Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[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.

So?

So, the point is that if Schumer is smart, he'll move Kavanaugh through and count his blessings

 

[Faun]

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"

Now you're just clinging to stupid.

Again, there was no reason for McConnell to go back on his word and make himself look like the biggest dick in political history. He still controlled the Senate. Hillary would not have gotten anyone confirmed who McConnell considered worse than Garland.

And you're still not citing anyone but yourself and your delusions by holding onto this ridiculous assertion.

 

[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?

So, the point is that if Schumer is smart, he'll move Kavanaugh through and count his blessings

It doesn't matter what Schumer does. He can't block Kavanaugh. What Democrats need is to win the Senate -- then at least they can prevent Trump from replacing anymore justices should any open up after the beginning of next year.

 

[Polishprince]

- then at least they can prevent Trump from replacing anymore justices should any open up after the beginning of next year.

I'm sure that Chuck U Schumer will do exactly that, if he has the chance.

At least it will clear up the Senate's calendar from all of those pesky confirmation hearings.

 

[asaratis]

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.

Actually it's the liberals that desire politicizing the SCOTUS bench. Conservatives want justices that will live up to their oath to support and protect the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN.

The current nominee has already expressed his opinion on respect of court precedence. I fail to see why the dimwit liberals see him as a threat to Roe v. Wade.

Incidentally, Roe v. Wade does not address the legality of abortion.

Roe v. Wade. On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, which recognized that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions — including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians.

It was a 7-2 decision.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, is a landmark decision issued in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to abortions. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

 

[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.

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.

They would forfeit any standing to be outraged if they did.

 

[Faun]

Actually it's the liberals that desire politicizing the SCOTUS bench. Conservatives want justices that will live up to their oath to support and protect the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

Is it November already?

 

[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.

They would forfeit any standing to be outraged if they did.

True, they could no longer be outraged. But so what? They’ll prevent Trump from making that bench any more conservative than it already is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

They would forfeit any standing to be outraged if they did.

The only standing leftists ever require to be "outraged" is their own towering, arrogant belief in their own superiority.

 

[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.

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.

They would forfeit any standing to be outraged if they did.

True, they could no longer be outraged. But so what? They’ll prevent Trump from making that bench any more conservative than it already is.

And if they continue acting this way and don't take the Senate, they guarantee a much more hard line conservative getting shoved down their throats when Buzzy drops out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually it's the liberals that desire politicizing the SCOTUS bench. Conservatives want justices that will live up to their oath to support and protect the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN.

And they have proven that repeatedly since Trump took office. Because they have little ability to stop Trump's agenda, they relied on their activist federal judges to stop him even if a law was already on the books for decades like Trump halting immigration from certain countries.

Leftist judges just can't be trusted and it's been proven over and over again. As you said, they judge based on politics--not the Constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

So, the point is that if Schumer is smart, he'll move Kavanaugh through and count his blessings

It doesn't matter what Schumer does. He can't block Kavanaugh. What Democrats need is to win the Senate -- then at least they can prevent Trump from replacing anymore justices should any open up after the beginning of next year.

If that's what you're hoping on you better pray they let this nominee take the bench. Otherwise remember that Independents are watching what's gong on.

 

[ptbw forever]

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?

So, the point is that if Schumer is smart, he'll move Kavanaugh through and count his blessings

It doesn't matter what Schumer does. He can't block Kavanaugh. What Democrats need is to win the Senate -- then at least they can prevent Trump from replacing anymore justices should any open up after the beginning of next year.

Democrats won't win anything.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I heard something on the radio today that they were going to try and dig up records when he worked with Ken Starr.

 

[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.

They would forfeit any standing to be outraged if they did.

True, they could no longer be outraged. But so what? They’ll prevent Trump from making that bench any more conservative than it already is.

And if they continue acting this way and don't take the Senate, they guarantee a much more hard line conservative getting shoved down their throats when Buzzy drops out.

You’re only kidding yourself if you think that’s not happening anyway if Democrats fail to win the Senate.

 

[Faun]

There's nothing Democrats can do to block Kavanugh.

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

So?

So, the point is that if Schumer is smart, he'll move Kavanaugh through and count his blessings

It doesn't matter what Schumer does. He can't block Kavanaugh. What Democrats need is to win the Senate -- then at least they can prevent Trump from replacing anymore justices should any open up after the beginning of next year.

Democrats won't win anything.

Trump has no chance at becoming president.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

So?

So, the point is that if Schumer is smart, he'll move Kavanaugh through and count his blessings

It doesn't matter what Schumer does. He can't block Kavanaugh. What Democrats need is to win the Senate -- then at least they can prevent Trump from replacing anymore justices should any open up after the beginning of next year.

Democrats won't win anything.

Trump has no chance at becoming president.

Tough to figure out what will happen in this political climate, I would have bet money that Trump was going to lose in 2016. I understood the why he won but it was a shock. Anything can happen, and I’m sure it will.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

. And thanks to McConnell, that door can remain shut for years, if need be, until a Democrat wins the White House.

Nothing can be done about that now, what McConnell did in 2016 is water over the dam.

If libs want to act like children over things that can't be changed, I guess that's just tough shit. President Trump will fight fire with fire.

And after Democrats do it to Trump, or whoever the next Republican President is, that too will become “water over the dam.” That’s the new Senate rule McConnell created, available to both sides.

Fine with that.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If Trump wanted to be a complete and utter boss, he'd say that he's waiting until after the 2018 mid-terms are over so that he can nominate anyone he wants, since the republicans will pick up seats in the 51. "I don't want to have to worry about getting Susan Collins' vote, so we'll just easily sail someone through at the beginning of 2019 with 55 or so republicans votes in the Senate.

It would stand a small chance at backfiring but man, that would be a such a pimp-ass move.

Not true. The Senate is fully in play. That is why Republicans started a campaign to get Kennedy to retire now before the midterms.

I like it because it basically tells left wingers to shove it....sideways.