Blumenthal, The Liar, Says He Won't Legitimize Barrett's Nomination

[XponentialChaos]

There are literally a dozen or more times in our history where a Senate REFUSED to vote on a NOMINEE. as recently as Dwight D Eisenhower.

Which one are you referring to? I'll look it up.

Is it Harlan?

read the damn thread dumb ass.

Harlan got a vote, dumbass.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are literally a dozen or more times in our history where a Senate REFUSED to vote on a NOMINEE. as recently as Dwight D Eisenhower.

Which one are you referring to? I'll look it up.

Is it Harlan?

read the damn thread dumb ass.

Harlan got a vote, dumbass.

There are dozen examples RETARD. And Under Eisenhower he selected someone and the Senate refused to even consider it. The next year witha DIFFERENT senate he selected him again.

 

[XponentialChaos]

There are literally a dozen or more times in our history where a Senate REFUSED to vote on a NOMINEE. as recently as Dwight D Eisenhower.

Which one are you referring to? I'll look it up.

Is it Harlan?

read the damn thread dumb ass.

Harlan got a vote, dumbass.

There are dozen examples RETARD. And Under Eisenhower he selected someone and the Senate refused to even consider it. The next year witha DIFFERENT senate he selected him again.

Still got a vote and got in a little over a year later.

Did Garland get a vote?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are literally a dozen or more times in our history where a Senate REFUSED to vote on a NOMINEE. as recently as Dwight D Eisenhower.

Which one are you referring to? I'll look it up.

Is it Harlan?

read the damn thread dumb ass.

Harlan got a vote, dumbass.

There are dozen examples RETARD. And Under Eisenhower he selected someone and the Senate refused to even consider it. The next year witha DIFFERENT senate he selected him again.

Still got a vote. Did Garland?

LOL so you will just IGNORE the dozen or so times the Senate has refused to vote. History is NOT your friend DUMB ASS.

 

[XponentialChaos]

There are literally a dozen or more times in our history where a Senate REFUSED to vote on a NOMINEE. as recently as Dwight D Eisenhower.

Which one are you referring to? I'll look it up.

Is it Harlan?

read the damn thread dumb ass.

Harlan got a vote, dumbass.

There are dozen examples RETARD. And Under Eisenhower he selected someone and the Senate refused to even consider it. The next year witha DIFFERENT senate he selected him again.

Still got a vote. Did Garland?

LOL so you will just IGNORE the dozen or so times the Senate has refused to vote. History is NOT your friend DUMB ASS.

Harlan was on the Supreme Court a little over a year after being nominated. They voted on him. They didn't just ignore the nomination and wait for Eisenhower's term to end. You can't say the same about Garland.

Is this the best example you can come up with? Because it sucks.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Child you're the one that keeps insisting it's a rule

View attachment 393467

ROFLMAO When the only reply you can come up with is a meme, you know you're a loser.

.

I'm not sure how useful it would be to keep repeating myself. Clearly you're not understanding me. Hence the facepalm.

I give up. You're going to have to meet me halfway here if you expect a more substantive response from me.

I'm not going to keep explaining why this is wrong: "Child you're the one that keeps insisting it's a rule". I've already explained this multiple times as clearly as I possibly can.

 

[XponentialChaos]

View attachment 393478

Wonder which one XponentialChaos is ?

I'm the one inside your head.

You keep mentioning me.

 

[OKTexas]

Child you're the one that keeps insisting it's a rule

View attachment 393467

ROFLMAO When the only reply you can come up with is a meme, you know you're a loser.

.

I'm not sure how useful it would be to keep repeating myself. Clearly you're not understanding me. Hence the facepalm.

I give up. You're going to have to meet me halfway here if you expect a more substantive response from me.

I'm not going to keep explaining why this is wrong: "Child you're the one that keeps insisting it's a rule". I've already explained this multiple times as clearly as I possibly can.

Yep, you said it was a rule, when called on it you tried to back track, but kept using the term. Then you tried to modify it, saying it wasn't a "formal rule". LMAO That sir is playing a game of semantics, here's a little hint for ya child, semantics are the last bastion of losers.

You remind me of the MSM saying the protests were "mostly peaceful" while the town was burning in the background.

.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yep, you said it was a rule, when called on it you tried to back track, but kept using the term. Then you tried to modify it, saying it wasn't a "formal rule".

Ok then. I've already addressed this.

Now what?

 

[OKTexas]

Yep, you said it was a rule, when called on it you tried to back track, but kept using the term. Then you tried to modify it, saying it wasn't a "formal rule".

Ok then. I've already addressed this.

Now what?

Don't know about you, I'm going to bed, my job is done here.

.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yep, you said it was a rule, when called on it you tried to back track, but kept using the term. Then you tried to modify it, saying it wasn't a "formal rule".

Ok then. I've already addressed this.

Now what?

Don't know about you, I'm going to bed, my job is done here.

.

Sleep well tonight knowing that you clarified something that was never in question.

I don’t know what we would have done without you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are literally a dozen or more times in our history where a Senate REFUSED to vote on a NOMINEE. as recently as Dwight D Eisenhower.

Which one are you referring to? I'll look it up.

Is it Harlan?

read the damn thread dumb ass.

Harlan got a vote, dumbass.

There are dozen examples RETARD. And Under Eisenhower he selected someone and the Senate refused to even consider it. The next year witha DIFFERENT senate he selected him again.

Still got a vote. Did Garland?

LOL so you will just IGNORE the dozen or so times the Senate has refused to vote. History is NOT your friend DUMB ASS.

Harlan was on the Supreme Court a little over a year after being nominated. They voted on him. They didn't just ignore the nomination and wait for Eisenhower's term to end. You can't say the same about Garland.

Is this the best example you can come up with? Because it sucks.

Ignore all the rest ehh? You are an admitted idiot that can not even admit to historical precedent. Go refute all the rest little boy, you can not. It is a HISTORICAL FACT that NUMEROUS times in our HISTORY the Senate has not voted on a nominee.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Ignore all the rest ehh? You are an admitted idiot that can not even admit to historical precedent. Go refute all the rest little boy, you can not. It is a HISTORICAL FACT that NUMEROUS times in our HISTORY the Senate has not voted on a nominee.

I looked at a few of them. They don't sound particularly egregious compared to what happened to Garland.

Harlan was on the Supreme Court a little over a year after being nominated. The Senate voted on him.

Pierce Butler had some issues with a conflict of interest due to some financial earnings. He received a vote less than one month after he was nominated and he made it to the Supreme Court.

Thomas Stanley Matthews was nominated about a month before the President Hayes' term ended. He was re-nominated shortly into the next president's term and got a vote.

The closest you have is what happened to Fillmore's nominee, who was denied a vote for 6 months. Still not as bad as what happened to Garland, and we're going back over 160 years to find a similar case.

 

[BluesLegend]

He is right. According to McConnell’s rule of 2016 ....and Republican statements.

Oh come on, do you have no opinion on BIDEN who was against it, then for it, now against it again in a FLIP FLOP FLIP?? Obama and Biden tried to do the exact same thing, replace a conservative justice with a liberal justice. The ONLY difference is that Trump will succeed where Biden and Obama failed so Dems are wailing and crying foul. ENOUGH with the Dem's phony faux rage.

 

[Coyote]

He is right. According to McConnell’s rule of 2016 ....and Republican statements.

Oh come on, do you have no opinion on BIDEN who was against it, then for it, now against it again in a FLIP FLOP FLIP?? Obama and Biden tried to do the exact same thing, replace a conservative justice with a liberal justice. The ONLY difference is that Trump will succeed where Biden and Obama failed so Dems are wailing and crying foul. ENOUGH with the Dem's phony faux rage.

oh...hold on a second...you just made a MASSIVE goalpost move. So it is now about replacing a conservative with a conservative? Is this another one of those new McConnell rules?

You need get your excuses straight.

 

[Crepitus]

He is right. According to McConnell’s rule of 2016 ....and Republican statements.

Blumenthal’s not the problem...you lot are.

What every Republican senator has said about filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death leaves a vacancy on the Supreme Court just before the presidential election, as Justice Antonin Scalia's did in 2016, when Barack Obama was president. Here’s what Senate Republicans said in 2016, and what they’ve said publicly now.

www.pbs.org

Bullshit.

Everyone knows what 2016 was about.

Why don't you do some real reading before posting and making an ass of yourself.

Lol, everyone's except you apparently.

 

[Crepitus]

He is right. According to McConnell’s rule of 2016 ....and Republican statements.

Oh come on, do you have no opinion on BIDEN who was against it, then for it, now against it again in a FLIP FLOP FLIP?? Obama and Biden tried to do the exact same thing, replace a conservative justice with a liberal justice. The ONLY difference is that Trump will succeed where Biden and Obama failed so Dems are wailing and crying foul. ENOUGH with the Dem's phony faux rage.

oh...hold on a second...you just made a MASSIVE goalpost move. So it is now about replacing a conservative with a conservative? Is this another one of those new McConnell rules?

You need get your excuses straight.

That is an impossible task. They have far too many excuses to keep them straight.

 

[Muhammed]

He is right. According to McConnell’s rule of 2016

There's is no such rule, idiot.

 

[BluesLegend]

He is right. According to McConnell’s rule of 2016 ....and Republican statements.

Oh come on, do you have no opinion on BIDEN who was against it, then for it, now against it again in a FLIP FLOP FLIP?? Obama and Biden tried to do the exact same thing, replace a conservative justice with a liberal justice. The ONLY difference is that Trump will succeed where Biden and Obama failed so Dems are wailing and crying foul. ENOUGH with the Dem's phony faux rage.

oh...hold on a second...you just made a MASSIVE goalpost move. So it is now about replacing a conservative with a conservative? Is this another one of those new McConnell rules?

You need get your excuses straight.

No it's about your pretend phony faux rage. Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell us if the situation were reversed Dem's would hold off filling the seat? I thought not, now run away.

 

[BluesLegend]

He is right. According to McConnell’s rule of 2016 ....and Republican statements.

Oh come on, do you have no opinion on BIDEN who was against it, then for it, now against it again in a FLIP FLOP FLIP?? Obama and Biden tried to do the exact same thing, replace a conservative justice with a liberal justice. The ONLY difference is that Trump will succeed where Biden and Obama failed so Dems are wailing and crying foul. ENOUGH with the Dem's phony faux rage.

oh...hold on a second...you just made a MASSIVE goalpost move. So it is now about replacing a conservative with a conservative? Is this another one of those new McConnell rules?

You need get your excuses straight.

That is an impossible task. They have far too many excuses to keep them straight.

We don't need excuses we control the Senate and White House so suck it. And don't pretend for one second that Dems would do it any different if they had control.