I'd LMAO

[12icer]

Liberals are going to be crying much harder soon. Your idea of what? How are you going to get your asshole nominee to the floor? you have no idea how the Senate works do you, Because there is NO point at which you have even a simple majority of dimshit votes, 35 is NOT a simple majority for the purpose of confirmation. The constitutional clause does not override the rules in the Senate or any other branch except to limit their power. It does not give them extra powers. Of course your mess-I-ah didn't understand that and it is going to give Trump the power to destroy all of his dreams.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Senate Republicans refused to give President Obama’s pick to replace Supreme Court Justice Scalia even the courtesy of a hearing. It was disrespectful, and historically unprecedented.

But there is still something we can do to get Merrick Garland confirmed before Obama leaves office.

At 12:00 noon on January 3, 2017 (according to the Constitution), the terms of 34 U.S. Senators will expire. At that point, the Senate will briefly consist of 66 sitting senators—until Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president, begins swearing in the senators-elect.

Before Biden begins the proceedings, he will preside over a Senate that consists of 34 Democrats, 2 independents & 30 Republicans—as the remaining Senators are not sworn in yet.

At this point, Democrats could ask to finish Senate business as it pertains to President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland.

There is nothing you can do liberal. Nothing. We will not accept anymore liberal douches.

the era of the liberal douches is coming to an end

 

[Fenton Lum]

Republicans would immediately file suit, it will go right to the supreme court who would not accept a confirmation done by procedural shenanigans.

When the political, legal, and economic systems don't even take themselves seriously, openly, all bets are off as far as social stability. Given the past half century bipartisan societal wealth redistribution and american society's inability to take a long hard look at itself, sooner or later, it's going to get bumpy out there for all but the 1%ers. And they will escape any/all responsibility for what they have wrought do to the very successful dividing and conquering partisanshithead perceptual reality pushed by corporate state media. Bacon's Rebellion lessons learned by the power structure.

 

[Auld Phart]

I never said you're on ignore....where else could I possibly get the comedy I get from reading your BS? You're freaking nuts, dude

I'm the one that has that idiot on ignore, and I'm likely not the only one.

 

[eddiew37]

so what

Just one more way republicans show their disdain for America

you are a liar or a dupe

there is a history of long open SC vacancies

Yes, just not of the Senate refusing to entertain the nomination.

n 1823, President Monroe nominated Thomson to become an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court to fill the vacant seat of Justice Henry Brockholst Livingston. It was not until Thompson failed to earn the nomination for the 1824 Presidential Election that he reluctantly accepted the nomination to the Supreme Court. Thompson officially began his post on September 1, 1823.

Several years later Thompson once again attempted to run for political office when he entered the 1828 election Gubernatorial Election in New York. He was defeated in this campaign and remained on the bench.

During his time on the Supreme Court, Thompson became known for frequently disagreeing with Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall. Thompson’s support of States’ rights did not align with the nationalist views of the Chief Justice, and the two voting differently in many occasions.

Justice Thompson also served as a large supporter of minority interests. In the case of Worcester v. Georgia (1832), Thompson played a large role in upholding the majoring ruling that states have no criminal jurisdiction in Native American lands. This ruling formulated the basis for tribal sovereignty in the United States.

are you now contradicting your own position

--LOL

No I don't think a vacancy was caused by a no vote from senate I could stand being corrected

 

[Fenton Lum]

Liberals are going to be crying much harder soon. Your idea of what? How are you going to get your asshole nominee to the floor? you have no idea how the Senate works do you, Because there is NO point at which you have even a simple majority of dimshit votes, 35 is NOT a simple majority for the purpose of confirmation. The constitutional clause does not override the rules in the Senate or any other branch except to limit their power. It does not give them extra powers. Of course your mess-I-ah didn't understand that and it is going to give Trump the power to destroy all of his dreams.

Nah, the system requires something to manipulate you with, you will require a boogeyman.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Just one more way republicans show their disdain for America

you are a liar or a dupe

there is a history of long open SC vacancies

Yes, just not of the Senate refusing to entertain the nomination.

n 1823, President Monroe nominated Thomson to become an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court to fill the vacant seat of Justice Henry Brockholst Livingston. It was not until Thompson failed to earn the nomination for the 1824 Presidential Election that he reluctantly accepted the nomination to the Supreme Court. Thompson officially began his post on September 1, 1823.

Several years later Thompson once again attempted to run for political office when he entered the 1828 election Gubernatorial Election in New York. He was defeated in this campaign and remained on the bench.

During his time on the Supreme Court, Thompson became known for frequently disagreeing with Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall. Thompson’s support of States’ rights did not align with the nationalist views of the Chief Justice, and the two voting differently in many occasions.

Justice Thompson also served as a large supporter of minority interests. In the case of Worcester v. Georgia (1832), Thompson played a large role in upholding the majoring ruling that states have no criminal jurisdiction in Native American lands. This ruling formulated the basis for tribal sovereignty in the United States.

are you now contradicting your own position

--LOL

No I don't think a vacancy was caused by a no vote from senate I could stand being corrected

here is the thing

there is a long history of long term vacancies

you see the government tracks that sort of stuff


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31171.pdf

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I never said you're on ignore....where else could I possibly get the comedy I get from reading your BS? You're freaking nuts, dude

I'm the one that has that idiot on ignore, and I'm likely not the only one.

He's confused...like most left loons.

 

[Auld Phart]

you are a liar or a dupe

there is a history of long open SC vacancies

Yes, just not of the Senate refusing to entertain the nomination.

n 1823, President Monroe nominated Thomson to become an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court to fill the vacant seat of Justice Henry Brockholst Livingston. It was not until Thompson failed to earn the nomination for the 1824 Presidential Election that he reluctantly accepted the nomination to the Supreme Court. Thompson officially began his post on September 1, 1823.

Several years later Thompson once again attempted to run for political office when he entered the 1828 election Gubernatorial Election in New York. He was defeated in this campaign and remained on the bench.

During his time on the Supreme Court, Thompson became known for frequently disagreeing with Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall. Thompson’s support of States’ rights did not align with the nationalist views of the Chief Justice, and the two voting differently in many occasions.

Justice Thompson also served as a large supporter of minority interests. In the case of Worcester v. Georgia (1832), Thompson played a large role in upholding the majoring ruling that states have no criminal jurisdiction in Native American lands. This ruling formulated the basis for tribal sovereignty in the United States.

are you now contradicting your own position

--LOL

No I don't think a vacancy was caused by a no vote from senate I could stand being corrected

here is the thing

there is a long history of long term vacancies

you see the government tracks that sort of stuff


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31171.pdf

He probably got his info from Road Scholar Rachel Maddow.

(and yes, I do know that it should have been Rhodes Scholar)

 

[eddiew37]

I never said you're on ignore....where else could I possibly get the comedy I get from reading your BS? You're freaking nuts, dude

I'm the one that has that idiot on ignore, and I'm likely not the only one.

JIMHO putting someone on ignore is a sign of cowardice If I did 3/4 of republicans would be there So sassy one thing in your favor ,,,you're not a coward

 

[jon_berzerk]

It was disrespectful, and historically unprecedented.

except for when it happened to bush

“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said in a speech to the liberal American Constitution Society. “They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

When have we only had 8 SC justices for this long? and you must admit watching pubs in agony is fun

so what

Just one more way republicans show their disdain for America

you are a liar or a dupe

there is a history of long open SC vacancies

Yes, just not of the Senate refusing to entertain the nomination.

--LOL no less then five times


Postponed or tabled by the Senate, but not withdrawn by the President 5


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31171.pdf

 

[Auld Phart]

I never said you're on ignore....where else could I possibly get the comedy I get from reading your BS? You're freaking nuts, dude

I'm the one that has that idiot on ignore, and I'm likely not the only one.

He's confused...like most left loons.

No, for him to be confused, there would have to be something between his ears.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I never said you're on ignore....where else could I possibly get the comedy I get from reading your BS? You're freaking nuts, dude

I'm the one that has that idiot on ignore, and I'm likely not the only one.

JIMHO putting someone on ignore is a sign of cowardice If I did 3/4 of republicans would be there So sassy one thing in your favor ,,,you're not a coward

Well not really, I have about 20 left loons on ignore...one can only take so much buffoonery

 

[BluesLegend]

This is how goofy left loons are

They are lawless lying filthy scum, that's why we are destroying them.

 

[Theowl32]

Senate Republicans refused to give President Obama’s pick to replace Supreme Court Justice Scalia even the courtesy of a hearing. It was disrespectful, and historically unprecedented.

But there is still something we can do to get Merrick Garland confirmed before Obama leaves office.

At 12:00 noon on January 3, 2017 (according to the Constitution), the terms of 34 U.S. Senators will expire. At that point, the Senate will briefly consist of 66 sitting senators—until Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president, begins swearing in the senators-elect.

Before Biden begins the proceedings, he will preside over a Senate that consists of 34 Democrats, 2 independents & 30 Republicans—as the remaining Senators are not sworn in yet.

At this point, Democrats could ask to finish Senate business as it pertains to President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland.

I thought Jews were supposed to be smart. So much for that stereotype.

Are you a lawya or investment banka?

 

[Avatar4321]

Senate Republicans refused to give President Obama’s pick to replace Supreme Court Justice Scalia even the courtesy of a hearing. It was disrespectful, and historically unprecedented.
.

It was smart so suck it.

cowards, traitors republicans

You are seriously calling other people cowards when you are advocating an end run around our laws???

 

[eddiew37]

Senate Republicans refused to give President Obama’s pick to replace Supreme Court Justice Scalia even the courtesy of a hearing. It was disrespectful, and historically unprecedented.
.

It was smart so suck it.

cowards, traitors republicans

You are seriously calling other people cowards when you are advocating an end run around our laws???

""It's a far far better thing I do than I have ever done before etc etc ""

 

[OldLady]

When have we only had 8 SC justices for this long? and you must admit watching pubs in agony is fun

so what

Just one more way republicans show their disdain for America

you are a liar or a dupe

there is a history of long open SC vacancies

Yes, just not of the Senate refusing to entertain the nomination.

--LOL no less then five times


Postponed or tabled by the Senate, but not withdrawn by the President 5


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31171.pdf

Very scholarly review; forgive me if I don't have the necessary interest in the topic to read the whole thing trying to unearth the names of the five justices you refer to and the reasons for the inaction? It is common knowledge that this has been precedent breaking.

On March 16, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. When the Senate returns from its August recess on Sept. 6, the nomination will have already waited 174 days for a vote.

This prolonged failure by the Senate to do its duty has no precedent in all of U.S. history. Every other nomination not withdrawn by a president has received a vote. The longest previous wait was 125 days for Louis Brandeis, appointed by President Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Bitter opposition to Brandeis was driven, at least in part, by his status as the first Jewish nominee. The Senate, however, after contentious hearings and debate, confirmed Brandeis — who went on to serve as one of the most respected justices in the court's history — 47-22.

Senate continues to disrespect Constitution, Obama and Supreme Court by not voting on Garland

 

[Avatar4321]

Senate Republicans refused to give President Obama’s pick to replace Supreme Court Justice Scalia even the courtesy of a hearing. It was disrespectful, and historically unprecedented.

But there is still something we can do to get Merrick Garland confirmed before Obama leaves office.

At 12:00 noon on January 3, 2017 (according to the Constitution), the terms of 34 U.S. Senators will expire. At that point, the Senate will briefly consist of 66 sitting senators—until Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president, begins swearing in the senators-elect.

Before Biden begins the proceedings, he will preside over a Senate that consists of 34 Democrats, 2 independents & 30 Republicans—as the remaining Senators are not sworn in yet.

At this point, Democrats could ask to finish Senate business as it pertains to President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland.

Whatever can be done to seat Obama's pick for the next Supreme Court justice is fine by me.

Then you just need to elect Hillary president... Oh wait

 

[Avatar4321]

I never said you're on ignore....where else could I possibly get the comedy I get from reading your BS? You're freaking nuts, dude

I'm the one that has that idiot on ignore, and I'm likely not the only one.

He's confused...like most left loons.

Confused doesn't seem to begin to address it