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.
No, they rejected Garland so thoroughly that they didn't need a public spectacle to embarrass him. Sure they could have had hearings and spent weeks going over every aspect of his life and judicial history with a pre-determined outcome. But they didn't. Obama was free to withdraw the nomination and nominate someone else, but he chose not to do so.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
They got their voices heard right away. Pity you don't see that.Yes they did......10 months laterAnd they did get a voice.The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,"
Mitch McConnell Feb 13 2016, hours after Scalia died
Now, 45 days before the election, Republicans are denying a voice
Really? Wow. Who controls the Senate determines how favorable the Presidents nomination is received. Pretty much 1st-grade comprehension.You would have an argument if the Democrats controlled the Senate then. They didn't, so you don't.Voters decided in 2012 that they wanted Obama to fill vacancies by a much wider margin.Collins wants the voters to decide who they want to fill the seat.
If Trump wins, she has no objection to him filling the seat
The voters already decided in 2016 who they wanted to fill seats. Trump is President therefore it’s his job when a vacancy arises, as it just did.
Meant nothing to Republicans
What does who controls the Senate have to do with not filling a vacancy in an election year?
Merrick Garland was rejected. Game, Set, Match.What does an election year have to do with filling a SCOTUS seat?
Explain it to Merrick Garland
Game, Set, Match.....Thanks for playing
He was so unacceptable to the party controlling the Senate, they didn't bother to waste time with hearings or a vote.1. That's a lie.Nope. You never have. You showed me statements of me saying something entirely different.You have yet to show me where I said that.You said a vote is in the Constitution
I've repeatedly shown you that. Dementia much? Joe Biden? Is that you?
Spin whatever crap you want, but
1) No one including Biden and McConnell ever said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee in an election year. Note unlike fundamentally dishonest liars like you and RW, I'm saying I know Biden didn't mean that
2) Obama was afforded his full constitutional rights. He made a nomination to the SCOTUS
There is no issue other than in your hysterical chick mind that you wwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa-nt it
2. Not the issue.
The Senate never rejected Garland. You lied and are too cowardly to admit it.
Total nonsense.He was so unacceptable to the party controlling the Senate, they didn't bother to waste time with hearings or a vote.1. That's a lie.Nope. You never have. You showed me statements of me saying something entirely different.You have yet to show me where I said that.You said a vote is in the Constitution
I've repeatedly shown you that. Dementia much? Joe Biden? Is that you?
Spin whatever crap you want, but
1) No one including Biden and McConnell ever said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee in an election year. Note unlike fundamentally dishonest liars like you and RW, I'm saying I know Biden didn't mean that
2) Obama was afforded his full constitutional rights. He made a nomination to the SCOTUS
There is no issue other than in your hysterical chick mind that you wwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa-nt it
2. Not the issue.
The Senate never rejected Garland. You lied and are too cowardly to admit it.
You're going to really be pissed off when Stickman replaces Breyer.Total nonsense.He was so unacceptable to the party controlling the Senate, they didn't bother to waste time with hearings or a vote.1. That's a lie.Nope. You never have. You showed me statements of me saying something entirely different.You have yet to show me where I said that.You said a vote is in the Constitution
I've repeatedly shown you that. Dementia much? Joe Biden? Is that you?
Spin whatever crap you want, but
1) No one including Biden and McConnell ever said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee in an election year. Note unlike fundamentally dishonest liars like you and RW, I'm saying I know Biden didn't mean that
2) Obama was afforded his full constitutional rights. He made a nomination to the SCOTUS
There is no issue other than in your hysterical chick mind that you wwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa-nt it
2. Not the issue.
The Senate never rejected Garland. You lied and are too cowardly to admit it.
Garland never had a vote because he was qualified and would have been confirmed.
You don't need a vote to reject him.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?
Garland was an activist judge.Total nonsense.He was so unacceptable to the party controlling the Senate, they didn't bother to waste time with hearings or a vote.1. That's a lie.Nope. You never have. You showed me statements of me saying something entirely different.You have yet to show me where I said that.You said a vote is in the Constitution
I've repeatedly shown you that. Dementia much? Joe Biden? Is that you?
Spin whatever crap you want, but
1) No one including Biden and McConnell ever said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee in an election year. Note unlike fundamentally dishonest liars like you and RW, I'm saying I know Biden didn't mean that
2) Obama was afforded his full constitutional rights. He made a nomination to the SCOTUS
There is no issue other than in your hysterical chick mind that you wwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa-nt it
2. Not the issue.
The Senate never rejected Garland. You lied and are too cowardly to admit it.
Garland never had a vote because he was qualified and would have been confirmed.
They rejected him without a vote. That's why he isn't on the SC, Dummy.You. You're wrong. There never was a vote on Merrick Garland, therefore the Senate never rejected him.Yes, it's wrong.That's wrong?
What's wrong? You cut all context out of the quote
This isn't complicated, you're just too dishonest to admit you lied.
If they didn't reject him why isn't he on the SC?If you want to say the Senate rejected him, that requires a vote. Since they didn't vote on Garland, they didn't reject him.You. You're wrong. There never was a vote on Merrick Garland, therefore the Senate never rejected him.Yes, it's wrong.That's wrong?
What's wrong? You cut all context out of the quote
This isn't complicated, you're just too dishonest to admit you lied.
What is a lie is that the only way the Senate can reject him is with a vote. You just made that up. Nowhere does the Constitution say he's entitled to a vote, liar.
So you're saying that all the times Pelosi, Reid, Schummer, Biden and the other Democrat leaders didn't schedule a vote when they were in the majority, whatever they didn't schedule wasn't rejected by the House or Senate?
Of course it was, lying dumb ass. The majority party controls votes
To say otherwise is the height of stupidity, or just another Monday for Kaz.
the voters voted for this senate to approve the presidents picks for the supreme court it was done in 2016Collins wants the voters to decide who they want to fill the seat.
If Trump wins, she has no objection to him filling the seat
what about the voters who voted in 2016 and 2018 for the Senate don't they get a say? After all this is one of the reasons why president Trump won in 2016Where does she say she wants the next justice to be a Democrat?
By standing down, she may well end up granting them the chance down the road.
50/50 chance.
Watching MTP, and Bill Clinton, like others since Friday, brought up Lincoln.
Lincolns last Justice, Chase, was nominated, and appointed on December 6, 1964, a month after he was re-elected.
Trump can nominate, and the Senate can still get his pick approved, long before January 20th.
So... you're already conceding both the White House and the Senate?Collins wants republicans to vote for her but she wants the next SC pick to be democrat!?
no one is conceding anything but no one knows the future and the fickleness of the voter.So... you're already conceding both the White House and the Senate?Collins wants republicans to vote for her but she wants the next SC pick to be democrat!?
If you want to claim the Senate rejected him you do.You don't need a vote to reject him.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?
Obama was a treasonous/racist prick.
He got exactly what he deserved.
Nothing.
Great. So now the precedent is that judges are only confirmed when the Senate is controlled by the president’s party.Garland was an activist judge.Total nonsense.He was so unacceptable to the party controlling the Senate, they didn't bother to waste time with hearings or a vote.1. That's a lie.Nope. You never have. You showed me statements of me saying something entirely different.You have yet to show me where I said that.You said a vote is in the Constitution
I've repeatedly shown you that. Dementia much? Joe Biden? Is that you?
Spin whatever crap you want, but
1) No one including Biden and McConnell ever said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee in an election year. Note unlike fundamentally dishonest liars like you and RW, I'm saying I know Biden didn't mean that
2) Obama was afforded his full constitutional rights. He made a nomination to the SCOTUS
There is no issue other than in your hysterical chick mind that you wwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa-nt it
2. Not the issue.
The Senate never rejected Garland. You lied and are too cowardly to admit it.
Garland never had a vote because he was qualified and would have been confirmed.
Republicans held the Senate, so they didn't have to vote on him.
Democrats would do the same shit if they had the chanceGreat. So now the precedent is that judges are only confirmed when the Senate is controlled by the president’s party.Garland was an activist judge.Total nonsense.He was so unacceptable to the party controlling the Senate, they didn't bother to waste time with hearings or a vote.1. That's a lie.Nope. You never have. You showed me statements of me saying something entirely different.You have yet to show me where I said that.You said a vote is in the Constitution
I've repeatedly shown you that. Dementia much? Joe Biden? Is that you?
Spin whatever crap you want, but
1) No one including Biden and McConnell ever said they wouldn't confirm their own party's nominee in an election year. Note unlike fundamentally dishonest liars like you and RW, I'm saying I know Biden didn't mean that
2) Obama was afforded his full constitutional rights. He made a nomination to the SCOTUS
There is no issue other than in your hysterical chick mind that you wwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa-nt it
2. Not the issue.
The Senate never rejected Garland. You lied and are too cowardly to admit it.
Garland never had a vote because he was qualified and would have been confirmed.
Republicans held the Senate, so they didn't have to vote on him.
Can you idiots stop turning our country into a shithole?
