Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Frank the Tank]

Only cons get to choose.

Absolutely love your quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So....even though millions more voters actually did NOT vote for Trump, that doesn't matter?!?! That's weird.

WTF is weird about that? We chose a President the way we always have, and that's the only thing that counts.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Therefore, waiting until after the next election is nothing more than a delay tactic designed to possibly increase the Democrat Party's chances of never confirming a Trump nominee.

Good. I hope they delay as much as possible. Fuck McConnell. He set the precedent.

Payback is a bitch. Remember that when the tables turn.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

Republicans set the precedent. Don’t complain when Democrats use the same logic.

Mitch McConnell denied a sitting president his right to name a Supreme Court justice. Did you expect Democrats to sit silently?

Yes he did, before a PRESIDENTIAL election. The Commies are now setting a new standard which is two and a half years before the next election.

 

[mudwhistle]

Republicans are the hypocrites. They refused to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland by saying that voters should decide in the election. This is a good example of how Republicans have abused their majorities.

Merrick Garland was unqualified. As unqualified as Robert Bork.

 

[J.E.D]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

Republicans set the precedent. Don’t complain when Democrats use the same logic.

Mitch McConnell denied a sitting president his right to name a Supreme Court justice. Did you expect Democrats to sit silently?

Yes he did, before a PRESIDENTIAL election. The Commies are now setting a new standard which is two and a half years before the next election.

Careful what you wish for, asshole

 

[Frank the Tank]

So....even though millions more voters actually did NOT vote for Trump, that doesn't matter?!?! That's weird.

WTF is weird about that? We chose a President the way we always have, and that's the only thing that counts.

In the context of this conversation, it absolutely does matter. He is claiming that Trump has some sort of mandate even though the actual majority of the country did not vote for him. Funny how things have changed.......Obama actually won both of his elections with ABOVE 50% of the vote; I didn't hear the 'mandate' talk at that point.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Republicans are the hypocrites. They refused to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland by saying that voters should decide in the election. This is a good example of how Republicans have abused their majorities.

Merrick Garland was unqualified. As unqualified as Robert Bork.

Not sure what you're basing that on....or why you would delay a vote because of that. But, two can play that game.......I contend that Trump's nominee ___________________ (insert name here) is unqualified and therefore we shouldn't vote on him/her.

See......logic?

 

[Frank the Tank]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

Republicans set the precedent. Don’t complain when Democrats use the same logic.

Mitch McConnell denied a sitting president his right to name a Supreme Court justice. Did you expect Democrats to sit silently?

Yes he did, before a PRESIDENTIAL election. The Commies are now setting a new standard which is two and a half years before the next election.

'Commies'?!?!?!? Said the guy supporting the guy who received help from Vladimir Putin. IRONY!
Senate Intel agrees with assessment that Russia meddled to help Trump

 

[Pilot1]

The people HAVE DECIDED. They elected a legitimate President, with a peaceful transfer of power, and elected a Republican majority in the Senate, and House. What more do you need?

 

[Frank the Tank]

The people HAVE DECIDED. They elected a legitimate President, with a peaceful transfer of power, and elected a Republican majority in the Senate, and House. What more do you need?

To be honest, I agree with you. From a procedural standpoint, we should NOT do this any longer. However, what Mitch McConnell did to Obama's pick SHOULD have been enough to lose them the election........but, Republicans don't give a **** about details. Goes against their cult mentality.

Let's be clear.....a minority of people have decided. However, we should at least be able to agree upon the fact that if we're going to start using election results as a mandate to do whatever you want, things like getting aid from a foreign adversary to get elected SHOULD bug the hell out of you.

 

[Pilot1]

To be honest, I agree with you. From a procedural standpoint, we should NOT do this any longer. However, what Mitch McConnell did to Obama's pick SHOULD have been enough to lose them the election........but, Republicans don't give a **** about details. Goes against their cult mentality.

Let's be clear.....a minority of people have decided. However, we should at least be able to agree upon the fact that if we're going to start using election results as a mandate to do whatever you want, things like getting aid from a foreign adversary SHOULD bug the hell out of you.

Well if you are talking about election turn out, I agree. If you are talking about popular vote vs electoral votes I DISAGREE. Also, elections have consequences as Obama said. McConnel had and has a majority. That's the way it works.

If you want to change how it works then push for the Constitution to be amended.

 

[Frank the Tank]

To be honest, I agree with you. From a procedural standpoint, we should NOT do this any longer. However, what Mitch McConnell did to Obama's pick SHOULD have been enough to lose them the election........but, Republicans don't give a **** about details. Goes against their cult mentality.

Let's be clear.....a minority of people have decided. However, we should at least be able to agree upon the fact that if we're going to start using election results as a mandate to do whatever you want, things like getting aid from a foreign adversary SHOULD bug the hell out of you.

Well if you are talking about election turn out, I agree. If you are talking about popular vote vs electoral votes I DISAGREE. Also, elections have consequences as Obama said. McConnel had and has a majority. That's the way it works.

If you want to change how it works then push for the Constitution to be amended.

Absolutely agree with you about consequences of elections. Not sure why you wouldn't agree about popular vote versus electoral college, however?

I utterly disagree with you about what McConnell did. President makes a nomination, it should be argued and voted on...period. That's the way it is SUPPOSED to work. If McConnell had the majority, then, they should have been able to vote him down. But, to NOT even hold a vote is outright obstruction.

 

[mudwhistle]

Republicans are the hypocrites. They refused to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland by saying that voters should decide in the election. This is a good example of how Republicans have abused their majorities.

Merrick Garland was unqualified. As unqualified as Robert Bork.

Not sure what you're basing that on....or why you would delay a vote because of that. But, two can play that game.......I contend that Trump's nominee ___________________ (insert name here) is unqualified and therefore we shouldn't vote on him/her.

See......logic?

That's my point exactly.
Robert Bork was eminently qualified but was trashed for being a conservative.

Merrick Garland didn't get a chance because he supported gun confiscation.

You don't even know who Trump will pick, but you're already deciding he/she isn't qualified.


If Obama insisted on appointing activist judges creating laws from the bench, then anyone he picked wasn't qualified.
The point being Democrat presidents will always pick an unqualified nominee because of their inherent bias.
On the other hand Republicans will pick judges that will interpret the law as it was written. This makes them more qualified than anyone Obama or Hillary would pick.

This is simple shit, yet you have a problem with it apparently.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Republicans are the hypocrites. They refused to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland by saying that voters should decide in the election. This is a good example of how Republicans have abused their majorities.

Merrick Garland was unqualified. As unqualified as Robert Bork.

Not sure what you're basing that on....or why you would delay a vote because of that. But, two can play that game.......I contend that Trump's nominee ___________________ (insert name here) is unqualified and therefore we shouldn't vote on him/her.

See......logic?

That's my point exactly.
Robert Bork was eminently qualified but was trashed for being a conservative.

Merrick Garland didn't get a chance because he supported gun confiscation.

You don't even know who Trump will pick, but you're already deciding he/she isn't qualified.


If Obama insisted on appointing activist judges creating laws from the bench, then anyone he picked wasn't qualified.
The point being Democrat presidents will always pick an unqualified nominee because of their inherent bias.
On the other hand Republicans will pick judges that will interpret the law as it was written. This makes them more qualified than anyone Obama or Hillary would pick.

This is simple shit, yet you have a problem with it apparently.

Wide sweeping nonsensical statements like this are exactly why we know not to take you seriously. You call Democratic nominees 'activists' because that's what you're told to believe. It's a stupid argument.

Your ridiculous rhetoric is only meant to justify what you know is wrong. Incidentally, this stuff is far from "simple ****"........you folks make it to be simple which is why you are so utterly unqualified to render an opinion on it.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Republicans are the hypocrites. They refused to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland by saying that voters should decide in the election. This is a good example of how Republicans have abused their majorities.

Merrick Garland was unqualified. As unqualified as Robert Bork.

Not sure what you're basing that on....or why you would delay a vote because of that. But, two can play that game.......I contend that Trump's nominee ___________________ (insert name here) is unqualified and therefore we shouldn't vote on him/her.

See......logic?

That's my point exactly.
Robert Bork was eminently qualified but was trashed for being a conservative.

Merrick Garland didn't get a chance because he supported gun confiscation.

You don't even know who Trump will pick, but you're already deciding he/she isn't qualified.


If Obama insisted on appointing activist judges creating laws from the bench, then anyone he picked wasn't qualified.
The point being Democrat presidents will always pick an unqualified nominee because of their inherent bias.
On the other hand Republicans will pick judges that will interpret the law as it was written. This makes them more qualified than anyone Obama or Hillary would pick.

This is simple shit, yet you have a problem with it apparently.

It is quite clear then that the judge you hope is appointed is someone that will UPHOLD Roe vs. Wade, correct?

 

[mudwhistle]

Republicans are the hypocrites. They refused to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland by saying that voters should decide in the election. This is a good example of how Republicans have abused their majorities.

Merrick Garland was unqualified. As unqualified as Robert Bork.

Not sure what you're basing that on....or why you would delay a vote because of that. But, two can play that game.......I contend that Trump's nominee ___________________ (insert name here) is unqualified and therefore we shouldn't vote on him/her.

See......logic?

That's my point exactly.
Robert Bork was eminently qualified but was trashed for being a conservative.

Merrick Garland didn't get a chance because he supported gun confiscation.

You don't even know who Trump will pick, but you're already deciding he/she isn't qualified.


If Obama insisted on appointing activist judges creating laws from the bench, then anyone he picked wasn't qualified.
The point being Democrat presidents will always pick an unqualified nominee because of their inherent bias.
On the other hand Republicans will pick judges that will interpret the law as it was written. This makes them more qualified than anyone Obama or Hillary would pick.

This is simple shit, yet you have a problem with it apparently.

Wide sweeping nonsensical statements like this are exactly why we know not to take you seriously. You call Democratic nominees 'activists' because that's what you're told to believe. It's a stupid argument.

Your ridiculous rhetoric is only meant to justify what you know is wrong. Incidentally, this stuff is far from "simple ****"........you folks make it to be simple which is why you are so utterly unqualified to render an opinion on it.

I'm simply telling it like it is, dumbass.

You seem to be confused.

 

[mudwhistle]

Republicans are the hypocrites. They refused to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland by saying that voters should decide in the election. This is a good example of how Republicans have abused their majorities.

Merrick Garland was unqualified. As unqualified as Robert Bork.

Not sure what you're basing that on....or why you would delay a vote because of that. But, two can play that game.......I contend that Trump's nominee ___________________ (insert name here) is unqualified and therefore we shouldn't vote on him/her.

See......logic?

That's my point exactly.
Robert Bork was eminently qualified but was trashed for being a conservative.

Merrick Garland didn't get a chance because he supported gun confiscation.

You don't even know who Trump will pick, but you're already deciding he/she isn't qualified.


If Obama insisted on appointing activist judges creating laws from the bench, then anyone he picked wasn't qualified.
The point being Democrat presidents will always pick an unqualified nominee because of their inherent bias.
On the other hand Republicans will pick judges that will interpret the law as it was written. This makes them more qualified than anyone Obama or Hillary would pick.

This is simple shit, yet you have a problem with it apparently.

It is quite clear then that the judge you hope is appointed is someone that will UPHOLD Roe vs. Wade, correct?

I think it would be good for a judge that will follow the law....even Roe v Wade.
FYI, If Roe v Wade were at risk the way the court is today it would already be history.
I think you're just using Roe v Wade as an excuse.
Once Roe v Wade ceases to be a problem I'm sure you will have another reason to bellyache.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Republicans are the hypocrites. They refused to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland by saying that voters should decide in the election. This is a good example of how Republicans have abused their majorities.

Merrick Garland was unqualified. As unqualified as Robert Bork.

Not sure what you're basing that on....or why you would delay a vote because of that. But, two can play that game.......I contend that Trump's nominee ___________________ (insert name here) is unqualified and therefore we shouldn't vote on him/her.

See......logic?

That's my point exactly.
Robert Bork was eminently qualified but was trashed for being a conservative.

Merrick Garland didn't get a chance because he supported gun confiscation.

You don't even know who Trump will pick, but you're already deciding he/she isn't qualified.


If Obama insisted on appointing activist judges creating laws from the bench, then anyone he picked wasn't qualified.
The point being Democrat presidents will always pick an unqualified nominee because of their inherent bias.
On the other hand Republicans will pick judges that will interpret the law as it was written. This makes them more qualified than anyone Obama or Hillary would pick.

This is simple shit, yet you have a problem with it apparently.

It is quite clear then that the judge you hope is appointed is someone that will UPHOLD Roe vs. Wade, correct?

I think it would be good for a judge that will follow the law....even Roe v Wade.
FYI, If Roe v Wade were at risk the way the court is today it would already be history.
I think you're just using Roe v Wade as an excuse.
Once Roe v Wade ceases to be a problem I'm sure you will have another reason to bellyache.

A whole lot of your arguments are based on assumptions you make about me (or Democrats in general). It's a pretty narrow minded way to argue and only serves if your goal is to argue your side....NOT get to the truth.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Republicans are the hypocrites. They refused to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland by saying that voters should decide in the election. This is a good example of how Republicans have abused their majorities.

Merrick Garland was unqualified. As unqualified as Robert Bork.

Not sure what you're basing that on....or why you would delay a vote because of that. But, two can play that game.......I contend that Trump's nominee ___________________ (insert name here) is unqualified and therefore we shouldn't vote on him/her.

See......logic?

That's my point exactly.
Robert Bork was eminently qualified but was trashed for being a conservative.

Merrick Garland didn't get a chance because he supported gun confiscation.

You don't even know who Trump will pick, but you're already deciding he/she isn't qualified.


If Obama insisted on appointing activist judges creating laws from the bench, then anyone he picked wasn't qualified.
The point being Democrat presidents will always pick an unqualified nominee because of their inherent bias.
On the other hand Republicans will pick judges that will interpret the law as it was written. This makes them more qualified than anyone Obama or Hillary would pick.

This is simple shit, yet you have a problem with it apparently.

Wide sweeping nonsensical statements like this are exactly why we know not to take you seriously. You call Democratic nominees 'activists' because that's what you're told to believe. It's a stupid argument.

Your ridiculous rhetoric is only meant to justify what you know is wrong. Incidentally, this stuff is far from "simple ****"........you folks make it to be simple which is why you are so utterly unqualified to render an opinion on it.

I'm simply telling it like it is, dumbass.

You seem to be confused.

Of course....."it is" because you say it is. Typical Trump cult member.

If you're going to drink the Kool-Aid, at least choose the flavor. Grape is probably good.