Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[skookerasbil]

Sooner or later, Trump gets his originalist. Only people on the k00k left think this obstruction stuff is going to go on for 27 more months!. Oh, and then there is Aunt Ruthie....by 2020 it's a 6-3 score at best.

@www.whosnotwinning.com

 

[J.E.D]

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

Hey if it’s good enough for Republicans....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But as I noted in my column, majority parties in the Senate have used a variety of procedural devices to thwart Supreme Court nominees; of the 34 failed nominations (not counting one who was withdrawn and resubmitted for technical reasons), only twelve received a direct vote, and five were withdrawn in the face of opposition. The rest were prevented from moving forward due to a variety of Senate procedures. Some of those involved a vote on the record to table the nomination, some did not (William Micou’s nomination by Millard Fillmore in 1853 died without any action by the Senate).

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

The examples he gives...

Adams, 1828 - That came after the 1828 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016.
​

Tyler, 1845 - Tyler was not elected president and of his nominees, some had hearings, some did not and one was even confirmed. That is not like what Republicans did with Obama in 2016 where they announced they would not hold a confirmation hearing for Obama no matter who he nominated and they announced that before he even picked Garland.

Fillmore, 1852 - Not elected president and his first nomination came in August, 1852, three months before the election. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Buchanan, 1861 - Buchanan's nomination was made 3 months after the 1860 election and 1 month before he was leaving office.

Hayes, 1881 - That came after the 1880 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Johnson, 1968 - That was not like Obama in 2016. Johnson's nomination came in June of 1968, was the result of a justice retiring to hand LBJ the replacement, and Johnson's nominee was given a confirmation hearing.

So no, there has never been a circumstance like Obama's where a president, elected to a 4 year term which includes nominating Supreme Court replacements, was flat out denied a confirmation hearing no matter who he nominated with 10 months (21% of his term) remaining in office. And not even a rightwing source like the National Review can spin it to make it appear like this was nothing new.​

Johnson in 1866 made a nomination, they ignored it.

Johnson was also not elected president. So also not like Obama.

Oh, so only elected Presidents get to appoint Supreme Court Justices.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Seriously? This needs to be explained to you?

McConnell's pathetic excuse for refusing to consider anyone Obama put up was to let America decide. That's bullshit since America already decided in 2012, but that was his excuse just the same. So why would you compare that to those who America did not elect as president??

McConnell's pathetic excuse for refusing to consider anyone Obama put up was to let America decide.

Absolutely.
Not for the first time in American history, a President did not get a vote on his nominee.

That's bullshit since America already decided in 2012, but that was his excuse just the same.

 

[Silhouette]

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

Hey if it’s good enough for Republicans....

I see you are pitching yourself as a moderate. Is that why you have a picture of "the sweet transvestite" Dr Frankenfurter as your avatar? You aren't fooling me anyway.

 

[J.E.D]

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

Hey if it’s good enough for Republicans....

I see you are pitching yourself as a moderate. Is that why you have a picture of "the sweet transvestite" Dr Frankenfurter as your avatar? You aren't fooling me anyway.

Moderates can’t enjoy the Rocky Horror Picture Show? Is this a new litmus yet?

Fuck off, closeted faggot. Go blow some guy in an alleyway.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

He is claiming that Trump has some sort of mandate

It's right there in the Constitution.

Obama actually won both of his elections with ABOVE 50% of the vote; I didn't hear the 'mandate' talk at that point.

You can come for the ride, but you gotta sit in back.

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats thought the GOP didn't have the balls to nuclear option their ass on SCOTUS confirmations, they thought wrong.

Yes they did but much like when Harry Reid used the nuclear option in 2013 and it came back to bite him and the Democrats in the ass one day this will bite the Republicans neither party stays in control forever. When Reid went nuclear in 2013 everyone knew the 60 vote threshold for the Supreme Court would be next it was just a question of who would do it it's sad commentary about how partisan everything has become that is now seemingly the only someone can get confirmed.

Dems are lying despicable traitors, they had to be defeated and stopped.

 

[Silhouette]

Moderates can’t enjoy the Rocky Horror Picture Show? Is this a new litmus yet?

Fuck off, closeted faggot. Go blow some guy in an alleyway.

Yes but more than "enjoying" that LGBT evangelizing promo, you took its figurehead as your avatar...while claiming to be moderate. So I'm calling bullshit.

 

[TNHarley]

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

Hey if it’s good enough for Republicans....

At least the dems are honest

 

[Toro]

The ironic thing is if the Democratic Party hadn’t been so hell bent on putting the first woman in as President, they wouldn’t be so concerned about women’s reproductive rights today.

 

[Polishprince]

McConnell's pathetic excuse for refusing to consider anyone Obama put up was to let America decide.

Absolutely.
Not for the first time in American history, a President did not get a vote on his nominee.

That's bullshit since America already decided in 2012, but that was his excuse just the same.

Judge Garland is an extremist who didn't have the votes to be confirmed.

No point in putting him up for a vote, when he clearly didn't have a chance.

 

[Pilot1]

Fuck off, closeted faggot. Go blow some guy in an alleyway.

Wow. Project much?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

They won’t repeal it....just nibble at the edges

Make it harder to get one, close down clinics with increasingly more stringent regulations

 

[rightwinger]

McConnell's pathetic excuse for refusing to consider anyone Obama put up was to let America decide.

Absolutely.
Not for the first time in American history, a President did not get a vote on his nominee.

That's bullshit since America already decided in 2012, but that was his excuse just the same.

Judge Garland is an extremist who didn't have the votes to be confirmed.

No point in putting him up for a vote, when he clearly didn't have a chance.

Garland was moderate, much more moderate than the extremists republicans are pushing

 

[Faun]

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.

Nope, there is no timetable for the Senate to hold confirmation hearings. The new standard, as created by the McConnell rule, is to shut the confirmation process down until the Senate gets a president who will nominate justices they want.

 

[Pilot1]

Elections have consequences. Didn't Obama say that?

 

[asaratis]

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.

Actually, it's called the Biden Rule...for a reason.

 

[asaratis]

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

Biden made the rule, dufus.

 

[Faun]

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.

Then the Senate should have held confirmation hearings and voted him down. By declaring they were actually denying Obama his third pick, they established the new rule that the Senate can deny a duly elected president his Constitutional authority to appoint Supreme Court justices for indefinite periods of time.

 

[asaratis]

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.

Your buddy, Joe Biden made the rule. Study some history.