Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[mudwhistle]

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.

Unlike you I don't get all of my news from the MSM.
You want to buy into the propaganda the establishment pumps out, which is 95% negative.

I learned several years ago not to buy into their rubbish that passes for news.
You still lap it up like a Collie.

 

[kaz]

Both parties used to put politics aside when it came to Supreme Court Justices
They deferred to the President in his choice unless there were specific critical objections

So it looks like Amy Barrett is our next Justice since she was already confirmed to the federal appeals system with democrats pitching in.

That won't make any difference for SCOTUS.

I doubt she'll be the choice. Of the three finalists, she can't undo being anti-Roe v. Wade. The two men can. They can keep saying they believe in precedent, but they won't make a pinkie swear or rule on a case not before them and keep repeating that. She can't.

Note I'm not arguing what I think should happen, she'd be an excellent justice. I'm just talking about the politics of it

 

[kaz]

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.

Notice you whine about it, but you don't give any examples. Democrats all have the same position on every issue justified with the same talking points. I NEVER see you argue with a leftist on anything. Why would anyone think you're different than the rest of them? Serious question, why?

 

[Political Junky]

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.

Trump's picks want to repeal Roe vs. Wade.
How do you know Garland was for gun confiscation?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Both parties used to put politics aside when it came to Supreme Court Justices
They deferred to the President in his choice unless there were specific critical objections

Republicans changed that process to where an opposing candidate will not even be considered while they hold the Senate. They invoked the nuclear option where only a majority is needed to confirm

Now they get to live under the same rules

But a bad decision doesn't have to be repeated, does it? It was egregious what McConnell did. I don't agree with the Dems doing the same thing, even though their argument makes as much sense, I guess.

It is just one more excuse for refusing to get anything whatsoever done in Congress. This has to end.

A new precedent has been established
SCOTUS nominations are now political power plays

The genie is out of the bottle and we are not going back to the way things used to be

Yeah by HARRY REID


You fuckers thought you were real clever, huh?



.

Reid declined to consider the use the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees. He knew it was too important

McConnel has how changed it to a 51 percent vote. Republicans will live to regret it

 

[rightwinger]

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.

McConnel has set the standard to do anything possible to block the other sides nominee

The gloves are off

 

[Frank the Tank]

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.

Unlike you I don't get all of my news from the MSM.
You want to buy into the propaganda the establishment pumps out, which is 95% negative.

I learned several years ago not to buy into their rubbish that passes for news.
You still lap it up like a Collie.

Not even close to being true.....not to mention how you'd know how I get "my news" in the first place (are you peeking in my windows again?!)

You claim to care about news sources but blindly believe propaganda coming from Trump and his Administration?! Why?!?! Because that's what you're told to believe. Pathetic.

Hypocrite much?

 

[Pilot1]

Trump's picks want to repeal Roe vs. Wade.
How do you know Garland was for gun confiscation?

Yeah right. The media, and Dem useful idiots are using the Roe v Wade SCARE TACTIC. Please show me a quote where any of Trumps picks say they will repeal Roe v Wade. Just drivel.

Garland was a lib gun grabber. Read his opinions.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Unlike you I don't get all of my news from the MSM.
You want to buy into the propaganda the establishment pumps out, which is 95% negative.

I learned several years ago not to buy into their rubbish that passes for news.
You still lap it up like a Collie.

Not even close to being true.....not to mention how you'd know how I get "my news" in the first place (are you peeking in my windows again?!)

You claim to care about news sources but blindly believe propaganda coming from Trump and his Administration?! Why?!?! Because that's what you're told to believe. Pathetic.

Hypocrite much?

Trump has no propaganda, you fucking twit.
He isn't in control of the media.
The Deep State is.

We're done talking here because you're just a time waster.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This is all bullshit.... we MUST wait until the elections of 2036!!!!!!!!!!
It is only fair that anyone born now should be able to vote.
Anything else is just crazy

 

[Political Junky]

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.

Unlike you I don't get all of my news from the MSM.
You want to buy into the propaganda the establishment pumps out, which is 95% negative.

I learned several years ago not to buy into their rubbish that passes for news.
You still lap it up like a Collie.

Not even close to being true.....not to mention how you'd know how I get "my news" in the first place (are you peeking in my windows again?!)

You claim to care about news sources but blindly believe propaganda coming from Trump and his Administration?! Why?!?! Because that's what you're told to believe. Pathetic.

Hypocrite much?

Trump has no propaganda, you fucking twit.
He isn't in control of the media.
The Deep State is.

We're done talking here because you're just a time waster.

Alt-Right Media is in control of Trump.
He tweets crap as soon as he sees it on Fox, for one.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

Until they actually have the numbers, yes.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

You folks on the left are about as clueless as they come! The Democrats can't delay because they don't have the votes to do so thanks to Harry Reid using the nuclear option. You're stuck with whoever Trump nominates as long as Susan Collins and a few other GOP Senators agree with his pick. I think you're also going to see some Democrats voting for the pick because they are in battleground States...are up for reelection...and realize that Trump took their State in the general election!

 

[BlackSand]

I agree, but not with the big difference between the two elections. Yes, the "delay" over Garland was to allow the new President to make the pick. In this case, the senate's ability to confirm or deny the nomination is equally worthy for that argument.

... You're arguing over word salad used to confuse the issue amongst the retarded.

The President either has the votes in the Senate or they don't.
President Obama didn't have the votes in the Senate to confirm Garland (if they voted along party lines).
President Trump has the votes in the Senate to confirm his pick (if they vote along party lines).

You're smarter than this Old Lady ...
It doesn't matter what stupid excuse either side gives for not moving forward.
Without the votes to confirm or obstruct ... What they say is irrelevant.

Thank you, GOP Senate for starting this delaying tactic. Now live with your own creation.

Majority Leader (at the time) Harry Reid introduced the "nuclear option" to oppose the Republican filibuster in 2013.
The Republicans have already used the "nuclear option" to assist in appointing Justice Gorsuch.

The Democrats can live with their creation ...

.​

 

[blastoff]

The fun in all this of course is the dimocrats know they’re in a losing position and not a thing they can do about it. Not voting on Trump’s nominee until after the election is simply delaying the inevitable but with a larger margin of victory. So it’s either lose now or lose later but either way stock up on the KY.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

In 2016, only reason why there was a seat open was due to the fact that Justice Scalia got clipped, in order to prevent the Friedrichs decision from being issued.

Why reward the La Cosa Nostra by appointing an extremist like Merrick Garland? Appoint another Scalia so we could have a Janus decision.

This is different, Kennedy holds a conservative seat on the court, a solid strict constructionist should be in the seat.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Unlike you I don't get all of my news from the MSM.
You want to buy into the propaganda the establishment pumps out, which is 95% negative.

I learned several years ago not to buy into their rubbish that passes for news.
You still lap it up like a Collie.

Not even close to being true.....not to mention how you'd know how I get "my news" in the first place (are you peeking in my windows again?!)

You claim to care about news sources but blindly believe propaganda coming from Trump and his Administration?! Why?!?! Because that's what you're told to believe. Pathetic.

Hypocrite much?

Trump has no propaganda, you fucking twit.
He isn't in control of the media.
The Deep State is.

We're done talking here because you're just a time waster.

Alt-Right Media is in control of Trump.
He tweets crap as soon as he sees it on Fox, for one.

Trump isn't even in full control of his White House.
What makes you think he can control Fox or Rush Limbaugh???

 

[J.E.D]

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.

You folks on the left are about as clueless as they come! The Democrats can't delay because they don't have the votes to do so thanks to Harry Reid using the nuclear option. You're stuck with whoever Trump nominates as long as Susan Collins and a few other GOP Senators agree with his pick. I think you're also going to see some Democrats voting for the pick because they are in battleground States...are up for reelection...and realize that Trump took their State in the general election!

I’m not “on the left”. I’m a left leaning independent voter. And I realize Democrats have few options to stop a Donald nominee. But whatever they can do to stall the process, I say do it. Republicans set the precedent. Let them live with the consequences of their actions. Fuck Mitch and Donald. They’re only party above country. Mitch proved that by denying Obama his rightful pick of a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[J.E.D]

In 2016, only reason why there was a seat open was due to the fact that Justice Scalia got clipped, in order to prevent the Friedrichs decision from being issued.

 

[TNHarley]

So, basically, the democrats are all admitting they are a bunch of hacks and will reject any nominee put forth.
Awesome.