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

[JackOfNoTrades]

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.

 

[Redcurtain]

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.

But I thought Trump was going to win, so what difference does it make?

That’s a lock,, but shes running to lose a senate seat

 

[Redcurtain]

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.

She'll be smoked in Maine regardless of the position she takes. Voters there are sick and tired of her indecisiveness and reticence to whatever Trump wants.

RCP Average	7/2 - 9/16	--	--	47.2	41.0	Gideon +6.2
NY Times/Siena*	9/11 - 9/16	663 LV	5.1	49	44	Gideon +5
Quinnipiac	9/10 - 9/14	1183 LV	2.9	54	42	Gideon +12
Bangor Daily News	7/28 - 8/9	500 RV	--	43	38	Gideon +5
Colby College	7/18 - 6/24	888 LV	3.9	44	39	Gideon +5
PPP (D)	7/2 - 7/3	1022 RV	3.1	46	42	Gideon +4

I don’t think she will lose ,, what’s the option a democrat? Ha

 

[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.

Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate is required to have a confirmation vote?

Hint, it doesn't.

So where does this "right" you made up come from? What it the source of that "right?"

How the senate exercises it's power of advice and consent is up to the senate. Not you

 

[Redcurtain]

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.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

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

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

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.

 

[Darkwind]

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

So, by not bringing the nominee to the floor, that constitutes a no vote How many Federal Bench nominees have failed to be voted on, yet they constitute a no vote by the Senate By both parties.

A President gets to nominate. The Senate is under no obligation to bring that nominee to the floor for an up or down vote They can nix the nominee by simply letting them languish.

So, once again. The Senate said NO to Barack Obama's nominee.

The issue today is does the Senate have the authority to confirm a nominee by the current President?

That is clearly a yes. So, seat the nominee or don't, but YOU and I don't get a say in the matter. Neither does Nancy Pelosi.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

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.

Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate is required to have a confirmation vote?

Hint, it doesn't.

So where does this "right" you made up come from? What it the source of that "right?"

How the senate exercises it's power of advice and consent is up to the senate. Not you

Nothing to do with "right", "wrong", or "left". Mitch set the standard. He conveniently bypassed the Constitution in 2016.
You don't get to reset the narrative just because your guy is in the Oval Office. Proceed here at your own peril. It will come
back to bite Republicans in the ass.

 

[Redcurtain]

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.

I don’t think so, some states are allowing 3 days after the election to have millions of votes counted, and validated in a first ever unsolicited ballot count. This will be in court for along time. Trump will def win nov fourth.. it’s your mail in that will keep him in office

 

[DrLove]

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.

She'll be smoked in Maine regardless of the position she takes. Voters there are sick and tired of her indecisiveness and reticence to whatever Trump wants.

RCP Average	7/2 - 9/16	--	--	47.2	41.0	Gideon +6.2
NY Times/Siena*	9/11 - 9/16	663 LV	5.1	49	44	Gideon +5
Quinnipiac	9/10 - 9/14	1183 LV	2.9	54	42	Gideon +12
Bangor Daily News	7/28 - 8/9	500 RV	--	43	38	Gideon +5
Colby College	7/18 - 6/24	888 LV	3.9	44	39	Gideon +5
PPP (D)	7/2 - 7/3	1022 RV	3.1	46	42	Gideon +4

I don’t think she will lose ,, what’s the option a democrat? Ha

What would you care to wager - Month off the board maybe, or are you just another Trump Humper who won't back up his hunches with something of value?

 

[Redcurtain]

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.

She'll be smoked in Maine regardless of the position she takes. Voters there are sick and tired of her indecisiveness and reticence to whatever Trump wants.

RCP Average	7/2 - 9/16	--	--	47.2	41.0	Gideon +6.2
NY Times/Siena*	9/11 - 9/16	663 LV	5.1	49	44	Gideon +5
Quinnipiac	9/10 - 9/14	1183 LV	2.9	54	42	Gideon +12
Bangor Daily News	7/28 - 8/9	500 RV	--	43	38	Gideon +5
Colby College	7/18 - 6/24	888 LV	3.9	44	39	Gideon +5
PPP (D)	7/2 - 7/3	1022 RV	3.1	46	42	Gideon +4

I don’t think she will lose ,, what’s the option a democrat? Ha

What would you care to wager - Month off the board maybe, or are you just another Trump Humper who won't back up his hunches with something of value?

Sure

 

[Ropey]

Their votes don’t matter. All they’re doing is sabotaging their own political careers.

Observe.

 

[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.

Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate is required to have a confirmation vote?

Hint, it doesn't.

So where does this "right" you made up come from? What it the source of that "right?"

How the senate exercises it's power of advice and consent is up to the senate. Not you

Nothing to do with "right", "wrong", or "left". Mitch set the standard. He conveniently bypassed the Constitution in 2016.
You don't get to reset the narrative just because your guy is in the Oval Office. Proceed here at your own peril. It will come
back to bite Republicans in the ass.

You keep repeating that empty lie.

Obama DID make a nomination. You are lying that he was prevented from doing that.

You are the one trying to remove Constitutional authority from the Senate and claiming they don't have advice and consent. They do.

Name what in the Constitution was not followed. Obviously you can't, you're just lying

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

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.

 

[Redcurtain]

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.

Again that’s soliciting ballots are you suggesting we are putting a gun to the head of our military to vote?

 

[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?

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

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.

Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate is required to have a confirmation vote?

Hint, it doesn't.

So where does this "right" you made up come from? What it the source of that "right?"

How the senate exercises it's power of advice and consent is up to the senate. Not you

Nothing to do with "right", "wrong", or "left". Mitch set the standard. He conveniently bypassed the Constitution in 2016.
You don't get to reset the narrative just because your guy is in the Oval Office. Proceed here at your own peril. It will come
back to bite Republicans in the ass.

You keep repeating that empty lie.

Obama DID make a nomination. You are lying that he was prevented from doing that.

You are the one trying to remove Constitutional authority from the Senate and claiming they don't have advice and consent. They do.

Name what in the Constitution was not followed. Obviously you can't, you're just lying

Obama's nominee did not get a hearing or a vote. Stop with the rationalizing. Mitch decided to invoke his own rules. You don't get to hide in the details now just because your guy is in the Oval Office.

 

[Ropey]

It's pretty clear just who is going to lose this argument. The duplicitous dems have lost it already.