Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Sounds like a good idea. Let's see the make up of the Senate after November. If, as trumpanzees claim, they hold on to the majority, why are they so afraid?

Because we don't need to wait.

You guys lost in 2016.

Voting them in now would be great way to tell you and other left wingers to SHOVE IT SIDEWAYS.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

who cares what they say

the also said elections has consequences

so fuck em

I second that motion.

 

[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.

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?

Democrats act like jackasses no matter what Republicans do, so you'll excuse me if I see no motivation here to hold back one iota.

I will say that IF your daydream hypothetical happens, at least THEN you'll be able to screech and wail and clutch your pearls and actually be somewhere close to accurate, which you haven't managed THIS time.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

You know that Marxist Elena Kagan was nominate right at the 2010 congressional election, right Comrade?

Do you grasp that we are NOT changing presidents this time around? Trump will appoint regardless.

Stalinists, stupid as dog shit, but not as pleasant to be around..

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The way I figure it, no matter what happens politically, leftists are going to have to spend the rest of their miserable lives being themselves, and knowing that they are themselves. There's literally nothing we could do to them that wouldn't be overkill.

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

Even if that were true, it will be to Republican’s benefit to make Democrats be the one to break that rule and suffer the consequences via #walkaway.

Getting rid of the rule would also be damaging to the process of governing and politics itself.

 

[Uncensored2008]

hmmm

didn't they have the opposite opinion in 2016?

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

Yep, in about 30 years you Stalinists will again have the opportunity to alter the makeup of the court.

 

[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.

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.

Well, goody for you. I'm glad to hear that you've got a nice little fantasy all lined up where you get to come out ahead. It should be a comfort to you through the long, lonely years in which you can't accomplish a fucking thing in real life.

Meanwhile, I'm laughing my ass off at your dark "threats" about how you're going to get us and our little dogs too . . . eventually . . . someday . . . it could happen . . . so we should give you everything you want, as soon as you demand it, just in case . . . because . . .

 

[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?

Democrats act like jackasses no matter what Republicans do, so you'll excuse me if I see no motivation here to hold back one iota.

I will say that IF your daydream hypothetical happens, at least THEN you'll be able to screech and wail and clutch your pearls and actually be somewhere close to accurate, which you haven't managed THIS time.

Democrats act like jackasses no matter what Republicans do, so you'll excuse me if I see no motivation here to hold back one iota.

Winner winner!!!

 

[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 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.

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

 

[Faun]

We the people elected Obama to make Supreme Court selections

And Obama made his selection, and the US Senate rejected it. The fact that they rejected it without formal hearings or a formal vote doesn't change that fact.

Had they done that, it wouldn’t have been an issue. What actually did was announce prior to Obama’s nomination that he need not nominate anyone because they were going to deny him his appointment no matter who he selected.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Even if that were true, it will be to Republican’s benefit to make Democrats be the one to break that rule and suffer the consequences via #walkaway.

Getting rid of the rule would also be damaging to the process of governing and politics itself.

Even if that were true, it will be to Republican’s benefit to make Democrats be the one to break that rule and suffer the consequences via #walkaway.

The Republicans gain nothing by waiting, the Democrats lose nothing by breaking the "rule".
There would be zero consequences.

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

Even if that were true, it will be to Republican’s benefit to make Democrats be the one to break that rule and suffer the consequences via #walkaway.

Getting rid of the rule would also be damaging to the process of governing and politics itself.

Even if that were true, it will be to Republican’s benefit to make Democrats be the one to break that rule and suffer the consequences via #walkaway.

The Republicans gain nothing by waiting, the Democrats lose nothing by breaking the "rule".
There would be zero consequences.

That isn’t true.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We the people elected Obama to make Supreme Court selections

And Obama made his selection, and the US Senate rejected it. The fact that they rejected it without formal hearings or a formal vote doesn't change that fact.

Had they done that, it wouldn’t have been an issue. What actually did was announce prior to Obama’s nomination that he need not nominate anyone because they were going to deny him his appointment no matter who he selected.

they were going to deny him his appointment no matter who he selected.

Politics ain't beanbag.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Even if that were true, it will be to Republican’s benefit to make Democrats be the one to break that rule and suffer the consequences via #walkaway.

Getting rid of the rule would also be damaging to the process of governing and politics itself.

Even if that were true, it will be to Republican’s benefit to make Democrats be the one to break that rule and suffer the consequences via #walkaway.

The Republicans gain nothing by waiting, the Democrats lose nothing by breaking the "rule".
There would be zero consequences.

That isn’t true.

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

Had they done that, it wouldn’t have been an issue. What actually did was announce prior to Obama’s nomination that he need not nominate anyone because they were going to deny him his appointment no matter who he selected.

It's wasn't an issue anyway.

You Stalinist fucks threw a tantrum, America ignored you and elected Trump.

Standard Disclaimer: Then Trump ended the absurd plan to give your country Nuclear weapons to support your drive to establish a global Caliphate - which gives you a sadz...

 

[Cecilie1200]

We the people elected Obama to make Supreme Court selections

And Obama made his selection, and the US Senate rejected it. The fact that they rejected it without formal hearings or a formal vote doesn't change that fact.

Had they done that, it wouldn’t have been an issue. What actually did was announce prior to Obama’s nomination that he need not nominate anyone because they were going to deny him his appointment no matter who he selected.

Contrary to your belief that you are entitled to whatever you want, as soon as you decide you want it, there actually is no entitlement to a formal vote.

Much the same way the Democrats started screeching that they were going to oppose Trump's candidate a good week before he even announced it. They're going to reject his NOMINEE (get it right, monarchist) no matter who he selects, and it's only by the grace of God and the repulsiveness of Democrats in general that they don't have the power to deny him/her outright.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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.

No vote during the election year, just what year would that be. Some election years start right after the first one just look at when Trump was elected. Jimmy Carter start his run two year before the election was. They are just planing catch up in this case.

 

[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.

No vote during the election year, just what year would that be. Some election years start right after the first one just look at when Trump was elected. Jimmy Carter start his run two year before the election was. They are just planing catch up in this case.View attachment 203840

An election year would be the year in which the actual election is held. What you're talking about would be a "campaign year", which is different.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

What's rather ironic, BB is that I believe the reason Democrats didn't push the Garland nomination as hard as they could have...is that they were completely confident that Hillary Clinton would be the next President of the United States and that SHE could then nominate an even more liberal Justice! That was a gamble that Mitch McConnell and the GOP took as well because although Garland was liberal...he might very well have been far less liberal than the Justice that a Hillary Clinton might have selected. Give McConnell credit...he guessed right on the election and the leaders of the Democratic Party did not!