Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[ptbw forever]

Voters do not care about filling the court
Otherwise, Dems would hold the Senate

You're forgetting the droves of middle dems who defected in 2016 because of the democrat decree that deranged boys must be allowed access to girls locker rooms, showers and bathrooms in public schools. That's why we have a GOP Congress, because of democrats voting for them. I myself voted Hillary upticket and all red down ticket. I'm a registered democrat and have been for decades. I'd had enough. And so had millions of others like me. Nobody wants to be associated with any party who puts children at risk.

And in 2020 Democrats are going to run pedophile Joe Biden.

 

[Faun]

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

It happened before 2016, it'll happen in the future.

Until then, no president has ever been denied a confirmation hearing to fill a seat on the Supreme Court after nominating a replacement with 10 months remaining in their presidency.

But as I noted in my column, majority parties in the Senate have used a variety of procedural devices to thwart Supreme Court nominees; of the 34 failed nominations (not counting one who was withdrawn and resubmitted for technical reasons), only twelve received a direct vote, and five were withdrawn in the face of opposition. The rest were prevented from moving forward due to a variety of Senate procedures. Some of those involved a vote on the record to table the nomination, some did not (William Micou’s nomination by Millard Fillmore in 1853 died without any action by the Senate).

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

The examples he gives...

Adams, 1828 - That came after the 1828 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016.
​

Tyler, 1845 - Tyler was not elected president and of his nominees, some had hearings, some did not and one was even confirmed. That is not like what Republicans did with Obama in 2016 where they announced they would not hold a confirmation hearing for Obama no matter who he nominated and they announced that before he even picked Garland.

Fillmore, 1852 - Not elected president and his first nomination came in August, 1852, three months before the election. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Buchanan, 1861 - Buchanan's nomination was made 3 months after the 1860 election and 1 month before he was leaving office.

Hayes, 1881 - That came after the 1880 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Johnson, 1968 - That was not like Obama in 2016. Johnson's nomination came in June of 1968, was the result of a justice retiring to hand LBJ the replacement, and Johnson's nominee was given a confirmation hearing.

So no, there has never been a circumstance like Obama's where a president, elected to a 4 year term which includes nominating Supreme Court replacements, was flat out denied a confirmation hearing no matter who he nominated with 10 months (21% of his term) remaining in office. And not even a rightwing source like the National Review can spin it to make it appear like this was nothing new.​

Johnson in 1866 made a nomination, they ignored it.

Johnson was also not elected president. So also not like Obama.

 

[Silhouette]

Voters do not care about filling the court
Otherwise, Dems would hold the Senate

You're forgetting the droves of middle dems who defected in 2016 because of the democrat decree that deranged boys must be allowed access to girls locker rooms, showers and bathrooms in public schools. That's why we have a GOP Congress, because of democrats voting for them. I myself voted Hillary upticket and all red down ticket. I'm a registered democrat and have been for decades. I'd had enough. And so had millions of others like me. Nobody wants to be associated with any party who puts children at risk.

Still Goofy after all these years

So facts are "goofy" huh? Well keep thinking that. Will that be the democrat strategy again in 2020? Trump should rest easy then.

 

[Faun]

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? The people had already picked Obama to replace vacancies from 2013 and through 2016.

And how did that work out for Obama?

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

Wtf fuck they going to do hold out for two years ( I should say 6 years?)

Sure, why not? That’s the McConnell rule — hold out until your party wins the Executive branch.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It happened before 2016, it'll happen in the future.

Until then, no president has ever been denied a confirmation hearing to fill a seat on the Supreme Court after nominating a replacement with 10 months remaining in their presidency.

But as I noted in my column, majority parties in the Senate have used a variety of procedural devices to thwart Supreme Court nominees; of the 34 failed nominations (not counting one who was withdrawn and resubmitted for technical reasons), only twelve received a direct vote, and five were withdrawn in the face of opposition. The rest were prevented from moving forward due to a variety of Senate procedures. Some of those involved a vote on the record to table the nomination, some did not (William Micou’s nomination by Millard Fillmore in 1853 died without any action by the Senate).

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

The examples he gives...

Adams, 1828 - That came after the 1828 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016.
​

Tyler, 1845 - Tyler was not elected president and of his nominees, some had hearings, some did not and one was even confirmed. That is not like what Republicans did with Obama in 2016 where they announced they would not hold a confirmation hearing for Obama no matter who he nominated and they announced that before he even picked Garland.

Fillmore, 1852 - Not elected president and his first nomination came in August, 1852, three months before the election. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Buchanan, 1861 - Buchanan's nomination was made 3 months after the 1860 election and 1 month before he was leaving office.

Hayes, 1881 - That came after the 1880 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Johnson, 1968 - That was not like Obama in 2016. Johnson's nomination came in June of 1968, was the result of a justice retiring to hand LBJ the replacement, and Johnson's nominee was given a confirmation hearing.

So no, there has never been a circumstance like Obama's where a president, elected to a 4 year term which includes nominating Supreme Court replacements, was flat out denied a confirmation hearing no matter who he nominated with 10 months (21% of his term) remaining in office. And not even a rightwing source like the National Review can spin it to make it appear like this was nothing new.​

Johnson in 1866 made a nomination, they ignored it.

Johnson was also not elected president. So also not like Obama.

Oh, so only elected Presidents get to appoint Supreme Court Justices.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Oldstyle]

Republicans are the hypocrites. They refused to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland by saying that voters should decide in the election. This is a good example of how Republicans have abused their majorities.

If you knew your political history, BB...you'd know that it was Joe Biden who put forth the idea that a lame duck President shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court Justice right before an election. Who's really the hypocrite on this?

You seem to have forgotten Mitch McConnell's warnings to the Democrats back when they used the nuclear option to pack the Federal Courts with liberal judges. McConnell told the Democratic leadership that they would regret what they were doing and sooner than they could imagine. Guess what...he was spot on!

 

[blackhawk]

Democrats thought the GOP didn't have the balls to nuclear option their ass on SCOTUS confirmations, they thought wrong.

Yes they did but much like when Harry Reid used the nuclear option in 2013 and it came back to bite him and the Democrats in the ass one day this will bite the Republicans neither party stays in control forever. When Reid went nuclear in 2013 everyone knew the 60 vote threshold for the Supreme Court would be next it was just a question of who would do it it's sad commentary about how partisan everything has become that is now seemingly the only someone can get confirmed.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You're dreaming

better than the nightmare republicans and trump are giving us now

Awe poor child. The big ole meanie is give you nightmares.

Perhaps you need a new safety blanket?

With the us against the world attitude you trump and your republican friends have you'll be needing more than that blanket,,,,,,,but you can always count on your commie friend Putin

Since Putin is more of a friend to Americans than any democrat, counting on him would put us in good hands.

I really pray for you to get what you wish for tippy

A noose around obama's neck?

 

[WEATHER53]

You know if Biden wins I am going to call him The Pedo of the USA
Even though I don’t think he is. The way you all have acted since Trump won has put me in a vengeful state I have not been to before. 3 years ago I would never say something that common about him. You all made some new rules with this incessant investigations and Anifarts and wailing about losing an election. Down the road gonna be sweet.

 

[dudmuck]

You know if Biden wins I am going to call him The Pedo of the USA
Even though I don’t think he is. The way you all have acted since Trump won has put me in a vengeful state I have not been to before. 3 years ago I would never say something that common about him. You all made some new rules with this incessant investigations and Anifarts and wailing about losing an election. Down the road gonna be sweet.

Biden just acts creepy around little girls, not a real pedo.
But i'm sure you were a Roy Moore supporter.

 

[Faun]

Until then, no president has ever been denied a confirmation hearing to fill a seat on the Supreme Court after nominating a replacement with 10 months remaining in their presidency.

But as I noted in my column, majority parties in the Senate have used a variety of procedural devices to thwart Supreme Court nominees; of the 34 failed nominations (not counting one who was withdrawn and resubmitted for technical reasons), only twelve received a direct vote, and five were withdrawn in the face of opposition. The rest were prevented from moving forward due to a variety of Senate procedures. Some of those involved a vote on the record to table the nomination, some did not (William Micou’s nomination by Millard Fillmore in 1853 died without any action by the Senate).

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

The examples he gives...

Adams, 1828 - That came after the 1828 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016.
​

Tyler, 1845 - Tyler was not elected president and of his nominees, some had hearings, some did not and one was even confirmed. That is not like what Republicans did with Obama in 2016 where they announced they would not hold a confirmation hearing for Obama no matter who he nominated and they announced that before he even picked Garland.

Fillmore, 1852 - Not elected president and his first nomination came in August, 1852, three months before the election. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Buchanan, 1861 - Buchanan's nomination was made 3 months after the 1860 election and 1 month before he was leaving office.

Hayes, 1881 - That came after the 1880 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Johnson, 1968 - That was not like Obama in 2016. Johnson's nomination came in June of 1968, was the result of a justice retiring to hand LBJ the replacement, and Johnson's nominee was given a confirmation hearing.

So no, there has never been a circumstance like Obama's where a president, elected to a 4 year term which includes nominating Supreme Court replacements, was flat out denied a confirmation hearing no matter who he nominated with 10 months (21% of his term) remaining in office. And not even a rightwing source like the National Review can spin it to make it appear like this was nothing new.​

Johnson in 1866 made a nomination, they ignored it.

Johnson was also not elected president. So also not like Obama.

Oh, so only elected Presidents get to appoint Supreme Court Justices.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Seriously? This needs to be explained to you?

McConnell's pathetic excuse for refusing to consider anyone Obama put up was to let America decide. That's bullshit since America already decided in 2012, but that was his excuse just the same. So why would you compare that to those who America did not elect as president??

 

[DOTR]

Republicans are the hypocrites. They refused to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland by saying that voters should decide in the election. This is a good example of how Republicans have abused their majorities.

Open wide. More coming your way.

 

[DOTR]

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.

The voters already decided by kicking democrats out of the government. And that was AFTER we saw them hold up Barrack Hussein’s nominee.
Though it does sometimes work against spineless Republicans I have never understood the appeal of the Democrat motto “We lost so you have to do what we say”.

 

[J.E.D]

Hijacked the process? Barry Hussein was a lame duck who was term limited to a couple of months when the choice for SCOTUS came up.

Liar. Try ten months

Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia
Following the February 2016 death of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court on March 16, 2016.

 

[J.E.D]

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.

Republicans set the precedent. Don’t complain when Democrats use the same logic.

Mitch McConnell denied a sitting president his right to name a Supreme Court justice. Did you expect Democrats to sit silently?

 

[Political Junky]

Only cons get to choose.

 

[J.E.D]

Only cons get to choose.

IOKIYAR

 

[asaratis]

Republicans are the hypocrites. They refused to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland by saying that voters should decide in the election. This is a good example of how Republicans have abused their majorities.

presidential election this year I haven't heard about?

Midterms are elections as well.

But they do not change who will nominate the next SCOTUS judge. Therefore, waiting until after the next election is nothing more than a delay tactic designed to possibly increase the Democrat Party's chances of never confirming a Trump nominee....unless he caves to Chuckie Schumer's request to tap Merrick Garland...because it's "his turn".

 

[J.E.D]

Therefore, waiting until after the next election is nothing more than a delay tactic designed to possibly increase the Democrat Party's chances of never confirming a Trump nominee.

Good. I hope they delay as much as possible. Fuck McConnell. He set the precedent.

 

[Frank the Tank]

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....even though millions more voters actually did NOT vote for Trump, that doesn't matter?!?! That's weird.

By the way, do you routinely cast judgment about an ongoing investigation before it is finished? Plus......what other foreign adversaries would you like to get involved in the next election? Should we get North Korea? How about the Middle Eastern countries? Why not right?