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

[Turtlesoup]

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.
[/QUOTE

]
Sotomyer proud latina who is a racist who got by on lowered affirmative action standards was so inept that the other judges have to do her job for her and kagan who was unqualified and lied on her application...why should Obama been given a 3rd nominee as he was going out the door? Think Trump's choice was atleast competent for the job.

 

[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

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.

Republicans had an opportunity to square things on the Garland debacle. They doubled down on hypocrisy.

Now it is the Democrats turn to take advantage of a majority

Once Dems take Congress and the Whitehouse, Republicans will talk about bipartisanship, mending fences and leaving the past behind.

But they had a chance to square things and passed it up. Nothing they can do now.

 

[bendog]

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

Nah, the dems would never fill another senate seat in 30 states if they banned rifles. Gun control (checks and temporary restraining orders will have to come from states)

 

[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.

Republicans had an opportunity to square things on the Garland debacle. They doubled down on hypocrisy.

Now it is the Democrats turn to take advantage of a majority

Once Dems take Congress and the Whitehouse, Republicans will talk about bipartisanship, mending fences and leaving the past behind.

But they had a chance to square things and passed it up. Nothing they can do now.

Yeah, McConnell wasn't going to chance ginsburgs seat to the 20 election. Compromise is always possible, but McConnell's word is now less than shit. We're stuck for awhile.

 

[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.

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

There’s been quite a few. Why haven’t you gone and looked it up yet?

 

[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

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.

Republicans had an opportunity to square things on the Garland debacle. They doubled down on hypocrisy.

Now it is the Democrats turn to take advantage of a majority

Once Dems take Congress and the Whitehouse, Republicans will talk about bipartisanship, mending fences and leaving the past behind.

But they had a chance to square things and passed it up. Nothing they can do now.

Yeah, McConnell wasn't going to chance ginsburgs seat to the 20 election. Compromise is always possible, but McConnell's word is now less than shit. We're stuck for awhile.

When McConnell filled that seat, compromise is no longer possible.

The McConnell Rule...
Initially said the Senate will not fill a Supreme Court Seat in an Election Year

Now reads : An opposition Senate will not fill Supreme Court Seats

The impact will be that Supreme Court Seats will remain vacant for 2-10 years or more depending on election cycles.

Makes sense to add more SCOTUS seats while you can

 

[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

There’s been quite a few. Why haven’t you gone and looked it up yet?

Have looked it up
No President was denied the right to fill a seat until Obama

 

[bendog]

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

There’s been quite a few. Why haven’t you gone and looked it up yet?

Have looked it up
No President was denied the right to fill a seat until Obama

Not since around 1860 or so

The History of 'Stolen' Supreme Court Seats

As the Trump administration seeks to fill a vacancy on the Court, a look back at the forgotten mid-19th century battles over the judiciary

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[bendog]

oops I forgot Abe Fortas nomination for chief

But he was accused of financial shannagains, and actually had to resign from assoc justice.

Filling a Supreme Court seat in an election year happens more often than you think

How unusual is it really to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during a presidential election year? As it turns out, several Democratic and Republican presidents have filled a vacancy on the nation’s highest court in the middle of a heated campaign season.

www.pbs.org

 

[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.

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

There’s been quite a few. Why haven’t you gone and looked it up yet?

Have looked it up
No President was denied the right to fill a seat until Obama

If it’s a presidents RIGHT to fill a seat then why are you denying Trumps right to fill it?

You act like obie was the first to not get a justice seated. You’re an idiot.

 

[bendog]

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

There’s been quite a few. Why haven’t you gone and looked it up yet?

Have looked it up
No President was denied the right to fill a seat until Obama

If it’s a presidents RIGHT to fill a seat then why are you denying Trumps right to fill it?

You act like obie was the first to not get a justice seated. You’re an idiot.

and u **** goats.

McConnell rewrote the practice. Enjoy the next 40 or 50 years., asshole

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

If Judge Barret were a Muslim nominated by Democrats, can you imagine a Senator questioning her about her Religious affiliation and influence? The Left would explode on how racist it was. But, Judge Barrett is Roman Catholic so all those bullshit standards the Left likes for everyone to adhere to go out the door. Catholic bigotry is ok.

 

[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.

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

There’s been quite a few. Why haven’t you gone and looked it up yet?

Have looked it up
No President was denied the right to fill a seat until Obama

If it’s a presidents RIGHT to fill a seat then why are you denying Trumps right to fill it?

You act like obie was the first to not get a justice seated. You’re an idiot.

and u **** goats.

McConnell rewrote the practice. Enjoy the next 40 or 50 years., asshole

Hey I never touched your wife. And we will enjoy the next 50 years with Constitutional court rulings.

 

[Missourian]

Not a problem...as long as Joe gets half...

...and a hair sniff...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

In that case the nominee would be a gender neutral Islamist. Thankfully, Trump not HRC won.

 

[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

There’s been quite a few. Why haven’t you gone and looked it up yet?

Have looked it up
No President was denied the right to fill a seat until Obama

If it’s a presidents RIGHT to fill a seat then why are you denying Trumps right to fill it?

You act like obie was the first to not get a justice seated. You’re an idiot.

If Merrick Garland was sitting on the court, you would have no argument.

But Mitch had to set a precedent on filling seats during an election year. A precedent he had no issue with breaking.

The new McConnell Rule says an opposition party will not fill SCOTUS Seats

 

[rightwinger]

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.

If Judge Barret were a Muslim nominated by Democrats, can you imagine a Senator questioning her about her Religious affiliation and influence? The Left would explode on how racist it was. But, Judge Barrett is Roman Catholic so all those bullshit standards the Left likes for everyone to adhere to go out the door. Catholic bigotry is ok.

Which Catholic question are you talking about?

 

[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.

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

There’s been quite a few. Why haven’t you gone and looked it up yet?

Have looked it up
No President was denied the right to fill a seat until Obama

If it’s a presidents RIGHT to fill a seat then why are you denying Trumps right to fill it?

You act like obie was the first to not get a justice seated. You’re an idiot.

If Merrick Garland was sitting on the court, you would have no argument.

But Mitch had to set a precedent on filling seats during an election year. A precedent he had no issue with breaking.

The new McConnell Rule says an opposition party will not fill SCOTUS Seats

That’s always pretty much been the rule you dolt.

 

[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

There’s been quite a few. Why haven’t you gone and looked it up yet?

Have looked it up
No President was denied the right to fill a seat until Obama

If it’s a presidents RIGHT to fill a seat then why are you denying Trumps right to fill it?

You act like obie was the first to not get a justice seated. You’re an idiot.

If Merrick Garland was sitting on the court, you would have no argument.

But Mitch had to set a precedent on filling seats during an election year. A precedent he had no issue with breaking.

The new McConnell Rule says an opposition party will not fill SCOTUS Seats

That’s always pretty much been the rule you dolt.

Was up until Obama.

 

[bendog]

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

There’s been quite a few. Why haven’t you gone and looked it up yet?

Have looked it up
No President was denied the right to fill a seat until Obama

If it’s a presidents RIGHT to fill a seat then why are you denying Trumps right to fill it?

You act like obie was the first to not get a justice seated. You’re an idiot.

If Merrick Garland was sitting on the court, you would have no argument.

But Mitch had to set a precedent on filling seats during an election year. A precedent he had no issue with breaking.

The new McConnell Rule says an opposition party will not fill SCOTUS Seats

That’s always pretty much been the rule you dolt.

Was up until obama.

I don't see why the McConnell fans deny the new new "custom." The opposition will not fill a SC vacancy. It will result in long term Court vacanies, and there's no more lip service to a nonpolitical court.

But McConnell saw demographics not favoring the conservative brand, and he bet the House, the Senate and the Presidency on "winning" the Court for a generation. And he won. Biden will win. Will it cost McConnell the senate in 20 and 22? I dunno. NC and Ak are hanging on local scandals. Co and Az look gone. Maine hanging by a thread. Montanta tied. Perdue is racially mocking Harris and apparantly now behind in polls. And the list goes on. More gop seats are up in 22 than dem.