Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Polishprince]

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

McConnell isn't the one who came up with the idea of politicizing the Supreme Court. It was the Hero of Chappaquiddick who decided to bring politics into the mix when Ronaldus Magnus nominated Bork.

 

[Faun]

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.

Try harder to keep up, would ya? The McConnell rule doesn’t even allow confirmation hearings. Bork went through the process. That he was voted down is merely part of the process; but at least the process was implemented — not shut down entirely like McConnell did to Obama. Furthermore, Reagan ultimately did get to appoint the new Supreme Court Justice in his final year in office.

 

[Faun]

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.

Firing Cox, Bork proved to be too corrupt to be a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I have no doubt they will.

 

[Polishprince]

Firing Cox, Bork proved to be too corrupt to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Being an anti-life gun-grabber pawn of Big Labor made Garland too socialist to be a Supreme Count Justice.

BTW, how does listening to you boss make you "corrupt" at all?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

That has happened before and the President provided an alternative candidate. Obama was not provided his presidential right to nominate.

Garland was a moderate who Republicans had supported in the past

 

[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

Steal the court?

That is the polite word for what they did

 

[Faun]

Firing Cox, Bork proved to be too corrupt to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Being an anti-life gun-grabber pawn of Big Labor made Garland too socialist to be a Supreme Count Justice.

BTW, how does listening to you boss make you "corrupt" at all?

When your boss tells you to do something you shouldn’t do but you do it because you’re just as corrupt as your boss.

As far as Garland, I challenged you to quote him saying the things you’re attributing to him....

Suffice it to say .... so far, no quotes....

 

[Polishprince]

Garland was a moderate who Republicans had supported in the past

How is being an anti-life gun grabbing pawn of Big Labor "moderate"?

And even if he was "moderate", he was replacing Antonin Scalia, a pillar of conservatism. It would have destroyed the political balance on the court.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

That has happened before and the President provided an alternative candidate. Obama was not provided his presidential right to nominate.

Garland was a moderate who Republicans had supported in the past

Obama was not provided his presidential right to nominate.

He had a right to nominate.
He nominated.

The Senate has a right to "advice and consent", or in this case, to not consent.

 

[rightwinger]

Garland was a moderate who Republicans had supported in the past

How is being an anti-life gun grabbing pawn of Big Labor "moderate"?

And even if he was "moderate", he was replacing Antonin Scalia, a pillar of conservatism. It would have destroyed the political balance on the court.

Name a case where he confiscated guns
Rightwing propaganda
He is not a gun grabber

 

[Polishprince]

Obama was not provided his presidential right to nominate.

He had a right to nominate.
He nominated.

The Senate has a right to "advice and consent", or in this case, to not consent.

Exactly.

To quote B. Hussein O himself, "Elections have Consequences".

When the Democrats got schlonged in 2014, they had to know that it would infringe on their ability to get hard to get their preferred choice onto the court. That election had consequences

 

[Faun]

Garland was a moderate who Republicans had supported in the past

How is being an anti-life gun grabbing pawn of Big Labor "moderate"?

And even if he was "moderate", he was replacing Antonin Scalia, a pillar of conservatism. It would have destroyed the political balance on the court.

Does this mean you’re in favor of Trump replacing Ginsberg with a Liberal, should her seat open up in the near future?

 

[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.

We decided on Nov 8, 2016

Yeah, that's what the op said lol

 

[Marion Morrison]

Hijacked the process? Barry Hussein was a lame duck who was term limited to a couple of months when the choice for SCOTUS came up. President Trump has 2 1/2 years left in his first term. Even if democrats want to re-invent the Constitution there is no precedent for waiting until after mid-term elections. Democrats have to put away their anger or seek professional help and live with the reality that President Trump will pick a nominee for the Supreme Court.

Garland was nominated in March of 2016. There was plenty of time for the nomination to be taken up. Kennedy retired in June and McConnel says he wants a vote by October. Amazing how fast they can move when they want to.

must be a real bummer always having so much butt hurt

--LOL

America's butt is hurting.

Your butt is not America's.

 

[Coyote]

Garland was a moderate who Republicans had supported in the past

Like you ate trying to do now.

How is being an anti-life gun grabbing pawn of Big Labor "moderate"?

And even if he was "moderate", he was replacing Antonin Scalia, a pillar of conservatism. It would have destroyed the political balance on the court.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

who cares what they say

the also said elections has consequences

so fuck em

The people decided. Now the dimwits want best two out of three. Or four out of five. Or nine out of ten. No matter. Until something works

 

[Marion Morrison]

Might as well let that Garland fantasy go, I do not see that happening. The best man for the job would be Ted Cruz. It won't be because

of

politics, but in respects for picking the best man for the job, it's Ted.

 

[Borillar]

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.

At least they were given a hearing and a vote. Garland was not.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

At least they were given a hearing and a vote. Garland was not.

Yeah Obama didn't get a Supreme Court pick in while he was on the way out. Too bad, so sad.