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

[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.

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.

Well you guys called our nominee a gangrapist.....using a disgraced and jailed lawyer.....I just laugh and laugh....karma tastes sooooooo good....the only thing better?

Hilary lost the only thing she ever cared about and it crushed her....that bitch will never be President........God I love this country

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Fuck Harry Ried.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I just posted the NUMEROUS HISTORICAL TIMES a NOMINEE was not voted on.

 

[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.

.

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.

Child you're the one that keeps insisting it's a rule, now you're backpedaling as fast as you can. It's you trying to play a game of semantics and are getting your ass kicked. You might want to stop digging.

.

 

[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.

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.

We know they are......but we just don't care, just like you don't care about trashing someone's reputation..........atleast our way isn't personal and demeans people, but what should we expect from the BLM party

 

[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.

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.

Well you're mostly correct there.

 

[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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

Well you're mostly correct there.

Yes....I know.

I give Blumenthal to much credit.

He probably does not even know what the fuck he's voting for.

 

[XponentialChaos]

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

View attachment 393467

I have posted all the times in the past the Senate did NOT vote on a nominee. It all has to do with what Mitch actually said. That a republican senate would not vote on a democrats nominee in an election year.

 

[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?

 

[MeBelle]

Yup, she's in. No disagreement there.

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

No, honey.

Harry Reid started this riot.

You may thank him in your prayers or drop some flowers on his grave.

Nuclear option.

 

[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.

.

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.

Yep, pretty much everyone has reversed their stands from 2016, welcome to politics, BTW that includes the commies as well.

.

 

[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.

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.

Well you're mostly correct there.

Yes....I know.

I give Blumenthal to much credit.

He probably does not even know what the fuck he's voting for.

Just baseless bullshit.

 

[MeBelle]

Fuck Harry Ried.

No thanks

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

Yep, pretty much everyone has reversed their stands from 2016, welcome to politics, BTW that includes the commies as well.

.

The GOP let two of the Dyke Patrol pass with no confrontation.

Then you get Kavennaugh....what a disgusting bit of bullshit that hearing was.

Wonder if Ford's brother will be back to accuse ACB of harrassing him ?

 

[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.

Yep, pretty much everyone has reversed their stands from 2016, welcome to politics, BTW that includes the commies as well.

.

Oh good. We made progress.

 

[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.

.

 

[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.

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.

Yep, pretty much everyone has reversed their stands from 2016, welcome to politics, BTW that includes the commies as well.

.

Oh good. We made progress.

We will make progress when you stop LYING. Mitch never said no nominee would be voted on in an election year.