If Barrett was a Dem nominee, left would lose their minds if Pubs treated her the way Dems did during the hearing

[22lcidw]

Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland

How about Kagan and Soteymeyer? How did Repubs treat them? And how did Progs treat Bork? And Thomas? And the rest on the court? Those Progs will end up threating their own as they treated them. History is full of this. Its just that you do not believe it can happen here. It can and in ways that will surprise you.

 

[Crepitus]

The Democrats were absolutely vicious and disgusting and rude and mansplaining and accusatory and just awful to Barrett.

If the parties were flipped, the M5M would have lost their Goddamn minds and would have called the Republicans every name in the book.

But she is conservative, and she is Catholic....so ots ok to treat her like shit.

Oh, the irony of a tRumpling (incorrectly) using the term "mansplaining".

 

[rightwinger]

Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland

Nobody gives a flying **** about Garland. His nomination went as far as it could. A nice cordial no thanks.

Can you imagine the left today if Sotomayor was asked if she ever sexually assaulted someone? Holy shit you’d lose your ******* minds. And you’re the party of rape.

The ghost of Merrick Garland hangs over Republicans. republicans know what they did and now just want it to go away.

Let’s just make up and pretend it didnt happen.

But that act and the hypocrisy of rushing through the Barrett nomination has permanently burned all bridges between the parties.

Dems will not forget.

The Democrats were absolutely vicious and disgusting and rude and mansplaining and accusatory and just awful to Barrett.

If the parties were flipped, the M5M would have lost their Goddamn minds and would have called the Republicans every name in the book.

But she is conservative, and she is Catholic....so ots ok to treat her like shit.

Those lyin cheatin scum bastard dems wouldn't even give her a hearing. SO UNFAIR#MAGA

How is not giving Garland a hearing "cheating"?

what procedures or laws were broken?

No laws

A sitting President was denied the chance to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for the first time.
It caused bad blood and a rift between the parties that will not be easily settled


There are also no laws against adding seats to the courts or ending the Senate filibuster.

We shall see how Dems react to the Republican power play.

The bad blood goes back to Bork. Not confirming is denying as well, so your "first time' claim is bogus.

Not the same

Reagan was allowed to name a replacement for Bork. Obama was not allowed to fill the seat. First time ever

 

[rightwinger]

Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland

How about Kagan and Soteymeyer? How did Repubs treat them? And how did Progs treat Bork? And Thomas? And the rest on the court? Those Progs will end up threating their own as they treated them. History is full of this. Its just that you do not believe it can happen here. It can and in ways that will surprise you.

Scalia died with ten months left in Obama’s term. Obama was not allowed to fill because it was an election year.


How did that work out for Trump?

Obama filled two seats in eight years
Trump filled three seats in four years

 

[martybegan]

Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland

Nobody gives a flying **** about Garland. His nomination went as far as it could. A nice cordial no thanks.

Can you imagine the left today if Sotomayor was asked if she ever sexually assaulted someone? Holy shit you’d lose your ******* minds. And you’re the party of rape.

The ghost of Merrick Garland hangs over Republicans. republicans know what they did and now just want it to go away.

Let’s just make up and pretend it didnt happen.

But that act and the hypocrisy of rushing through the Barrett nomination has permanently burned all bridges between the parties.

Dems will not forget.

The Democrats were absolutely vicious and disgusting and rude and mansplaining and accusatory and just awful to Barrett.

If the parties were flipped, the M5M would have lost their Goddamn minds and would have called the Republicans every name in the book.

But she is conservative, and she is Catholic....so ots ok to treat her like shit.

Those lyin cheatin scum bastard dems wouldn't even give her a hearing. SO UNFAIR#MAGA

How is not giving Garland a hearing "cheating"?

what procedures or laws were broken?

No laws

A sitting President was denied the chance to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for the first time.
It caused bad blood and a rift between the parties that will not be easily settled


There are also no laws against adding seats to the courts or ending the Senate filibuster.

We shall see how Dems react to the Republican power play.

The bad blood goes back to Bork. Not confirming is denying as well, so your "first time' claim is bogus.

Not the same

Reagan was allowed to name a replacement for Bork. Obama was not allowed to fill the seat. First time ever

Twice. and we got Kennedy instead of Bork.

I thought progressives were big fans of "first time evers"

 

[martybegan]

Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland

How about Kagan and Soteymeyer? How did Repubs treat them? And how did Progs treat Bork? And Thomas? And the rest on the court? Those Progs will end up threating their own as they treated them. History is full of this. Its just that you do not believe it can happen here. It can and in ways that will surprise you.

Scalia died with ten months left in Obama’s term. Obama was not allowed to fill because it was an election year.


How did that work out for Trump?

Obama filled two seats in eight years
Trump filled three seats in four years

It's called "winning"

Dems would have done the same thing if the situation were reversed, don't deny it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland

Nobody gives a flying **** about Garland. His nomination went as far as it could. A nice cordial no thanks.

Can you imagine the left today if Sotomayor was asked if she ever sexually assaulted someone? Holy shit you’d lose your ******* minds. And you’re the party of rape.

The ghost of Merrick Garland hangs over Republicans. republicans know what they did and now just want it to go away.

Let’s just make up and pretend it didnt happen.

But that act and the hypocrisy of rushing through the Barrett nomination has permanently burned all bridges between the parties.

Dems will not forget.

The Democrats were absolutely vicious and disgusting and rude and mansplaining and accusatory and just awful to Barrett.

If the parties were flipped, the M5M would have lost their Goddamn minds and would have called the Republicans every name in the book.

But she is conservative, and she is Catholic....so ots ok to treat her like shit.

Those lyin cheatin scum bastard dems wouldn't even give her a hearing. SO UNFAIR#MAGA

How is not giving Garland a hearing "cheating"?

what procedures or laws were broken?

No laws

A sitting President was denied the chance to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for the first time.
It caused bad blood and a rift between the parties that will not be easily settled


There are also no laws against adding seats to the courts or ending the Senate filibuster.

We shall see how Dems react to the Republican power play.

The bad blood goes back to Bork. Not confirming is denying as well, so your "first time' claim is bogus.

Not the same

Reagan was allowed to name a replacement for Bork. Obama was not allowed to fill the seat. First time ever

Why do you keep claiming it’s the first time ever when it’s happened what? I think 9 times.

 

[BluesLegend]

Ginsburg will be replaced by a conservative mother of 7, deal with it snowflakes. On the bright side Democrats continue to show the American people just how vile and disgusting they are.

 

[rightwinger]

Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland

How about Kagan and Soteymeyer? How did Repubs treat them? And how did Progs treat Bork? And Thomas? And the rest on the court? Those Progs will end up threating their own as they treated them. History is full of this. Its just that you do not believe it can happen here. It can and in ways that will surprise you.

Scalia died with ten months left in Obama’s term. Obama was not allowed to fill because it was an election year.


How did that work out for Trump?

Obama filled two seats in eight years
Trump filled three seats in four years

It's called "winning"

Dems would have done the same thing if the situation were reversed, don't deny it.

Democrats won before and never pulled this shit with the courts

If they win next month, you will see what winning means as they pack the court and end filibuster.

Winning means
Gun control
Single payer
Strict environmental laws
Immigration reform

 

[martybegan]

Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland

How about Kagan and Soteymeyer? How did Repubs treat them? And how did Progs treat Bork? And Thomas? And the rest on the court? Those Progs will end up threating their own as they treated them. History is full of this. Its just that you do not believe it can happen here. It can and in ways that will surprise you.

Scalia died with ten months left in Obama’s term. Obama was not allowed to fill because it was an election year.


How did that work out for Trump?

Obama filled two seats in eight years
Trump filled three seats in four years

It's called "winning"

Dems would have done the same thing if the situation were reversed, don't deny it.

Democrats won before and never pulled this shit with the courts

If they win next month, you will see what winning means as they pack the court and end filibuster.

Winning means
Gun control
Single payer
Strict environmental laws
Immigration reform

Did they ever have the exact same scenario and situation before?

Only a progressive would count all of that as "winning"

and let me fix the list

1. Unconstitutional gun bans
2. DMV health care
3. Destruction of the Economy
4. Amnesty.

Fixed it for you.

 

[rightwinger]

Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland

Nobody gives a flying **** about Garland. His nomination went as far as it could. A nice cordial no thanks.

Can you imagine the left today if Sotomayor was asked if she ever sexually assaulted someone? Holy shit you’d lose your ******* minds. And you’re the party of rape.

The ghost of Merrick Garland hangs over Republicans. republicans know what they did and now just want it to go away.

Let’s just make up and pretend it didnt happen.

But that act and the hypocrisy of rushing through the Barrett nomination has permanently burned all bridges between the parties.

Dems will not forget.

The Democrats were absolutely vicious and disgusting and rude and mansplaining and accusatory and just awful to Barrett.

If the parties were flipped, the M5M would have lost their Goddamn minds and would have called the Republicans every name in the book.

But she is conservative, and she is Catholic....so ots ok to treat her like shit.

Those lyin cheatin scum bastard dems wouldn't even give her a hearing. SO UNFAIR#MAGA

How is not giving Garland a hearing "cheating"?

what procedures or laws were broken?

No laws

A sitting President was denied the chance to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for the first time.
It caused bad blood and a rift between the parties that will not be easily settled


There are also no laws against adding seats to the courts or ending the Senate filibuster.

We shall see how Dems react to the Republican power play.

The bad blood goes back to Bork. Not confirming is denying as well, so your "first time' claim is bogus.

Not the same

Reagan was allowed to name a replacement for Bork. Obama was not allowed to fill the seat. First time ever

Why do you keep claiming it’s the first time ever when it’s happened what? I think 9 times.

Prove me wrong

 

[bendog]

It is what it is, but since McConnell blew up Garland, the rule is now that a president of either party will never successfully nominate a justice while the other party holds the senate. There will have to be an election first "to let the people decide."

And if a Justice takes ill or feeble, while the party in opposition to the party of the president who nominated him/her, the justice will most likely continue to serve despite pain and feebleness.

 

[rightwinger]

It is what it is, but since McConnell blew up Garland, the rule is now that a president of either party will never successfully nominate a justice while the other party holds the senate. There will have to be an election first "to let the people decide."

And if a Justice takes ill or feeble, while the party in opposition to the party of the president who nominated him/her, the justice will most likely continue to serve despite pain and feebleness.

What that will mean is a President needs a Senate if the same party to fill seats.

May take a decade for that to happen

The court will dwindle to 8,6,5 justices

May need to pack it just in case

 

[bendog]

It is what it is, but since McConnell blew up Garland, the rule is now that a president of either party will never successfully nominate a justice while the other party holds the senate. There will have to be an election first "to let the people decide."

And if a Justice takes ill or feeble, while the party in opposition to the party of the president who nominated him/her, the justice will most likely continue to serve despite pain and feebleness.

What that will mean is a President needs a Senate if the same party to fill seats.

May take a decade for that to happen

The court will dwindle to 8,6,5 justices

May need to pack it just in case

Well I have to wonder how the gop can offer any compromise now. Ginsburg had no choice but cede her state to a Roe foe or serve on in pain. Reasonable people might have ok'd not filling a seat in the future if one opened with less than year before a potus election. I mean the people decided between Hill or Trump replacing Scalia. But Ginsburg would have retired in Obama's second term before 2016 rolled around.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland

Nobody gives a flying **** about Garland. His nomination went as far as it could. A nice cordial no thanks.

Can you imagine the left today if Sotomayor was asked if she ever sexually assaulted someone? Holy shit you’d lose your ******* minds. And you’re the party of rape.

The ghost of Merrick Garland hangs over Republicans. republicans know what they did and now just want it to go away.

Let’s just make up and pretend it didnt happen.

But that act and the hypocrisy of rushing through the Barrett nomination has permanently burned all bridges between the parties.

Dems will not forget.

The Democrats were absolutely vicious and disgusting and rude and mansplaining and accusatory and just awful to Barrett.

If the parties were flipped, the M5M would have lost their Goddamn minds and would have called the Republicans every name in the book.

But she is conservative, and she is Catholic....so ots ok to treat her like shit.

Those lyin cheatin scum bastard dems wouldn't even give her a hearing. SO UNFAIR#MAGA

How is not giving Garland a hearing "cheating"?

what procedures or laws were broken?

No laws

A sitting President was denied the chance to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for the first time.
It caused bad blood and a rift between the parties that will not be easily settled


There are also no laws against adding seats to the courts or ending the Senate filibuster.

We shall see how Dems react to the Republican power play.

The bad blood goes back to Bork. Not confirming is denying as well, so your "first time' claim is bogus.

Not the same

Reagan was allowed to name a replacement for Bork. Obama was not allowed to fill the seat. First time ever

Why do you keep claiming it’s the first time ever when it’s happened what? I think 9 times.

Prove me wrong

It’s happened 29 times during election years. Roughly half were approved and half weren’t. Why the hell don’t you educate yourself on this shit before posting? Never mind I know why. You know you’re full of shit.

 

[SAYIT]

How is not giving Garland a hearing "cheating"? what procedures or laws were broken?

No laws...
It caused bad blood and a rift between the parties that will not be easily settled

There are also no laws against adding seats to the courts or ending the Senate filibuster.

We shall see how Dems react to the Republican power play.

One more reason not to vote for Democrat Socialist Party candidates ... ever.

Thanks for the reminder.

 

[rightwinger]

How is not giving Garland a hearing "cheating"? what procedures or laws were broken?

No laws...
It caused bad blood and a rift between the parties that will not be easily settled

There are also no laws against adding seats to the courts or ending the Senate filibuster.

We shall see how Dems react to the Republican power play.

One more reason not to vote for Democrat Socialist Party candidates ... ever.

Thanks for the reminder.

Didn’t think you would anyway.
I vote for Republicans

 

[rightwinger]

Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland

Nobody gives a flying **** about Garland. His nomination went as far as it could. A nice cordial no thanks.

Can you imagine the left today if Sotomayor was asked if she ever sexually assaulted someone? Holy shit you’d lose your ******* minds. And you’re the party of rape.

The ghost of Merrick Garland hangs over Republicans. republicans know what they did and now just want it to go away.

Let’s just make up and pretend it didnt happen.

But that act and the hypocrisy of rushing through the Barrett nomination has permanently burned all bridges between the parties.

Dems will not forget.

The Democrats were absolutely vicious and disgusting and rude and mansplaining and accusatory and just awful to Barrett.

If the parties were flipped, the M5M would have lost their Goddamn minds and would have called the Republicans every name in the book.

But she is conservative, and she is Catholic....so ots ok to treat her like shit.

Those lyin cheatin scum bastard dems wouldn't even give her a hearing. SO UNFAIR#MAGA

How is not giving Garland a hearing "cheating"?

what procedures or laws were broken?

No laws

A sitting President was denied the chance to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for the first time.
It caused bad blood and a rift between the parties that will not be easily settled


There are also no laws against adding seats to the courts or ending the Senate filibuster.

We shall see how Dems react to the Republican power play.

The bad blood goes back to Bork. Not confirming is denying as well, so your "first time' claim is bogus.

Not the same

Reagan was allowed to name a replacement for Bork. Obama was not allowed to fill the seat. First time ever

Why do you keep claiming it’s the first time ever when it’s happened what? I think 9 times.

Prove me wrong

It’s happened 29 times during election years. Roughly half were approved and half weren’t. Why the hell don’t you educate yourself on this shit before posting? Never mind I know why. You know you’re full of shit.

Show me a President who was denied filling a Supreme Court Seat

 

[SAYIT]

How is not giving Garland a hearing "cheating"? what procedures or laws were broken?

No laws...
It caused bad blood and a rift between the parties that will not be easily settled

There are also no laws against adding seats to the courts or ending the Senate filibuster.

We shall see how Dems react to the Republican power play.

One more reason not to vote for Democrat Socialist Party candidates ... ever.

Thanks for the reminder.

Didn’t think you would anyway.
I vote for Republicans

I doubt that.

And I didn't leave the Democrat Socialist Party ... they left me.

 

[rightwinger]

let me fix the list

1. Unconstitutional gun bans
2. DMV health care
3. Destruction of the Economy
4. Amnesty.

Fixed it for you.

Once McConnells filibuster privileges are taken away, it will not matter what you or Republican Senators think

Kiss your AR15 goodby and get ready for a path to citizenship

And tear down the God Damned Wall......Mexico will pay for it