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

[rightwinger]

Imagine it is the Democrats who have the Presidency and a SCOTUS vacancy.

There you go, question answered.

I don’t have to imagine anything, I saw it with Obama and Merrick Garland

 

[kaz]

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?

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[kaz]

Imagine it is the Democrats who have the Presidency and a SCOTUS vacancy.

There you go, question answered.

I don’t have to imagine anything, I saw it with Obama and Merrick Garland

Great! Then now you understand Senate confirmation!

This is just a civics class for you, isn't it? Finally as an old fart you're getting what government schools failed to provide you all those years ago in high school

 

[kaz]

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

That doesn't even make sense. You're just babbling now. First of all, the President has no Constitutional authority to "fill" a SCOTUS vacancy, only to nominate an associate.

And there is no nominee called, " fill a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year." Only people can be nominated to the SCOTUS, big guy. Think about it. Maybe it's time to pull the plug, you're just delirious now

 

[rightwinger]

That doesn't even make sense. You're just babbling now. First of all, the President has no Constitutional authority to "fill" a SCOTUS vacancy, only to nominate an associate.

Didnt make sense in 2016 either when Republicans used it as an excuse to not fill a vacancy for 10 months.

Makes even less sense when Republicans so quickly abandon their values

 

[kaz]

That doesn't even make sense. You're just babbling now. First of all, the President has no Constitutional authority to "fill" a SCOTUS vacancy, only to nominate an associate.

Didnt make sense in 2016 either when Republicans used it as an excuse to not fill a vacancy for 10 months.

Makes even less sense when Republicans so quickly abandon their values

RW said: { nothing }

When you develop a position that isn't 100% hypocritical, let me know. Thanks

 

[mudwhistle]

As it is....the Democrats have no right to interfere with the normal operation of the government just because they find it to be political in nature.

They have a right to interfere based on the standard Republicans set on replacing judges in an election year.

Because you believe that Biden meant he would NOT have confirmed a Democrat nominee for SCOTUS in 1992. You actually believe that.

Sure you do, sure. Obviously you don't, which is why you keep hiding from the question. And if you said you believe that you'd look even dumber than hiding from the question.

Being a coward and a liar is something I never have to hide from like you do since you are a coward and a liar and I'm not

Fair enough

Biden said we shouldn’t fill a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year
McConnell refused to fill a SCOTUS vacancy for over a year in an election year.

Why are we filling one weeks before an election?

Because they can.

Hey RW. Here's what you do.

Imagine it is the Democrats who have the Presidency, the Senate and a SCOTUS vacancy.

There you go, question answered.

In these cases you need to ask yourself if you're being hypocritical. The answer is always yes, you are. Then you can use that formula to answer your own questions.

I didn't just give you a fish, I just taught you to fish. Cool, huh?

Democrats aren't afraid of being hypocrites. They do it every day.

 

[mudwhistle]

That doesn't even make sense. You're just babbling now. First of all, the President has no Constitutional authority to "fill" a SCOTUS vacancy, only to nominate an associate.

Didnt make sense in 2016 either when Republicans used it as an excuse to not fill a vacancy for 10 months.

Makes even less sense when Republicans so quickly abandon their values

Obama decided to push his socialism on us, so he lost the Senate.
He only had himself to blame.

 

[rightwinger]

That doesn't even make sense. You're just babbling now. First of all, the President has no Constitutional authority to "fill" a SCOTUS vacancy, only to nominate an associate.

Didnt make sense in 2016 either when Republicans used it as an excuse to not fill a vacancy for 10 months.

Makes even less sense when Republicans so quickly abandon their values

RW said: { nothing }

When you develop a position that isn't 100% hypocritical, let me know. Thanks

Hypocritical

Funny you would use that word in defending Republican actions

 

[kaz]

That doesn't even make sense. You're just babbling now. First of all, the President has no Constitutional authority to "fill" a SCOTUS vacancy, only to nominate an associate.

Didnt make sense in 2016 either when Republicans used it as an excuse to not fill a vacancy for 10 months.

Makes even less sense when Republicans so quickly abandon their values

RW said: { nothing }

When you develop a position that isn't 100% hypocritical, let me know. Thanks

Hypocritical

Funny you would use that word in defending Republican actions

RW says: {nothing}

You're the one whining about Republicans doing exactly what you would do. You're being hypocritical. Your BS opinion is irrelevant. The hypocrisy is on you.

Go ahead and deny Democrats wouldn't do the exact same thing and you'd be purring like a kitten

 

[mudwhistle]

That doesn't even make sense. You're just babbling now. First of all, the President has no Constitutional authority to "fill" a SCOTUS vacancy, only to nominate an associate.

Didnt make sense in 2016 either when Republicans used it as an excuse to not fill a vacancy for 10 months.

Makes even less sense when Republicans so quickly abandon their values

RW said: { nothing }

When you develop a position that isn't 100% hypocritical, let me know. Thanks

Hypocritical

Funny you would use that word in defending Republican actions

There's nothing hypocritical about it. If Democrats held the Senate they would have pushed one of their liberal activist judges through come Hell or high-water. Both Biden and Obama said they would have. Now that the shoe's on the other foot they're throwing a temper-tantrum.

 

[pyetro]

Susan Collins does not want Trump to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
If you live in Maine or have friends in Maine don't vote for Susan Collins or tell your friends not to vote for her in the next senatorial election, for she has betrayed conservative values.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

 

[JakeStarkey]

If she loses the election, she will still support Trump's pick.

 

[kaz]

That doesn't even make sense. You're just babbling now. First of all, the President has no Constitutional authority to "fill" a SCOTUS vacancy, only to nominate an associate.

Didnt make sense in 2016 either when Republicans used it as an excuse to not fill a vacancy for 10 months.

Makes even less sense when Republicans so quickly abandon their values

RW said: { nothing }

When you develop a position that isn't 100% hypocritical, let me know. Thanks

Hypocritical

Funny you would use that word in defending Republican actions

I always like this butt stupid thing that you attack Republicans for hypocrisy, but then you say it's perfectly fine that you're hypocritical because Republicans are.

Why isn't it the other way around? Why isn't their hypocrisy OK because of your hypocrisy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

RW just so punks kaz out every single time

Collins will support Trump's pick whether she wins or not

 

[kaz]

That doesn't even make sense. You're just babbling now. First of all, the President has no Constitutional authority to "fill" a SCOTUS vacancy, only to nominate an associate.

Didnt make sense in 2016 either when Republicans used it as an excuse to not fill a vacancy for 10 months.

Makes even less sense when Republicans so quickly abandon their values

RW said: { nothing }

When you develop a position that isn't 100% hypocritical, let me know. Thanks

Hypocritical

Funny you would use that word in defending Republican actions

There's nothing hypocritical about it. If Democrats held the Senate they would have pushed one of their liberal activist judges through come Hell or high-water. Both Biden and Obama said they would have. Now that the shoe's on the other foot they're throwing a temper-tantrum.

Yep.

It's just a flat out lie. No one, not Biden or McConnell ever said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee. It never happened. As usual, RW is just a liar

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

If there is ever a job where you push to have your cake and eat it too, it’s politician. Susan Collins is playing with Fire. Her situation reminds me of former Maryland Rep. Connie Morella. She was Republican in a Democrat stronghold and eventually the liberals got tired of toying with her even though she voted with them many times. Collins is going to suffer the same fate.

 

[colfax_m]

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?