Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[busybee01]

It is quite clear then that the judge you hope is appointed is someone that will UPHOLD Roe vs. Wade, correct?

I think it would be good for a judge that will follow the law....even Roe v Wade.
FYI, If Roe v Wade were at risk the way the court is today it would already be history.
I think you're just using Roe v Wade as an excuse.
Once Roe v Wade ceases to be a problem I'm sure you will have another reason to bellyache.

A whole lot of your arguments are based on assumptions you make about me (or Democrats in general). It's a pretty narrow minded way to argue and only serves if your goal is to argue your side....NOT get to the truth.

Unlike you I don't get all of my news from the MSM.
You want to buy into the propaganda the establishment pumps out, which is 95% negative.

I learned several years ago not to buy into their rubbish that passes for news.
You still lap it up like a Collie.

Not even close to being true.....not to mention how you'd know how I get "my news" in the first place (are you peeking in my windows again?!)

You claim to care about news sources but blindly believe propaganda coming from Trump and his Administration?! Why?!?! Because that's what you're told to believe. Pathetic.

Hypocrite much?

Trump has no propaganda, you ******* twit.
He isn't in control of the media.
The Deep State is.

We're done talking here because you're just a time waster.

There is no deep state. Trump has propagandists like Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Drudge to name a few.

 

[Polishprince]

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

Wishful thinking on the part of the libs, IMHO.

No Blue Wave, in fact I'd say there is a better chance that President Trump will be schlonging the libs royally in November.

 

[Polishprince]

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

Unfortunately, during a Presidential Election year, they really didn't have time to do a thorough Borking of Garland and really destroy his reputation. And since that was what was called for, before the vote, it wasn't going to happen.

The Dems should have worked to get control of the Senate if they were concerned about the confirmation process.

 

[Indeependent]

I think it would be good for a judge that will follow the law....even Roe v Wade.
FYI, If Roe v Wade were at risk the way the court is today it would already be history.
I think you're just using Roe v Wade as an excuse.
Once Roe v Wade ceases to be a problem I'm sure you will have another reason to bellyache.

A whole lot of your arguments are based on assumptions you make about me (or Democrats in general). It's a pretty narrow minded way to argue and only serves if your goal is to argue your side....NOT get to the truth.

Unlike you I don't get all of my news from the MSM.
You want to buy into the propaganda the establishment pumps out, which is 95% negative.

I learned several years ago not to buy into their rubbish that passes for news.
You still lap it up like a Collie.

Not even close to being true.....not to mention how you'd know how I get "my news" in the first place (are you peeking in my windows again?!)

You claim to care about news sources but blindly believe propaganda coming from Trump and his Administration?! Why?!?! Because that's what you're told to believe. Pathetic.

Hypocrite much?

Trump has no propaganda, you ******* twit.
He isn't in control of the media.
The Deep State is.

We're done talking here because you're just a time waster.

There is no deep state. Trump has propagandists like Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Drudge to name a few.

Because the rest are all Liberal shills.

 

[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.

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

Those voters have representation now just as much as they will then.

Midterm elections aren't Presidential elections, and the GOP is neither interested nor obligated to be interested in how powerless the Democrats feel at the moment.

 

[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.

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

The voters did decide and put Trump and the Republicans in power.

Obama didn't have the Senate votes to confirm Garland, Trump does have the votes to confirm his pick.

It's pretty simple. What you have is in medical terms called butt hurt. It's complicated by that you also have a case of spoiled child syndrome.

I'll let this guy explain it to you

‘Elections have consequences’

Brilliantly put.

 

[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?

Democrats are certain that they will change the majority in congress and the Senate, They will impeach Trump and the entire administration and a democrat will be president. Then they can appoint the new justice. To them, Trump is a lame duck with only four months left in his term.

Yeah, well, they were also certain America was going to warm to Hillary Clinton and want to listen to her haranguing them on the news every night. Can't say I'm all that impressed with the Dems' prognostications.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

You didn't get the memo. To democrats women are now "gashes". They are reduced to the mindless slits of their vaginas. That's why their particular poisons of late have been directed at women.

Except for when they're actually men in dresses.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I'm with AngryOldLady. I don't think Barrett is going to be the pick. Not just because of Roe v. Wade, but she has a short history on the bench. Not that Trump doesn't like her for those, just it would make the confirmation more difficult.

Kavanaugh has too much of the American traitor Roberts has. I'm pulling for Kethledge. Go Blue!

On the other hand, the way we do Justice hearings these days, conservative types are forced to do the "stealth candidate" thing, which makes not having a long, obvious record an asset.

 

[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?

Democrats are certain that they will change the majority in congress and the Senate, They will impeach Trump and the entire administration and a democrat will be president. Then they can appoint the new justice. To them, Trump is a lame duck with only four months left in his term.

For one, even if they impeach Trump, it doesn't mean he's out of office. That's a separate process.

Two, even if they could impeach him and then throw him out of office, the VP takes over from that point.

Yes, but YOU have read the Constitution. They haven't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

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

i thought making fun of skn color was racism...

In all fairness, I think that's only if it's not applied in a tanning salon.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

And it does, in a much more evenhanded way than simplistic mob-rule voting would. In fact, giving voice to everyone in the country is part of the EC's purpose.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Really? So refresh our memories. Who has come forward and credibly charged Trump with assaulting her (or him, I'm not judging)?

 

[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 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.

Except that one does not "deserve" a vote, because the Senate isn't obligated to vote. They can, or not, as the majority chooses.

 

[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.

Both parties used to put politics aside when it came to Supreme Court Justices
They deferred to the President in his choice unless there were specific critical objections

Republicans changed that process to where an opposing candidate will not even be considered while they hold the Senate. They invoked the nuclear option where only a majority is needed to confirm

Now they get to live under the same rules

But a bad decision doesn't have to be repeated, does it? It was egregious what McConnell did. I don't agree with the Dems doing the same thing, even though their argument makes as much sense, I guess.

It is just one more excuse for refusing to get anything whatsoever done in Congress. This has to end.

You don't know much about government, do you? Ignoring things and refusing to act on them one way or another has always been an option for every branch of government, intentionally so.

 

[kaz]

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?

I'm with AngryOldLady. I don't think Barrett is going to be the pick. Not just because of Roe v. Wade, but she has a short history on the bench. Not that Trump doesn't like her for those, just it would make the confirmation more difficult.

Kavanaugh has too much of the American traitor Roberts has. I'm pulling for Kethledge. Go Blue!

On the other hand, the way we do Justice hearings these days, conservative types are forced to do the "stealth candidate" thing, which makes not having a long, obvious record an asset.

It's probably up to collins and murkowski. Doesnt give me a warm and fuzzy

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

Democrats aren’t going to win the Senate.

 

[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.

So? The people had already picked Obama to replace vacancies from 2013 and through 2016.

So the GOP had reason to think the people might have rethought that decision by then. And they had the power to find out. As it turned out, they were correct.

 

[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.

So? The people had already picked Obama to replace vacancies from 2013 and through 2016.

And how did that work out for Obama?

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

For him to be "robbed", he would have to have had some sort of proprietary right to it, and he didn't. Ultimately, that seat belongs to the people of the United States, not any particular judge whose ass might get planted there.

I have no doubt that Democrats would do anything and everything they could to **** over Republicans, regardless of what Republicans did and with a whole lot less observation of the letter of the rules, so for you to pretend that they're innocent victims of some outrageous, unprecedented eeeeevil is somewhat less than convincing.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

There is no deep state. Trump has propagandists like Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Drudge to name a few.

Really?

I guess you've never, even once dealt with the bureaucracy, stupidity, laziness, incompetence and arrogance of so many dipshits who work in government on ALL levels have you?
(There are a few really good people working in govt, but few and far in between)
I call it the DEEP SHIT STATE