Collins wants republicans to vote for her but she wants the next SC pick to be democrat!?

[BlueGin]

Susan Collins announces her opposition to voting on a Supreme Court nominee before election

The Republican senator announced that she does "not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election"

www.cbsnews.com

I’m truly dumbfounded that a woman who wants to win republican votes won’t vote to take control of the the most important seat to protect the Constitution.
she’s going to get smoked in Maine, I wouldn’t vote for that that fraud.

Collins will be forced to vote. If she votes against the nominee it won't get her any more votes. She is either going to win on not. So why would she not support a Conservative court justice even if she loses?

She's just trying to hold off the rabid media until the last moment.

Does she think democrats will vote for her if she doesn’t vote? Is she this stupid?

They just are afraid of the media and the mob.

 

[colfax_m]

And it's a lie that no one said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee in an election year? Who said that?

Video of Lindsey Graham arguing against nominating a Supreme Court justice in an election year goes viral

A 2016 video of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) saying the Supreme Court should never be filled in an election year went viral this weekend following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.At th…

thehill.com

You're incredibly stupid, you know that?

I like how you called me stupid while providing a video that doesn't say what you claimed it did. Nowhere did he say he meant a nominee wouldn't be filled from his own party.

Also, I referred to the actual Majority leaders Biden and McConnell. That you think I meant any Senator is, well stupid to the point of retard. You just hear what you want to hear, little sniveling, whining, crying baby. You just want your way.

If it were Democrats, you'd be totally behind it and purring like a kitten

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination," he said four years ago when arguing against then-President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.

How dishonest can you be?

Lindsay wasn't McConnell or Biden and he wasn't majority leader.

All you have is Lindsay speaking for himself. How big a liar are you?

So when you said "no one", you didn't actually mean "no one".

You are too dishonest to try and converse.

 

[kaz]

That you think I meant any Senator is, well stupid to the point of retard.

You said "no one".

You're incredibly stupid.

Yeah, but I gave you the examples of McConnell and Biden.

Obviously I meant no one who matters. You really are just a flat out dishonest hack.

Starting with your total double standard regarding if Democrats were doing this you'd be 100% behind it

 

[colfax_m]

Yeah, but I gave you the examples of McConnell and Biden.

Biden was never a Senate Majority Leader.

You're just too stupid.

Lindsey Graham is chair of the judiciary committee.

You're incredibly stupid.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, but I gave you the examples of McConnell and Biden.

Biden was never a Senate Majority Leader.

You're just too stupid.

Lindsey Graham is chair of the judiciary committee.

You're incredibly stupid.

When you come up with one standard you'd apply to both parties, let me know.

I have one standard. I don't expect either party would confirm the other party's nominee in an election year. I would expect either of them to confirm their own party's nominee. Period.

Your turn. One standard

 

[colfax_m]

Yeah, but I gave you the examples of McConnell and Biden.

Biden was never a Senate Majority Leader.

You're just too stupid.

Lindsey Graham is chair of the judiciary committee.

You're incredibly stupid.

When you come up with one standard you'd apply to both parties, let me know.

I have one standard. I don't expect either party would confirm the other party's nominee in an election year. I would expect either of them to confirm their own party's nominee. Period.

Your turn. One standard

No one actually cares what you think.

 

[AntonToo]

Susan Collins announces her opposition to voting on a Supreme Court nominee before election

The Republican senator announced that she does "not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election"

www.cbsnews.com

I’m truly dumbfounded that a woman who wants to win republican votes won’t vote to take control of the the most important seat to protect the Constitution.
she’s going to get smoked in Maine, I wouldn’t vote for that that fraud.

Well thats one way to conceed your fear that Trump will lose.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, but I gave you the examples of McConnell and Biden.

Biden was never a Senate Majority Leader.

You're just too stupid.

Lindsey Graham is chair of the judiciary committee.

You're incredibly stupid.

When you come up with one standard you'd apply to both parties, let me know.

I have one standard. I don't expect either party would confirm the other party's nominee in an election year. I would expect either of them to confirm their own party's nominee. Period.

Your turn. One standard

No one actually cares what you think.

Whoa, now you're to the playground. You have a tear in your eye, don't you? LOL.

No one cares, kaz! So there! No one cares! LOL.

I'm tired of bickering with you. You have nothing.

Note you couldn't name a standard you would hold both parties to, LOL

 

[JustAGuy1]

Yeah, but I gave you the examples of McConnell and Biden.

Biden was never a Senate Majority Leader.

You're just too stupid.

Lindsey Graham is chair of the judiciary committee.

You're incredibly stupid.

When you come up with one standard you'd apply to both parties, let me know.

I have one standard. I don't expect either party would confirm the other party's nominee in an election year. I would expect either of them to confirm their own party's nominee. Period.

Your turn. One standard

No one actually cares what you think.

Well in all fairness nobody about what you think either. It's nature of he beast nobody cares what any of us say.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, but I gave you the examples of McConnell and Biden.

Biden was never a Senate Majority Leader.

You're just too stupid.

Lindsey Graham is chair of the judiciary committee.

You're incredibly stupid.

When you come up with one standard you'd apply to both parties, let me know.

I have one standard. I don't expect either party would confirm the other party's nominee in an election year. I would expect either of them to confirm their own party's nominee. Period.

Your turn. One standard

No one actually cares what you think.

Well in all fairness nobody about what you think either. It's nature of he beast nobody cares what any of us say.

It's pretty funny. That was such a grade school lash out by colfax. No one cares what you think! I mean OMG

 

[kaz]

Susan Collins announces her opposition to voting on a Supreme Court nominee before election

The Republican senator announced that she does "not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election"

www.cbsnews.com

I’m truly dumbfounded that a woman who wants to win republican votes won’t vote to take control of the the most important seat to protect the Constitution.
she’s going to get smoked in Maine, I wouldn’t vote for that that fraud.

No, she said nothing of the sort. She said she favors waiting until after the election to appoint a SC justice.

Susan Collins says she opposes voting on SCOTUS nominee before election

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, announced on Saturday that she thinks Republicans should, out of "fairness to the American people," wait until after the 2020 elections to vote on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement.

www.foxnews.com

Fine. Trump can nominate on Nov. 4th, the Senate can confirm on Dec. 15th.

If Trump wins the election, I would have no issue with that. I may not like it and Democrats will still put up a fight, but it will be within his right to do so.

Has nothing to do with who wins the election. The President IS President for the full term. The people voted for the FULL TERM of Donald Trump.

Doesn't matter. Mitch set the standard. If Trump loses, he don't get to pick. Lame ducks don't count.

Of course, he does. There is no standard other than what is written in the Constitution.

Advice and/or Consent. That is the standard.

I agree. But Mitch crapped all over that precedent. So, if the President is President for the full term, by my recollection, Barack Obama was President until noon on January 20th, 2017.
He should have had the right to at least put Garland before the Senate for confirmation. Again, you don't get to apply a different standard now.

Correct. He was. The Senate said No to his nominee. Well within their authority.

Uh...Sorry, I don't remember any hearings on Merrick Garland. And no vote as well. Now, if he got a hearing and the Senate voted him down, you'd have something to stand on here. But..you don't.

Here's what happened when Senate Republicans refused to vote on Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than two months from the presidential election has forced a reexamination of Republicans' 11-month blockade of Merrick Garland in 2016.

www.cnn.com

Here are two words you won't find in the Constitution for SCOTUS nominations.

"hearing" and "vote." Interesting, huh?

 

[kaz]

Yes, and voters already did that almost 4 years ago when we chose Trump.

An overwhelming majority of voters did the same thing when they elected Obama

Republicans defied the will of the voters to have a President fill a SCOTUS vacancy

Well too bad bud. This is the consequences of losing elections.
Obama lost so many seats because of his policies that he didn't get his way anymore.
Tough shit.
The People spoke.

I would strongly recommend you remember this statement not only on November 4th, but also in 2022 as well.

Your shooting your self in the foot with unsolicited mail in ballots because this election could be contested until March.

Yeah, except it won't. Maybe a day or two at the worst case scenario, but most states have been dealing with mail in balloting for years.
They're equipped to handle it...well, at least they were before the current administration started dorking around with the Post Office.

They have been dealing with "Requested" ballots. A big difference.

Same difference. The military has been using mail in voting for decades...all without incident.
This is just playing up the narrative in case your side gets shellacked on November 3rd.

More of your lies. Trump isn't against mailing in votes, he never was. Democrats are incapable of telling the truth, you just are.

What is Trump actually against? You don't know, do you?

Oh, bullshit. He's been trying to sow doubt about mail in voting for the last six months. You can't even be honest about that.
Do you understand why most of us who want to see a return to sane and rational think you people are idiots?

Trump slams mail-in voting, says it 'doesn't work out well for Republicans'

President Trump said Republicans lose out in mail-in voting, which several states are already using to cut the risk of transmitting the coronavirus.

www.cnbc.com

You're a liar. It's tired. If you don't know what Trump's actual position is, look it up before you keep vomiting lie after lie

 

[Redcurtain]

Democrats want to stack the court, and hold impeachment hears to stop a lawful process.. how republicans in battle ground states aren’t capitalized on this is beyond me

 

[colfax_m]

Yeah, but I gave you the examples of McConnell and Biden.

Biden was never a Senate Majority Leader.

You're just too stupid.

Lindsey Graham is chair of the judiciary committee.

You're incredibly stupid.

When you come up with one standard you'd apply to both parties, let me know.

I have one standard. I don't expect either party would confirm the other party's nominee in an election year. I would expect either of them to confirm their own party's nominee. Period.

Your turn. One standard

No one actually cares what you think.

Well in all fairness nobody about what you think either. It's nature of he beast nobody cares what any of us say.

Meh, oh well. As you can see above, the poster lost the argument so changed the topic.

He's dishonest.

 

[colfax_m]

Yeah, but I gave you the examples of McConnell and Biden.

Biden was never a Senate Majority Leader.

You're just too stupid.

Lindsey Graham is chair of the judiciary committee.

You're incredibly stupid.

When you come up with one standard you'd apply to both parties, let me know.

I have one standard. I don't expect either party would confirm the other party's nominee in an election year. I would expect either of them to confirm their own party's nominee. Period.

Your turn. One standard

No one actually cares what you think.

Whoa, now you're to the playground. You have a tear in your eye, don't you? LOL.

No one cares, kaz! So there! No one cares! LOL.

I'm tired of bickering with you. You have nothing.

Note you couldn't name a standard you would hold both parties to, LOL

You lost the argument so you changed the subject.

You're a complete idiot.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, but I gave you the examples of McConnell and Biden.

Biden was never a Senate Majority Leader.

You're just too stupid.

Lindsey Graham is chair of the judiciary committee.

You're incredibly stupid.

When you come up with one standard you'd apply to both parties, let me know.

I have one standard. I don't expect either party would confirm the other party's nominee in an election year. I would expect either of them to confirm their own party's nominee. Period.

Your turn. One standard

No one actually cares what you think.

Whoa, now you're to the playground. You have a tear in your eye, don't you? LOL.

No one cares, kaz! So there! No one cares! LOL.

I'm tired of bickering with you. You have nothing.

Note you couldn't name a standard you would hold both parties to, LOL

You lost the argument so you changed the subject.

You're a complete idiot.

Classic, I asked you for a single, standard you'd apply to both parties. I'm tired of your double talk.

You called a single standard for both parties changing the subject and called me a complete idiot.

I'm done with you. See you in the funny papers

 

[colfax_m]

Yeah, but I gave you the examples of McConnell and Biden.

Biden was never a Senate Majority Leader.

You're just too stupid.

Lindsey Graham is chair of the judiciary committee.

You're incredibly stupid.

When you come up with one standard you'd apply to both parties, let me know.

I have one standard. I don't expect either party would confirm the other party's nominee in an election year. I would expect either of them to confirm their own party's nominee. Period.

Your turn. One standard

No one actually cares what you think.

Whoa, now you're to the playground. You have a tear in your eye, don't you? LOL.

No one cares, kaz! So there! No one cares! LOL.

I'm tired of bickering with you. You have nothing.

Note you couldn't name a standard you would hold both parties to, LOL

You lost the argument so you changed the subject.

You're a complete idiot.

Classic, I asked you for a single, standard you'd apply to both parties. I'm tired of your double talk.

You called a single standard for both parties changing the subject and called me a complete idiot.

I'm done with you. See you in the funny papers

You can ask me anything you want, but you’ve proven you don’t deserve an answer.

 

[JimBowie1958]

REPUBLICANS GROW A SPINE! ! ! ! !

 

[AZrailwhale]

"President Trump has the constitutional authority to make a nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and I would have no objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee's beginning the process of reviewing his nominee's credentials."

" However, Collins did not explicitly say that she would not vote to confirm President Trump's nominee to the court if a vote was held before the election. As Republicans hold a narrow majority of 53 seats, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could also afford to lose three votes and still confirm Mr. Trump's choice with Vice President Mike Pence breaking the tie. "


Let's not jump the shark here. She doesn't want the Senate to vote on a replacement SCOTUS justice until after election day, which I don't think there was enough time to get the nomination through the Judiciary Committee anyway. Don't forget, theses guys adjourn somewhere around 2 October, and nothing moves through the Senate that fast. Nothing said about Trump nominating somebody next week.

And she didn't say she would vote "NO", she only said she didn't want to hold the vote before Nov 3. If she says that then her base is gonna desert her and that seat will flip to the Dems. It's a close race and that might happen anyway, so politically I think she's saying exactly what she needs to say. And IMHO she's a woman of honor, so I think this is pretty much what she thinks is the right thing to say and do.

She wants to delay the vote so that the backlash against her for voting not to confirm won't hurt her faint chance of reelection. There's plenty of time, Barret was investigated just three years ago, a update would take FBI a few hours to a day to complete, the Judiciary committee could allow one day for republican members to ask questions and one day for democrats to ask questions and vote to confirm within a week of her nomination. Nowhere in the law or the Constitution does it say that the majority party has to give the minority party time for character assassination or a spectacle to energize it's base. Give each committee member thirty minutes to ask RELEVANT questions, then vote to move her to the entire Senate for confirmation.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Seems like more and more rino vermin are coming out.

That's what this is about.

Weed pulling time.

"Equal justice under the law" would be justices making decisions based soley upon the language of the Constitution, NOT their personal political pre

Susan Collins announces her opposition to voting on a Supreme Court nominee before election

The Republican senator announced that she does "not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election"

www.cbsnews.com

I’m truly dumbfounded that a woman who wants to win republican votes won’t vote to take control of the the most important seat to protect the Constitution.
she’s going to get smoked in Maine, I wouldn’t vote for that that fraud.

No, she said nothing of the sort. She said she favors waiting until after the election to appoint a SC justice.

Susan Collins says she opposes voting on SCOTUS nominee before election

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, announced on Saturday that she thinks Republicans should, out of "fairness to the American people," wait until after the 2020 elections to vote on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement.

www.foxnews.com

Fine. Trump can nominate on Nov. 4th, the Senate can confirm on Dec. 15th.

If Trump wins the election, I would have no issue with that. I may not like it and Democrats will still put up a fight, but it will be within his right to do so.

Has nothing to do with who wins the election. The President IS President for the full term. The people voted for the FULL TERM of Donald Trump.

Doesn't matter. Mitch set the standard. If Trump loses, he don't get to pick. Lame ducks don't count.

Of course, he does. There is no standard other than what is written in the Constitution.

Advice and/or Consent. That is the standard.

I agree. But Mitch crapped all over that precedent. So, if the President is President for the full term, by my recollection, Barack Obama was President until noon on January 20th, 2017.
He should have had the right to at least put Garland before the Senate for confirmation. Again, you don't get to apply a different standard now.

Correct. He was. The Senate said No to his nominee. Well within their authority.

Obama DID put Garland forward for confirmation. The party controlling the Senate refused to confirm him. Nowhere in the law or the Constitution is a appointee guaranteed, or even granted hearings before the Senate. If the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee disagreed with the decision not to have confirmation hearings they could have said so. Basically it was payback for all the times Obama rammed things down the Republican's throats by using majority power or Executive Orders. Obama was free to nominate other candidate that would have been closer to Constitutionalists, but he chose not to. He was like a baseball pitcher who threw a ball to the last batter in the last inning of the game, then walked off the field forfeiting the game.