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

[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.

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

Is that strawman ok? You hit it really hard.

You KEEP claiming it is a RULE and it is NOT and further what was said is NOT what you claimed AT ALL. As has been addressed prior to this post.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Not one president has ever failed to nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the court, no matter what year is was. So what are you bitching about?

.

 

[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.

You KEEP claiming it is a RULE and it is NOT and further what was said is NOT what you claimed AT ALL. As has been addressed prior to this post.

I don't know how many times I need to explain this to you.

When I refer to it as the "McConnell Rule", I'm not suggesting that it's a formal rule in the Senate. It clearly isn't. But I hope you know what I'm referring to when I call it the McConnell Rule (even though, again, it's not an actual Senate rule).

Read that over as many times over as you need.

 

[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.

Not one president has ever failed to nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the court, no matter what year is was. So what are you bitching about?

.

I stated that incorrectly. I'll correct it.

The part where you guys said that the Senate shouldn't consider voting on supreme court nominations in the last year prior to an election.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Yes, you did actually. LMAO

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.

.

 

[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?

Yes, you did actually. LMAO

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.

.

Oh shit, you got punked worse than Joe "I went to an HBU" Biden....did you really just boldface lie in this thread....dude you have to read your own posts......

 

[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?

Yes, you did actually. LMAO

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.

.

Oh for fuck sake.

The hypocrisy is in the McConnell Rule. Not with any formal Senate rules.

Can you guys stop playing dumb already. Jesus fucking Christ. You know what the issue is here. You just love dancing around idiotic word games.

 

[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?

.

Sure. Refer to post #129.

See post #145

.

 

[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?

Yes, you did actually. LMAO

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.

.

Oh for fuck sake.

The hypocrisy is in the McConnell Rule. Not with any formal Senate rules.

Can you guys stop playing dumb already. Jesus fucking Christ.

you just got caught......you tried to say it was senate rules, but it's not.....don't try that shit....admit you lied or you're an idiot.....no other choices.

I admit McConnell lied, just as I am laughing my ass off about it.

 

[MeBelle]

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.

Yes. It was about preventing a president from legitimately filling a vacancy by creating a brand new “rule” that was promptly abandoned in 2020. I don’t know why you act ignorant.

It's a 'rule' that Reid deployed in a spectacular nuclear fashion.

 

[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.

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?

Yes, you did actually. LMAO

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.

.

Oh for fuck sake.

The hypocrisy is in the McConnell Rule. Not with any formal Senate rules.

Can you guys stop playing dumb already. Jesus fucking Christ. You know what the issue is here. You just love dancing around idiotic word games.

Biden Rule.

McConnell Rule.

PeeWeeHerman Rule.

None matter.

She's in.

The left is fucked.

End of story.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Examples from the past.

John Quincy Adams
John Quincy Adams nominated John J. Crittenden on December 18, 1828. The Senate postponed the vote on his confirmation, by a vote of 23–17, on February 12, 1829. The Senate did not explicitly vote to "postpone indefinitely", but the resolution did have that effect.[9] President Andrew Jackson instead filled the position with John McLean.[6]

Andrew Jackson nominated Roger B. Taney on January 15, 1835, to be an Associate Justice. A resolution was passed by a Senate vote of 24–21 on March 3, 1835, to postpone the nomination indefinitely

John Tyler experienced extreme difficulty in obtaining approval of his nominees due to his lack of political support in the Senate. Tyler took office in 1841 after the death of Whig President William Henry Harrison. Tyler had been Harrison's running mate in the 1840 election, but Tyler clashed with the Congressional Whigs over issues such as the national bank, and these clashes extended to judicial nominees.[11]

John Canfield Spencer was nominated on January 9, 1844, and his nomination was defeated by a vote of 21–26 on January 31, 1844. Reuben H. Walworth was nominated on March 13, 1844, and a resolution to table the nomination passed on a 27–20 vote on June 15, 1844. The nomination was withdrawn from the Senate on June 17, 1844. Edward King was nominated on June 5, 1844. A resolution to table the nomination passed by a vote of 29–18 on June 15, 1844. No other action was taken on this nomination.[11]

The same day that Walworth's nomination was withdrawn, Spencer was re-submitted, but there is no record of debate and a letter from the President withdrawing the nomination was received on the same day. Walworth was then re-nominated later that same day, but the motion to act on the nomination in the Senate was objected to, and no further action was taken.[11]

Walworth and King were re-nominated on December 10, 1844, but both nominations were tabled on January 21, 1845. Walworth's nomination was withdrawn on February 6, 1845, and King's two days later. John M. Read was nominated on February 8, 1845, and there was a motion to consider the nomination in the Senate on January 21, 1845, but the motion was unsuccessful and no other action was taken.[11] On February 14, 1845, the Senate voted to confirm Samuel Nelson.[6]

Millard Fillmore, the last member of the Whig Party to serve as President, made three nominations to replace John McKinley, nominating Edward A. Bradford, George Edmund Badger, and William C. Micou, but the Senate, controlled by the Democratic Party, did not take action on any of the nominees. Democratic President Franklin Pierce filled the vacancy with John Archibald Campbell.[6]

Early in 1881, President Rutherford B. Hayes nominated Thomas Stanley Matthews for the position of Associate Justice. Matthews was a controversial nominee due to his close ties to the railroad industry,[21] and as the nomination came near the end of Hayes's term, the Senate did not act on it

President Warren G. Harding nominated Pierce Butler to the Supreme Court in 1922, but the Senate refused to consider his nomination, in part due to Butler's advocacy for railroad interests. However, Harding re-submitted the nomination later in the year, and Butler was confirmed in a 61–8 vote.[21]

President Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated John Marshall Harlan II in 1954, but his nomination was not reported out of the judiciary committee, in part due to opposition to his purported "ultra-liberal" views. Eisenhower re-nominated Harlan in 1955, and the Senate confirmed him in a 71–11 vote.[21]

The vacancy caused by Scalia's death remained unfilled for 422 days, making it just the second Supreme Court vacancy since the end of the Civil War to remain unfilled for more than one year.[51] On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace Justice Scalia. Justice Gorsuch was sworn in on April 10, 2017, after being confirmed by a vote of 54–45.

Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MeBelle]

It is strange how there was no Biden rule until McConnell invoked it. Must be one of those pesky Republican “alternative facts” and now here we are in 2020 and oops...Just like that, no rule all of a sudden.

Oops....you conveniently forget REID .... again

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Not one president has ever failed to nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the court, no matter what year is was. So what are you bitching about?

.

I stated that incorrectly. I'll correct it.

The part where you guys said that the Senate shouldn't consider voting on supreme court nominations in the last year prior to an election.

It was considered and rejected, no vote required.

.

 

[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

Bullshit.

Everyone knows what 2016 was about.

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

Yes. It was about preventing a president from legitimately filling a vacancy by creating a brand new “rule” that was promptly abandoned in 2020. I don’t know why you act ignorant.

It's a 'rule' that Reid deployed in a spectacular nuclear fashion.

But Blumenthal is using it to call this illegitimate. Which is total bullshit.

He also predicting the impact of her nomination.

When you have Daryl Hunt saying the court isn't as powerful as we think (and while I agree with Mr Hunt), apparently Blumenthal is browning his bloomers over it.

 

[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?

Yes, you did actually. LMAO

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.

.

Oh for fuck sake.

The hypocrisy is in the McConnell Rule. Not with any formal Senate rules.

Can you guys stop playing dumb already. Jesus fucking Christ. You know what the issue is here. You just love dancing around idiotic word games.

Biden Rule.

McConnell Rule.

PeeWeeHerman Rule.

None matter.

She's in.

The left is fucked.

End of story.

Yup, she's in. No disagreement there.

Hey at least you know what "rule" I'm referring to.

 

[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.

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

Is that strawman ok? You hit it really hard.

You KEEP claiming it is a RULE and it is NOT and further what was said is NOT what you claimed AT ALL. As has been addressed prior to this post.

I don't know how many times I need to explain this to you.

When I refer to it as the "McConnell Rule", I'm not suggesting that it's a formal rule in the Senate. It clearly isn't. But I hope you know what I'm referring to when I call it the McConnell Rule (even though, again, it's not an actual Senate rule).

Read that over as many times over as you need.

And read the FACT what you claim was said is a BALD FACED LIE. Mitch said that a republican senate would not approve a democrat nominee in an election year, he did NOT say NO nominee would be considered in an election year.

 

[MeBelle]

People whining about McConell, the McConell rule is, if you don't have the votes, you don't get the nominee
the dems could block it, if they only had the filibuster......thanks Harry Reid...best dem senator ever!

Bingo!

 

[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.

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?

Yes, you did actually. LMAO

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.

.

Oh for fuck sake.

The hypocrisy is in the McConnell Rule. Not with any formal Senate rules.

Can you guys stop playing dumb already. Jesus fucking Christ. You know what the issue is here. You just love dancing around idiotic word games.

Biden Rule.

McConnell Rule.

PeeWeeHerman Rule.

None matter.

She's in.

The left is fucked.

End of story.

Yup, she's in. No disagreement there.

Hey at least you know what "rule" I'm referring to.

I always did.

And I knew it wasn't a rule.

And I know Blumenthal knows it isn't a rule.

So I know he's full of shit.

And when you read his full tweet you see he does not understand why we have a SCOTUS.

End of story.

 

[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.

Not one president has ever failed to nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the court, no matter what year is was. So what are you bitching about?

.

I stated that incorrectly. I'll correct it.

The part where you guys said that the Senate shouldn't consider voting on supreme court nominations in the last year prior to an election.

It was considered and rejected, no vote required.

.

So then vote no on it so that Obama can nominate someone else.

Don't play stupid. You know that was irregular and from the words of the Senators themselves, they're acting hypocritical.