Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Meister]

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.

Fair? What is fair in life and in politics? You need a reality check, son.

 

[kaz]

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.

They set a precedent for congressional elections when they didnt do it in an off year election. Got it. Wow, thats inane

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Republicans set the precedent. Does not matter whether it is Presidential or Congressional elections.

It doesn't matter to you simply because your party is not in the White House or in control of the Senate. The precedent of which you speak referred to an upcoming presidential election and that the voters should be able to choose the president who will make the next appointment. We already know which president is making the nomination.

 

[kaz]

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.

You're going to take the whitte house too!

Remember your 2016 prediction?

 

[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.

Everyone in DC is a hypocrite. Everyone of us are hypocrites.

Now, do you have anything productive to offer?

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 the same way that I treated Obama and even Clinton. Trump like Clinton does not deserve to be President as they are both sexual predators.

Yeah, I'm sure you're objective enough about males to know a real sexual predator from a horny guy.

Unless and until someone credibly accuses Trump of assaulting her, he's just a regular, garden-variety jackass.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

Earlier in the year I would have agreed with that, but now I think that number is overly optimistic. The Republicans will definitely lose House seats, but at this point I don't think it will be that many. It's hard to see what the environment will be like in November.

 

[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.

presidential election this year I haven't heard about?

Midterms are elections as well.

Yes, but they're quite different from Presidential elections, AND they are therefore quite different from what Republicans were talking about with Garland.

 

[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.

must be a real bummer always having so much butt hurt

--LOL

America's butt is hurting.

No, YOUR butt is hurting. Contrary to your vastly overinflated opinion, you are not America, and you do not speak for America.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

I don't think so. Trump made a few comments yesterday that make me think he won't nominate someone so clearly against R v W.

If he thinks "for" or "against" is or should be relevant, he's doing it wrong.

 

[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?

How about because the Senate votes on judicial nominations.

Yeah, Senate, not House.

 

[busybee01]

Been doing it this way since the country started. The only reason Democrats don't like the EC now is because they can't win.

Pay attention, you dumbass. My statements have nothing to do with whether the electoral college system is an appropriate mechanism for choosing the President. The question is whether the election reflects the People's choice for Supreme Court nominations.

Well Dumbass, the people chose Trump as our President so yes, they chose his nominations as well.

The people chose Obama in 2012 by an overwhelming majority vote. Republicans ignored their vote

Perhaps, but with the preponderance of Congress and Senate, it seems that his support was dwindling and buyers remorse set in by 2016. With Trump we continued that success so people's minds haven't changed much.

Basically people started turning against him because of Commie Care. All lies from saving $2,500 a year to better coverage for cheaper prices. If the results of Commie Care were known before 2012, Mickey Mouse could have beaten him.

That is why voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on healthcare. Voters want Obamacare fixed not repealed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I might agree with your argument, in principle. But Donald lost the popular vote. So the people didn't decide, the electoral college decided. I think the real truth in all of this is that our system of government needs a huge makeover, because our procedural processes have become diseased.

Sorry, but the popular vote and "the people" are not necessarily the same thing. If you think so, then you don't understand the history of America or the purpose of the Electoral College at all.

 

[Some Guy]

If Trump wanted to be a complete and utter boss, he'd say that he's waiting until after the 2018 mid-terms are over so that he can nominate anyone he wants, since the republicans will pick up seats in the 51. "I don't want to have to worry about getting Susan Collins' vote, so we'll just easily sail someone through at the beginning of 2019 with 55 or so republicans votes in the Senate.

It would stand a small chance at backfiring but man, that would be a such a pimp-ass move.

 

[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.

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?

The trouble is that Obama was President. Republicans had a history of being against everything Obama wanted to do. The idea that they were interested in what Clinton wanted was ludicrous.

I would love to see Democrat incumbents in Montana and North Dakota win. They are moderates. I would also like to see Democrats in Tennessee and Arizona win. They are moderates.

Oh, noes! The opposition party "had a history of being against" the President! That's OUTRAGEOUS! How DARE they! As if that's the purpose of an opposition party, or something.

My God, you're a childish little twerp.

 

[busybee01]

It is the new norm

Hold Supreme Court seats open until the political climate is favorable

Good idea. Keep riling up our base until the midterms.

The electorate does not care about filling court seats

They proved that in 2016

Maybe not your electorate, but Trump will have the bully pulpit and I'm sure he will use it to tear Democrats a new asshole if his nominees are held up. The guy has a knack of being able to rile up our base as you have witnessed in the past.

Some bully pulpit with 42 percent approval

Dems played that card in 2016 and voters did not care that the court sat empty. What makes you think they will care in 2020?

People just didn't want to see a Commie Court. Your side is a huge threat to freedom in this country and more and more people are realizing it, especially since some in your party consider Cortez the new face of the DNC; an admitted Socialist.

The real difference is how each side vents their anger. When your people get upset, they have protests, riots, attacking patrons in a restaurant, attacking children eating a hamburger, and by the time elections come around, you vented.

With us, we hold our anger in like a wife who's husband totally forgot their anniversary. But we don't burn down businesses, attack police officers.......we let all our anger out when we go vote. A hurricane or tornado can't stop us because we're so pissed.

So again, if your Senators want to rile up our base, then all we can do is let them.

We have a court where conservatives support higher taxes on Americans and believe that no warrant is required for cellphone records. That is not a court that I want.

 

[Flash]

Public Service Announcement.

For safety reasons all Americans should lock themselves in doors tonight.

The concussion of exploding Moon Bats heads when Trump announces the next Conservative Supreme could be very dangerous.

 

[kaz]

Good idea. Keep riling up our base until the midterms.

The electorate does not care about filling court seats

They proved that in 2016

Maybe not your electorate, but Trump will have the bully pulpit and I'm sure he will use it to tear Democrats a new asshole if his nominees are held up. The guy has a knack of being able to rile up our base as you have witnessed in the past.

Some bully pulpit with 42 percent approval

Dems played that card in 2016 and voters did not care that the court sat empty. What makes you think they will care in 2020?

People just didn't want to see a Commie Court. Your side is a huge threat to freedom in this country and more and more people are realizing it, especially since some in your party consider Cortez the new face of the DNC; an admitted Socialist.

The real difference is how each side vents their anger. When your people get upset, they have protests, riots, attacking patrons in a restaurant, attacking children eating a hamburger, and by the time elections come around, you vented.

With us, we hold our anger in like a wife who's husband totally forgot their anniversary. But we don't burn down businesses, attack police officers.......we let all our anger out when we go vote. A hurricane or tornado can't stop us because we're so pissed.

So again, if your Senators want to rile up our base, then all we can do is let them.

We have a court where conservatives support higher taxes on Americans and believe that no warrant is required for cellphone records. That is not a court that I want.

Higher taxes?

 

[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.

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.

Nope. For one thing, a milling mass of 100 people voting on confirmation is quite different from one guy nominating. For another, the GOP has zero interest in doing so, and zero reason for it.

It always amazes me how many people think that when the GOP gets in power, they're somehow obligated to hamstring themselves "to be fair and polite" in a way it never occurs to them to demand of the Dems.

 

[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.

If you knew your political history, BB...you'd know that it was Joe Biden who put forth the idea that a lame duck President shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court Justice right before an election. Who's really the hypocrite on this?

You seem to have forgotten Mitch McConnell's warnings to the Democrats back when they used the nuclear option to pack the Federal Courts with liberal judges. McConnell told the Democratic leadership that they would regret what they were doing and sooner than they could imagine. Guess what...he was spot on!

So what. I think that was wrong. I voted for neither major party candidate in 2016. I only know what is right. The Garland nomination should have been voted on.

 

[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.

Merrick Garland was unqualified. As unqualified as Robert Bork.

Garland deserved a up or down vote. If you say he was unqualified then he as probably qualified.