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

[rightwinger]

Maine is traditionally Moderate

Collins is losing because of her affiliation with Trump

 

[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?

Do you have a link to the Senate vote on Garland?

You have to show me the text in the Constitution you're referring to that Garland has a right to a Senate vote. Thanks in advance!

 

[Redcurtain]

He

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?

he wasn’t qualified. He was chosen by Obama lol

 

[kaz]

He

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?

he wasn’t qualified. He was chosen by Obama lol

True, but I claimed Garland was treated Constitutionally correctly and colfax nailed me and said he wasn't, there was no vote. I couldn't find the part in the Constitution that says he gets a vote, so colfax is looking that up for me.

How's that search going, colfax?

 

[sartre play]

Vote not for political party, vote for the person who does the best job for All citizens of that state.

 

[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?

You have to show me the text in the Constitution you're referring to that Garland has a right to a Senate vote. Thanks in advance!

I'll refer you to your own statement. You said the Senate rejected him. Please provide the vote that shows the Senate rejected him.

 

[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

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

You are changing what was said

Nobody ever mentioned party affiliation. They spoke of letting the people decide who would lead the country before trying to fill the seat.

Why are you lying?

 

[rightwinger]

He

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?

he wasn’t qualified. He was chosen by Obama lol

Republicans previously certified he was qualified for Federal Court

 

[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?

Do you have a link to the Senate vote on Garland?

You have to show me the text in the Constitution you're referring to that Garland has a right to a Senate vote. Thanks in advance!

I'll refer you to your own statement. You said the Senate rejected him. Please provide the vote that shows the Senate rejected him.

I never said there was a vote. I said they rejected him. A "vote" is just the artificial hurdle you put up and want me to clear. Since you're claiming the Constitutional right to a vote, prove that there is a Constitutional right to a vote. The onus is on you to prove your claim. So prove it. Go ...

 

[kaz]

He

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?

he wasn’t qualified. He was chosen by Obama lol

Republicans previously certified he was qualified for Federal Court

Democrats previously certified Kavanaugh was qualified for Federal Court.

So what's your point?

 

[Nostra]

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.

3 justices confirmed after an incumbent lost the election.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Democrats have had many chances to do what McConnell did
They never did


Your ....Democrats would have done it too....is total BS

 

[rightwinger]

He

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?

he wasn’t qualified. He was chosen by Obama lol

Republicans previously certified he was qualified for Federal Court

Democrats previously certified Kavanaugh was qualified for Federal Court.

So what's your point?

Kavanaugh is sitting on the Supreme Court
Garland never even got a hearing

 

[Nostra]

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

"Elections have consequences"-Barry Hussein Obama.

America elected Republicans to run the Senate to keep Barry from packing the court with America-hating leftists.

 

[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

You are changing what was said

Nobody ever mentioned party affiliation. They spoke of letting the people decide who would lead the country before trying to fill the seat.

Why are you lying?

So you're claiming now that Biden meant he wouldn't fill a SCOTUS seat from a Democrat President, and ask why ... I ... am lying ???

Obviously he didn't mean that. You've lost your ever loving mind ...




RW: No, kaz, Biden meant he would NOT confirm a Democrat SCOTUS pick. He did NOT mention party. He meant no SCOTUS picks in an election year! True story!







What a righteous dumb ass

 

[Mac-7]

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.

What is the alternative to collins?

 

[Nostra]

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.

He should have had the right to at least put Garland before the Senate for confirmation.

He did. Go get educated.

 

[Nostra]

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.

He conveniently bypassed the Constitution in 2016.

How? Be specific and quote the part of the constitution he bypassed.

GO!

 

[Redcurtain]

He

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?

he wasn’t qualified. He was chosen by Obama lol

Republicans previously certified he was qualified for Federal Court

Not Good enough, can’t kill babies going forward

 

[kaz]

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

Democrats have had many chances to do what McConnell did
They never did


Your ....Democrats would have done it too....is total BS

Really?

kaz: {pulls up chair} Name them. When did Democrats have a chance to "do what McConnell did?" Go ...