearings? Aye, there's the rub.
 
It was their right to block it.
They hold the House Majority.

Who holds a "majority" or who belongs to what "party" is completely irrelevant.

Here's what's relevant:
  • Does the POTUS nominate a candidate for SCOTUS? Yes.
  • Does that candidate then get assessed and approved or disapproved by the Senate? Yes.
  • Did the President duly nominate that candidate? Yes.
  • Did the second step happen?
Feel free to show us in the Constitution where it says anything about the Senate shirking its responsibilities if some political party has a "majority". Or because "we might have better chances if we wait for the next election".

So no, they have no "right to block" it. They had the right to disapprove if such disapproval was warranted, in which case the nomination would end.

But they didn't do that, even with a "majority". My question still is ----- why were they afraid to do that? Were they afraid of what the People would have found out about the nominee? Were they afraid they wouldn't come up with enough to disapprove of? Sure looks like it.
 
Block is a liberal anti gun nut.

We already have 4 of these -- Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

We don't need another wacko like this.

We need less not more.

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.


That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.

It's ideology and the left lost.

No, it's a Court appointment, which is how the Constitution declares things work, and it was blocked. We don't have any idea what "ideology" there was, since there was no hearing.

Why do you suppose they were afraid to hold hearings? Aye, there's the rub.





I don't know that fear was a factor. They held out for the chance to place a conservative on the bench!
 
It was their right to block it.
They hold the House Majority.

Who holds a "majority" or who belongs to what "party" is completely irrelevant.

Here's what's relevant:
  • Does the POTUS nominate a candidate for SCOTUS? Yes.
  • Does that candidate then get assessed and approved or disapproved by the Senate? Yes.
  • Did the President duly nominate that candidate? Yes.
  • Did the second step happen?
Feel free to show us in the Constitution where it says anything about the Senate shirking its responsibilities if some political party has a "majority". Or because "we might have better chances if we wait for the next election".
They said it would in due time!
 
It was their right to block it.
They hold the House Majority.

Who holds a "majority" or who belongs to what "party" is completely irrelevant.

Here's what's relevant:
  • Does the POTUS nominate a candidate for SCOTUS? Yes.
  • Does that candidate then get assessed and approved or disapproved by the Senate? Yes.
  • Did the President duly nominate that candidate? Yes.
  • Did the second step happen?
Feel free to show us in the Constitution where it says anything about the Senate shirking its responsibilities if some political party has a "majority". Or because "we might have better chances if we wait for the next election".
Show us where the constitution gives a time frame in which confirmation hearings must occur!
 
It was their right to block it.
They hold the House Majority.

Who holds a "majority" or who belongs to what "party" is completely irrelevant.

Here's what's relevant:
  • Does the POTUS nominate a candidate for SCOTUS? Yes.
  • Does that candidate then get assessed and approved or disapproved by the Senate? Yes.
  • Did the President duly nominate that candidate? Yes.
  • Did the second step happen?
Feel free to show us in the Constitution where it says anything about the Senate shirking its responsibilities if some political party has a "majority". Or because "we might have better chances if we wait for the next election".
Show us where the constitution gives a time frame in which confirmation hearings must occur!

Show us what the question was.

There must be some question, something holding it up, right?
Did the POTUS fail to name a nominee? Nope, he did that.
Did the Senate chambers vanish into thin air? Nope, still there.
Was the nominee unavailable for a hearing? Doesn't seem so.

What's their question?

Perhaps the entire Senate took LSD and completely forgot what they were doing. Yeah that's it.
It was that Orrin Hatch hippie. He spiked the coffee.
 

Forum List

Back
Top