Manchin says he’ll vote “no” on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is

[Cecilie1200]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

Which part of the Constitution applies here? Manchin said that he will vote no on the process. This isn't the first time anyone has said that they will vote no, and certainly not the first time that a vacancy on the Court and someone has been nominated within months of a presidential election. Remember Merrick Garland? Remember what McConnell said in 2016?

The part he missed when he accused Republican Senators of “hypocrisy” based on their stance on Merrick Garland in 2016.

Which part of the Constitution is involved here? Which article or amendment?

The republicans' complete reversal of their stance on Garland does indeed fit the definition of hypocrisy.

Article 2, Section 2.

There is no reversal. The Senate has no obligation to provide advice and consent on appointments. The Senate majority has no obligation to provide advantage to the minority party.

I have to say, I don't think Manchin is necessarily shirking his Constitutional duty. Just as the Senate is not obligated to give a nominee and hearing and vote before saying, "No thanks", he's not obligated to give a hearing before saying it. I don't believe President Trump's short list had anyone on it who was an unknown, unvetted candidate, so I think he could reasonably look at that list and say, "There is no one on here I would be inclined to vote for."

I think his announcement is bad optics, but then, I'm not part of the group he's trying to communicate with.

 

[g5000]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

That's okay. The Republicans said they would vote "yes" no matter who it is.

 

[g5000]

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.'" - Senator Lindsay Graham

 

[bendog]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

Billy, he didn't say he'd vote no if after an election Trump nominates someone

 

[g5000]

"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait till the next election." - Senator Lindsay Graham

 

[Coyote]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

Good for him. He is doing exactly what the Constitution says. You know. Like you guys did in 2016. Advise and Consent.

 

[iceberg]

do we need a thread for every D who screams NO!???

 

[iceberg]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

Good for him. He is doing exactly what the Constitution says. You know. Like you guys did in 2016. Advise and Consent.

where does the constitution say to wait like the left is begging / demanding?

i really wish you'd play by the same set of rules you demand of others.

 

[kaz]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

Good for him. He is doing exactly what the Constitution says. You know. Like you guys did in 2016. Advise and Consent.

So 100% of the time Democrats have acted in your own self interest

100% of the time Republicans have acted in their own self interest

You keep calling them hypocrites, which is actually your own hypocrisy

That is the issue

 

[iceberg]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

Good for him. He is doing exactly what the Constitution says. You know. Like you guys did in 2016. Advise and Consent.

So 100% of the time Democrats have acted in your own self interest

100% of the time Republicans have acted in their own self interest

You keep calling them hypocrites, which is actually your own hypocrisy

That is the issue

and i would call it a FACT that if the democrats could do it, they would and taunt it over the right that this is all legal and part of their rights.

the hypocrisy is off the charts.

 

[kaz]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

Good for him. He is doing exactly what the Constitution says. You know. Like you guys did in 2016. Advise and Consent.

So 100% of the time Democrats have acted in your own self interest

100% of the time Republicans have acted in their own self interest

You keep calling them hypocrites, which is actually your own hypocrisy

That is the issue

and i would call it a FACT that if the democrats could do it, they would and taunt it over the right that this is all legal and part of their rights.

the hypocrisy is off the charts.

There is no doubt that Democrats would have blocked a Republican Garland during that election and that Democrats would forward and immediately confirm their own pick now. She's perfectly well aware of her hypocrisy. She just doesn't care, she wants her way

 

[Coyote]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

Good for him. He is doing exactly what the Constitution says. You know. Like you guys did in 2016. Advise and Consent.

So 100% of the time Democrats have acted in your own self interest

100% of the time Republicans have acted in their own self interest

You keep calling them hypocrites, which is actually your own hypocrisy

That is the issue

and i would call it a FACT that if the democrats could do it, they would and taunt it over the right that this is all legal and part of their rights.

the hypocrisy is off the charts.

There is no doubt that Democrats would have blocked a Republican Garland during that election and that Democrats would forward and immediately confirm their own pick now. She's perfectly well aware of her hypocrisy. She just doesn't care, she wants her way

They never have before. The only thing you can say for sure, is the Republicans did, and now have a thousand excuses.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If manchin was up for reelection, he'd be screaming yes yes yes yes.

 

[kaz]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

Good for him. He is doing exactly what the Constitution says. You know. Like you guys did in 2016. Advise and Consent.

So 100% of the time Democrats have acted in your own self interest

100% of the time Republicans have acted in their own self interest

You keep calling them hypocrites, which is actually your own hypocrisy

That is the issue

and i would call it a FACT that if the democrats could do it, they would and taunt it over the right that this is all legal and part of their rights.

the hypocrisy is off the charts.

There is no doubt that Democrats would have blocked a Republican Garland during that election and that Democrats would forward and immediately confirm their own pick now. She's perfectly well aware of her hypocrisy. She just doesn't care, she wants her way

They never have before. The only thing you can say for sure, is the Republicans did, and now have a thousand excuses.

What does that even mean? Why would Republicans need "excuses" to use their own power under the Constitution.

Biden said that he wouldn't have had hearings for a Republican nominee in 1992 when Democrats had the Senate.

I wasn't a liar like Democrats are, so I didn't claim he meant that he wouldn't have confirmed a Democrat nominee, obviously he didn't mean that.

It's Democrats making excuses for your lame shit you just want Republicans to give you something you aren't entitled to under the Constitution.

OBVIOUSLY Democrats would have not confirmed a Republican Garland at that time. OBVIOUSLY you would confirm a Democrat nominee now. The rest are lies and excuses

 

[iceberg]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

Good for him. He is doing exactly what the Constitution says. You know. Like you guys did in 2016. Advise and Consent.

So 100% of the time Democrats have acted in your own self interest

100% of the time Republicans have acted in their own self interest

You keep calling them hypocrites, which is actually your own hypocrisy

That is the issue

and i would call it a FACT that if the democrats could do it, they would and taunt it over the right that this is all legal and part of their rights.

the hypocrisy is off the charts.

There is no doubt that Democrats would have blocked a Republican Garland during that election and that Democrats would forward and immediately confirm their own pick now. She's perfectly well aware of her hypocrisy. She just doesn't care, she wants her way

They never have before. The only thing you can say for sure, is the Republicans did, and now have a thousand excuses.

and again - if the dems could, would they?

you seem to never want to answer that question.

now - are they doing anything out of process in either action? self serving, yes. but illegal OR out of process? as for addressing "self serving" - i give you the democrats as that's about all they do.

 

[Billiejeens]

They will vote to pack the court if given the chance.

Treasonous anti-Americans are treasonous.

Manchin also said no to that.

 

[Billiejeens]

Like this is breaking news.

The vote will be along strict party lines. That some idiot democrat from West Virginia is going to vote "no" is hardly a shocking revelation.

He says he's voting "no" on the process. What a douche. His job is to vote on the nominee, and he is admitting that he has every intention to be derelict in meeting that responsibility...

A no vote is in fact a vote.

 

[Billiejeens]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

Which part of the Constitution applies here? Manchin said that he will vote no on the process. This isn't the first time anyone has said that they will vote no, and certainly not the first time that a vacancy on the Court and someone has been nominated within months of a presidential election. Remember Merrick Garland? Remember what McConnell said in 2016?

The part he missed when he accused Republican Senators of “hypocrisy” based on their stance on Merrick Garland in 2016.

The only Dem I will be watching in all this is Doug Jones from Alabama, he is running for election this time.

He's out, of course.

 

[iceberg]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

Good for him. He is doing exactly what the Constitution says. You know. Like you guys did in 2016. Advise and Consent.

So 100% of the time Democrats have acted in your own self interest

100% of the time Republicans have acted in their own self interest

You keep calling them hypocrites, which is actually your own hypocrisy

That is the issue

and i would call it a FACT that if the democrats could do it, they would and taunt it over the right that this is all legal and part of their rights.

the hypocrisy is off the charts.

There is no doubt that Democrats would have blocked a Republican Garland during that election and that Democrats would forward and immediately confirm their own pick now. She's perfectly well aware of her hypocrisy. She just doesn't care, she wants her way

this is what keeps the cycle of stupid alive. demanding people do what you would not do, or they stop doing something you would have zero intention of stopping. it's so very disingenuous. you then setup your own world / set of rules to live by.

I 100% agree the R's are doing all they can "within the existing framework of our system" to their advantage. but to expect them not to when you know you would, bullshit to the core.

 

[kaz]

Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.

WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud

Good for him. He is doing exactly what the Constitution says. You know. Like you guys did in 2016. Advise and Consent.

So 100% of the time Democrats have acted in your own self interest

100% of the time Republicans have acted in their own self interest

You keep calling them hypocrites, which is actually your own hypocrisy

That is the issue

and i would call it a FACT that if the democrats could do it, they would and taunt it over the right that this is all legal and part of their rights.

the hypocrisy is off the charts.

There is no doubt that Democrats would have blocked a Republican Garland during that election and that Democrats would forward and immediately confirm their own pick now. She's perfectly well aware of her hypocrisy. She just doesn't care, she wants her way

this is what keeps the cycle of stupid alive. demanding people do what you would not do, or they stop doing something you would have zero intention of stopping. it's so very disingenuous. you then setup your own world / set of rules to live by.

I 100% agree the R's are doing all they can "within the existing framework of our system" to their advantage. but to expect them not to when you know you would, bullshit to the core.

Ding, ding, ding! That's it exactly.

That's the lame ass shit the Democrats are pulling. They would do the exact same thing, they are demanding Republicans do something they would never do