Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Sun Devil 92]

Well then you’ll be ok with it when a Democrat-led Senate shuts out a Republican President at some point in the future, potentially for years.

If the Democrat Party wins the Senate in November, that's exactly what we'll have.

Regardless of what President Trump were to do this evening.

Do you think if Trump waited until after November to name Mark R. Levin to the Supreme Court, he'll suddenly be acceptable to the Far Left?

Of course not, that's why the President is going to push this right through before Labor Day.

So? Other seats are likely to open up in the near future. Democrats can shut the door to replacing them if they win. And thanks to McConnell, that door can remain shut for years, if need be, until a Democrat wins the White House.

That is true.

If they win.

In spite of the claims that the GOP is dead.....it seems the Democrats are not doing a lot of that lately.

And spare me the one off elections.

 

[Faun]

. And thanks to McConnell, that door can remain shut for years, if need be, until a Democrat wins the White House.

Nothing can be done about that now, what McConnell did in 2016 is water over the dam.

If libs want to act like children over things that can't be changed, I guess that's just tough shit. President Trump will fight fire with fire.

And after Democrats do it to Trump, or whoever the next Republican President is, that too will become “water over the dam.” That’s the new Senate rule McConnell created, available to both sides.

 

[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.

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

Maybe that is why politicians rate lower than cockroaches. You need the reality check.

 

[Polishprince]

That’s the new Senate rule McConnell created, available to both sides.

Actually, it wasn't McConnell that created it, it was Chuck U. Schumer and Joe Bite Me, who worked to stop Dubya's appointments.

The Republicans relented for the first 7 years of O's Regime, but after Scalia was whacked, McConnell started following Schumer's rules which stopped the confirmation of qualified jurists like Pickering under President Bush.

But in any event, Trump is planning to schlong the Democrats in November, so he'll be able to get a lot of new justices in.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Not true. The Senate is fully in play. That is why Republicans started a campaign to get Kennedy to retire now before the midterms.

 

[busybee01]

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

You are inane. A election is a election.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate (2), and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

Annotations added

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint

And without consent, sorry...…..

you read what I wrote, didn’t you?

I included that as one of the first 3 steps in the process, all of which are required for the 4th and final step of appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.

you read what I wrote, didn’t you?

I did.

I included that as one of the first 3 steps in the process, all of which are required for the 4th and final step

So you already realize that without the Consent, there is no appointment. Excellent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate (3),[/COLOR] and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

Annotations added

With Garland, the Senate didn't consent.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.

But no worries, karma is strong in politics. What goes around, comes around; and I have no doubt the day will come when the shoe will be on the other foot and then Democrats can invoke the McConnell rule.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.


And they were right.

Well then you’ll be ok with it when a Democrat-led Senate shuts out a Republican President at some point in the future, potentially for years.

I don't have to be okay with it, it will happen whether I approve or not.

 

[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.

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.

That is a great recommendation. He's only a jackass. What a standard. They are both sexual predators.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

Not true. The Senate is fully in play. That is why Republicans started a campaign to get Kennedy to retire now before the midterms.

Father Time, not the Republicans, are responsible for Justice Kennedy's retirement. The man is 82 years old, he's earned his time at the bar and the bocce courts.

 

[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?

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.

But...But....You started it

 

[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.

Maybe that is why politicians rate lower than cockroaches. You need the reality check.

You're going to go through life disappointed, son. Reality check is that LIFE and POLITICS ISN'T FAIR.
You need to man up and grow a pair..

 

[rightwinger]

Well then you’ll be ok with it when a Democrat-led Senate shuts out a Republican President at some point in the future, potentially for years.

If the Democrat Party wins the Senate in November, that's exactly what we'll have.

Regardless of what President Trump were to do this evening.

Do you think if Trump waited until after November to name Mark R. Levin to the Supreme Court, he'll suddenly be acceptable to the Far Left?

Of course not, that's why the President is going to push this right through before Labor Day.

So? Other seats are likely to open up in the near future. Democrats can shut the door to replacing them if they win. And thanks to McConnell, that door can remain shut for years, if need be, until a Democrat wins the White House.

Republicans have made it clear it is acceptable to have an eight judge court

Why not six or seven if need be?

The public does not care

 

[busybee01]

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.

I don't have a party. Ronald Reagan would not be a part of the Trump Republican Party. I am going to be fighting to get rid of the Trump Republican Party including something I never have nor ever thought I would need to do. Vote for a Democrat.

 

[rightwinger]

That’s the new Senate rule McConnell created, available to both sides.

Actually, it wasn't McConnell that created it, it was Chuck U. Schumer and Joe Bite Me, who worked to stop Dubya's appointments.

The Republicans relented for the first 7 years of O's Regime, but after Scalia was whacked, McConnell started following Schumer's rules which stopped the confirmation of qualified jurists like Pickering under President Bush.

But in any event, Trump is planning to schlong the Democrats in November, so he'll be able to get a lot of new justices in.

Bush named two judges including the Chief Justice
Dems not only gave them a vote, but approved them

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

I don't have a party. Ronald Reagan would not be a part of the Trump Republican Party. I am going to be fighting to get rid of the Trump Republican Party including something I never have nor ever thought I would need to do. Vote for a Democrat.

You were never a Republican.

 

[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?

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.

You are a racist little twerp. The fact is that Reagan worked with Democrats to get sweeping tax cuts through Congress. H e later worked with Democrats to get major tax reform passed.

 

[busybee01]

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.

I don't have a party. Ronald Reagan would not be a part of the Trump Republican Party. I am going to be fighting to get rid of the Trump Republican Party including something I never have nor ever thought I would need to do. Vote for a Democrat.

You were never a Republican.

I voted for every Republican from 1980 to 2012. You shut your yap and don't tell me what I did.

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

I don't have a party. Ronald Reagan would not be a part of the Trump Republican Party. I am going to be fighting to get rid of the Trump Republican Party including something I never have nor ever thought I would need to do. Vote for a Democrat.

You were never a Republican.

I voted for every Republican from 1980 to 2012. You shut your yap and don't tell me what I did.

Sure you have....

No one who voted for Reagan could ever vote for a Democrat today.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Then Trump better learn to schlong quickly.