Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Too bad.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

yeah I gotcha, for the lefties, you have to be as basic as possible. ironic when they talk about Trumps speaking patterns.....

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

True, and I think he should have received a hearing and a vote, but what they did to Robert Bork was unforgivable and disgusting. And it shows they projected all of their attitudes onto Bork.

 

[hadit]

What did he say?

I don't remember exactly; you know how he dances around making a direct statement. But he's holding back for the ratings on Monday night at 9 p.m., dontcha know.

Oh come on now! You cannot remember what you are accusing him of?

I am not accusing him of anything.

So, since he didn’t say anything that you can actually remember I think you will see a white young catholic woman seated on the Supreme Court. Great news for women yes?

hopefully she has a young daughter that gets pregnant then see where that takes her

For one thing, it would make her a grandmother. A lot of women tend to think that's a good thing.

 

[hadit]

Oh come on now! You cannot remember what you are accusing him of?

I am not accusing him of anything.

So, since he didn’t say anything that you can actually remember I think you will see a white young catholic woman seated on the Supreme Court. Great news for women yes?

Okay, that's your wish, stick with it. We'll see, as the Great Orange Groper says.

You're so pathetic that you attack Trump for being a groper while you defend and vote for Slick and his hoe who assaulted innocent victims.

Consent is lost on you. I have a feeling that in your own life, your consent does matter

Who are Slick and his hoe? I think it's ho, actually. A hoe is for weeding your garden.

The Groper's women weren't all consenting, whoever they are.

If you don't know who they are, how do you know they weren't willing?

 

[hadit]

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.

I agree. There is hypocrisy all the way around. I said at the time that Garland deserved an up or down vote. The GOP had the majority, so they could have voted him down.

It would have been better that way.

 

[busybee01]

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.

presidential election this year I haven't heard about?

Midterms are elections as well.

The delay over Garland was to allow the INCOMING president to name his preferred Justice.

at the time the delay started, Hillary was considered a shoe in, and it was predicted she would also name Garland, or someone similar.

if the democrats somehow take the Senate, are thy going to delay Trumps nominations til either HE leaves office, or THEY lose the Senate?

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.

In that case we would never be able to replace justices because we have an election every two years. The Republicans never held a justice back because of midterms. It's just a phony excuse because the Democrats are still pissed about the Republicans holding out until after a PRESIDENTIAL election.

Republicans set the precedent. Does not matter whether it is Presidential or Congressional elections. The Senate does play a role in judicial nominations.

 

[kaz]

I am not accusing him of anything.

So, since he didn’t say anything that you can actually remember I think you will see a white young catholic woman seated on the Supreme Court. Great news for women yes?

Okay, that's your wish, stick with it. We'll see, as the Great Orange Groper says.

You're so pathetic that you attack Trump for being a groper while you defend and vote for Slick and his hoe who assaulted innocent victims.

Consent is lost on you. I have a feeling that in your own life, your consent does matter

Who are Slick and his hoe? I think it's ho, actually. A hoe is for weeding your garden.

The Groper's women weren't all consenting, whoever they are.

If you don't know who they are, how do you know they weren't willing?

She's talking about the women who were paid by democrats to make accusations

 

[busybee01]

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.

Lmao! The people have not yet spoken for this term. Dozens of seats are going to change hands, those voters need to be counted.

Dozens of seats are going to change hands, those voters need to be counted.

The Dems are going to lose dozens of seats?

Republicans will lose 2-3 dozen seats in the House. The Senate revolves around 6 seats at this moment. 3 Republican and 3 Democrat.

 

[busybee01]

You don't have anything to offer. Your OP was dishonest. If you were a kid, you would deserve a good spanking for not telling the whole truth. I am not a hypocrite. I treat Trump theY same way that I treated Obama and even Clinton. Trump like Clinton does not deserve to be President as they are both sexual predators.

WTF is this off topic tantrum?
No one here cares about your feelings.

The only thing that is off is you and other Trump supporters. I believe in fair play and are tired of politics as usual. Republicans represent all the things that are wrong with this country. That is why I would like to see Democrats take over the House and Senate with moderates being the swing vote. We need to defang crazies on the Democrat left and the Republican right. Reagan was a right of center politician not a far right politician.

More off topic gibberish.

Very much on topic. You are spouting gibberish..

The thread is about the supreme court and Democrats. All you've offered is the typical whining about the mean ole GOP.

Get a grip

The Republicans play a role in this as well since they set the precedent.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I just heard, "How DARE the Republicans contradict us, EVER?!"

Republicans aren't saying anything different than they ever said. If you were too busy screeching over your sandy vagina to listen, that's on you.

 

[busybee01]

Lmao! The people have not yet spoken for this term. Dozens of seats are going to change hands, those voters need to be counted.

. Dozens of seats are going to change hands, those voters need to be counted.

You're dreaming

better than the nightmare republicans and trump are giving us now

Awe poor child. The big ole meanie is give you nightmares.

Perhaps you need a new safety blanket?

With the us against the world attitude you trump and your republican friends have you'll be needing more than that blanket,,,,,,,but you can always count on your commie friend Putin

Since Putin is more of a friend to Americans than any democrat, counting on him would put us in good hands.

You are a commie loving asshole.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The next Supreme Court Justice is going to be a young white catholic woman! That will make Harry Reid shit his drawers!

I hope so. Of the four that seem to be on the short list, I like her the best.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Lmao! The people have not yet spoken for this term. Dozens of seats are going to change hands, those voters need to be counted.

Dozens of seats are going to change hands, those voters need to be counted.

The Dems are going to lose dozens of seats?

Republicans will lose 2-3 dozen seats in the House. The Senate revolves around 6 seats at this moment. 3 Republican and 3 Democrat.

Republicans will lose 2-3 dozen seats in the House.

Neat story. Why do their votes need to be counted when it comes to judicial appointments?

 

[busybee01]

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.

I just heard, "How DARE the Republicans contradict us, EVER?!"

Republicans aren't saying anything different than they ever said. If you were too busy screeching over your sandy vagina to listen, that's on you.

You can't hear anything. Fair is fair. Republicans set the rules so turnabout is fair.

 

[Auld Phart]

presidential election this year I haven't heard about?

Midterms are elections as well.

The delay over Garland was to allow the INCOMING president to name his preferred Justice.

at the time the delay started, Hillary was considered a shoe in, and it was predicted she would also name Garland, or someone similar.

if the democrats somehow take the Senate, are thy going to delay Trumps nominations til either HE leaves office, or THEY lose the Senate?

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.

In that case we would never be able to replace justices because we have an election every two years. The Republicans never held a justice back because of midterms. It's just a phony excuse because the Democrats are still pissed about the Republicans holding out until after a PRESIDENTIAL election.

Republicans set the precedent. Does not matter whether it is Presidential or Congressional elections. The Senate does play a role in judicial nominations.

Biden set it 30 years ago

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

There was, but they didn't want to. That's their prerogative. Obama was a lame-duck President, and the GOP wanted to hear whether or not the people wished to continue in the direction he was trying to push the nation. That's also their prerogative.

On the other hand, they have absolutely nothing to wait around for this time, so they're not going to.

You're just ass-chapped because you're not getting your way, and you can't conceive of a world in which anyone has any right to prevent your will. Get over it.

 

[Borillar]

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.

I agree. There is hypocrisy all the way around. I said at the time that Garland deserved an up or down vote. The GOP had the majority, so they could have voted him down.

It would have been better that way.

Yes, it would. Now, advise and consent is gone. It is now just a political appointment.

 

[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.

I agree. There is hypocrisy all the way around. I said at the time that Garland deserved an up or down vote. The GOP had the majority, so they could have voted him down.

It would have been better that way.

Yes, it would. Now, advise and consent is gone. It is now just a political appointment.

Has been since Bork.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Lmao! The people have not yet spoken for this term. Dozens of seats are going to change hands, those voters need to be counted.

Dozens of seats are going to change hands, those voters need to be counted.

The Dems are going to lose dozens of seats?

Republicans will lose 2-3 dozen seats in the House. The Senate revolves around 6 seats at this moment. 3 Republican and 3 Democrat.

Republicans will lose 2-3 dozen seats in the House.

Neat story. Why do their votes need to be counted when it comes to judicial appointments?

How about because the Senate votes on judicial nominations.