Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[busybee01]

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.

Inane is word parsing, which is what you are doing. No one has ever advocated not having a supreme court pick in a non-election year. McConnell didn't either.

What you're arguing is oh, McConnell didn't have supreme court hearings in an election year. Well, an off year election is still an election year. Therefore he advocated that too.

No, you're an idiot.

And frankly, it was more narrow than that. Obama didn't have the votes. Trump did. Both parties would have confirmed the pick in an election year if they had the votes

You are the idiot. McConnell wants a vote in October which is less than a month before the midterms. How do you know hw didn't have the votes. There were several Republicans in blue states that were up for re-election. Then you had some Republican moderates. Garland was not a far left extremist.

 

[Faun]

No, they did not make a decision
Mitch McConnell made that decision BEFORE Obama even nominated Garland. He stated he would not consider any nominee from Obama

Partisanship at its best

and when biden was saying a lame duck president should not make these decisions - little did he know the ramifications of his words at the time, huh?

if the left would stop doing stupid shit for the right to copy maybe we could get somewhere.

Biden never said that.

Do you ever bother to research anything? True, that's 10 seconds of your life you won't ever get back. But it may help you not look like such a dumbass.
Joe Biden’s 1992 opposition to lame-duck Supreme Court pick could doom Obama nomination

Moron, try quoting Biden saying Bush would not get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice....

Really?! You obviously didn't read the link. Let me help.

Mr. Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, was laying down a marker against President George H.W. Bush, saying once the “political season” had started, the president should back down and wait until after the election.

And you obviously don’t know the difference between postponing confirmation hearings until after the November election — and eliminating them entirely until a new president is seated.

Thanks for proving Biden never said a lame duck president shouldn’t make these decisions.

 

[hadit]

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.

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

He has authority to nominate, but the Senate gets the final say. And they said no. It was very sad.

They said no to Obama, not to his nominee. Payback’s a bitch. Remember that in the next year or so if Democrats take control of the Senate and a Liberal seat on that bench opens up.

If that happens, I predict total gridlock imposed by petulant democrats.

You mean if they act like Republicans did while Obama was president?

Sure. Why should democrats try to be superior to Republicans when they can instead become just like them? I mean, how satisfying is it to look in the mirror and say, "I'm so proud that I became exactly that which I've been screaming is so vile. He was dirty and I complained about it, and now I'm just as dirty."?

The Republicans were wrong to impose gridlock instead of using every power they had to force compromise, and democrats will be equally wrong to do it now.

 

[Faun]

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, 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."

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Until after the election. Now compare that to what McConnell did when he told Obama in February, 2016, with 10 months remaining in his term, that he wouldn’t get to replace Scalia, period. Not before the election. Not after the election.

Until after the election.

after the election, it would be the incoming presidents choice of Justice.

you keep losing, and yet you continue sticking your foot in your mouth.

No, it wouldn’t. The president remains the president after the election is over and until the next president is sworn in.

 

[iceberg]

Congress did make a decision on Garland- that he was too extreme of a choice even to justify a vote on.

President Obama should have withdrawn his name, and submitted the best pro-2nd Amendment, pro-life man available.

No, they did not make a decision
Mitch McConnell made that decision BEFORE Obama even nominated Garland. He stated he would not consider any nominee from Obama

Partisanship at its best

and when biden was saying a lame duck president should not make these decisions - little did he know the ramifications of his words at the time, huh?

if the left would stop doing stupid shit for the right to copy maybe we could get somewhere.

Biden never said that.

you funny, faun.

biden did say that. sorry it disrupts the balance of your universe but that was his intent. now if you think it's stupid then say so when the left starts this shit and then the right won't have precedence to go off of.

No he didn’t. Biden suggested postponing confirmation hearings until after the election, just a few months away. McConnell shut down confirmation hearings for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

i'm not going to micro-slice this your way.

biden played a political game and it's backfired.

end of story.

 

[rightwinger]

You bet. The Dem majority leader can refuse to bring the nomination to the Senate floor.
Who is the Dem majority leader?

That's the whole point, the Democrat Party doesn't have the votes to stop the nomination of this fabulous choice.

The first step if they are interested is to win the Senate.

The Republican Senate majority isn't that big, it's only 1 vote, and they wiould like to have a bi-partisan confirmation. They used the nuclear option on Niel Gorsuch, but John McCain complained about that, because what it did was insure that when Democrats are the majority in the Senate they will now use the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees--with an excuse that Republicans did it..

So Republicans may decide NOT to use the nuclear option in this instance--because they know it eventually will get shoved up a dark spot someday in the future. So they may insist on the 61 vote threshold--which they don't have.

Go back to post # 511 on this thread for a better explanation. It's just politics 101

i don't think it matters what the repubs do here. if the liberals have a chance to get their way by going nuke, they'll do it. to expect the other side not to do it is ludicrous.

Republicans have their own fears going into the midterm election cycle. This link will explain it. The general public is pissed off, and if people show up to vote this coming November it's looking very ugly for Republicans. IOW the last thing they want to do is shove another Trump nominee down the public's throats by using the nuclear option. I think they will insist on the 61 vote threshold, in order to keep the peace. They don't have 61 votes.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

Now the interesting thing about Kavanaugh is this, and it makes perfect sense why Trump wants him to be the next SCOTUS.

A decade later, after Kavanaugh had worked closely with President George W. Bush, he wrote in a law review that he had new appreciation for the demands of the presidency and the toll any legal proceeding could take on the White House. He recommended presidents be shielded from civil and criminal litigation until they leave office."Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job is," he wrote, "I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible." He acknowledged that blocking litigation would suggest the President was "above the law," but he added that "the point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office."Kavanaugh noted in the 2009 Minnesota Law Review piece that a check against a "bad-behaving or law-breaking President" would still exist. "If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available."

Who is Brett Kavanaugh? Washington insider has said presidents should be shielded from litigation while in office - CNNPolitics

There is not a snowballs chance in hell, that Democrats will vote for a SCOTUS nominee that is on record for stating that President's shouldn't be investigated or litigated until after "they're out of office."

There is not a snowballs chance in hell, that Democrats will vote for a SCOTUS nominee that is on record for stating that President's shouldn't be investigated or litigated until after "they're out of office."

Interesting since Kavanaugh participated in Ken Starrs investigation of the Vince Foster suicide....talk about a wild goose chase

 

[Auld Phart]

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, 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."

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Until after the election. Now compare that to what McConnell did when he told Obama in February, 2016, with 10 months remaining in his term, that he wouldn’t get to replace Scalia, period. Not before the election. Not after the election.

Until after the election.

after the election, it would be the incoming presidents choice of Justice.

you keep losing, and yet you continue sticking your foot in your mouth.

No, it wouldn’t. The president remains the president after the election is over and until the next president is sworn in.

 

[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're "outraged" that the Republicans aren't conservative enough for Ronald Reagan, and your response is to vote for a Democrat? Yeah, we're all totally buying that.

Don't ever wonder why the world laughs at you in derision, hon.

The Republican Party has been taken over by far right extremists like white supremacists and neo-nazis. Charlottesville was a example of the new Republican Party. I know you don't get it because Trump supporters are so stupid. You are a example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Fascist pig.

 

[Faun]

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

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

He has authority to nominate, but the Senate gets the final say. And they said no. It was very sad.

They said no to Obama, not to his nominee. Payback’s a bitch. Remember that in the next year or so if Democrats take control of the Senate and a Liberal seat on that bench opens up.

If that happens, I predict total gridlock imposed by petulant democrats.

You mean if they act like Republicans did while Obama was president?

Sure. Why should democrats try to be superior to Republicans when they can instead become just like them? I mean, how satisfying is it to look in the mirror and say, "I'm so proud that I became exactly that which I've been screaming is so vile. He was dirty and I complained about it, and now I'm just as dirty."?

The Republicans were wrong to impose gridlock instead of using every power they had to force compromise, and democrats will be equally wrong to do it now.

It’s called payback. What do Democrats stand to gain by behaving better than Republicans while Republicans play dirty? I agree it would be equally as wrong; but the key word there is — equally

 

[iceberg]

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, 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."

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Until after the election. Now compare that to what McConnell did when he told Obama in February, 2016, with 10 months remaining in his term, that he wouldn’t get to replace Scalia, period. Not before the election. Not after the election.

Until after the election.

after the election, it would be the incoming presidents choice of Justice.

you keep losing, and yet you continue sticking your foot in your mouth.

No, it wouldn’t. The president remains the president after the election is over and until the next president is sworn in.

then biden was being stupid. next time tell him to quit it.

 

[Auld Phart]

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're "outraged" that the Republicans aren't conservative enough for Ronald Reagan, and your response is to vote for a Democrat? Yeah, we're all totally buying that.

Don't ever wonder why the world laughs at you in derision, hon.

The Republican Party has been taken over by far right extremists like white supremacists and neo-nazis. Charlottesville was a example of the new Republican Party. I know you don't get it because Trump supporters are so stupid. You are a example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Fascist pig.

Just as much as the Democrats have been taken over by BLM, and illegal aliens.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

Inane is word parsing, which is what you are doing. No one has ever advocated not having a supreme court pick in a non-election year. McConnell didn't either.

What you're arguing is oh, McConnell didn't have supreme court hearings in an election year. Well, an off year election is still an election year. Therefore he advocated that too.

No, you're an idiot.

And frankly, it was more narrow than that. Obama didn't have the votes. Trump did. Both parties would have confirmed the pick in an election year if they had the votes

You are the idiot. McConnell wants a vote in October which is less than a month before the midterms. How do you know hw didn't have the votes. There were several Republicans in blue states that were up for re-election. Then you had some Republican moderates. Garland was not a far left extremist.

Garland was rabidly pro-abort and anti-gun, there is no reason to think he wouldn't have joined the Far Left Wall of 4 on the court , predetermining all of the court's decisions for a generation.

In any event, you also underestimate Sen. McConnell's ability to bring pressure for a "no" vote. No one wants shunned out of the party.

There wasn't really time to thoroughly bork Garland's nomination. And they didn't want to either. Had Mrs. Clinton been elected on 8 November, the Senate would have confirmed Garland and he'd be on the court today. Why ruin a candidate for the Supreme Court if the chances are you will approve him anyhow. You forget that everyone was looking for a Dawg landslide

 

[Faun]

No, they did not make a decision
Mitch McConnell made that decision BEFORE Obama even nominated Garland. He stated he would not consider any nominee from Obama

Partisanship at its best

and when biden was saying a lame duck president should not make these decisions - little did he know the ramifications of his words at the time, huh?

if the left would stop doing stupid shit for the right to copy maybe we could get somewhere.

Biden never said that.

you funny, faun.

biden did say that. sorry it disrupts the balance of your universe but that was his intent. now if you think it's stupid then say so when the left starts this shit and then the right won't have precedence to go off of.

No he didn’t. Biden suggested postponing confirmation hearings until after the election, just a few months away. McConnell shut down confirmation hearings for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

i'm not going to micro-slice this your way.

biden played a political game and it's backfired.

end of story.

That’s a lame excuse given Biden never suggested Bush’s nominees, even though there weren’t any, shouldn’t be given a confirmation hearing. But when a lame excuse is all you have, to whom else can you turn?

 

[hadit]

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

He has authority to nominate, but the Senate gets the final say. And they said no. It was very sad.

They said no to Obama, not to his nominee. Payback’s a bitch. Remember that in the next year or so if Democrats take control of the Senate and a Liberal seat on that bench opens up.

If that happens, I predict total gridlock imposed by petulant democrats.

You mean if they act like Republicans did while Obama was president?

Sure. Why should democrats try to be superior to Republicans when they can instead become just like them? I mean, how satisfying is it to look in the mirror and say, "I'm so proud that I became exactly that which I've been screaming is so vile. He was dirty and I complained about it, and now I'm just as dirty."?

The Republicans were wrong to impose gridlock instead of using every power they had to force compromise, and democrats will be equally wrong to do it now.

It’s called payback. What do Democrats stand to gain by behaving better than Republicans while Republicans play dirty? I agree it would be equally as wrong; but the key word there is — equally

And the cycle continues, because no one is willing to break it. For a long time, Republicans were urged to get down and dirty with the democrats because they weren't playing fair, and now we have Trump, the ultimate politician willing to get in the mud. Now the democrats have to try to top him with someone even dirtier.

 

[Faun]

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.

Inane is word parsing, which is what you are doing. No one has ever advocated not having a supreme court pick in a non-election year. McConnell didn't either.

What you're arguing is oh, McConnell didn't have supreme court hearings in an election year. Well, an off year election is still an election year. Therefore he advocated that too.

No, you're an idiot.

And frankly, it was more narrow than that. Obama didn't have the votes. Trump did. Both parties would have confirmed the pick in an election year if they had the votes

You are the idiot. McConnell wants a vote in October which is less than a month before the midterms. How do you know hw didn't have the votes. There were several Republicans in blue states that were up for re-election. Then you had some Republican moderates. Garland was not a far left extremist.

Garland was rabidly pro-abort and anti-gun, there is no reason to think he wouldn't have joined the Far Left Wall of 4 on the court , predetermining all of the court's decisions for a generation.

In any event, you also underestimate Sen. McConnell's ability to bring pressure for a "no" vote. No one wants shunned out of the party.

There wasn't really time to thoroughly bork Garland's nomination. And they didn't want to either. Had Mrs. Clinton been elected on 8 November, the Senate would have confirmed Garland and he'd be on the court today. Why ruin a candidate for the Supreme Court if the chances are you will approve him anyhow. You forget that everyone was looking for a Dawg landslide

Why am I still waiting for you to quote Garland saying the things you claim he said? Where are his anti-gun quotes?

 

[bendog]

No, they did not make a decision
Mitch McConnell made that decision BEFORE Obama even nominated Garland. He stated he would not consider any nominee from Obama

Partisanship at its best

and when biden was saying a lame duck president should not make these decisions - little did he know the ramifications of his words at the time, huh?

if the left would stop doing stupid shit for the right to copy maybe we could get somewhere.

Biden never said that.

you funny, faun.

biden did say that. sorry it disrupts the balance of your universe but that was his intent. now if you think it's stupid then say so when the left starts this shit and then the right won't have precedence to go off of.

No he didn’t. Biden suggested postponing confirmation hearings until after the election, just a few months away. McConnell shut down confirmation hearings for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

i'm not going to micro-slice this your way.

biden played a political game and it's backfired.

end of story.

Kennedy got an up or down vote, so your attempt to microslice biden is factually bullshit, as usual.

 

[bendog]

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're "outraged" that the Republicans aren't conservative enough for Ronald Reagan, and your response is to vote for a Democrat? Yeah, we're all totally buying that.

Don't ever wonder why the world laughs at you in derision, hon.

The Republican Party has been taken over by far right extremists like white supremacists and neo-nazis. Charlottesville was a example of the new Republican Party. I know you don't get it because Trump supporters are so stupid. You are a example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Fascist pig.

No doubt, but Kavenaugh is not part of that.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

Inane is word parsing, which is what you are doing. No one has ever advocated not having a supreme court pick in a non-election year. McConnell didn't either.

What you're arguing is oh, McConnell didn't have supreme court hearings in an election year. Well, an off year election is still an election year. Therefore he advocated that too.

No, you're an idiot.

And frankly, it was more narrow than that. Obama didn't have the votes. Trump did. Both parties would have confirmed the pick in an election year if they had the votes

You are the idiot. McConnell wants a vote in October which is less than a month before the midterms. How do you know hw didn't have the votes. There were several Republicans in blue states that were up for re-election. Then you had some Republican moderates. Garland was not a far left extremist.

Garland was rabidly pro-abort and anti-gun, there is no reason to think he wouldn't have joined the Far Left Wall of 4 on the court , predetermining all of the court's decisions for a generation.

In any event, you also underestimate Sen. McConnell's ability to bring pressure for a "no" vote. No one wants shunned out of the party.

There wasn't really time to thoroughly bork Garland's nomination. And they didn't want to either. Had Mrs. Clinton been elected on 8 November, the Senate would have confirmed Garland and he'd be on the court today. Why ruin a candidate for the Supreme Court if the chances are you will approve him anyhow. You forget that everyone was looking for a Dawg landslide

here is no reason to think he wouldn't have joined the Far Left Wall of 4 on the court ,

Were there sufficient votes to confirm him?

As I remember, Republicans held enough seats to prevent that.

all this wah wah wah is hilarious, considering Garland would never have been confirmed anyway.

 

[bendog]

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.

Inane is word parsing, which is what you are doing. No one has ever advocated not having a supreme court pick in a non-election year. McConnell didn't either.

What you're arguing is oh, McConnell didn't have supreme court hearings in an election year. Well, an off year election is still an election year. Therefore he advocated that too.

No, you're an idiot.

And frankly, it was more narrow than that. Obama didn't have the votes. Trump did. Both parties would have confirmed the pick in an election year if they had the votes

You are the idiot. McConnell wants a vote in October which is less than a month before the midterms. How do you know hw didn't have the votes. There were several Republicans in blue states that were up for re-election. Then you had some Republican moderates. Garland was not a far left extremist.

Garland was rabidly pro-abort and anti-gun, there is no reason to think he wouldn't have joined the Far Left Wall of 4 on the court , predetermining all of the court's decisions for a generation.

In any event, you also underestimate Sen. McConnell's ability to bring pressure for a "no" vote. No one wants shunned out of the party.

There wasn't really time to thoroughly bork Garland's nomination. And they didn't want to either. Had Mrs. Clinton been elected on 8 November, the Senate would have confirmed Garland and he'd be on the court today. Why ruin a candidate for the Supreme Court if the chances are you will approve him anyhow. You forget that everyone was looking for a Dawg landslide

Why am I still waiting for you to quote Garland saying the things you claim he said? Where are his anti-gun quotes?

Garland was not anti-Heller. He possibly was anti-citizens united, and that was why the Turtle had to re-write the rules. He was not going to chance a possible third reverse Citizens vote with Hillary most likely going to be the next potus. He was going to stop that at ALL costs and hope against hope Trump pulled it out.

 

[iceberg]

and when biden was saying a lame duck president should not make these decisions - little did he know the ramifications of his words at the time, huh?

if the left would stop doing stupid shit for the right to copy maybe we could get somewhere.

Biden never said that.

you funny, faun.

biden did say that. sorry it disrupts the balance of your universe but that was his intent. now if you think it's stupid then say so when the left starts this shit and then the right won't have precedence to go off of.

No he didn’t. Biden suggested postponing confirmation hearings until after the election, just a few months away. McConnell shut down confirmation hearings for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

i'm not going to micro-slice this your way.

biden played a political game and it's backfired.

end of story.

Kennedy got an up or down vote, so your attempt to microslice biden is factually bullshit, as usual.

heh - maybe you need to realize what micro-slicing is. it's taking a situation and cutting things away until you get YOUR point which happens in overall reality to be a sub-sub-sub point of the original. it means you're taking something done wrong and slicing it up until you find how to slant it JUST SO and it becomes ok all of a sudden.

biden was stupid. said something stupid. and it's backfired on him. i'm not saying it's right or wrong - misuse of our system like this needs to be spelled out for policy and actions that are ok - not twisted until suddenly you make YOUR situation somehow new and ergo, ok.