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

[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.

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 ...

The only way to reject a nominee is by voting on them. If they didn't vote on him, then you lied.

 

[Nostra]

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

"Elections have consequences"-Barry Hussein Obama

 

[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?

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

My God you're stupid.

You just argued that Republicans OK'd Garland for the Federal Court, then wouldn't confirm him for SCOTUS. Democrats OK's Kavanaugh for SCOTUS then all voted against him after giving him a lynching.

You're a stupid that just can't be fixed. Let the family know, seriously, it's time to pull the plug

 

[colfax_m]

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 ...

Democratic controlled Senates have confirmed a dozen SCOTUS justices nominated by Republican presidents since World War 2.

 

[Nostra]

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 ...

Democratic controlled Senates have confirmed a dozen SCOTUS justices nominated by Republican presidents since World War 2.

So?

 

[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 ...

The only way to reject a nominee is by voting on them. If they didn't vote on him, then you lied.

Right, so I asked you to show me where it says that in the Constitution. What is your problem? You keep saying he was Constitutionally entitled to a vote. So, where does it say that? This isn't hard, stop being a dickless wonder and just prove what your claim.

I can't find that part, you have to show it to me. Thanks!

 

[colfax_m]

You keep saying he was Constitutionally entitled to a vote.

First show me where I ever said that.

 

[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 ...

Democratic controlled Senates have confirmed a dozen SCOTUS justices nominated by Republican presidents since World War 2.

Well, welcome the fuck to America! Where are you from, anyway? I didn't realize you were not from here.

Just FYI, this all started when Biden said in 1992 that the Democrats wouldn't confirm a Republican pick in an election year. Now Democrats vote against every Republican pick to any office. Judicial or even for their own organization.

Going back to history is pretty irrelevant. But I hope you enjoy your stay. What hotel are you saying at? I've been a Hilton Diamond for most of the last 25 years, I like it there

 

[kaz]

You keep saying he was Constitutionally entitled to a vote.

First show me where I ever said that.

It was your claim that Garland was entitled to one because Obama nominated him. Glad you backed off it, you were full of shit, the Constitution doesn't say that.

So there is no problem, Republicans can proceed with confirmation

 

[colfax_m]

Going back to history is pretty irrelevant.

You asked.

 

[colfax_m]

It was your claim that Garland was entitled to one because Obama nominated him. Glad you backed off it, you were full of shit, the Constitution doesn't say that.

So there is no problem, Republicans can proceed with confirmation

Still waiting for you to show me where I claimed that.

Go ahead. Show me.

 

[kaz]

You keep saying he was Constitutionally entitled to a vote.

First show me where I ever said that.

Here you go, liar

The only way to reject a nominee is by voting on them. If they didn't vote on him, then you lied.

Where does the Constitution say that to reject a nominee can be only done by voting?

The Constitution leaves it up to the Senate, it says no such thing. Senate means Senate rules. The majority party is in control of the vote.

You're just making up your shit as you go then lying about what you said.

Fact check: colfax claims the Constitution requires a vote on a SCOTUS pick.

Result? Liar, liar, pants on fire

 

[kaz]

Going back to history is pretty irrelevant.

You asked.

I explained what I was referring to and you just cut it out.

I thought you meant that Democrats had not put forward nominees in an election year even with a Democrat President, which of course they never did.

Going back to history when both parties confirmed each other's choices is pretty meaningless. I don't think it was even relevant, were ANY of those Republicans confirmed in an election year?

 

[kaz]

It was your claim that Garland was entitled to one because Obama nominated him. Glad you backed off it, you were full of shit, the Constitution doesn't say that.

So there is no problem, Republicans can proceed with confirmation

Still waiting for you to show me where I claimed that.

Go ahead. Show me.

I still showed you that. Seriously, I have to find YOUR posts telling YOU what YOU said?

Most Democrat stupid shit

The only way to reject a nominee is by voting on them. If they didn't vote on him, then you lied.

 

[colfax_m]

Where does the Constitution say that to reject a nominee can be only done by voting?

Are you that stupid that you don't understand how the Senate works?

 

[colfax_m]

I thought you meant that Democrats had not put forward nominees in an election year even with a Democrat President, which of course they never did.

Being in an election year is completely irrelevant.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

So turn the state over to Democrats.

 

[kaz]

Where does the Constitution say that to reject a nominee can be only done by voting?

Are you that stupid that you don't understand how the Senate works?

Your shit just gets wilder and wilder.

OK, so back that up. Show where did I show I don't "understand how the Senate works."

I just told you the majority party sets votes. That's wrong? You're full of shit, it's not.

You're just having a tantrum. If Democrats were in charge, they'd be voting in any Democrat nominee and you'd be telling anyone who didn't like it to stuff it and read the Constitution

 

[colfax_m]

That's wrong?

Yes, it's wrong.

 

[pyetro]

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.

Susan Collins is not in trouble because

We need the seat! View attachment 390929

Fake news.