Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Auld Phart]

No, you

No. It is you that is either an idiot or a liar. However, I suspect both are spot on.

You called it the McConnell Rule. I gave you evidence that Uncle Joe porposed it many years ago and it became known as the "Biden Standard".

You are a fucking idiot....and you lie a lot.

I see you’re an idiot AND a liar.

McConnell denied Obama a confirmation hearing for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

That’s not what Biden suggested. Biden suggested the Senate postponed confirmation hearings only until after the election.

I don’t care how rightarded you are, postpone is not the same as permanent.

LMAO! Both suggested waiting until after the election. Had Hillary won, she could have nominated Garland again....and the Senate majority could have gone to the Democrats.

Lying idiot... Biden said the current sitting president’s nominee would get a confirmation hearing; compared to McConnell who said the current sitting president’s nominee would not be given a confirmation hearing.

Have someone more intelligent than you, which is anyone, explain to you how temporary is not the same as permanent.

Biden said the current sitting president’s nominee would get a confirmation hearing;

Got a link for that?

Because I've posted just the opposite, at least 3 times

No, you didn’t post the opposite of that. You don’t understand what you posted. What you posted was Biden suggesting the Senate hold off on confirmation hearings until after the November elections so as not to make the election about a Supreme Court vacancy. You know, the opposite of McConnell’s motives of politicizing the Supreme Court.

 

[Faun]

No, you

I see you’re an idiot AND a liar.

McConnell denied Obama a confirmation hearing for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

That’s not what Biden suggested. Biden suggested the Senate postponed confirmation hearings only until after the election.

I don’t care how rightarded you are, postpone is not the same as permanent.

LMAO! Both suggested waiting until after the election. Had Hillary won, she could have nominated Garland again....and the Senate majority could have gone to the Democrats.

Lying idiot... Biden said the current sitting president’s nominee would get a confirmation hearing; compared to McConnell who said the current sitting president’s nominee would not be given a confirmation hearing.

Have someone more intelligent than you, which is anyone, explain to you how temporary is not the same as permanent.

Biden said the current sitting president’s nominee would get a confirmation hearing;

Got a link for that?

Because I've posted just the opposite, at least 3 times

No, you didn’t post the opposite of that. You don’t understand what you posted. What you posted was Biden suggesting the Senate hold off on confirmation hearings until after the November elections so as not to make the election about a Supreme Court vacancy. You know, the opposite of McConnell’s motives of politicizing the Supreme Court.

It’s not spin. Just because you don’t understand what Biden was saying doesn’t mean I’m spinning.

 

[hadit]

Trying to say the voters should have a say in who sits on the SC is fallacious because they simply don't.

The president nominates and the Senate approves or rejects. It's just that simple. Anything beyond that is political gamesmanship. Garland should have had an up or down vote and so should Kavanaugh.

 

[Auld Phart]

No, you

LMAO! Both suggested waiting until after the election. Had Hillary won, she could have nominated Garland again....and the Senate majority could have gone to the Democrats.

Lying idiot... Biden said the current sitting president’s nominee would get a confirmation hearing; compared to McConnell who said the current sitting president’s nominee would not be given a confirmation hearing.

Have someone more intelligent than you, which is anyone, explain to you how temporary is not the same as permanent.

Biden said the current sitting president’s nominee would get a confirmation hearing;

Got a link for that?

Because I've posted just the opposite, at least 3 times

No, you didn’t post the opposite of that. You don’t understand what you posted. What you posted was Biden suggesting the Senate hold off on confirmation hearings until after the November elections so as not to make the election about a Supreme Court vacancy. You know, the opposite of McConnell’s motives of politicizing the Supreme Court.

It’s not spin. Just because you don’t understand what Biden was saying doesn’t mean I’m spinning.

I understand what he's saying.


"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."

and unless Obama made a nomination after the November election, and McConnell failed to take action on it, your point is moot.

 

[Faun]

Trying to say the voters should have a say in who sits on the SC is fallacious because they simply don't.

The president nominates and the Senate approves or rejects. It's just that simple. Anything beyond that is political gamesmanship. Garland should have had an up or down vote and so should Kavanaugh.

I agree, Garland should have. And no doubt, Kavanaugh will. Regrettably, Garland didn’t; so now Democrats will have to play by McConnell’s rules should they win the Senate in November.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

It was a democrat majority senate that confirmed both Niel Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in 2006. They could have easily rejected both of them. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and many other Democrats voted for them.

Where Kavanaugh stepped into it, is he has stated that he doesn't believe that Presidents should be investigated while in office. He just lost all of his former Democrat support in that statement.

We'll see but I think Kavanaugh gets kicked to the curb for another nominee, and I believe that Republicans will agree to that, as they are desperate to get bipartisan support prior to the midterm election cycle. If they use another nuclear option, they will give Democrats a great campaign gift.

and I believe that Republicans will agree to that, as they are desperate to get bipartisan support prior to the midterm election cycle.

Desperate, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

If they use another nuclear option, they will give Democrats a great campaign gift.

Most voters don't care. The ones that do aren't going to change their vote because of it.

 

[Faun]

No, you
Lying idiot... Biden said the current sitting president’s nominee would get a confirmation hearing; compared to McConnell who said the current sitting president’s nominee would not be given a confirmation hearing.

Have someone more intelligent than you, which is anyone, explain to you how temporary is not the same as permanent.

Biden said the current sitting president’s nominee would get a confirmation hearing;

Got a link for that?

Because I've posted just the opposite, at least 3 times

No, you didn’t post the opposite of that. You don’t understand what you posted. What you posted was Biden suggesting the Senate hold off on confirmation hearings until after the November elections so as not to make the election about a Supreme Court vacancy. You know, the opposite of McConnell’s motives of politicizing the Supreme Court.

It’s not spin. Just because you don’t understand what Biden was saying doesn’t mean I’m spinning.

I understand what he's saying.


"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."

and unless Obama made a nomination after the November election, and McConnell failed to take action on it, your point is moot.

That’s saying what I said he stated, thanks.

That if Bush were to nominate someone before the election, they would have to wait until after the election for their confirmation hearings.

 

[Auld Phart]

Got a link for that?

Because I've posted just the opposite, at least 3 times

No, you didn’t post the opposite of that. You don’t understand what you posted. What you posted was Biden suggesting the Senate hold off on confirmation hearings until after the November elections so as not to make the election about a Supreme Court vacancy. You know, the opposite of McConnell’s motives of politicizing the Supreme Court.

It’s not spin. Just because you don’t understand what Biden was saying doesn’t mean I’m spinning.

I understand what he's saying.


"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."

and unless Obama made a nomination after the November election, and McConnell failed to take action on it, your point is moot.

That’s saying what I said he stated, thanks.

That if Bush were to nominate someone before the election, they would have to wait until after the election for their confirmation hearings.

Uh, no.

what he said was...

"— and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

 

[Polishprince]

I imagine that after the midterms,Trump will be required to select another nominee.

And he'll pick someone a lot more conservative after the Democrats get schlonged. In order to defeat Kavanaugh, the Dems will have to keep their caucus in order- and they will put Democrats like Heitkamp, Donnally and Manchin at risk.


I suppose the Democrat Party could seize the Senate which would mean no more senate confirmations at all, and an end to negotiations with North Korea as Un will know that President Trump would never be able to get any agreements ratified by a leftist Senate.

 

[Faun]

No, you didn’t post the opposite of that. You don’t understand what you posted. What you posted was Biden suggesting the Senate hold off on confirmation hearings until after the November elections so as not to make the election about a Supreme Court vacancy. You know, the opposite of McConnell’s motives of politicizing the Supreme Court.

It’s not spin. Just because you don’t understand what Biden was saying doesn’t mean I’m spinning.

I understand what he's saying.


"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."

and unless Obama made a nomination after the November election, and McConnell failed to take action on it, your point is moot.

That’s saying what I said he stated, thanks.

That if Bush were to nominate someone before the election, they would have to wait until after the election for their confirmation hearings.

Uh, no.

what he said was...

"— and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

What the fuck is wrong with you? Biden said if Bush nominated someone anyway before the election, the Senate would hold off on confirmation hearings until after the election. Bush would still be president and his nominee would still get a confirmation hearing.

"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a 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 we were 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."​

 

[Papageorgio]

The bottom line is the Democrats can cry all they want but the don’t have the Presidency, they don’t have a Senate majority. When healthcare was being discussed Obama invited the Republicans to ride in the back of the bus, guess who is going to ride in the back of the bus now.

 

[Polishprince]

We'll see but I think Kavanaugh gets kicked to the curb for another nominee, and I believe that Republicans will agree to that, as they are desperate to get bipartisan support prior to the midterm election cycle. If they use another nuclear option, they will give Democrats a great campaign gift.

President Trump realizes that a lot of Red State Dems face reelection in November.

He stands a chance to get them to confirm someone now. After the election, the leverage is gone.

 

[Faun]

The bottom line is the Democrats can cry all they want but the don’t have the Presidency, they don’t have a Senate majority. When healthcare was being discussed Obama invited the Republicans to ride in the back of the bus, guess who is going to ride in the back of the bus now.

This discussion hinges on Democrats taking control of the Senate in January.

 

[Papageorgio]

The bottom line is the Democrats can cry all they want but the don’t have the Presidency, they don’t have a Senate majority. When healthcare was being discussed Obama invited the Republicans to ride in the back of the bus, guess who is going to ride in the back of the bus now.

This discussion hinges on Democrats taking control of the Senate in January.

Doesn’t matter because the Democrats aren’t in charge, the Republicans get to decide and you can sit in the back of the bus and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.

 

[Auld Phart]

It’s not spin. Just because you don’t understand what Biden was saying doesn’t mean I’m spinning.

I understand what he's saying.


"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."

and unless Obama made a nomination after the November election, and McConnell failed to take action on it, your point is moot.

That’s saying what I said he stated, thanks.

That if Bush were to nominate someone before the election, they would have to wait until after the election for their confirmation hearings.

Uh, no.

what he said was...

"— and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

What the fuck is wrong with you? Biden said if Bush nominated someone anyway before the election, the Senate would hold off on confirmation hearings until after the election. Bush would still be president and his nominee would still get a confirmation hearing.

"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a 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 we were 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."​

your inability to read is becoming tiresome.

"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."

"— and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

 

[Auld Phart]

The bottom line is the Democrats can cry all they want but the don’t have the Presidency, they don’t have a Senate majority. When healthcare was being discussed Obama invited the Republicans to ride in the back of the bus, guess who is going to ride in the back of the bus now.

This discussion hinges on Democrats taking control of the Senate in January.

We will have a new Justice prior that that time

 

[Papageorgio]

We'll see but I think Kavanaugh gets kicked to the curb for another nominee, and I believe that Republicans will agree to that, as they are desperate to get bipartisan support prior to the midterm election cycle. If they use another nuclear option, they will give Democrats a great campaign gift.

President Trump realizes that a lot of Red State Dems face reelection in November.

He stands a chance to get them to confirm someone now. After the election, the leverage is gone.

That is why the GOP will push this issue, they have the power and control much likewhen the Democrats pushed Obamacare.

 

[Faun]

The bottom line is the Democrats can cry all they want but the don’t have the Presidency, they don’t have a Senate majority. When healthcare was being discussed Obama invited the Republicans to ride in the back of the bus, guess who is going to ride in the back of the bus now.

This discussion hinges on Democrats taking control of the Senate in January.

Doesn’t matter because the Democrats aren’t in charge, the Republicans get to decide and you can sit in the back of the bus and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.

So? I never said otherwise. But that will change in January should Democrats take the Senate.

 

[Slyhunter]

What difference does it make when Trump selects a judge. Now or after the election? He's still going to pick the same judge.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Trying to say the voters should have a say in who sits on the SC is fallacious because they simply don't.

The president nominates and the Senate approves or rejects. It's just that simple. Anything beyond that is political gamesmanship. Garland should have had an up or down vote and so should Kavanaugh.

I agree, Garland should have. And no doubt, Kavanaugh will. Regrettably, Garland didn’t; so now Democrats will have to play by McConnell’s rules should they win the Senate in November.

Still don't want to admit Harry Reid started this shit , huh?


Got to love the propaganda game the left plays.


.