Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Faun]

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.

That was exactly my point.

 

[asaratis]

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."

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 fucking language do you speak that you can’t understand that??

But Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland would not have happened because that asshole was in the last year of his second (and thankfully last) term. He could not have been re-elected.

You are a dense liberal. You remind me a lot of Maxine Waters...dense and stupid.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let's be real here. The republican's blocking of Garland before the 2016 election was a hail mary to keep Obama from swinging the court to the left. Had Garland been seated to the bench, the left would be able to legislate from the bench for many years to come. However, it would all be an exercise in futility had HRC been elected president. Had Obama been replacing a liberal judge with a liberal judge, I doubt the senate republicans would had bothered to block his nomination.

That being said, the move of blocking Garland helped to put Trump in office. The main reason many people (bit their tongues) and voted for Trump was his list of people he would consider for the supreme court.

The democrats may try for a similar hail mary this election, but it will no happen without republican help. If the dems can delay the confirmation until the next congress and retake the senate, they may be able to force Trump into nominating a moderate. This hail mary could easily backfire if republicans take more senate seats.

Lets be real; elections have consequences and what ever party is in power will use that power as they see fit.

Again though, there is no presidential election.

Obama was out, so the concept of letting his successor chose had merit. Trump will still be president after the election, so there is no merit to the argument.

 

[JoeMoma]

Let's be real here. The republican's blocking of Garland before the 2016 election was a hail mary to keep Obama from swinging the court to the left. Had Garland been seated to the bench, the left would be able to legislate from the bench for many years to come. However, it would all be an exercise in futility had HRC been elected president. Had Obama been replacing a liberal judge with a liberal judge, I doubt the senate republicans would had bothered to block his nomination.

That being said, the move of blocking Garland helped to put Trump in office. The main reason many people (bit their tongues) and voted for Trump was his list of people he would consider for the supreme court.

The democrats may try for a similar hail mary this election, but it will no happen without republican help. If the dems can delay the confirmation until the next congress and retake the senate, they may be able to force Trump into nominating a moderate. This hail mary could easily backfire if republicans take more senate seats.

Lets be real; elections have consequences and what ever party is in power will use that power as they see fit.

Again though, there is no presidential election.

Obama was out, so the concept of letting his successor chose had merit. Trump will still be president after the election, so there is no merit to the argument.

If the democrats take the senate, they will block any conservative pick by Trump indefinitely. The "argument" is simply window dressing.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If the democrats take the senate, they will block any conservative pick by Trump indefinitely. The "argument" is simply window dressing.

Appointment will already have happened.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let's be real here. The republican's blocking of Garland before the 2016 election was a hail mary to keep Obama from swinging the court to the left. Had Garland been seated to the bench, the left would be able to legislate from the bench for many years to come. However, it would all be an exercise in futility had HRC been elected president. Had Obama been replacing a liberal judge with a liberal judge, I doubt the senate republicans would had bothered to block his nomination.

That being said, the move of blocking Garland helped to put Trump in office. The main reason many people (bit their tongues) and voted for Trump was his list of people he would consider for the supreme court.

The democrats may try for a similar hail mary this election, but it will no happen without republican help. If the dems can delay the confirmation until the next congress and retake the senate, they may be able to force Trump into nominating a moderate. This hail mary could easily backfire if republicans take more senate seats.

Lets be real; elections have consequences and what ever party is in power will use that power as they see fit.

Again though, there is no presidential election.

Obama was out, so the concept of letting his successor chose had merit. Trump will still be president after the election, so there is no merit to the argument.

If the democrats take the senate, they will block any conservative pick by Trump indefinitely. The "argument" is simply window dressing.

Two things though, the odds of the Stalinists taking the Senate are about the same as the odds of Fawn posting something true, about a billion to one.

Secondly, the idea that we should delay confirmation so the Stalinists can be obstructionist is absurd.

 

[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.

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

It takes a lot to push spineless Republicans into acting like democrats, but they can be.

 

[hadit]

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.

He already did. Please do keep up.

 

[Faun]

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."

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 fucking language do you speak that you can’t understand that??

But Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland would not have happened because that asshole was in the last year of his second (and thankfully last) term. He could not have been re-elected.

You are a dense liberal. You remind me a lot of Maxine Waters...dense and stupid.

Imbecile... Garland was nominated in March, 2016. That has nothing to do with Obama’s ineligibility to be re-elected. Still, the Republican Senate said he would never get a confirmation hearing for his nominees whoever they were. Biden never said that.

 

[Faun]

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.

He already did. Please do keep up.

That would be the point sailing clear above your head.

 

[Polishprince]

Imbecile... Garland was nominated in March, 2016. That has nothing to do with Obama’s ineligibility to be re-elected. Still, the Republican Senate said he would never get a confirmation hearing for his nominees whoever they were. Biden never said that.

If Mrs. Clinton had won the election, Sen. McConnell would have likely scheduled a vote on Mr. Garland's appointment IMHO before the end of 2016. You don't think so? Particularly, if the Dems had won the Senate in the election too.

 

[Faun]

Imbecile... Garland was nominated in March, 2016. That has nothing to do with Obama’s ineligibility to be re-elected. Still, the Republican Senate said he would never get a confirmation hearing for his nominees whoever they were. Biden never said that.

If Mrs. Clinton had won the election, Sen. McConnell would have likely scheduled a vote on Mr. Garland's appointment IMHO before the end of 2016. You don't think so? Particularly, if the Dems had won the Senate in the election too.

LOLOL

Your whole position is that McConnell lied.

 

[Polishprince]

LOLOL

Your whole position is that McConnell lied.

Where was the "lie"? Politicians have the right to change positions as circumstances on the ground change, and McConnell is a politician.

 

[hadit]

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.

He already did. Please do keep up.

That would be the point sailing clear above your head.

Nah, that would be me tweaking you by reminding you that Trump defeated Hillary.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Your whole position is that McConnell lied.

Where was the "lie"? Politicians have the right to change positions as circumstances on the ground change, and McConnell is a politician.

The lie is McConnell saying the next president should pick the justice and that the people should decide that. Now you’re claiming McConnell would only have done that had the Republican won the election.

 

[Faun]

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.

He already did. Please do keep up.

That would be the point sailing clear above your head.

Nah, that would be me tweaking you by reminding you that Trump defeated Hillary.

LOL

How does you posting like an idiot “tweak” me? It only makes me feel sorry for you because you prove to be too stupid to follow a discussion.

 

[asaratis]

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."

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 fucking language do you speak that you can’t understand that??

But Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland would not have happened because that asshole was in the last year of his second (and thankfully last) term. He could not have been re-elected.

You are a dense liberal. You remind me a lot of Maxine Waters...dense and stupid.

Imbecile... Garland was nominated in March, 2016. That has nothing to do with Obama’s ineligibility to be re-elected. Still, the Republican Senate said he would never get a confirmation hearing for his nominees whoever they were. Biden never said that.

You lie and twist so well you should be a politician.

 

[Faun]

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."

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 fucking language do you speak that you can’t understand that??

But Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland would not have happened because that asshole was in the last year of his second (and thankfully last) term. He could not have been re-elected.

You are a dense liberal. You remind me a lot of Maxine Waters...dense and stupid.

Imbecile... Garland was nominated in March, 2016. That has nothing to do with Obama’s ineligibility to be re-elected. Still, the Republican Senate said he would never get a confirmation hearing for his nominees whoever they were. Biden never said that.

You lie and twist so well you should be a politician.

LOLOL

You unwittingly agreed with my position yet you’re calling me “dense.”

This is why it’s hard to feel anything but pity for you.

 

[hadit]

Democrats won't win anything.

Trump has no chance at becoming president.

He already did. Please do keep up.

That would be the point sailing clear above your head.

Nah, that would be me tweaking you by reminding you that Trump defeated Hillary.

LOL

How does you posting like an idiot “tweak” me? It only makes me feel sorry for you because you prove to be too stupid to follow a discussion.

Wow, a juvenile insult. My day is complete.

 

[asaratis]

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 fucking language do you speak that you can’t understand that??

But Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland would not have happened because that asshole was in the last year of his second (and thankfully last) term. He could not have been re-elected.

You are a dense liberal. You remind me a lot of Maxine Waters...dense and stupid.

Imbecile... Garland was nominated in March, 2016. That has nothing to do with Obama’s ineligibility to be re-elected. Still, the Republican Senate said he would never get a confirmation hearing for his nominees whoever they were. Biden never said that.

You lie and twist so well you should be a politician.

LOLOL

You unwittingly agreed with my position yet you’re calling me “dense.”

This is why it’s hard to feel anything but pity for you.

Show where I agreed with your opinion.