Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[JoeMoma]

Let's be real here. The republican's blocking of Garland before the 2016 election was a hail mary to keep Obama from swinging the court to the left. Had Garland been seated to the bench, the left would be able to legislate from the bench for many years to come. However, it would all be an exercise in futility had HRC been elected president. Had Obama been replacing a liberal judge with a liberal judge, I doubt the senate republicans would had bothered to block his nomination.

That being said, the move of blocking Garland helped to put Trump in office. The main reason many people (bit their tongues) and voted for Trump was his list of people he would consider for the supreme court.

The democrats may try for a similar hail mary this election, but it will no happen without republican help. If the dems can delay the confirmation until the next congress and retake the senate, they may be able to force Trump into nominating a moderate. This hail mary could easily backfire if republicans take more senate seats.

Lets be real; elections have consequences and what ever party is in power will use that power as they see fit.

 

[Slyhunter]

Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide", if you're a partisan politician that's what you do.

Not that I agree with the tactic, the words I added simply popped into my head as if I was hearing a GEICO commercial.

62% of Americans Want New Supreme Court Justice Before Midterms - [your]NEWS
62% of the people want him confirmed before the elections. They have decided.

 

[Wyatt earp]

But as I noted in my column, majority parties in the Senate have used a variety of procedural devices to thwart Supreme Court nominees; of the 34 failed nominations (not counting one who was withdrawn and resubmitted for technical reasons), only twelve received a direct vote, and five were withdrawn in the face of opposition. The rest were prevented from moving forward due to a variety of Senate procedures. Some of those involved a vote on the record to table the nomination, some did not (William Micou’s nomination by Millard Fillmore in 1853 died without any action by the Senate).

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

The examples he gives...

Adams, 1828 - That came after the 1828 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016.
​

Tyler, 1845 - Tyler was not elected president and of his nominees, some had hearings, some did not and one was even confirmed. That is not like what Republicans did with Obama in 2016 where they announced they would not hold a confirmation hearing for Obama no matter who he nominated and they announced that before he even picked Garland.

Fillmore, 1852 - Not elected president and his first nomination came in August, 1852, three months before the election. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Buchanan, 1861 - Buchanan's nomination was made 3 months after the 1860 election and 1 month before he was leaving office.

Hayes, 1881 - That came after the 1880 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Johnson, 1968 - That was not like Obama in 2016. Johnson's nomination came in June of 1968, was the result of a justice retiring to hand LBJ the replacement, and Johnson's nominee was given a confirmation hearing.

So no, there has never been a circumstance like Obama's where a president, elected to a 4 year term which includes nominating Supreme Court replacements, was flat out denied a confirmation hearing no matter who he nominated with 10 months (21% of his term) remaining in office. And not even a rightwing source like the National Review can spin it to make it appear like this was nothing new.​

Johnson in 1866 made a nomination, they ignored it.

Johnson was also not elected president. So also not like Obama.

Oh, so only elected Presidents get to appoint Supreme Court Justices.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Seriously? This needs to be explained to you?

McConnell's pathetic excuse for refusing to consider anyone Obama put up was to let America decide. That's bullshit since America already decided in 2012, but that was his excuse just the same. So why would you compare that to those who America did not elect as president??

He rolled the dice , won and nuked your ass back into the stone age.



.

 

[Faun]

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.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in your hallucinations.

 

[Faun]

The examples he gives...

Adams, 1828 - That came after the 1828 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016.
​

Tyler, 1845 - Tyler was not elected president and of his nominees, some had hearings, some did not and one was even confirmed. That is not like what Republicans did with Obama in 2016 where they announced they would not hold a confirmation hearing for Obama no matter who he nominated and they announced that before he even picked Garland.

Fillmore, 1852 - Not elected president and his first nomination came in August, 1852, three months before the election. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Buchanan, 1861 - Buchanan's nomination was made 3 months after the 1860 election and 1 month before he was leaving office.

Hayes, 1881 - That came after the 1880 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Johnson, 1968 - That was not like Obama in 2016. Johnson's nomination came in June of 1968, was the result of a justice retiring to hand LBJ the replacement, and Johnson's nominee was given a confirmation hearing.

So no, there has never been a circumstance like Obama's where a president, elected to a 4 year term which includes nominating Supreme Court replacements, was flat out denied a confirmation hearing no matter who he nominated with 10 months (21% of his term) remaining in office. And not even a rightwing source like the National Review can spin it to make it appear like this was nothing new.​

Johnson in 1866 made a nomination, they ignored it.

Johnson was also not elected president. So also not like Obama.

Oh, so only elected Presidents get to appoint Supreme Court Justices.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Seriously? This needs to be explained to you?

McConnell's pathetic excuse for refusing to consider anyone Obama put up was to let America decide. That's bullshit since America already decided in 2012, but that was his excuse just the same. So why would you compare that to those who America did not elect as president??

He rolled the dice , won and nuked your ass back into the stone age.



.

And created a new rule which Democrats will get to use some day.

 

[Faun]

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.

Had you understood what I wrote, you would have known I was aware of that when you first read it.

 

[Polishprince]

Grassley tries to nudge Supreme Court justices into early retirement

McConnell aims to reshape courts in case Senate flips

Justice Kennedy is 82, that's hardly "early" retirement.

Ditto for Breyer and Ginsberg, they are of advanced age as well. Replacing them with young people in 2018 would be the wise move.

 

[Polishprince]

You are a fascist pig.

The Senate has a role to play so it is legitimate to wait until after the midterms.

The people of WV, ND, IN, PA, OH, all have a right to know how their senators are voting on Kavanaugh before they cast a vote in the election. Waiting until after they are already in (or out) is unfair to the electorate.

BTW, Kavanaugh is a tremendous choice, and will be a fabulous Supreme Court justice who will be serving for many decades.

 

[asaratis]

Therefore, waiting until after the next election is nothing more than a delay tactic designed to possibly increase the Democrat Party's chances of never confirming a Trump nominee.

Good. I hope they delay as much as possible. Fuck McConnell. He set the precedent.

Actually, it's called the Biden Rule...for a reason.

Nope, there’s no such thing as the Biden rule as it was never implemented. Even worse for the nutty right, unlike what McConnell actually did, which was to tell the president there’s no point in nominating anyone because the Senate was not going to confirm any Obama nominee; what Biden suggested was to hold off confirmation hearings until after the election, which was just a few months away, and then hold hearings. He never said he wanted to utterly deny a duly elected president his Constitutional authority to appoint Supreme Court justices. That’s the McConnell rule.

The Biden Standard

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), Then-Judiciary Committee Chairman: “…it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not - and not - name a nominee until after the November election is completed.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316-7, 6/25/1992)



BIDEN: In Multiple Instances, ‘The President Himself Withheld Making A Nomination Until After The Election Was Held’
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “Can our Supreme Court nomination and confirmation processes, so racked by discord and bitterness, be repaired in a Presidential election year? History teaches us that this is extremely unlikely. Some of our Nation's most bitter and heated confirmation fights have come in Presidential election years. The bruising confirmation fight over Roger Taney's nomination in 1836; the Senate's refusal to confirm four nominations by President Tyler in 1844; the single vote rejections of nominees Badger and Black by lameduck Presidents Fillmore and Buchanan, in the mid-19th century; and the narrow approvals of Justices Lamar and Fuller in 1888 are just some examples of these fights in the 19th century.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316, 6/25/1992)

• BIDEN: “…in 1800, 1828, 1864, and 1956-the President himself withheld making a nomination until after the election was held. …it is time to consider whether this unbroken string of historical tradition should be broken. In my view, what history supports, common sense dictates in the case of 1992.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316, 6/25/1992)

BIDEN: ‘The Senate Judiciary Committee Should Seriously Consider Not Scheduling Confirmation Hearings On The Nomination Until After The Political Campaign Season Is Over’
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)

• BIDEN: “I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)

Do you realize nothing you posted refuted or contradicted what I said?

Yes. It merely documents that the idea of not confirming a President's nominee in a Presidential election year has long been called "The Biden Standard (rule)"....NOT "The McConnel Rule" as you erroneously claimed. Neither has ever been added to the Senate Rules.

 

[Faun]

Good. I hope they delay as much as possible. Fuck McConnell. He set the precedent.

Actually, it's called the Biden Rule...for a reason.

Nope, there’s no such thing as the Biden rule as it was never implemented. Even worse for the nutty right, unlike what McConnell actually did, which was to tell the president there’s no point in nominating anyone because the Senate was not going to confirm any Obama nominee; what Biden suggested was to hold off confirmation hearings until after the election, which was just a few months away, and then hold hearings. He never said he wanted to utterly deny a duly elected president his Constitutional authority to appoint Supreme Court justices. That’s the McConnell rule.

The Biden Standard

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), Then-Judiciary Committee Chairman: “…it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not - and not - name a nominee until after the November election is completed.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316-7, 6/25/1992)



BIDEN: In Multiple Instances, ‘The President Himself Withheld Making A Nomination Until After The Election Was Held’
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “Can our Supreme Court nomination and confirmation processes, so racked by discord and bitterness, be repaired in a Presidential election year? History teaches us that this is extremely unlikely. Some of our Nation's most bitter and heated confirmation fights have come in Presidential election years. The bruising confirmation fight over Roger Taney's nomination in 1836; the Senate's refusal to confirm four nominations by President Tyler in 1844; the single vote rejections of nominees Badger and Black by lameduck Presidents Fillmore and Buchanan, in the mid-19th century; and the narrow approvals of Justices Lamar and Fuller in 1888 are just some examples of these fights in the 19th century.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316, 6/25/1992)

• BIDEN: “…in 1800, 1828, 1864, and 1956-the President himself withheld making a nomination until after the election was held. …it is time to consider whether this unbroken string of historical tradition should be broken. In my view, what history supports, common sense dictates in the case of 1992.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316, 6/25/1992)

BIDEN: ‘The Senate Judiciary Committee Should Seriously Consider Not Scheduling Confirmation Hearings On The Nomination Until After The Political Campaign Season Is Over’
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)

• BIDEN: “I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)

Do you realize nothing you posted refuted or contradicted what I said?

Yes. It merely documents that the idea of not confirming a President's nominee in a Presidential election year has long been called "The Biden Standard (rule)"....NOT "The McConnel Rule" as you erroneously claimed. Neither has ever been added to the Senate Rules.

Are you an idiot or a liar? Biden never proposed refusing a president's nominee a confirmation hearing.

As far as the McConnell rule not being added to the Senate rules, neither was your so called, "Biden rule," yet here you are, pretending like there is such a thing.

 

[oreo]

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.

Turn about is fair play. Democrats have every right to block this nominee until after the midterm election cycle. Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, Obama's last pick 6 months before the election, so they could campaign on the SCOTUS, and I would expect that Democrats will do the same.

After campaigning on the SCOTUS--Trump picked a nominee in Niel Gorsuch that Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama voted for in 2006. Niel Gorsuch, a G.W. Bush nominee to the Federal 10th district court of appeals. In fact Democrats confirmed Niel Gorsuch, at a time when they could have easily rejected him, as they were the majority in the Senate at that time.

Here are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee to my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set it stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

The ONLY reason Democrats tried to block Niel Gorsuch this time around is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland. But even at that, they didn't put up a huge fight because they obviously liked Niel Gorsuch. This new pick Brett Kavanaugh--look for a yuuuuuge fight.

Democrats have a very good chance of taking back the house, and possibly the senate this coming November, and they are just thinking ahead. If they win back the Senate, it will be they that make the confirmations and decide who the SCOTUS will be. So of course they're going to try and block Brett Kavanaugh, whether they like him or not.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's just politics 101

 

[Clementine]

Dems were prepared to protest before they even knew who the nominee would be. They instantly protested with ready-made signs. There are probably piles of signs with other judges names on them. They hate Trump and are going to whine no matter what he does.

Dems loved the nuclear option for themselves but not for the right. Typical. They started it and now hate that the right is using it. Whaaa. Serves them right. Double standards, flip flopping and lying are routine.

They don't care about facts and they trained the mind-numbed robots to whine on cue.

 

[Polishprince]

Are you an idiot or a liar? Biden never proposed refusing a president's nominee a confirmation hearing.

As far as the McConnell rule not being added to the Senate rules, neither was your so called, "Biden rule," yet here you are, pretending like there is such a thing.

Confirmation hearings don't mean shit, if you aren't going to vote to confirm.

And that's what Bite Me was doing as far as Dubya's choices.

BTW, it all worked out fine, Gorsuch is highly qualified and doing an excellent job, and Kavanaugh has been described as a "tremendous choice" who will make a "fabulous Supreme court justice" for the next 40 years.

 

[WEATHER53]

So when do we the people vote?

 

[Faun]

Are you an idiot or a liar? Biden never proposed refusing a president's nominee a confirmation hearing.

As far as the McConnell rule not being added to the Senate rules, neither was your so called, "Biden rule," yet here you are, pretending like there is such a thing.

Confirmation hearings don't mean shit, if you aren't going to vote to confirm.

And that's what Bite Me was doing as far as Dubya's choices.

BTW, it all worked out fine, Gorsuch is highly qualified and doing an excellent job, and Kavanaugh has been described as a "tremendous choice" who will make a "fabulous Supreme court justice" for the next 40 years.

Not true. Confirmation hearings mean they are giving the nominee consideration. Telling an elected president to fuck off, you don't get to appoint anyone, shouldn't be a Senate rule. Regrettably, now it is.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Turn about is fair play. Democrats have every right to block this nominee until after the midterm election cycle. Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, Obama's last pick 6 months before the election, so they could campaign on the SCOTUS, and I would expect that Democrats will do the same.

After campaigning on the SCOTUS--Trump picked a nominee in Niel Gorsuch that Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama voted for in 2006. Niel Gorsuch, a G.W. Bush nominee to the Federal 10th district court of appeals. In fact Democrats confirmed Niel Gorsuch, at a time when they could have easily rejected him, as they were the majority in the Senate at that time.

Here are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee to my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set it stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

The ONLY reason Democrats tried to block Niel Gorsuch this time around is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland. But even at that, they didn't put up a huge fight because they obviously liked Niel Gorsuch. This new pick Brett Kavanaugh--look for a yuuuuuge fight.

Democrats have a very good chance of taking back the house, and possibly the senate this coming November, and they are just thinking ahead. If they win back the Senate, it will be they that make the confirmations and decide who the SCOTUS will be. So of course they're going to try and block Brett Kavanaugh, whether they like him or not.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's just politics 101

GOP did it during a Presidential election year. It is not a Presidential election year. Not the same thing.

 

[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.

Turn about is fair play. Democrats have every right to block this nominee until after the midterm election cycle. Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, Obama's last pick 6 months before the election, so they could campaign on the SCOTUS, and I would expect that Democrats will do the same.

After campaigning on the SCOTUS--Trump picked a nominee in Niel Gorsuch that Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama voted for in 2006. Niel Gorsuch, a G.W. Bush nominee to the Federal 10th district court of appeals. In fact Democrats confirmed Niel Gorsuch, at a time when they could have easily rejected him, as they were the majority in the Senate at that time.

Here are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee to my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set it stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

The ONLY reason Democrats tried to block Niel Gorsuch this time around is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland. But even at that, they didn't put up a huge fight because they obviously liked Niel Gorsuch. This new pick Brett Kavanaugh--look for a yuuuuuge fight.

Democrats have a very good chance of taking back the house, and possibly the senate this coming November, and they are just thinking ahead. If they win back the Senate, it will be they that make the confirmations and decide who the SCOTUS will be. So of course they're going to try and block Brett Kavanaugh, whether they like him or not.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's just politics 101

GOP did it during a Presidential election year. It is not a Presidential election year. Not the same thing.

Doesn't have to be an election year. The new McConnell rule allows the Senate to refuse confirmation hearings to an elected president at any time for as long as desired by the Senate.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Turn about is fair play. Democrats have every right to block this nominee until after the midterm election cycle. Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, Obama's last pick 6 months before the election, so they could campaign on the SCOTUS, and I would expect that Democrats will do the same.

After campaigning on the SCOTUS--Trump picked a nominee in Niel Gorsuch that Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama voted for in 2006. Niel Gorsuch, a G.W. Bush nominee to the Federal 10th district court of appeals. In fact Democrats confirmed Niel Gorsuch, at a time when they could have easily rejected him, as they were the majority in the Senate at that time.

Here are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee to my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set it stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

The ONLY reason Democrats tried to block Niel Gorsuch this time around is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland. But even at that, they didn't put up a huge fight because they obviously liked Niel Gorsuch. This new pick Brett Kavanaugh--look for a yuuuuuge fight.

Democrats have a very good chance of taking back the house, and possibly the senate this coming November, and they are just thinking ahead. If they win back the Senate, it will be they that make the confirmations and decide who the SCOTUS will be. So of course they're going to try and block Brett Kavanaugh, whether they like him or not.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's just politics 101

GOP did it during a Presidential election year. It is not a Presidential election year. Not the same thing.

Doesn't have to be an election year. The new McConnell rule allows the Senate to refuse confirmation hearings to an elected president at any time for as long as desired by the Senate.

MSM doesn't control dissemination of information any longer. block, resist, and lose the next election.

 

[Sahba]

Still haven't gotten tired of playing this... lol



Though I definitely would like the confirmation to occur before Oct. 1, I do see a massive conservative turnout if Kavanauch's nomination became a midterm issue. Sure, the left (DEM) would also have a massive referendum turnout but I'd be very comfortable with the conservative's (GOP) odds in that scenario...

 

[easyt65]

'Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"'

They also said Hillary would win in a landslide, Benghazi was the result of a protest over a video, & if you liked your health care insurance and doctor you could keep them...