Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Polishprince]

So why would McConnell not do that after saying he would?

Mainly because he would think that he couldn't get any one better that Garland, with another extremist taking office in January. Take your medicine and be done with it.

 

[Faun]

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.

No, you lying dumbfuck, that is not what happened with Obama. Obama's nominee was not denied a confirmation hearing only until after the election, as Biden proposed with Bush ... No Obama nominee would ever get a confirmation hearing. Not even after the election. And Obama named a nominee 8 months before the election anyway.

Savvy?

 

[Faun]

So why would McConnell not do that after saying he would?

Mainly because he would think that he couldn't get any one better that Garland, with another extremist taking office in January. Take your medicine and be done with it.

There's no evidence of that. You'll recall, you ascribed some positions to Garland you failed to back up with direct and accurate quotes from him.

And there's nothing to indicate McConnell would have gone back on his word, despite your insidious accusations.

 

[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.

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"?

LOLOL

Despite your claim that McConnell is an even bigger partisan prick than he appeared by going back on his own word, you have no evidence to support your delusions.

 

[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.

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

I never said you did, I replied to your reply, I really don't care either way because in a few years the right will be crying. Both sides are very hypocritical, McConnell made his statement because the GOP ruled the Senate and the President wasn't going to get his man through, Biden made his comment when Bush was making the pick and the Senate Democrats didn't have enough votes to stop the process. Both of those were during Presidential elections and not off year elections which no one on the left wants to recognize.

Both sides are and will be self serving and to claim neither is hypocritical or right is a huge laugh. The left needs to realize as they pointed out so often, elections have consequences.

How it goes will be okay by me, I think Kavanaugh is a good pick coming from Trump, he is a Kennedy type that will be another swing vote, waiting until after the off year election the GOP will lose some clout to put pressure on Red State moderate Democrats to vote for Kavanaugh, after the election the GOP loses a big bargaining chip.

I also see why the Democrats are wanting the delay, they want what is closer to what they want.

Trump could have nominated Obama and the Democrats would have resisted, just politics as usual.

 

[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?

So the answer would be none?

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

No, you lying dumbfuck, that is not what happened with Obama. Obama's nominee was not denied a confirmation hearing only until after the election, as Biden proposed with Bush ... No Obama nominee would ever get a confirmation hearing. Not even after the election. And Obama named a nominee 8 months before the election anyway.

Savvy?

And Obama named a nominee 8 months before the election anyway.

AFTER the election season had started.

"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.""

 

[Polishprince]

And there's nothing to indicate McConnell would have gone back on his word, despite your insidious accusations.

What "insidious accusation"? Changing your mind in response to the voters' decision isn't a sin.

Why wouldn't he give Garland a vote if the choice from the next president would possibly be worse?

The reason for delaying Garland's confirmation vote was the hope that the next president would offer something better. Once that hope was gone, the political calculus changes

 

[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.

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

I believe you are right, Kavanaugh is going in unless the Democrats can create a huge scandal involving Kavanaugh which is what I think the Democrats are going to try.

 

[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.

I never said you did, I replied to your reply, I really don't care either way because in a few years the right will be crying. Both sides are very hypocritical, McConnell made his statement because the GOP ruled the Senate and the President wasn't going to get his man through, Biden made his comment when Bush was making the pick and the Senate Democrats didn't have enough votes to stop the process. Both of those were during Presidential elections and not off year elections which no one on the left wants to recognize.

Both sides are and will be self serving and to claim neither is hypocritical or right is a huge laugh. The left needs to realize as they pointed out so often, elections have consequences.

How it goes will be okay by me, I think Kavanaugh is a good pick coming from Trump, he is a Kennedy type that will be another swing vote, waiting until after the off year election the GOP will lose some clout to put pressure on Red State moderate Democrats to vote for Kavanaugh, after the election the GOP loses a big bargaining chip.

I also see why the Democrats are wanting the delay, they want what is closer to what they want.

Trump could have nominated Obama and the Democrats would have resisted, just politics as usual.

You're wrong when you claim Democrats didn't have enough votes to stop the process when Biden said what he said. Democrats were in control of the Senate and had they not wanted to give a Bush nominee a chance to be confirmed, they very much had the power to prevent it.

 

[Polishprince]

If the Dems successful block Kavanaugh until after the election, and the GOP expands their majority, Trump should withdraw Kavanaugh's name and submit the name of a hard core conservative like Judge Roy Moore or Mark R. Levin of Pennsylvania.

 

[Faun]

And there's nothing to indicate McConnell would have gone back on his word, despite your insidious accusations.

What "insidious accusation"? Changing your mind in response to the voters' decision isn't a sin.

Why wouldn't he give Garland a vote if the choice from the next president would possibly be worse?

The reason for delaying Garland's confirmation vote was the hope that the next president would offer something better. Once that hope was gone, the political calculus changes

McConnell made up a rule that never existed before. Reversing himself had a Democrat won the election would have been beyond the pale.

Not to mention, you yourself have claimed Garland was an awful pick AND it would not have been necessary for McConnell to accept him since Republicans held onto the Senate and could have blocked anyone Hillary picked if they didn't like them.

Your position is completely absurd and is rooted from nowhere but your own imagination. And it crumbles upon inspection.

 

[Faun]

If the Dems successful block Kavanaugh until after the election, and the GOP expands their majority, Trump should withdraw Kavanaugh's name and submit the name of a hard core conservative like Judge Roy Moore or Mark R. Levin of Pennsylvania.

There's nothing Democrats can do to block Kavanugh.

 

[Faun]

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.

No, you lying dumbfuck, that is not what happened with Obama. Obama's nominee was not denied a confirmation hearing only until after the election, as Biden proposed with Bush ... No Obama nominee would ever get a confirmation hearing. Not even after the election. And Obama named a nominee 8 months before the election anyway.

Savvy?

And Obama named a nominee 8 months before the election anyway.

AFTER the election season had started.

"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.""

You still don't comprehend the difference between asking a president to wait until after the election to have their nominees granted a confirmation hearing -- from telling the president no nominee will get a hearing ever, not before the election, not after the election, not until someone else is president?

You're permanently brain-dead. <smh>

 

[Polishprince]

If the Dems successful block Kavanaugh until after the election, and the GOP expands their majority, Trump should withdraw Kavanaugh's name and submit the name of a hard core conservative like Judge Roy Moore or Mark R. Levin of Pennsylvania.

There's nothing Democrats can do to block Kavanugh.

Tell that to Schumer, he's sure trying to delay Kavanaugh.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And there's nothing to indicate McConnell would have gone back on his word, despite your insidious accusations.

What "insidious accusation"? Changing your mind in response to the voters' decision isn't a sin.

Why wouldn't he give Garland a vote if the choice from the next president would possibly be worse?

The reason for delaying Garland's confirmation vote was the hope that the next president would offer something better. Once that hope was gone, the political calculus changes

McConnell made up a rule that never existed before. Reversing himself had a Democrat won the election would have been beyond the pale.

Not to mention, you yourself have claimed Garland was an awful pick AND it would not have been necessary for McConnell to accept him since Republicans held onto the Senate and could have blocked anyone Hillary picked if they didn't like them.

Your position is completely absurd and is rooted from nowhere but your own imagination. And it crumbles upon inspection.

For one: Mitch is a big dick , most every Republican outside of Kentucky hates his ass and never listen to a word he says.


For two: this was all about getting even with Harry Reid and his nuclear option.


We warned the Democrats constantly this was going to bite them in the ass but you fuckers wouldn't listen



.

 

[Polishprince]

McConnell made up a rule that never existed before. Reversing himself had a Democrat won the election would have been beyond the pale.

Not to mention, you yourself have claimed Garland was an awful pick AND it would not have been necessary for McConnell to accept him since Republicans held onto the Senate and could have blocked anyone Hillary picked if they didn't like them.

Your position is completely absurd and is rooted from nowhere but your own imagination. And it crumbles upon inspection.

Politicians change their minds all the time, if McConnell thought Clinton's choice would be worse, why not? Hardly "beyond the pale"

 

[RealDave]

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.

So, in 2016, The people had not decided.

In 2018, they did decided.

This is how fucking stupid you people are.

 

[Faun]

If the Dems successful block Kavanaugh until after the election, and the GOP expands their majority, Trump should withdraw Kavanaugh's name and submit the name of a hard core conservative like Judge Roy Moore or Mark R. Levin of Pennsylvania.

There's nothing Democrats can do to block Kavanugh.

Tell that to Schumer, he's sure trying to delay Kavanaugh.

So?

 

[Faun]

And there's nothing to indicate McConnell would have gone back on his word, despite your insidious accusations.

What "insidious accusation"? Changing your mind in response to the voters' decision isn't a sin.

Why wouldn't he give Garland a vote if the choice from the next president would possibly be worse?

The reason for delaying Garland's confirmation vote was the hope that the next president would offer something better. Once that hope was gone, the political calculus changes

McConnell made up a rule that never existed before. Reversing himself had a Democrat won the election would have been beyond the pale.

Not to mention, you yourself have claimed Garland was an awful pick AND it would not have been necessary for McConnell to accept him since Republicans held onto the Senate and could have blocked anyone Hillary picked if they didn't like them.

Your position is completely absurd and is rooted from nowhere but your own imagination. And it crumbles upon inspection.

For one: Mitch is a big dick , most every Republican outside of Kentucky hates his ass and never listen to a word he says.


For two: this was all about getting even with Harry Reid and his nuclear option.


We warned the Democrats constantly this was going to bite them in the ass but you fuckers wouldn't listen



.

Imbecile, the nuclear option came after the election. It had nothing to do with Garland.