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

[RetiredGySgt]

What is it about "shall" that you don't understand?

Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3​

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,

.

The part where you guys said that we shouldn't nominate supreme court judges in the last year prior to an election.

Dude, you didn't get the nominee because the R said no....it's that easy......Obama nominated somone, and now so has Trump......but the same guys are in charge and they are going to pass this one. WHY? Because they want to.......it's not a sham, it's Constitutional.....


and like I said...after the way Kavanaugh was treated (And Thoms and Bork).....I just laugh about it and do not care, McConnell fucked you.....he did.....but you deserve it....what you put Kavanaugh through was beyond shameful and I couldn't care any less of what the democrats think...they are psycho nutjobs........

Has that ever happened before? Where the

Sure it does, but it's politics.....Blumenthal gains nothing by being tacky, McConnell gains a USCJ......

Oh ok. So you think it's ok when Mitch is tacky, but it's not ok when Blumenthal is tacky. Thanks for clarifying.

Fuck off.

Really. Get off the thread. You want to defend Blumenthal's ignorance of the constitution, go ahead. Otherwise STFU.

What ignorance of the constitution is he demonstrating?

Oh right, nothing. Every one of his actions is perfectly compliant with the constitution and you just have no idea what you're talking about.

From the link in the OP:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and will play a role in confirmation hearings, said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

Is the nomination and confirmation of a supreme court justice an illegitimate sham process? Last I read, it is mandated by the Constitution. That shows the blooming idiot ignorant of the Constitution.

.

I'm pretty sure his issue with the nomination isn't due to the constitution, but due to the hypocrisy in the rules from the Senate.

Again what rule..... link to it. POST it from the Senate rules book.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What is it about "shall" that you don't understand?

Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3​

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,

.

The part where you guys said that we shouldn't nominate supreme court judges in the last year prior to an election.

BUT Mitch never said that. He said if the Senate is not controlled by the President then the nomination is dead on arrival. And it is NOT a law, nor a rule, or perhaps you can link us to the senate rule in question?

It's inconsistent. That's the issue and you know it.

Here is a quote for you:

 

[XponentialChaos]

There is no arbitration of this one.

You are right.

And guess what.....

We don't give a shit.

She's in. Your fucked.

Why don't you do us a favor and catch Covid.

I know you don't give a shit. But you're playing word games if you're trying to spin this as an attack on the constitution.

The entire issue here is that Republicans are acting 100% hypocritical in this nomination, and you know it. At least you own up to it.

 

[protectionist]

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

There is no reason for Amy to sit down and talk to these clowns. There is also no reason for Republicans to say one word in the Judiciary hearing. Despite the 2 idiots Murkowski & Collins, Republicans have the votes, Democrats can't stop it.

No need to legitimize the charade. Just minimize the time spent, get it over with, give the consent, put her on the court, and let's move on with running the country. If Democrats really want to throw tantrums or mud, they can do it on twitter, which will let them say anything. Who cares ? Ho hum.

 

[XponentialChaos]

What is it about "shall" that you don't understand?

Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3​

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,

.

The part where you guys said that we shouldn't nominate supreme court judges in the last year prior to an election.

Dude, you didn't get the nominee because the R said no....it's that easy......Obama nominated somone, and now so has Trump......but the same guys are in charge and they are going to pass this one. WHY? Because they want to.......it's not a sham, it's Constitutional.....


and like I said...after the way Kavanaugh was treated (And Thoms and Bork).....I just laugh about it and do not care, McConnell fucked you.....he did.....but you deserve it....what you put Kavanaugh through was beyond shameful and I couldn't care any less of what the democrats think...they are psycho nutjobs........

Has that ever happened before? Where the

Sure it does, but it's politics.....Blumenthal gains nothing by being tacky, McConnell gains a USCJ......

Oh ok. So you think it's ok when Mitch is tacky, but it's not ok when Blumenthal is tacky. Thanks for clarifying.

Fuck off.

Really. Get off the thread. You want to defend Blumenthal's ignorance of the constitution, go ahead. Otherwise STFU.

What ignorance of the constitution is he demonstrating?

Oh right, nothing. Every one of his actions is perfectly compliant with the constitution and you just have no idea what you're talking about.

From the link in the OP:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and will play a role in confirmation hearings, said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

Is the nomination and confirmation of a supreme court justice an illegitimate sham process? Last I read, it is mandated by the Constitution. That shows the blooming idiot ignorant of the Constitution.

.

I'm pretty sure his issue with the nomination isn't due to the constitution, but due to the hypocrisy in the rules from the Senate.

Again what rule..... link to it. POST it from the Senate rules book.

Did I claim that it was in the Senate rules book or are you just desperately creating a strawman argument?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What is it about "shall" that you don't understand?

Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3​

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,

.

The part where you guys said that we shouldn't nominate supreme court judges in the last year prior to an election.

Dude, you didn't get the nominee because the R said no....it's that easy......Obama nominated somone, and now so has Trump......but the same guys are in charge and they are going to pass this one. WHY? Because they want to.......it's not a sham, it's Constitutional.....


and like I said...after the way Kavanaugh was treated (And Thoms and Bork).....I just laugh about it and do not care, McConnell fucked you.....he did.....but you deserve it....what you put Kavanaugh through was beyond shameful and I couldn't care any less of what the democrats think...they are psycho nutjobs........

Has that ever happened before? Where the

Sure it does, but it's politics.....Blumenthal gains nothing by being tacky, McConnell gains a USCJ......

Oh ok. So you think it's ok when Mitch is tacky, but it's not ok when Blumenthal is tacky. Thanks for clarifying.

Fuck off.

Really. Get off the thread. You want to defend Blumenthal's ignorance of the constitution, go ahead. Otherwise STFU.

What ignorance of the constitution is he demonstrating?

Oh right, nothing. Every one of his actions is perfectly compliant with the constitution and you just have no idea what you're talking about.

From the link in the OP:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and will play a role in confirmation hearings, said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

Is the nomination and confirmation of a supreme court justice an illegitimate sham process? Last I read, it is mandated by the Constitution. That shows the blooming idiot ignorant of the Constitution.

.

I'm pretty sure his issue with the nomination isn't due to the constitution, but due to the hypocrisy in the rules from the Senate.

Again what rule..... link to it. POST it from the Senate rules book.

Did I claim that it was in the Senate rules book or are you just desperately creating a strawman argument?

YOU CLAIMED IT IS A RULE. Provide the link to this rule.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There is no arbitration of this one.

You are right.

And guess what.....

We don't give a shit.

She's in. Your fucked.

Why don't you do us a favor and catch Covid.

I know you don't give a shit. But you're playing word games if you're trying to spin this as an attack on the constitution.

The entire issue here is that Republicans are acting 100% hypocritical in this nomination, and you know it. At least you own up to it.

I own up to.....owning the senate

which means you don't.

So, I get #3 and you can get fucked.

And you bullshit about attacking the constitution is just that bullshit. What it is...is his ignorance.

Plain and simple.

Fuck off and die.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh right, opposing parties in the WH and Senate have only filled two such vacancies in US history. It was nothing unprecedented or even unusual for that matter.

.

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue if they had a vote and declined the nomination. That happens.

But they didn't even have a vote.

There's nothing that required them to have a vote. Where is it written the senate can't withhold advise or consent?

.

 

[XponentialChaos]

YOU CLAIMED IT IS A RULE. Provide the link to this rule.

The McConnell rule. It's not a formal rule in the Senate rule book. I never claimed it was. You're just trying to play stupid and pretend you don't know what I'm referring to.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What is it about "shall" that you don't understand?

Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3​

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,

.

The part where you guys said that we shouldn't nominate supreme court judges in the last year prior to an election.

Dude, you didn't get the nominee because the R said no....it's that easy......Obama nominated somone, and now so has Trump......but the same guys are in charge and they are going to pass this one. WHY? Because they want to.......it's not a sham, it's Constitutional.....


and like I said...after the way Kavanaugh was treated (And Thoms and Bork).....I just laugh about it and do not care, McConnell fucked you.....he did.....but you deserve it....what you put Kavanaugh through was beyond shameful and I couldn't care any less of what the democrats think...they are psycho nutjobs........

Has that ever happened before? Where the

Sure it does, but it's politics.....Blumenthal gains nothing by being tacky, McConnell gains a USCJ......

Oh ok. So you think it's ok when Mitch is tacky, but it's not ok when Blumenthal is tacky. Thanks for clarifying.

Fuck off.

Really. Get off the thread. You want to defend Blumenthal's ignorance of the constitution, go ahead. Otherwise STFU.

What ignorance of the constitution is he demonstrating?

Oh right, nothing. Every one of his actions is perfectly compliant with the constitution and you just have no idea what you're talking about.

From the link in the OP:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and will play a role in confirmation hearings, said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

Is the nomination and confirmation of a supreme court justice an illegitimate sham process? Last I read, it is mandated by the Constitution. That shows the blooming idiot ignorant of the Constitution.

.

I'm pretty sure his issue with the nomination isn't due to the constitution, but due to the hypocrisy in the rules from the Senate.

We don't care......the dems deserve this fucking......they are sick fucks.....move on.......it's like debating FL2000........it's over....

 

[XponentialChaos]

There is no arbitration of this one.

You are right.

And guess what.....

We don't give a shit.

She's in. Your fucked.

Why don't you do us a favor and catch Covid.

I know you don't give a shit. But you're playing word games if you're trying to spin this as an attack on the constitution.

The entire issue here is that Republicans are acting 100% hypocritical in this nomination, and you know it. At least you own up to it.

I own up to.....owning the senate

which means you don't.

So, I get #3 and you can get fucked.

And you bullshit about attacking the constitution is just that bullshit. What it is...is his ignorance.

Plain and simple.

Fuck off and die.

Well, at least you own up to it.

Not sure why you keep insisting that I die. I wonder if you're like this in real life.

 

[OKTexas]

He made a FALSE STATEMENT , he said the process was illegitimate, meaning Unconstitutional, that is a LIE, it is untrue and the Senator KNOWS it. And so do you.

Illegitimate according to the McConnell rule.

What senate rule number is that, do you have a link from senate.gov?

.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What is it about "shall" that you don't understand?

Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3​

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,

.

The part where you guys said that we shouldn't nominate supreme court judges in the last year prior to an election.

Dude, you didn't get the nominee because the R said no....it's that easy......Obama nominated somone, and now so has Trump......but the same guys are in charge and they are going to pass this one. WHY? Because they want to.......it's not a sham, it's Constitutional.....


and like I said...after the way Kavanaugh was treated (And Thoms and Bork).....I just laugh about it and do not care, McConnell fucked you.....he did.....but you deserve it....what you put Kavanaugh through was beyond shameful and I couldn't care any less of what the democrats think...they are psycho nutjobs........

Has that ever happened before? Where the

Sure it does, but it's politics.....Blumenthal gains nothing by being tacky, McConnell gains a USCJ......

Oh ok. So you think it's ok when Mitch is tacky, but it's not ok when Blumenthal is tacky. Thanks for clarifying.

Fuck off.

Really. Get off the thread. You want to defend Blumenthal's ignorance of the constitution, go ahead. Otherwise STFU.

What ignorance of the constitution is he demonstrating?

Oh right, nothing. Every one of his actions is perfectly compliant with the constitution and you just have no idea what you're talking about.

From the link in the OP:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and will play a role in confirmation hearings, said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

Is the nomination and confirmation of a supreme court justice an illegitimate sham process? Last I read, it is mandated by the Constitution. That shows the blooming idiot ignorant of the Constitution.

.

I'm pretty sure his issue with the nomination isn't due to the constitution, but due to the hypocrisy in the rules from the Senate.

Again what rule..... link to it. POST it from the Senate rules book.

Did I claim that it was in the Senate rules book or are you just desperately creating a strawman argument?

you're whining about it.....
this topic was on the fact that Danang Dick is an asshole.......just that simple.....you want to turn this into a McConnell thread, just start a new one....and we'll post and mock the dems in that one....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

There is not reason for Amy to sit down and talk to these clowns. There is also no reason for Republicans to say one word in the Judiciary hearing. Despite the 2 idiots Murkowski & Collins, Republicans have the votes, Democrats can't stop it.

No need to legitimize the charade. Just minimize the time spent, get it over with, give the consent, put her on the court, and let's move on with running the country. If Democrats really want to throw tantrums or mud, they can do it on twitter, which will let them say anything. Who cares ? Ho hum.

What I will say is that if Harris lights off on her like she did Kavennaugh, we should mob her the way BLM mobbed Rand Paul.

I want her to know that I don't tolerate that bullshit from her.

Barrett is a mother of seven.

Harris still has Brown's cum on her face.

 

[XponentialChaos]

What is it about "shall" that you don't understand?

Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3​

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,

.

The part where you guys said that we shouldn't nominate supreme court judges in the last year prior to an election.

Dude, you didn't get the nominee because the R said no....it's that easy......Obama nominated somone, and now so has Trump......but the same guys are in charge and they are going to pass this one. WHY? Because they want to.......it's not a sham, it's Constitutional.....


and like I said...after the way Kavanaugh was treated (And Thoms and Bork).....I just laugh about it and do not care, McConnell fucked you.....he did.....but you deserve it....what you put Kavanaugh through was beyond shameful and I couldn't care any less of what the democrats think...they are psycho nutjobs........

Has that ever happened before? Where the

Sure it does, but it's politics.....Blumenthal gains nothing by being tacky, McConnell gains a USCJ......

Oh ok. So you think it's ok when Mitch is tacky, but it's not ok when Blumenthal is tacky. Thanks for clarifying.

Fuck off.

Really. Get off the thread. You want to defend Blumenthal's ignorance of the constitution, go ahead. Otherwise STFU.

What ignorance of the constitution is he demonstrating?

Oh right, nothing. Every one of his actions is perfectly compliant with the constitution and you just have no idea what you're talking about.

From the link in the OP:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and will play a role in confirmation hearings, said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

Is the nomination and confirmation of a supreme court justice an illegitimate sham process? Last I read, it is mandated by the Constitution. That shows the blooming idiot ignorant of the Constitution.

.

I'm pretty sure his issue with the nomination isn't due to the constitution, but due to the hypocrisy in the rules from the Senate.

We don't care......the dems deserve this fucking......they are sick fucks.....move on.......it's like debating FL2000........it's over....

Yea I know you don't care.

 

[XponentialChaos]

He made a FALSE STATEMENT , he said the process was illegitimate, meaning Unconstitutional, that is a LIE, it is untrue and the Senator KNOWS it. And so do you.

Illegitimate according to the McConnell rule.

What senate rule number is that, do you have a link from senate.gov?

.

Sure. Refer to post #129.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What is it about "shall" that you don't understand?

Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3​

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,

.

The part where you guys said that we shouldn't nominate supreme court judges in the last year prior to an election.

Dude, you didn't get the nominee because the R said no....it's that easy......Obama nominated somone, and now so has Trump......but the same guys are in charge and they are going to pass this one. WHY? Because they want to.......it's not a sham, it's Constitutional.....


and like I said...after the way Kavanaugh was treated (And Thoms and Bork).....I just laugh about it and do not care, McConnell fucked you.....he did.....but you deserve it....what you put Kavanaugh through was beyond shameful and I couldn't care any less of what the democrats think...they are psycho nutjobs........

Has that ever happened before? Where the

Sure it does, but it's politics.....Blumenthal gains nothing by being tacky, McConnell gains a USCJ......

Oh ok. So you think it's ok when Mitch is tacky, but it's not ok when Blumenthal is tacky. Thanks for clarifying.

Fuck off.

Really. Get off the thread. You want to defend Blumenthal's ignorance of the constitution, go ahead. Otherwise STFU.

What ignorance of the constitution is he demonstrating?

Oh right, nothing. Every one of his actions is perfectly compliant with the constitution and you just have no idea what you're talking about.

From the link in the OP:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and will play a role in confirmation hearings, said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

Is the nomination and confirmation of a supreme court justice an illegitimate sham process? Last I read, it is mandated by the Constitution. That shows the blooming idiot ignorant of the Constitution.

.

I'm pretty sure his issue with the nomination isn't due to the constitution, but due to the hypocrisy in the rules from the Senate.

We don't care......the dems deserve this fucking......they are sick fucks.....move on.......it's like debating FL2000........it's over....

Yea I know you don't care.

Ok, I tried to be reasonable......you pulled an rdean, now I have to just do a victory dance

 

[RetiredGySgt]

YOU CLAIMED IT IS A RULE. Provide the link to this rule.

The McConnell rule. It's not a formal rule in the Senate rule book. I never claimed it was. You're just trying to play stupid and pretend you don't know what I'm referring to.

So it isn't a rule but to make your lame excuses sound better you keep claiming it is and what you keep claiming what Mitch said is a LIE, again for the slow and STUPID. Mitch said in an election year when the Senate and the President are from different parties NO nominee will be voted on.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What is it about "shall" that you don't understand?

Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3​

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,

.

The part where you guys said that we shouldn't nominate supreme court judges in the last year prior to an election.

Dude, you didn't get the nominee because the R said no....it's that easy......Obama nominated somone, and now so has Trump......but the same guys are in charge and they are going to pass this one. WHY? Because they want to.......it's not a sham, it's Constitutional.....


and like I said...after the way Kavanaugh was treated (And Thoms and Bork).....I just laugh about it and do not care, McConnell fucked you.....he did.....but you deserve it....what you put Kavanaugh through was beyond shameful and I couldn't care any less of what the democrats think...they are psycho nutjobs........

Has that ever happened before? Where the

Sure it does, but it's politics.....Blumenthal gains nothing by being tacky, McConnell gains a USCJ......

Oh ok. So you think it's ok when Mitch is tacky, but it's not ok when Blumenthal is tacky. Thanks for clarifying.

Fuck off.

Really. Get off the thread. You want to defend Blumenthal's ignorance of the constitution, go ahead. Otherwise STFU.

What ignorance of the constitution is he demonstrating?

Oh right, nothing. Every one of his actions is perfectly compliant with the constitution and you just have no idea what you're talking about.

From the link in the OP:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and will play a role in confirmation hearings, said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

Is the nomination and confirmation of a supreme court justice an illegitimate sham process? Last I read, it is mandated by the Constitution. That shows the blooming idiot ignorant of the Constitution.

.

I'm pretty sure his issue with the nomination isn't due to the constitution, but due to the hypocrisy in the rules from the Senate.

We don't care......the dems deserve this fucking......they are sick fucks.....move on.......it's like debating FL2000........it's over....

Yea I know you don't care.

We care about her getting nominated.

We really don't care that you and Coyote are getting a red ass over the whole things.

Have a night.

 

[XponentialChaos]

YOU CLAIMED IT IS A RULE. Provide the link to this rule.

The McConnell rule. It's not a formal rule in the Senate rule book. I never claimed it was. You're just trying to play stupid and pretend you don't know what I'm referring to.

So it isn't a rule but to make your lame excuses sound better you keep claiming it is and what you keep claiming what Mitch said is a LIE, again for the slow and STUPID. Mitch said in an election year when the Senate and the President are from different parties NO nominee will be voted on.

I didn't claim it was a formal rule, you dunce.

Is that strawman ok? You hit it really hard.