- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,505
- 143,615
- 2,615
Maine is traditionally Moderate
Collins is losing because of her affiliation with Trump
Collins is losing because of her affiliation with Trump
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you have a link to the Senate vote on Garland?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?
he wasn’t qualified. He was chosen by Obama lolDo you have a link to the Senate vote on Garland?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?
He
he wasn’t qualified. He was chosen by Obama lolDo you have a link to the Senate vote on Garland?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?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?
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!
You are changing what was saidThere'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.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
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
He
he wasn’t qualified. He was chosen by Obama lolDo you have a link to the Senate vote on Garland?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?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?
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.
He
he wasn’t qualified. He was chosen by Obama lolDo you have a link to the Senate vote on Garland?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?
Republicans previously certified he was qualified for Federal Court
3 justices confirmed after an incumbent lost the election.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.Fine. Trump can nominate on Nov. 4th, the Senate can confirm on Dec. 15th.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.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
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
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.
Doesn't matter. Mitch set the standard. If Trump loses, he don't get to pick. Lame ducks don't count.
Go ahead and deny Democrats wouldn't do the exact same thing and you'd be purring like a kitten
He
he wasn’t qualified. He was chosen by Obama lolDo you have a link to the Senate vote on Garland?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?
Republicans previously certified he was qualified for Federal Court
Democrats previously certified Kavanaugh was qualified for Federal Court.
So what's your point?
"Elections have consequences"-Barry Hussein Obama.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
You are changing what was saidThere'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.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
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
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?
What is the alternative to collins?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.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
she’s going to get smoked in Maine, I wouldn’t vote for that that fraud.
He should have had the right to at least put Garland before the Senate for confirmation.Of course, he does. There is no standard other than what is written in the Constitution.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.Fine. Trump can nominate on Nov. 4th, the Senate can confirm on Dec. 15th.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.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
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
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.
Doesn't matter. Mitch set the standard. If Trump loses, he don't get to pick. Lame ducks don't count.
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 conveniently bypassed the Constitution in 2016.Of course, he does. There is no standard other than what is written in the Constitution.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.Fine. Trump can nominate on Nov. 4th, the Senate can confirm on Dec. 15th.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.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
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
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.
Doesn't matter. Mitch set the standard. If Trump loses, he don't get to pick. Lame ducks don't count.
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.
Not Good enough, can’t kill babies going forwardHe
he wasn’t qualified. He was chosen by Obama lolDo you have a link to the Senate vote on Garland?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?
Republicans previously certified he was qualified for Federal Court
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