Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Borillar]

hmmm

didn't they have the opposite opinion in 2016?

Yeah, both parties did.

 

[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.

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.

Not new. The Senate ignored nominations before, the Senate will ignore nominations in the future.

Not for those whom the people elected president.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Uh, where was her concession speech?
Russia investigation?
yeah stop being a dipshit.

You know you’re fucking nuts, right?

Hillary’s concession speech —> WATCH: Hillary Clinton Concedes Presidential Race To Donald Trump

Nope, just honest.
The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth was nuts, but true.

You implied she didn’t give a concession speech when she actually did. That’s a reflection on you, not her.

really? can you post it?

LOLOLOL

You’re kidding, right??

no post it... I just remember John Podesta telling people to go home. So just post us the concession speech.

 

[rightwinger]

PresidentBush should consider following the practice of a majority of hispredecessors and not - and not - name a nominee until after the November election is completed.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record,S.16316-7, 6/25/1992)

So in July, right before an election, Biden urged to follow precedent and not name a successor







Scalia died in FEBRUARY, five months earlier than Biden was talking about. The seat was vacant for over one year

Biden talked about doing confirmation after the election.....November or December

Republicans held up confirming a different candidate until after a new Congress and President took office in January

 

[Faun]

You know you’re fucking nuts, right?

Hillary’s concession speech —> WATCH: Hillary Clinton Concedes Presidential Race To Donald Trump

Nope, just honest.
The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth was nuts, but true.

You implied she didn’t give a concession speech when she actually did. That’s a reflection on you, not her.

really? can you post it?

LOLOLOL

You’re kidding, right??

no post it... I just remember John Podesta telling people to go home. So just post us the concession speech.

You poor, crazed conservative — I already posted it. Exactly how insane are you? You even replied to my post where I linked it.

 

[Polishprince]

Republicans held up confirming a different candidate until after a new Congress and President took office in January

Had the Dawg won the election, McConnell would have subjected Garland to a vote in November or December 2016. Little point in holding it up

 

[buckeye45_73]

Nope, just honest.
The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth was nuts, but true.

You implied she didn’t give a concession speech when she actually did. That’s a reflection on you, not her.

really? can you post it?

LOLOLOL

You’re kidding, right??

no post it... I just remember John Podesta telling people to go home. So just post us the concession speech.

You poor, crazed conservative — I already posted it. Exactly how insane are you? You even replied to my post where I linked it.

Ok, I was wrong, I missed that one. Usually they do it that night, but ok you were correct.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans held up confirming a different candidate until after a new Congress and President took office in January

Had the Dawg won the election, McConnell would have subjected Garland to a vote in November or December 2016. Little point in holding it up

Blatant political maneuvering to steal the court

McConnell got away with it but it will come at a price in later confirmations

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

Not new. The Senate ignored nominations before, the Senate will ignore nominations in the future.

Not for those whom the people elected president.

Okay. So?

 

[Polishprince]

Blatant political maneuvering to steal the court

McConnell got away with it but it will come at a price in later confirmations

No "stealing" involved here, Garland didn't have the votes to be confirmed. Little point in having hearings for a loser.

Like I said, if Mrs. Clinton had won the election, Garland might have seemed to be more reasonable.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Republicans held up confirming a different candidate until after a new Congress and President took office in January

Had the Dawg won the election, McConnell would have subjected Garland to a vote in November or December 2016. Little point in holding it up

Blatant political maneuvering to steal the court

McConnell got away with it but it will come at a price in later confirmations

Steal the court?

 

[J.E.D]

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.

And I’m calling you a retarded faggot. Go swallow a butt-rocket, loser.

 

[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.

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.

Not new. The Senate ignored nominations before, the Senate will ignore nominations in the future.

Not for those whom the people elected president.

Okay. So?

So what was done to Obama was never done before to an elected president.

 

[J.E.D]

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

Wow. Project much?

Who pulled your string?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Scalia was murdered. No autopsy was performed.
I don't see why the left should benefit from murder.

 

[Faun]

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.

Scalia was murdered. No autopsy was performed.
I don't see why the left should benefit from murder.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

Not new. The Senate ignored nominations before, the Senate will ignore nominations in the future.

Not for those whom the people elected president.

Okay. So?

So what was done to Obama was never done before to an elected president.

Great.

 

[boedicca]

We The People made our decision on November 8, 2016.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

Not new. The Senate ignored nominations before, the Senate will ignore nominations in the future.

Not for those whom the people elected president.

Okay. So?

So what was done to Obama was never done before to an elected president.

Great.

I’m glad you like it because the day will come when Democrats are in the position to use the McConnell rule on Republicans.

 

[Polishprince]

So what was done to Obama was never done before to an elected president.

not true at all.

There have been other SCOTUS nominees that have been rejected, including the Tremendous Robert Bork.