Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Mitch will use the Harry Reid nuke option way before that might happen


.

 

[Polishprince]

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

That is certainly true, but it is a big "if".

What do you think the far left Senate will be doing? President Trump will no longer send the names of judicial or other nominees down. There will be little point to do that.

 

[Polishprince]

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

If the Democrats win the election, there will little point in our President making a selection that won't be confirmed.

Before the election, it is possible to pressure Red State Dems to vote in favor.

 

[Faun]

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 **** 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."

No, you ignorant buffoon....

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

.... was Biden suggesting the president should wait until after the election to nominate a USSC replacement.

”action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over

... was Biden saying the Senate should not hold a confirmation hearing until after the election should Bush nominate someone anyway prior to the election.

Either way, whether Bush were to wait until after the election to nominate a replacement; or if the Senate would hold off on confirmation hearings until after the election had Bush nominated someone before it — Bush’s nominee would still get a confirmation hearing.

What ******* language do you speak that you can’t understand that??

 

[Auld Phart]

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 **** 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."

No, you ignorant buffoon....

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

.... was Biden suggesting the president should wait until after the election to nominate a USSC replacement.

”action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over

... was Biden saying the Senate should not hold a confirmation hearing until after the election should Bush nominate someone anyway prior to the election.

Either way, whether Bush were to wait until after the election to nominate a replacement; or if the Senate would hold off on confirmation hearings until after the election had Bush nominated someone before it — Bush’s nominee would still get a confirmation hearing.

What ******* language do you speak that you can’t understand that??

.... was Biden suggesting the president should wait until after the election to nominate a USSC replacement.

suggesting?

no.

STATING?

YES!

... was Biden saying the Senate should not hold a confirmation hearing until after the election should Bush nominate someone anyway prior to the election.

He was stating Bush should not nominate anyone til after the election.

"What ******* language do you speak that you can’t understand that?? "

 

[Faun]

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

That is certainly true, but it is a big "if".

What do you think the far left Senate will be doing? President Trump will no longer send the names of judicial or other nominees down. There will be little point to do that.

Of course I expect Trump would still offer nominees. They just won’t get a confirmation hearing like Garland didn’t.

 

[Polishprince]

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

That is certainly true, but it is a big "if".

What do you think the far left Senate will be doing? President Trump will no longer send the names of judicial or other nominees down. There will be little point to do that.

Of course I expect Trump would still offer nominees. They just won’t get a confirmation hearing like Garland didn’t.

What's the point of making a nomination that doesn't stand a chance? Seems rather futile. Of course, a nominee that will not be serving doesn't have to be vetted by the President or anyone else. So its an easy thing to do, and a lot of fun can be had in doing it.

 

[Polishprince]

[They just won’t get a confirmation hearing like Garland didn’t.

BTW, if Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 election, Garland would have received a confirmation vote- although probably not a hearing due to the "lame duck" status of the Senate and a desire for senators to make it back home for Christmas or Ramadam for the muslims.

 

[Faun]

[They just won’t get a confirmation hearing like Garland didn’t.

BTW, if Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 election, Garland would have received a confirmation vote- although probably not a hearing due to the "lame duck" status of the Senate and a desire for senators to make it back home for Christmas or Ramadam for the muslims.

Doubtful. Had Hillary won, she would have nominated her own replacement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 **** 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."

Does he think Biden and the Dem Senate would have confirmed a Bush nominee between the election and Clinton's inauguration?

 

[Polishprince]

Doubtful. Had Hillary won, she would have nominated her own replacement.

How you figure? Mrs. Clinton would not have taken office until January 2017, Garland would have been ratified before the end of 2016, before she took office- even if she was inclined to disrespect Obama

 

[Auld Phart]

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 **** 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."

Does he think Biden and the Dem Senate would have confirmed a Bush nominee between the election and Clinton's inauguration?

That part confused me.

If the president wasn't replaced, I can see the nominee being confirmed.

But confirming the nominee of the outgoing president, before the new president takes office?

Even Joe has more sense than that.

 

[Wyatt earp]

[They just won’t get a confirmation hearing like Garland didn’t.

BTW, if Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 election, Garland would have received a confirmation vote- although probably not a hearing due to the "lame duck" status of the Senate and a desire for senators to make it back home for Christmas or Ramadam for the muslims.

Doubtful. Had Hillary won, she would have nominated her own replacement.

That's the joke of the century, she was Obama's heir to the thrown , their is no way she would of nominated anyone but Garland.

.

 

[Faun]

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 **** 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."

Does he think Biden and the Dem Senate would have confirmed a Bush nominee between the election and Clinton's inauguration?

LOL

Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. I said nothing about whether or not the Senate would confirm. Senate confirmation is not a rubber stamp and there’s never a guarantee of confirmation. Still, Biden never once suggested Bush’s nominee, had there been one, would not get a confirmation hearing.

Now compare that with the McConnell rule, which permits the Senate to deny an elected president a confirmation hearing on nominees for the remainder of that president’s term.

 

[Faun]

[They just won’t get a confirmation hearing like Garland didn’t.

BTW, if Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 election, Garland would have received a confirmation vote- although probably not a hearing due to the "lame duck" status of the Senate and a desire for senators to make it back home for Christmas or Ramadam for the muslims.

Doubtful. Had Hillary won, she would have nominated her own replacement.

That's the joke of the century, she was Obama's heir to the thrown , their is no way she would of nominated anyone but Garland.

.

Nonsense. Garland was too moderate, which was why Obama nominated him. Hillary would have gone with someone more Liberal.

 

[Slyhunter]

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

That is certainly true, but it is a big "if".

What do you think the far left Senate will be doing? President Trump will no longer send the names of judicial or other nominees down. There will be little point to do that.

Of course I expect Trump would still offer nominees. They just won’t get a confirmation hearing like Garland didn’t.

What's the point of making a nomination that doesn't stand a chance? Seems rather futile. Of course, a nominee that will not be serving doesn't have to be vetted by the President or anyone else. So its an easy thing to do, and a lot of fun can be had in doing it.

Which Nominee would "stand a chance" you know get enough votes to pass the Senate and not get filibustered.

 

[Polishprince]

[They just won’t get a confirmation hearing like Garland didn’t.

BTW, if Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 election, Garland would have received a confirmation vote- although probably not a hearing due to the "lame duck" status of the Senate and a desire for senators to make it back home for Christmas or Ramadam for the muslims.

Doubtful. Had Hillary won, she would have nominated her own replacement.

That's the joke of the century, she was Obama's heir to the thrown , their is no way she would of nominated anyone but Garland.

.

Nonsense. Garland was too moderate, which was why Obama nominated him. Hillary would have gone with someone more Liberal.

Are you suggesting that Obama would have withdrawn Garland's name and NOT nominated anyone else, had Mrs. Clinton won?

His duty was to appoint a SCOTUS justice, would he really disrespect his own job duties like that?

 

[Auld Phart]

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 **** 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."

Does he think Biden and the Dem Senate would have confirmed a Bush nominee between the election and Clinton's inauguration?

LOL

Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. I said nothing about whether or not the Senate would confirm. Senate confirmation is not a rubber stamp and there’s never a guarantee of confirmation. Still, Biden never once suggested Bush’s nominee, had there been one, would not get a confirmation hearing.

Now compare that with the McConnell rule, which permits the Senate to deny an elected president a confirmation hearing on nominees for the remainder of that president’s term.

Still, Biden never once suggested Bush’s nominee, had there been one, would not get a confirmation hearing.

because, per Biden, the President should not have nominated anyone after the election process started.

"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."

can't be a confirmation, if no one is nominated.

(should I use bigger letters, to make it easier to read?

 

[Polishprince]

Which Nominee would "stand a chance" you know get enough votes to pass the Senate and not get filibustered.

There would be no GOP nominees that would stand a chance.

That makes the selection process easier, as the GOP President would just have to pick someone that looks good to his base, and not someone who is actually willing to serve in the position he's being nominated for.

 

[Wyatt earp]

[They just won’t get a confirmation hearing like Garland didn’t.

BTW, if Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 election, Garland would have received a confirmation vote- although probably not a hearing due to the "lame duck" status of the Senate and a desire for senators to make it back home for Christmas or Ramadam for the muslims.

Doubtful. Had Hillary won, she would have nominated her own replacement.

That's the joke of the century, she was Obama's heir to the thrown , their is no way she would of nominated anyone but Garland.

.

Nonsense. Garland was too moderate, which was why Obama nominated him. Hillary would have gone with someone more Liberal.

Say what? So now Hillary the war hawk is more liberal then Obama?

LMFAO

She wouldn't of gone against the Democrat party or the liberal public who was pissed that the Republicans just ignored Garland.

.