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

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
570
Reaction score
542
Points
483
Location
Arizona
What does an election year have to do with filling a SCOTUS seat?
Explain it to Merrick Garland

Game, Set, Match.....Thanks for playing
Sure, I'll explain it to Garland. The President nominated him, which is his Constitutional authority. The Senate rejected him, which is their Constitutional authority.

Turns out it was pretty simple, huh?
The Senate did not reject Garland

They rejected a sitting President being able to fill a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year
No, they rejected Garland so thoroughly that they didn't need a public spectacle to embarrass him. Sure they could have had hearings and spent weeks going over every aspect of his life and judicial history with a pre-determined outcome. But they didn't. Obama was free to withdraw the nomination and nominate someone else, but he chose not to do so.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

Darkwind

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
26,596
Reaction score
7,198
Points
290
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,"

Mitch McConnell Feb 13 2016, hours after Scalia died
And they did get a voice.
Yes they did......10 months later

Now, 45 days before the election, Republicans are denying a voice
They got their voices heard right away. Pity you don't see that.
 

Darkwind

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
26,596
Reaction score
7,198
Points
290
Collins wants the voters to decide who they want to fill the seat.

If Trump wins, she has no objection to him filling the seat
The voters already decided in 2016 who they wanted to fill seats. Trump is President therefore it’s his job when a vacancy arises, as it just did.
Voters decided in 2012 that they wanted Obama to fill vacancies by a much wider margin.

Meant nothing to Republicans
You would have an argument if the Democrats controlled the Senate then. They didn't, so you don't.
What does who controls the Senate have to do with not filling a vacancy in an election year?
Really? Wow. Who controls the Senate determines how favorable the Presidents nomination is received. Pretty much 1st-grade comprehension.
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
570
Reaction score
542
Points
483
Location
Arizona
You said a vote is in the Constitution
You have yet to show me where I said that.
I've repeatedly shown you that. Dementia much? Joe Biden? Is that you?
Nope. You never have. You showed me statements of me saying something entirely different.
Spin whatever crap you want, but

1) No one including Biden and McConnell ever said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee in an election year. Note unlike fundamentally dishonest liars like you and RW, I'm saying I know Biden didn't mean that

2) Obama was afforded his full constitutional rights. He made a nomination to the SCOTUS

There is no issue other than in your hysterical chick mind that you wwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa-nt it
1. That's a lie.
2. Not the issue.

The Senate never rejected Garland. You lied and are too cowardly to admit it.
He was so unacceptable to the party controlling the Senate, they didn't bother to waste time with hearings or a vote.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
16,578
Reaction score
4,500
Points
150
You said a vote is in the Constitution
You have yet to show me where I said that.
I've repeatedly shown you that. Dementia much? Joe Biden? Is that you?
Nope. You never have. You showed me statements of me saying something entirely different.
Spin whatever crap you want, but

1) No one including Biden and McConnell ever said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee in an election year. Note unlike fundamentally dishonest liars like you and RW, I'm saying I know Biden didn't mean that

2) Obama was afforded his full constitutional rights. He made a nomination to the SCOTUS

There is no issue other than in your hysterical chick mind that you wwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa-nt it
1. That's a lie.
2. Not the issue.

The Senate never rejected Garland. You lied and are too cowardly to admit it.
He was so unacceptable to the party controlling the Senate, they didn't bother to waste time with hearings or a vote.
Total nonsense.

Garland never had a vote because he was qualified and would have been confirmed.
 

Ropey

String tension is not infinite.
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
76,201
Reaction score
11,884
Points
2,070
You said a vote is in the Constitution
You have yet to show me where I said that.
I've repeatedly shown you that. Dementia much? Joe Biden? Is that you?
Nope. You never have. You showed me statements of me saying something entirely different.
Spin whatever crap you want, but

1) No one including Biden and McConnell ever said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee in an election year. Note unlike fundamentally dishonest liars like you and RW, I'm saying I know Biden didn't mean that

2) Obama was afforded his full constitutional rights. He made a nomination to the SCOTUS

There is no issue other than in your hysterical chick mind that you wwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa-nt it
1. That's a lie.
2. Not the issue.

The Senate never rejected Garland. You lied and are too cowardly to admit it.
He was so unacceptable to the party controlling the Senate, they didn't bother to waste time with hearings or a vote.
Total nonsense.

Garland never had a vote because he was qualified and would have been confirmed.
You're going to really be pissed off when Stickman replaces Breyer.

330px-Judge_Stickman.jpg
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
96,301
Reaction score
23,806
Points
2,220
Location
Tested Negative For COVID-19
What does an election year have to do with filling a SCOTUS seat?
Explain it to Merrick Garland

Game, Set, Match.....Thanks for playing
Sure, I'll explain it to Garland. The President nominated him, which is his Constitutional authority. The Senate rejected him, which is their Constitutional authority.

Turns out it was pretty simple, huh?
Do you have a link to the Senate vote on Garland?
You don't need a vote to reject him.
Obama was a treasonous/racist prick.
He got exactly what he deserved.
Nothing.
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
96,301
Reaction score
23,806
Points
2,220
Location
Tested Negative For COVID-19
You said a vote is in the Constitution
You have yet to show me where I said that.
I've repeatedly shown you that. Dementia much? Joe Biden? Is that you?
Nope. You never have. You showed me statements of me saying something entirely different.
Spin whatever crap you want, but

1) No one including Biden and McConnell ever said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee in an election year. Note unlike fundamentally dishonest liars like you and RW, I'm saying I know Biden didn't mean that

2) Obama was afforded his full constitutional rights. He made a nomination to the SCOTUS

There is no issue other than in your hysterical chick mind that you wwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa-nt it
1. That's a lie.
2. Not the issue.

The Senate never rejected Garland. You lied and are too cowardly to admit it.
He was so unacceptable to the party controlling the Senate, they didn't bother to waste time with hearings or a vote.
Total nonsense.

Garland never had a vote because he was qualified and would have been confirmed.
Garland was an activist judge.
Republicans held the Senate, so they didn't have to vote on him.
 
OP
Redcurtain

Redcurtain

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
3,515
Reaction score
3,173
Points
1,908
The party that verifiably, falsely slandered and labeled Kavanaugh a “gang rapist” in front of his family and the whole world no longer gets to lecture us on decorum. Now, we make it sting.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
16,794
Reaction score
12,120
Points
2,415

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
16,794
Reaction score
12,120
Points
2,415
That's wrong?
Yes, it's wrong.
What's wrong? You cut all context out of the quote
You. You're wrong. There never was a vote on Merrick Garland, therefore the Senate never rejected him.

This isn't complicated, you're just too dishonest to admit you lied.
What is a lie is that the only way the Senate can reject him is with a vote. You just made that up. Nowhere does the Constitution say he's entitled to a vote, liar.

So you're saying that all the times Pelosi, Reid, Schummer, Biden and the other Democrat leaders didn't schedule a vote when they were in the majority, whatever they didn't schedule wasn't rejected by the House or Senate?

Of course it was, lying dumb ass. The majority party controls votes
If you want to say the Senate rejected him, that requires a vote. Since they didn't vote on Garland, they didn't reject him.

To say otherwise is the height of stupidity, or just another Monday for Kaz.
If they didn't reject him why isn't he on the SC?
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,252
Reaction score
9,236
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Collins wants the voters to decide who they want to fill the seat.

If Trump wins, she has no objection to him filling the seat
the voters voted for this senate to approve the presidents picks for the supreme court it was done in 2016
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,252
Reaction score
9,236
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Where does she say she wants the next justice to be a Democrat?
By standing down, she may well end up granting them the chance down the road.

50/50 chance.

Watching MTP, and Bill Clinton, like others since Friday, brought up Lincoln.

Lincolns last Justice, Chase, was nominated, and appointed on December 6, 1964, a month after he was re-elected.

Trump can nominate, and the Senate can still get his pick approved, long before January 20th.
what about the voters who voted in 2016 and 2018 for the Senate don't they get a say? After all this is one of the reasons why president Trump won in 2016
 

Kondor3

Cafeteria Centrist
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
26,473
Reaction score
4,445
Points
290
Location
Illinois, USA
Collins wants republicans to vote for her but she wants the next SC pick to be democrat!?
So... you're already conceding both the White House and the Senate? :auiqs.jpg:
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
16,578
Reaction score
4,500
Points
150
What does an election year have to do with filling a SCOTUS seat?
Explain it to Merrick Garland

Game, Set, Match.....Thanks for playing
Sure, I'll explain it to Garland. The President nominated him, which is his Constitutional authority. The Senate rejected him, which is their Constitutional authority.

Turns out it was pretty simple, huh?
Do you have a link to the Senate vote on Garland?
You don't need a vote to reject him.
Obama was a treasonous/racist prick.
He got exactly what he deserved.
Nothing.
If you want to claim the Senate rejected him you do.

Otherwise the most you can say is that it was McConnell and Graham that rejected him.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
16,578
Reaction score
4,500
Points
150
You said a vote is in the Constitution
You have yet to show me where I said that.
I've repeatedly shown you that. Dementia much? Joe Biden? Is that you?
Nope. You never have. You showed me statements of me saying something entirely different.
Spin whatever crap you want, but

1) No one including Biden and McConnell ever said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee in an election year. Note unlike fundamentally dishonest liars like you and RW, I'm saying I know Biden didn't mean that

2) Obama was afforded his full constitutional rights. He made a nomination to the SCOTUS

There is no issue other than in your hysterical chick mind that you wwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa-nt it
1. That's a lie.
2. Not the issue.

The Senate never rejected Garland. You lied and are too cowardly to admit it.
He was so unacceptable to the party controlling the Senate, they didn't bother to waste time with hearings or a vote.
Total nonsense.

Garland never had a vote because he was qualified and would have been confirmed.
Garland was an activist judge.
Republicans held the Senate, so they didn't have to vote on him.
Great. So now the precedent is that judges are only confirmed when the Senate is controlled by the president’s party.

Can you idiots stop turning our country into a shithole?
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,252
Reaction score
9,236
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
You said a vote is in the Constitution
You have yet to show me where I said that.
I've repeatedly shown you that. Dementia much? Joe Biden? Is that you?
Nope. You never have. You showed me statements of me saying something entirely different.
Spin whatever crap you want, but

1) No one including Biden and McConnell ever said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee in an election year. Note unlike fundamentally dishonest liars like you and RW, I'm saying I know Biden didn't mean that

2) Obama was afforded his full constitutional rights. He made a nomination to the SCOTUS

There is no issue other than in your hysterical chick mind that you wwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa-nt it
1. That's a lie.
2. Not the issue.

The Senate never rejected Garland. You lied and are too cowardly to admit it.
He was so unacceptable to the party controlling the Senate, they didn't bother to waste time with hearings or a vote.
Total nonsense.

Garland never had a vote because he was qualified and would have been confirmed.
Garland was an activist judge.
Republicans held the Senate, so they didn't have to vote on him.
Great. So now the precedent is that judges are only confirmed when the Senate is controlled by the president’s party.

Can you idiots stop turning our country into a shithole?
Democrats would do the same shit if they had the chance
 

Kondor3

Cafeteria Centrist
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
26,473
Reaction score
4,445
Points
290
Location
Illinois, USA
Actually, I am totally in favor of Rump appointing a new Justice, and getting her confirmed ASAP...

The Republic will need a Conservative check-and-balance once the Idiot Libs get their hands on the White House and the Senate...
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top