Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Wyatt earp]

She would of kept Garland and the Republicans would of just thrown in the towel.


.

 

[Faun]

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."

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?

Fucking moron... ”until after the November election is completed.”

Bush was still president after the election.

At that time, any nominee would have gotten a confirmation hearing.

 

[Faun]

She would of kept Garland and the Republicans would of just thrown in the towel.

There’s no evidence she would have kept Garland.

 

[Wyatt earp]

She would of kept Garland and the Republicans would of just thrown in the towel.

There’s no evidence she would have kept Garland.

News and politics bro, news and politics, focus....

.

 

[Auld Phart]

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."

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?

Fucking moron... ”until after the November election is completed.”

Bush was still president after the election.

At that time, any nominee would have gotten a confirmation hearing.

Why did you leave out 'name a nominee'?

 

[Polishprince]

She would of kept Garland and the Republicans would of just thrown in the towel.

There’s no evidence she would have kept Garland.

It wouldn't have been her choice. Mrs. Clinton would not have assumed power until January 20, giving plenty of time for Garland to get confirmed before her inauguration.

 

[Wyatt earp]

She would of kept Garland and the Republicans would of just thrown in the towel.

There’s no evidence she would have kept Garland.

It wouldn't have been her choice. Mrs. Clinton would not have assumed power until January 20, giving plenty of time for Garland to get confirmed before her inauguration.

Good point... The Republicans knew it would of been all over.


.

 

[Faun]

She would of kept Garland and the Republicans would of just thrown in the towel.

There’s no evidence she would have kept Garland.

News and politics bro, news and politics, focus....

.

Fine, quote Hillary in the news saying if elected, she would keep Garland as her nominee....

 

[Faun]

She would of kept Garland and the Republicans would of just thrown in the towel.

There’s no evidence she would have kept Garland.

It wouldn't have been her choice. Mrs. Clinton would not have assumed power until January 20, giving plenty of time for Garland to get confirmed before her inauguration.

Of course it would have been her choice. The McConnell rule states the next president gets to pick nominees.

 

[Faun]

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?

Fucking moron... ”until after the November election is completed.”

Bush was still president after the election.

At that time, any nominee would have gotten a confirmation hearing.

Why did you leave out 'name a nominee'?

Because that's a given and I was trying to get you to understand that the key was Bush's nominee, whether they were submitted before or after the election -- would get a confirmation hearing "after the November election is completed."

 

[Wyatt earp]

She would of kept Garland and the Republicans would of just thrown in the towel.

There’s no evidence she would have kept Garland.

News and politics bro, news and politics, focus....

.

Fine, quote Hillary in the news saying if elected, she would keep Garland as her nominee....

So you going to tell us she would of gone against CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC nightly news, the liberal public, the Democrat party?

Who do you think she is now, Donald Trump?

 

[Faun]

She would of kept Garland and the Republicans would of just thrown in the towel.

There’s no evidence she would have kept Garland.

It wouldn't have been her choice. Mrs. Clinton would not have assumed power until January 20, giving plenty of time for Garland to get confirmed before her inauguration.

Good point... The Republicans knew it would of been all over.


.

LOLOL

It cracks me up watching you loons pat each other on the back for posting nonsense.

McConnell said the whole reason for denying Obama a confirmation hearing on anyone he nominated was to allow the next president to pick the nominee. So why would McConnell not do that after saying he would?

 

[Auld Phart]

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?

Fucking moron... ”until after the November election is completed.”

Bush was still president after the election.

At that time, any nominee would have gotten a confirmation hearing.

Why did you leave out 'name a nominee'?

Because that's a given and I was trying to get you to understand that the key was Bush's nominee, whether they were submitted before or after the election -- would get a confirmation hearing "after the November election is completed."

Per the Biden Rule, there would have been no nomination til after the election.

(is any of this starting to sink in?)

 

[Faun]

She would of kept Garland and the Republicans would of just thrown in the towel.

There’s no evidence she would have kept Garland.

News and politics bro, news and politics, focus....

.

Fine, quote Hillary in the news saying if elected, she would keep Garland as her nominee....

So you going to tell us she would of gone against CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC nightly news, the liberal public, the Democrat party?

Who do you think she is now, Donald Trump?

Cool, I accept that has you can't produce a quote of her saying she would have kept Garland.

 

[Slyhunter]

I want a liberal answer; Who could Trump have nominated, who could win 51% of the votes in the Senate, would Schumer not filibuster?

 

[Polishprince]

She would of kept Garland and the Republicans would of just thrown in the towel.

There’s no evidence she would have kept Garland.

It wouldn't have been her choice. Mrs. Clinton would not have assumed power until January 20, giving plenty of time for Garland to get confirmed before her inauguration.

Of course it would have been her choice. The McConnell rule states the next president gets to pick nominees.

McConnell can break his own "rule" if he wanted to, and undoubtably would have scheduled a vote for Garland. And that would have been that.

Do you think that Obama would have withdrawn Garland's name, and admitted that it was just a "joke nomination"?

 

[Faun]

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?

Fucking moron... ”until after the November election is completed.”

Bush was still president after the election.

At that time, any nominee would have gotten a confirmation hearing.

Why did you leave out 'name a nominee'?

Because that's a given and I was trying to get you to understand that the key was Bush's nominee, whether they were submitted before or after the election -- would get a confirmation hearing "after the November election is completed."

Per the Biden Rule, there would have been no nomination til after the election.

(is any of this starting to sink in?)

Correct ... and after the election, Bush could have nominated someone and that someone would have been given a confirmation hearing.

Savvy?

 

[Polishprince]

She would of kept Garland and the Republicans would of just thrown in the towel.

There’s no evidence she would have kept Garland.

News and politics bro, news and politics, focus....

.

Fine, quote Hillary in the news saying if elected, she would keep Garland as her nominee....

So you going to tell us she would of gone against CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC nightly news, the liberal public, the Democrat party?

Who do you think she is now, Donald Trump?

Cool, I accept that has you can't produce a quote of her saying she would have kept Garland.

It wouldn't have been Mrs. Clinton's choice

 

[Auld Phart]

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?

Fucking moron... ”until after the November election is completed.”

Bush was still president after the election.

At that time, any nominee would have gotten a confirmation hearing.

Why did you leave out 'name a nominee'?

Because that's a given and I was trying to get you to understand that the key was Bush's nominee, whether they were submitted before or after the election -- would get a confirmation hearing "after the November election is completed."

Per the Biden Rule, there would have been no nomination til after the election.

(is any of this starting to sink in?)

Correct ... and after the election, Bush could have nominated someone and that someone would have been given a confirmation hearing.

Savvy?

So, McConnell, following the Biden Rule, refused to consider any nomination til after the election.

and, Obama failing to nominate anyone AFTER the election, lost his shot to name Scalias replacement.

 

[Faun]

There’s no evidence she would have kept Garland.

News and politics bro, news and politics, focus....

.

Fine, quote Hillary in the news saying if elected, she would keep Garland as her nominee....

So you going to tell us she would of gone against CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC nightly news, the liberal public, the Democrat party?

Who do you think she is now, Donald Trump?

Cool, I accept that has you can't produce a quote of her saying she would have kept Garland.

It wouldn't have been Mrs. Clinton's choice

It was McConnell's choice. He said she would get to pick the nominee had she won the election. Why is that so confusing for you to understand?