Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Polishprince]

And I see no particular reason Thomas should retire any time soon.

No one knows the future, and there is a possibility he won't be able to retire in the future if the Far Left recaptures the presidency and/or the US 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.

Actually, the people decided when they elected Obama.

Twice.

With over 50% of the vote.

Twice.

With an overwhelming majority in both the popular vote by the people, and the electoral college.

Twice.

Which will be irrelevant over the next 30 years anyway, as white conservatives become a total minority in America, and a multicultural majority of Liberals erases the current 242 years of conservatism permanently from the landscape.

Just imagine your legacy in the history books gramps.

You're on the right side of history, eh comrade?

History's written by the winners, so he might want to spend less time posturing about how EVENTUALLY, he'll be right, and more time convincing people RIGHT NOW that he's right.

He isn’t right.

I know that, you know that, HE knows that. That's why he's not trying to make an argument for his position now, and is instead just hoping someone will cover for him in the future.

 

[Faun]

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)?

President Trump and accusations of sexual misconduct: The complete list

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Sure, but what goes around comes around. Harry Reid was warned about changing the Senate rules during Obama's administration about requiring a simple majority vote for most federal judges that it could come back to bite Democrats in the ass and it has. What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

Actually, the people decided when they elected Obama.

Twice.

With over 50% of the vote.

Twice.

With an overwhelming majority in both the popular vote by the people, and the electoral college.

Twice.

Which will be irrelevant over the next 30 years anyway, as white conservatives become a total minority in America, and a multicultural majority of Liberals erases the current 242 years of conservatism permanently from the landscape.

Just imagine your legacy in the history books gramps.

You're on the right side of history, eh comrade?

History's written by the winners, so he might want to spend less time posturing about how EVENTUALLY, he'll be right, and more time convincing people RIGHT NOW that he's right.

He isn’t right.

I know that, you know that, HE knows that. That's why he's not trying to make an argument for his position now, and is instead just hoping someone will cover for him in the future.

Democrats don’t have a good future ahead of them.

 

[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.

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

Sure, but what goes around comes around. Harry Reid was warned about changing the Senate rules during Obama's administration about requiring a simple majority vote for most federal judges that it could come back to bite Democrats in the ass and it has. What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

The Democrats will be lucky to have 45 seats, why would they have any say in the matter?

 

[eagle7_31]

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.

Sure, but what goes around comes around. Harry Reid was warned about changing the Senate rules during Obama's administration about requiring a simple majority vote for most federal judges that it could come back to bite Democrats in the ass and it has. What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

If a vacancy occurs during 2020 like it did in 2016 you wait until after the election. Its pretty much been that way for many years.

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

Sure, but what goes around comes around. Harry Reid was warned about changing the Senate rules during Obama's administration about requiring a simple majority vote for most federal judges that it could come back to bite Democrats in the ass and it has. What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

Republicans will have to then follow the rule or risk getting slaughtered for their hypocrisy.

 

[rightwinger]

What if he nominates a Black man? Would that make the Democrats racist if they filibuster him?

Let’s try it and see

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

Sure, but what goes around comes around. Harry Reid was warned about changing the Senate rules during Obama's administration about requiring a simple majority vote for most federal judges that it could come back to bite Democrats in the ass and it has. What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

The Democrats will be lucky to have 45 seats, why would they have any say in the matter?

Because that would kill the Republicans if they didn’t follow through.

It would also likely help them do even better if they showed that Democrats are the only ones breaking the rules.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Sure, but what goes around comes around. Harry Reid was warned about changing the Senate rules during Obama's administration about requiring a simple majority vote for most federal judges that it could come back to bite Democrats in the ass and it has. What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

I doubt if Dems will support any Trump pick

 

[Faun]

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.

Nice excuse. Should Democrats take control of the Senate in January, that can be their excuse for refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Trump’s nominees should Ginsberg or Breyer’s seat open up.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Sure, but what goes around comes around. Harry Reid was warned about changing the Senate rules during Obama's administration about requiring a simple majority vote for most federal judges that it could come back to bite Democrats in the ass and it has. What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

The Democrats will be lucky to have 45 seats, why would they have any say in the matter?

The Senate is very much in the balance. You're a fool if you don't believe that.

 

[Faun]

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 fuck 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.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

 

[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.

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

Sure, but what goes around comes around. Harry Reid was warned about changing the Senate rules during Obama's administration about requiring a simple majority vote for most federal judges that it could come back to bite Democrats in the ass and it has. What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

The Democrats will be lucky to have 45 seats, why would they have any say in the matter?

Because that would kill the Republicans if they didn’t follow through.

It would also likely help them do even better if they showed that Democrats are the only ones breaking the rules.

Because that would kill the Republicans if they didn’t follow through.

Most people don't care. The people who do aren't going to change their votes.

 

[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.

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

Sure, but what goes around comes around. Harry Reid was warned about changing the Senate rules during Obama's administration about requiring a simple majority vote for most federal judges that it could come back to bite Democrats in the ass and it has. What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

The Democrats will be lucky to have 45 seats, why would they have any say in the matter?

The Senate is very much in the balance. You're a fool if you don't believe that.

The Dems are very much going to lose seats.

 

[Auld Phart]

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 fuck 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.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements

They dont' have to be confirmed by the Senate?

 

[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.

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 fuck 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.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements

The Constitution grants the senate the authority to confirm USSC replacements.....or not.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Sure, but what goes around comes around. Harry Reid was warned about changing the Senate rules during Obama's administration about requiring a simple majority vote for most federal judges that it could come back to bite Democrats in the ass and it has. What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

What happens if a SCOTUS justice resigns or dies a few months prior to the 2020 election and the Democrats refuse a vote on Trump's pick until they see whether or not he wins reelection first?

The Democrats will be lucky to have 45 seats, why would they have any say in the matter?

The Senate is very much in the balance. You're a fool if you don't believe that.

The Dems are very much going to lose seats.

There is no sure thing about that at all. You have several swing seats in play on both sides.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

hmmm

didn't they have the opposite opinion in 2016?

Yes, they sure did but what goes around comes around.

Uh...no.

They held the senate in 2016.

They hold the senate now.

Hello conservative justice.