Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Faun]

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.

The two situations are not the same no matter how hard you try to make them the same. Biden suggested confirmation hearings be postponed for a few months before an election and until the election was over. Not to mention, there weren’t any USSC seats open anyway.

Compared to McConnell, who said Obama, with 11 months remaining in his presidency and nearly 9 months before an election, would not be allowed to fill an actual open seat.

I understand your desperation to make two unequal maneuvers the same, but they still remain different. And that now leaves us with the McConnell Rule; which is that the Senate from one party can deny an elected president their Constitutional authority to appoint USSC replacements for as long as they control the Senate. Could last up to 8 years. Maybe longer.

great. i can say they're not fundamentally different, no matter how you micro-slice your way there.

i do believe this is crap for one side to pull on another but until they fix it with actual laws it's subject to abuse. to pretend only 1 side is engaging in it?

pure unadulterated bullshit, son. that's all.

LOLOL

Suuure, uh-huh.... because postponing confirmation hearings for 3 months is exactly the same as eliminating them entirely for 11 months.

 

[iceberg]

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.

The two situations are not the same no matter how hard you try to make them the same. Biden suggested confirmation hearings be postponed for a few months before an election and until the election was over. Not to mention, there weren’t any USSC seats open anyway.

Compared to McConnell, who said Obama, with 11 months remaining in his presidency and nearly 9 months before an election, would not be allowed to fill an actual open seat.

I understand your desperation to make two unequal maneuvers the same, but they still remain different. And that now leaves us with the McConnell Rule; which is that the Senate from one party can deny an elected president their Constitutional authority to appoint USSC replacements for as long as they control the Senate. Could last up to 8 years. Maybe longer.

Yes we now have the McConnell rule, which is the direct result of McConnell being willing to rewrite Senate procedure to protect citizens united. Iceberg does no one any good by lying about what took place. Someday the dems may be very greatful for the McConnell rule.

And in fact, Gary Hart was going to win the presidential election in 1988 until he imploded, and had he did this rule would have given the dems a 5-4 maj, with White considered a gop justice

you can go fuck yourself dude. all this calling someone a liar cause you don't like what they say is bullshit.

Ok I apologize for calling you a liar because it is possible you are such a fucking dumbshit you really cannot follow the differences in what happened in the Bork/Kennedy nominations and Garland's.

when you grow up to 12, let me know.

 

[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

Fair play?


Nanananabooboo?

I know you don't like to get your nose rubbed into anything--but post 511 is exactly what happened, and now Democrats are going to play the same card. There is only a 1 vote Republican majority in the Senate so I imagine they will succeed in getting it done. I don't think the Nuclear option will work this time around.

Democrats have no cards to play ya moron. They have no power unless a Republican flips and then it will be the Republican that stops the nominee not the democrats.

Fuck all you are ignorant.

Stick with nanananabooboo because that's all you have

FRAUD

That's true, Democrats have no power now. Hopefully, that will change in January for any USSC seats which open up afterwards.

 

[Faun]

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.

Nope, the McConnell rule proved to be acceptable to the people. There's nothing in the Constitution about a president's final year.

There's nothing in the Constitution about a president's final year.

Or about unelected Presidents.

McConnell made it about elected presidents when he said the people should decide the next president to pick Scalia’s replacement; while taking that honor away from an elected president with 21% of his term remaining. Until then, that had never happened before.

McConnell made it about elected presidents

You did when you said previous Senate inaction on Supreme Court nominations was okay if the President hadn't been elected.

Which I pointed out in response to McConnell's position that the people should elect the next president to decide the nominee. What I'm saying is that what he did had never been done before.

 

[bendog]

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.

The two situations are not the same no matter how hard you try to make them the same. Biden suggested confirmation hearings be postponed for a few months before an election and until the election was over. Not to mention, there weren’t any USSC seats open anyway.

Compared to McConnell, who said Obama, with 11 months remaining in his presidency and nearly 9 months before an election, would not be allowed to fill an actual open seat.

I understand your desperation to make two unequal maneuvers the same, but they still remain different. And that now leaves us with the McConnell Rule; which is that the Senate from one party can deny an elected president their Constitutional authority to appoint USSC replacements for as long as they control the Senate. Could last up to 8 years. Maybe longer.

great. i can say they're not fundamentally different, no matter how you micro-slice your way there.

i do believe this is crap for one side to pull on another but until they fix it with actual laws it's subject to abuse. to pretend only 1 side is engaging in it?

pure unadulterated bullshit, son. that's all.

LOLOL

Suuure, uh-huh.... because postponing confirmation hearings for 3 months is exactly the same as eliminating them entirely for 11 months.

The distinction is really that Reagan got his up or down vote on Bork, and Bork just didn't have the votes, so Bork was pulled/stood down. Obama didn't get his up or down vote, and he purposefully choose Garland because on the issues, the guy should have had 60 votes. Now matter how Iceberg spins his tiny top, there's no factual analogy.

Kavenaugh is not really applicable. Trump has three years left in his term. He should get an up or down vote.

 

[bendog]

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

Nope, the McConnell rule proved to be acceptable to the people. There's nothing in the Constitution about a president's final year.

There's nothing in the Constitution about a president's final year.

Or about unelected Presidents.

McConnell made it about elected presidents when he said the people should decide the next president to pick Scalia’s replacement; while taking that honor away from an elected president with 21% of his term remaining. Until then, that had never happened before.

McConnell made it about elected presidents

You did when you said previous Senate inaction on Supreme Court nominations was okay if the President hadn't been elected.

Which I pointed out in response to McConnell's position that the people should elect the next president to decide the nominee. What I'm saying is that what he did had never been done before.

Yeah in substance there's not a lot of ideological difference from Kennedy to Garland. One was solidly conservative the other solidly left of center. Neither was really that controversial. Not even to the level of Alito.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Nope, the McConnell rule proved to be acceptable to the people. There's nothing in the Constitution about a president's final year.

There's nothing in the Constitution about a president's final year.

Or about unelected Presidents.

McConnell made it about elected presidents when he said the people should decide the next president to pick Scalia’s replacement; while taking that honor away from an elected president with 21% of his term remaining. Until then, that had never happened before.

McConnell made it about elected presidents

You did when you said previous Senate inaction on Supreme Court nominations was okay if the President hadn't been elected.

Which I pointed out in response to McConnell's position that the people should elect the next president to decide the nominee. What I'm saying is that what he did had never been done before.

Previous Senates have impeded Presidents of opposing parties.
Exactly like this? No. But it's not unprecedented for a seat to remain open until the next President.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

It's the same rule retard ...we warned you about Harry Reid.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

They don't have the votes retard..

 

[Auld Phart]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

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

They don't have the votes retard..

neither did Garland

 

[bendog]

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.

It's the same rule retard ...we warned you about Harry Reid.

Forrest ... trees.

 

[bendog]

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

They don't have the votes retard..

neither did Garland

That is not a sure thing.

 

[Auld Phart]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

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

They don't have the votes retard..

neither did Garland

That is not a sure thing.

Garland needed 60, with a Republican Senate.

VERY unlikely

 

[kaz]

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.

Its funny how all you far left extremists always scream for him and say he wasnt far left ...

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

It's the same rule retard ...we warned you about Harry Reid.

Forrest ... trees.

Who are you trying to fool?


The United States apeals court of the district of columbia is the 2nd most powerful court in the land.

 

[Dschrute3]

Even more vital that Trump get one more Justice in there. 6-3 is far better than 5-4. Remember, Roberts is a weak Bush waffler. He gave us 'ObummerCare.' 6-3 would spell Game Over for Anti-American Left/Globalists. They'd be finished for years to come.

 

[Faun]

Nope, the McConnell rule proved to be acceptable to the people. There's nothing in the Constitution about a president's final year.

There's nothing in the Constitution about a president's final year.

Or about unelected Presidents.

McConnell made it about elected presidents when he said the people should decide the next president to pick Scalia’s replacement; while taking that honor away from an elected president with 21% of his term remaining. Until then, that had never happened before.

McConnell made it about elected presidents

You did when you said previous Senate inaction on Supreme Court nominations was okay if the President hadn't been elected.

Which I pointed out in response to McConnell's position that the people should elect the next president to decide the nominee. What I'm saying is that what he did had never been done before.

Previous Senates have impeded Presidents of opposing parties.
Exactly like this? No. But it's not unprecedented for a seat to remain open until the next President.

Not for 11 months.

 

[Faun]

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.

It's the same rule retard ...we warned you about Harry Reid.

Great, then Democrats can use that rule for the remaining 6 years of Trump’s presidency if he lasts that long, should they take control of the Senate in January.

 

[Edgetho]

Even more vital that Trump get one more Justice in there. 6-3 is far better than 5-4. Remember, Roberts is a weak Bush waffler. He gave us 'ObummerCare.' 6-3 would spell Game Over for Anti-American Left/Globalists. They'd be finished for years to come.

I hafta disagree a little bit.

dimocrap FILTH didn't think obamacare would pass Constitutional muster and were counting on SCOTUS to strike it down.

Why? Because the next logical step...... The only step from the dimocrap FILTH perspective, was Single Payer.

Roberts threw a monkey wrench in the works.

Smart move.

Without Roberts, we might have the same wonderful system the Brits have.

Now, the Swiss? Yeah, that's what we need. That's what the Lying Cocksucker in Chief tried to sell obamacare as.

Roberts beat them at their own game. Good on him

 

[Edgetho]

Even more vital that Trump get one more Justice in there. 6-3 is far better than 5-4. Remember, Roberts is a weak Bush waffler. He gave us 'ObummerCare.' 6-3 would spell Game Over for Anti-American Left/Globalists. They'd be finished for years to come.

I hafta disagree a little bit.

dimocrap FILTH didn't think obamacare would pass Constitutional muster and were counting on SCOTUS to strike it down.

Why? Because the next logical step...... The only step from the dimocrap FILTH perspective, was Single Payer.

Roberts threw a monkey wrench in the works.

Smart move.

Without Roberts, we might have the same wonderful system the Brits have.

Now, the Swiss? Yeah, that's what we need. That's what the Lying Cocksucker in Chief tried to sell obamacare as.

Roberts beat them at their own game. Good on him