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

[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

No. You are unable to define the actual issue. It's sequence of events.

1. Unprecedented blocking of judicial nominees by McConnell. He doesn't deny this either.

2. Harry Reid, in response, ups the ante and abolishes the 60-vote rule for lower court nominees, setting another unfortunate precedent.

3. McConnell invents new rule (pretending that it was pre-existing, due to a statement by Biden, in 1992, 25 years ago, during a hypothetical discussion) and claims that the winner of the election should be the one who fills the vacancy and denies a sitting president his constitutional right.

Here are a few of the Republican's on this (16 quotes in the article)....

Senator Ted Cruz Quote: “Let the Election Decide”

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
…This should be a decision for the people. Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.”
2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Senator Lindsey Graham:

“I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president. I hope all Americans understand how important their vote is when it comes to picking a new Supreme Court justice.
“…If there’s a Republican President… and a vacancy occurs in the last year… you can say, Lindsay Graham said let’s let the next President, whoever that may be, make that nomination, and you could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.
2016, Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican -S.C.)

Mitch McConnell Quote:

“Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in...
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Merrick Garland nomination March, 2016

“If it Was a Republican President…”

“I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

“Do Not Start This Process…” (Merrick Garland Nomination)

“The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.)

“Lifetime Appointments in an Election Year…”

“I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.
During a very partisan year and a presidential election year … both for the sake of the court and the integrity of the court and the legitimacy of the candidate, it’s better to have this occur after we’re past this presidential election.”
2016, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

“The American People Should Not Be Denied…”

“A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) – Merrick Garland nomination

“Partisan, Divisive Confirmation Battle…”

“The campaign is already underway. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Thom Tillis (Republican Senator, N.C.) about Obama’s Merrick Garland nomination

4. McConnell then employs the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees, setting yet another unfortunate new precedent.

5. McConnell reverses on his new rule, now claiming that a sitting president, with an election a month and a half away, should be the one to fill the vacancy.


And now? You're reduced to - "well, if you had the chance you would have done the same thing!" - do you realize how pathetic that sounds as a rebuttal?

The problem is...with each new precedent....all out blocking of judicial appointments; nuclear options 1 and 2; hypocritically changing the rules....you are setting new political playing fields where we used to be governed by time test bi partisan rules.

Where are you going to stop? Will you ever stop trying to justify it?

Here is what I wonder. What if the Democrats gain the White House and Senate both? They have some options:
1. Adding to the SCOTUS
2. Ending the fillibuster
3. SCOTUS term limits

- all perfectly legal and absolutely constitutional.

SHOULD they do this? Using your reasoning - YES, given the excuses you've made for all of the above.

Much as I'd LIKE, no scratch that - LOVE them to do that out of retaliation - it's a REALLY BAD IDEA. Just like what you guys did, and the precedents you have set.

Abolishing the filibuster or applying simple majority rules across the board would abolish any need to compromise or work with the other side and allow for sweeping legislative changes being passed every time there is a new majority in control.

Adding to the SCOTUS - self explanatory on why that is a bad idea.

Scotus term limits is the only good idea - it would ratchet down the incredibly political pressure SCOTUS appointments represent.

But hey....you guys, along with Reid, set precedents and then flip flopped. Blatently, badly, and hypocritically.

 

[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.

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

coyote can THUMBS DOWN this all she wants - have a field day with the thumbs down. but her refusal to admit the R's are doing the EXACT THING THEY WOULD DO is bullshit.

biden shot off his mouth about a "lame duck" president not picking a SCOTUS. while he never got to take advantage of it, you know damn well they would have.

the R's had the chance, and they did. by the book, the process, and our constitution. the left then comes in and cries CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS because it sounds good and like it demands action, but there simply is zero basis for the claim as they are following it to the letter.

the D's answer then is to change it. why? cause they did not benefit from it THIS TIME. lose the EC vote? abolish the EC. lose a SCOTUS NOMINATION, change how SCOTUS is done.

you can't keep changing a system because it doesn't ALWAYS work for you. how they think that it should when by sheer definition it CAN'T ALWAYS WORK JUST FOR US is bullshit.

yet that is where we are. the left leading the charge into the abyss of stupid cause their feelz are hurt today.

 

[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

No. You are unable to define the actual issue. It's sequence of events.

1. Unprecedented blocking of judicial nominees by McConnell. He doesn't deny this either.

2. Harry Reid, in response, ups the ante and abolishes the 60-vote rule for lower court nominees, setting another unfortunate precedent.

3. McConnell invents new rule (pretending that it was pre-existing, due to a statement by Biden, in 1992, 25 years ago, during a hypothetical discussion) and claims that the winner of the election should be the one who fills the vacancy and denies a sitting president his constitutional right.

Here are a few of the Republican's on this (16 quotes in the article)....

Senator Ted Cruz Quote: “Let the Election Decide”

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
…This should be a decision for the people. Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.”
2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Senator Lindsey Graham:

“I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president. I hope all Americans understand how important their vote is when it comes to picking a new Supreme Court justice.
“…If there’s a Republican President… and a vacancy occurs in the last year… you can say, Lindsay Graham said let’s let the next President, whoever that may be, make that nomination, and you could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.
2016, Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican -S.C.)

Mitch McConnell Quote:

“Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in...
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Merrick Garland nomination March, 2016

“If it Was a Republican President…”

“I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

“Do Not Start This Process…” (Merrick Garland Nomination)

“The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.)

“Lifetime Appointments in an Election Year…”

“I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.
During a very partisan year and a presidential election year … both for the sake of the court and the integrity of the court and the legitimacy of the candidate, it’s better to have this occur after we’re past this presidential election.”
2016, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

“The American People Should Not Be Denied…”

“A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) – Merrick Garland nomination

“Partisan, Divisive Confirmation Battle…”

“The campaign is already underway. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Thom Tillis (Republican Senator, N.C.) about Obama’s Merrick Garland nomination

4. McConnell then employs the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees, setting yet another unfortunate new precedent.

5. McConnell reverses on his new rule, now claiming that a sitting president, with an election a month and a half away, should be the one to fill the vacancy.


And now? You're reduced to - "well, if you had the chance you would have done the same thing!" - do you realize how pathetic that sounds as a rebuttal?

The problem is...with each new precedent....all out blocking of judicial appointments; nuclear options 1 and 2; hypocritically changing the rules....you are setting new political playing fields where we used to be governed by time test bi partisan rules.

Where are you going to stop? Will you ever stop trying to justify it?

Here is what I wonder. What if the Democrats gain the White House and Senate both? They have some options:
1. Adding to the SCOTUS
2. Ending the fillibuster
3. SCOTUS term limits

- all perfectly legal and absolutely constitutional.

SHOULD they do this? Using your reasoning - YES, given the excuses you've made for all of the above.

Much as I'd LIKE, no scratch that - LOVE them to do that out of retaliation - it's a REALLY BAD IDEA. Just like what you guys did, and the precedents you have set.

Abolishing the filibuster or applying simple majority rules across the board would abolish any need to compromise or work with the other side and allow for sweeping legislative changes being passed every time there is a new majority in control.

Adding to the SCOTUS - self explanatory on why that is a bad idea.

Scotus term limits is the only good idea - it would ratchet down the incredibly political pressure SCOTUS appointments represent.

But hey....you guys, along with Reid, set precedents and then flip flopped. Blatently, badly, and hypocritically.

while i know you won't answer cause facts piss you off -

did mcconnell do anything outside of the lines of the constitution?

and as for "setting precedents" - what the left has set is that if you REALLY REALLY REALLY don't like the president, you can burn your cities down and use violence to get your way.

you looking forward to THAT precedence coming back to haunt you? i damn sure am not but hey - validate that shit. or how about when the R's lose an election again, we can make up claims of foreign interference? that a good precedence? and when the D's DO get to choose another SCOTUS, can we drag their name through the mud like thomas and kavanaugh?

you keep talking of "precedence" but seem to conveniently forget all the dumbass shit the left is doing that sets their own others will follow.

 

[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

No. You are unable to define the actual issue. It's sequence of events.

1. Unprecedented blocking of judicial nominees by McConnell. He doesn't deny this either.

2. Harry Reid, in response, ups the ante and abolishes the 60-vote rule for lower court nominees, setting another unfortunate precedent.

3. McConnell invents new rule (pretending that it was pre-existing, due to a statement by Biden, in 1992, 25 years ago, during a hypothetical discussion) and claims that the winner of the election should be the one who fills the vacancy and denies a sitting president his constitutional right.

Here are a few of the Republican's on this (16 quotes in the article)....

Senator Ted Cruz Quote: “Let the Election Decide”

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
…This should be a decision for the people. Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.”
2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Senator Lindsey Graham:

“I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president. I hope all Americans understand how important their vote is when it comes to picking a new Supreme Court justice.
“…If there’s a Republican President… and a vacancy occurs in the last year… you can say, Lindsay Graham said let’s let the next President, whoever that may be, make that nomination, and you could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.
2016, Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican -S.C.)

Mitch McConnell Quote:

“Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in...
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Merrick Garland nomination March, 2016

“If it Was a Republican President…”

“I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

“Do Not Start This Process…” (Merrick Garland Nomination)

“The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.)

“Lifetime Appointments in an Election Year…”

“I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.
During a very partisan year and a presidential election year … both for the sake of the court and the integrity of the court and the legitimacy of the candidate, it’s better to have this occur after we’re past this presidential election.”
2016, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

“The American People Should Not Be Denied…”

“A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) – Merrick Garland nomination

“Partisan, Divisive Confirmation Battle…”

“The campaign is already underway. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Thom Tillis (Republican Senator, N.C.) about Obama’s Merrick Garland nomination

4. McConnell then employs the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees, setting yet another unfortunate new precedent.

5. McConnell reverses on his new rule, now claiming that a sitting president, with an election a month and a half away, should be the one to fill the vacancy.


And now? You're reduced to - "well, if you had the chance you would have done the same thing!" - do you realize how pathetic that sounds as a rebuttal?

The problem is...with each new precedent....all out blocking of judicial appointments; nuclear options 1 and 2; hypocritically changing the rules....you are setting new political playing fields where we used to be governed by time test bi partisan rules.

Where are you going to stop? Will you ever stop trying to justify it?

Here is what I wonder. What if the Democrats gain the White House and Senate both? They have some options:
1. Adding to the SCOTUS
2. Ending the fillibuster
3. SCOTUS term limits

- all perfectly legal and absolutely constitutional.

SHOULD they do this? Using your reasoning - YES, given the excuses you've made for all of the above.

Much as I'd LIKE, no scratch that - LOVE them to do that out of retaliation - it's a REALLY BAD IDEA. Just like what you guys did, and the precedents you have set.

Abolishing the filibuster or applying simple majority rules across the board would abolish any need to compromise or work with the other side and allow for sweeping legislative changes being passed every time there is a new majority in control.

Adding to the SCOTUS - self explanatory on why that is a bad idea.

Scotus term limits is the only good idea - it would ratchet down the incredibly political pressure SCOTUS appointments represent.

But hey....you guys, along with Reid, set precedents and then flip flopped. Blatently, badly, and hypocritically.

You're still lying. I didn't make any excuses.

kaz: Republicans are using their Constitutional authority

Coyote: OMG, again with the excuses!

That's full retard. I drove through a green light today. I'm making excuses, right? I ate food that was in my refrigerator. OMG, making excuses again! LOL. Yeah ...

 

[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.

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

You:
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.


Any more non-excuse excuses?

 

[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

coyote can THUMBS DOWN this all she wants - have a field day with the thumbs down. but her refusal to admit the R's are doing the EXACT THING THEY WOULD DO is bullshit.

biden shot off his mouth about a "lame duck" president not picking a SCOTUS. while he never got to take advantage of it, you know damn well they would have.

the R's had the chance, and they did. by the book, the process, and our constitution. the left then comes in and cries CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS because it sounds good and like it demands action, but there simply is zero basis for the claim as they are following it to the letter.

the D's answer then is to change it. why? cause they did not benefit from it THIS TIME. lose the EC vote? abolish the EC. lose a SCOTUS NOMINATION, change how SCOTUS is done.

you can't keep changing a system because it doesn't ALWAYS work for you. how they think that it should when by sheer definition it CAN'T ALWAYS WORK JUST FOR US is bullshit.

yet that is where we are. the left leading the charge into the abyss of stupid cause their feelz are hurt today.

Yes. Coyote has a serious issue with honesty when she keeps "disagree"ing that democrats would do the same thing. She knows fully well that they would

 

[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.

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

You:
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.


Any more non-excuse excuses?

any more denial the left would have done the exact same thing?

 

[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.

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

coyote can THUMBS DOWN this all she wants - have a field day with the thumbs down. but her refusal to admit the R's are doing the EXACT THING THEY WOULD DO is bullshit.

biden shot off his mouth about a "lame duck" president not picking a SCOTUS. while he never got to take advantage of it, you know damn well they would have.

the R's had the chance, and they did. by the book, the process, and our constitution. the left then comes in and cries CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS because it sounds good and like it demands action, but there simply is zero basis for the claim as they are following it to the letter.

the D's answer then is to change it. why? cause they did not benefit from it THIS TIME. lose the EC vote? abolish the EC. lose a SCOTUS NOMINATION, change how SCOTUS is done.

you can't keep changing a system because it doesn't ALWAYS work for you. how they think that it should when by sheer definition it CAN'T ALWAYS WORK JUST FOR US is bullshit.

yet that is where we are. the left leading the charge into the abyss of stupid cause their feelz are hurt today.

Yes. Coyote has a serious issue with honesty when she keeps "disagree"ing that democrats would do the same thing. She knows fully well that they would

she deflects. being honest seldom keeps your rage alive.

rage is important to some people as they think it will help them get what they want. it does, i suppose. if they want to stay pissed and never get past facts of life.

 

[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

You:
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.


Any more non-excuse excuses?

kaz: I drove through a green light, you would have done the same

Coyote: OMG, any more excuses, kaz?

As stupid as it sounds. You have a serious issue with honesty.

I never said Biden meant in 1992 that he wouldn't have confirmed a Democrat nominee because I knew he didn't mean that. But I don't have issues with honesty like you do

 

[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

No. You are unable to define the actual issue. It's sequence of events.

1. Unprecedented blocking of judicial nominees by McConnell. He doesn't deny this either.

2. Harry Reid, in response, ups the ante and abolishes the 60-vote rule for lower court nominees, setting another unfortunate precedent.

3. McConnell invents new rule (pretending that it was pre-existing, due to a statement by Biden, in 1992, 25 years ago, during a hypothetical discussion) and claims that the winner of the election should be the one who fills the vacancy and denies a sitting president his constitutional right.

Here are a few of the Republican's on this (16 quotes in the article)....

Senator Ted Cruz Quote: “Let the Election Decide”

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
…This should be a decision for the people. Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.”
2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Senator Lindsey Graham:

“I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president. I hope all Americans understand how important their vote is when it comes to picking a new Supreme Court justice.
“…If there’s a Republican President… and a vacancy occurs in the last year… you can say, Lindsay Graham said let’s let the next President, whoever that may be, make that nomination, and you could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.
2016, Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican -S.C.)

Mitch McConnell Quote:

“Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in...
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Merrick Garland nomination March, 2016

“If it Was a Republican President…”

“I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

“Do Not Start This Process…” (Merrick Garland Nomination)

“The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.)

“Lifetime Appointments in an Election Year…”

“I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.
During a very partisan year and a presidential election year … both for the sake of the court and the integrity of the court and the legitimacy of the candidate, it’s better to have this occur after we’re past this presidential election.”
2016, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

“The American People Should Not Be Denied…”

“A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) – Merrick Garland nomination

“Partisan, Divisive Confirmation Battle…”

“The campaign is already underway. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Thom Tillis (Republican Senator, N.C.) about Obama’s Merrick Garland nomination

4. McConnell then employs the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees, setting yet another unfortunate new precedent.

5. McConnell reverses on his new rule, now claiming that a sitting president, with an election a month and a half away, should be the one to fill the vacancy.


And now? You're reduced to - "well, if you had the chance you would have done the same thing!" - do you realize how pathetic that sounds as a rebuttal?

The problem is...with each new precedent....all out blocking of judicial appointments; nuclear options 1 and 2; hypocritically changing the rules....you are setting new political playing fields where we used to be governed by time test bi partisan rules.

Where are you going to stop? Will you ever stop trying to justify it?

Here is what I wonder. What if the Democrats gain the White House and Senate both? They have some options:
1. Adding to the SCOTUS
2. Ending the fillibuster
3. SCOTUS term limits

- all perfectly legal and absolutely constitutional.

SHOULD they do this? Using your reasoning - YES, given the excuses you've made for all of the above.

Much as I'd LIKE, no scratch that - LOVE them to do that out of retaliation - it's a REALLY BAD IDEA. Just like what you guys did, and the precedents you have set.

Abolishing the filibuster or applying simple majority rules across the board would abolish any need to compromise or work with the other side and allow for sweeping legislative changes being passed every time there is a new majority in control.

Adding to the SCOTUS - self explanatory on why that is a bad idea.

Scotus term limits is the only good idea - it would ratchet down the incredibly political pressure SCOTUS appointments represent.

But hey....you guys, along with Reid, set precedents and then flip flopped. Blatently, badly, and hypocritically.

You're still lying. I didn't make any excuses.

kaz: Republicans are using their Constitutional authority

Coyote: OMG, again with the excuses!

That's full retard. I drove through a green light today. I'm making excuses, right? I ate food that was in my refrigerator. OMG, making excuses again! LOL. Yeah ...

i keep asking and she keeps ignoring - where was the constitution not followed.

i just keep getting ignored. like i said, you keep on with the facts, she'll be ignoring you too.

 

[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

coyote can THUMBS DOWN this all she wants - have a field day with the thumbs down. but her refusal to admit the R's are doing the EXACT THING THEY WOULD DO is bullshit.

biden shot off his mouth about a "lame duck" president not picking a SCOTUS. while he never got to take advantage of it, you know damn well they would have.

the R's had the chance, and they did. by the book, the process, and our constitution. the left then comes in and cries CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS because it sounds good and like it demands action, but there simply is zero basis for the claim as they are following it to the letter.

the D's answer then is to change it. why? cause they did not benefit from it THIS TIME. lose the EC vote? abolish the EC. lose a SCOTUS NOMINATION, change how SCOTUS is done.

you can't keep changing a system because it doesn't ALWAYS work for you. how they think that it should when by sheer definition it CAN'T ALWAYS WORK JUST FOR US is bullshit.

yet that is where we are. the left leading the charge into the abyss of stupid cause their feelz are hurt today.

Yes. Coyote has a serious issue with honesty when she keeps "disagree"ing that democrats would do the same thing. She knows fully well that they would

she deflects. being honest seldom keeps your rage alive.

rage is important to some people as they think it will help them get what they want. it does, i suppose. if they want to stay pissed and never get past facts of life.

Yes, and Coyote's lie that Democrats wouldn't have done the same thing leveraging their power under the Constitution is such a shallow, obvious lie. I mean just really, really bad. It's totally pathetic

 

[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.

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

coyote can THUMBS DOWN this all she wants - have a field day with the thumbs down. but her refusal to admit the R's are doing the EXACT THING THEY WOULD DO is bullshit.

biden shot off his mouth about a "lame duck" president not picking a SCOTUS. while he never got to take advantage of it, you know damn well they would have.

the R's had the chance, and they did. by the book, the process, and our constitution. the left then comes in and cries CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS because it sounds good and like it demands action, but there simply is zero basis for the claim as they are following it to the letter.

the D's answer then is to change it. why? cause they did not benefit from it THIS TIME. lose the EC vote? abolish the EC. lose a SCOTUS NOMINATION, change how SCOTUS is done.

you can't keep changing a system because it doesn't ALWAYS work for you. how they think that it should when by sheer definition it CAN'T ALWAYS WORK JUST FOR US is bullshit.

yet that is where we are. the left leading the charge into the abyss of stupid cause their feelz are hurt today.

Yes. Coyote has a serious issue with honesty when she keeps "disagree"ing that democrats would do the same thing. She knows fully well that they would

she deflects. being honest seldom keeps your rage alive.

rage is important to some people as they think it will help them get what they want. it does, i suppose. if they want to stay pissed and never get past facts of life.

Yes, and Coyote's lie that Democrats wouldn't have done the same thing leveraging their power under the Constitution is such a shallow, obvious lie. I mean just really, really bad. It's totally pathetic

has she actually said they wouldn't do that? normally she just rants and raves in a huff of emo and moves on.

 

[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.

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

You:
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.


Any more non-excuse excuses?

kaz: I drove through a green light, you would have done the same

Coyote: OMG, any more excuses, kaz?

As stupid as it sounds. You have a serious issue with honesty.

I never said Biden meant in 1992 that he wouldn't have confirmed a Democrat nominee because I knew he didn't mean that. But I don't have issues with honesty like you do

Keep on with the excuses.

So....should the Democrats then do what I mentioned, should they gain majority?

 

[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

No. You are unable to define the actual issue. It's sequence of events.

1. Unprecedented blocking of judicial nominees by McConnell. He doesn't deny this either.

2. Harry Reid, in response, ups the ante and abolishes the 60-vote rule for lower court nominees, setting another unfortunate precedent.

3. McConnell invents new rule (pretending that it was pre-existing, due to a statement by Biden, in 1992, 25 years ago, during a hypothetical discussion) and claims that the winner of the election should be the one who fills the vacancy and denies a sitting president his constitutional right.

Here are a few of the Republican's on this (16 quotes in the article)....

Senator Ted Cruz Quote: “Let the Election Decide”

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
…This should be a decision for the people. Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.”
2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Senator Lindsey Graham:

“I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president. I hope all Americans understand how important their vote is when it comes to picking a new Supreme Court justice.
“…If there’s a Republican President… and a vacancy occurs in the last year… you can say, Lindsay Graham said let’s let the next President, whoever that may be, make that nomination, and you could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.
2016, Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican -S.C.)

Mitch McConnell Quote:

“Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in...
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Merrick Garland nomination March, 2016

“If it Was a Republican President…”

“I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

“Do Not Start This Process…” (Merrick Garland Nomination)

“The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.)

“Lifetime Appointments in an Election Year…”

“I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.
During a very partisan year and a presidential election year … both for the sake of the court and the integrity of the court and the legitimacy of the candidate, it’s better to have this occur after we’re past this presidential election.”
2016, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

“The American People Should Not Be Denied…”

“A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) – Merrick Garland nomination

“Partisan, Divisive Confirmation Battle…”

“The campaign is already underway. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Thom Tillis (Republican Senator, N.C.) about Obama’s Merrick Garland nomination

4. McConnell then employs the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees, setting yet another unfortunate new precedent.

5. McConnell reverses on his new rule, now claiming that a sitting president, with an election a month and a half away, should be the one to fill the vacancy.


And now? You're reduced to - "well, if you had the chance you would have done the same thing!" - do you realize how pathetic that sounds as a rebuttal?

The problem is...with each new precedent....all out blocking of judicial appointments; nuclear options 1 and 2; hypocritically changing the rules....you are setting new political playing fields where we used to be governed by time test bi partisan rules.

Where are you going to stop? Will you ever stop trying to justify it?

Here is what I wonder. What if the Democrats gain the White House and Senate both? They have some options:
1. Adding to the SCOTUS
2. Ending the fillibuster
3. SCOTUS term limits

- all perfectly legal and absolutely constitutional.

SHOULD they do this? Using your reasoning - YES, given the excuses you've made for all of the above.

Much as I'd LIKE, no scratch that - LOVE them to do that out of retaliation - it's a REALLY BAD IDEA. Just like what you guys did, and the precedents you have set.

Abolishing the filibuster or applying simple majority rules across the board would abolish any need to compromise or work with the other side and allow for sweeping legislative changes being passed every time there is a new majority in control.

Adding to the SCOTUS - self explanatory on why that is a bad idea.

Scotus term limits is the only good idea - it would ratchet down the incredibly political pressure SCOTUS appointments represent.

But hey....you guys, along with Reid, set precedents and then flip flopped. Blatently, badly, and hypocritically.

You're still lying. I didn't make any excuses.

kaz: Republicans are using their Constitutional authority

Coyote: OMG, again with the excuses!

That's full retard. I drove through a green light today. I'm making excuses, right? I ate food that was in my refrigerator. OMG, making excuses again! LOL. Yeah ...

i keep asking and she keeps ignoring - where was the constitution not followed.

i just keep getting ignored. like i said, you keep on with the facts, she'll be ignoring you too.

The Democrats invented the judicial filibuster under W because it gave them their way.

The Democrats ended the judicial filibuster under Obama because it gave them their way.

The Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under W because it gave them their way.

The Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under Obama because it gave them their way.

Democrats slow walked EVERY judicial and administration appointment under Trump because they could.

Biden said they would not hold Republican confirmation hearings for an HW pick because they could.

Democrats changed the rules so they could get Obamacare passed even though Ted Kennedy was replaced by Scott Brown ending the Democrat filibuster proof majority.

Coyote: OMG, REPUBLICANS are so political.

It's some lame ass crap

 

[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

You:
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.


Any more non-excuse excuses?

kaz: I drove through a green light, you would have done the same

Coyote: OMG, any more excuses, kaz?

As stupid as it sounds. You have a serious issue with honesty.

I never said Biden meant in 1992 that he wouldn't have confirmed a Democrat nominee because I knew he didn't mean that. But I don't have issues with honesty like you do

Keep on with the excuses.

So....should the Democrats then do what I mentioned, should they gain majority?

First I want to hear your excuse why you can drive through green lights. Explain it. What is your excuse?

 

[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

No. You are unable to define the actual issue. It's sequence of events.

1. Unprecedented blocking of judicial nominees by McConnell. He doesn't deny this either.

2. Harry Reid, in response, ups the ante and abolishes the 60-vote rule for lower court nominees, setting another unfortunate precedent.

3. McConnell invents new rule (pretending that it was pre-existing, due to a statement by Biden, in 1992, 25 years ago, during a hypothetical discussion) and claims that the winner of the election should be the one who fills the vacancy and denies a sitting president his constitutional right.

Here are a few of the Republican's on this (16 quotes in the article)....

Senator Ted Cruz Quote: “Let the Election Decide”

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
…This should be a decision for the people. Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.”
2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Senator Lindsey Graham:

“I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president. I hope all Americans understand how important their vote is when it comes to picking a new Supreme Court justice.
“…If there’s a Republican President… and a vacancy occurs in the last year… you can say, Lindsay Graham said let’s let the next President, whoever that may be, make that nomination, and you could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.
2016, Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican -S.C.)

Mitch McConnell Quote:

“Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in...
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Merrick Garland nomination March, 2016

“If it Was a Republican President…”

“I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

“Do Not Start This Process…” (Merrick Garland Nomination)

“The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.)

“Lifetime Appointments in an Election Year…”

“I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.
During a very partisan year and a presidential election year … both for the sake of the court and the integrity of the court and the legitimacy of the candidate, it’s better to have this occur after we’re past this presidential election.”
2016, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

“The American People Should Not Be Denied…”

“A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) – Merrick Garland nomination

“Partisan, Divisive Confirmation Battle…”

“The campaign is already underway. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Thom Tillis (Republican Senator, N.C.) about Obama’s Merrick Garland nomination

4. McConnell then employs the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees, setting yet another unfortunate new precedent.

5. McConnell reverses on his new rule, now claiming that a sitting president, with an election a month and a half away, should be the one to fill the vacancy.


And now? You're reduced to - "well, if you had the chance you would have done the same thing!" - do you realize how pathetic that sounds as a rebuttal?

The problem is...with each new precedent....all out blocking of judicial appointments; nuclear options 1 and 2; hypocritically changing the rules....you are setting new political playing fields where we used to be governed by time test bi partisan rules.

Where are you going to stop? Will you ever stop trying to justify it?

Here is what I wonder. What if the Democrats gain the White House and Senate both? They have some options:
1. Adding to the SCOTUS
2. Ending the fillibuster
3. SCOTUS term limits

- all perfectly legal and absolutely constitutional.

SHOULD they do this? Using your reasoning - YES, given the excuses you've made for all of the above.

Much as I'd LIKE, no scratch that - LOVE them to do that out of retaliation - it's a REALLY BAD IDEA. Just like what you guys did, and the precedents you have set.

Abolishing the filibuster or applying simple majority rules across the board would abolish any need to compromise or work with the other side and allow for sweeping legislative changes being passed every time there is a new majority in control.

Adding to the SCOTUS - self explanatory on why that is a bad idea.

Scotus term limits is the only good idea - it would ratchet down the incredibly political pressure SCOTUS appointments represent.

But hey....you guys, along with Reid, set precedents and then flip flopped. Blatently, badly, and hypocritically.

You're still lying. I didn't make any excuses.

kaz: Republicans are using their Constitutional authority

Coyote: OMG, again with the excuses!

That's full retard. I drove through a green light today. I'm making excuses, right? I ate food that was in my refrigerator. OMG, making excuses again! LOL. Yeah ...

i keep asking and she keeps ignoring - where was the constitution not followed.

i just keep getting ignored. like i said, you keep on with the facts, she'll be ignoring you too.

The Democrats invented the judicial filibuster under W because it gave them their way.

The Democrats ended the judicial filibuster under Obama because it gave them their way.

The Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under W because it gave them their way.

The Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under Obama because it gave them their way.

Democrats slow walked EVERY judicial and administration appointment under Trump because they could.

Biden said they would not hold Republican confirmation hearings for an HW pick because they could.

Democrats changed the rules so they could get Obamacare passed even though Ted Kennedy was replaced by Scott Brown ending the Democrat filibuster proof majority.

Coyote: OMG, REPUBLICANS are so political.

It's some lame ass crap

one sided bullshit that is a huge contributor to our divide today. they want everything. period. anything short of that denies them of some right they FEEL they have to having life be perfect.

 

[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.

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

You:
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.


Any more non-excuse excuses?

kaz: I drove through a green light, you would have done the same

Coyote: OMG, any more excuses, kaz?

As stupid as it sounds. You have a serious issue with honesty.

I never said Biden meant in 1992 that he wouldn't have confirmed a Democrat nominee because I knew he didn't mean that. But I don't have issues with honesty like you do

Keep on with the excuses.

So....should the Democrats then do what I mentioned, should they gain majority?

First I want to hear your excuse why you can drive through green lights. Explain it. What is your excuse?

prepare for a short burst of *whatever* and a ton of emo shit flying your way.

you're close to being ignored. i'll save you a seat.

 

[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

You:
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.


Any more non-excuse excuses?

kaz: I drove through a green light, you would have done the same

Coyote: OMG, any more excuses, kaz?

As stupid as it sounds. You have a serious issue with honesty.

I never said Biden meant in 1992 that he wouldn't have confirmed a Democrat nominee because I knew he didn't mean that. But I don't have issues with honesty like you do

Keep on with the excuses.

So....should the Democrats then do what I mentioned, should they gain majority?

"So....should the Democrats then do what I mentioned, should they gain majority?"

Schummer already said he was going to end the filibuster and stack the court.

Here's the thing with threats. You have to make them BEFORE you decide you're already going to do them. See how that works? Pelosi already even stated the number. 15. So why would Republicans cave over something you're ALREADY GOING TO DO?

Then when Republicans get power back they will increase it to 21. And so on. Nice solution

 

[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.

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

You:
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.


Any more non-excuse excuses?

kaz: I drove through a green light, you would have done the same

Coyote: OMG, any more excuses, kaz?

As stupid as it sounds. You have a serious issue with honesty.

I never said Biden meant in 1992 that he wouldn't have confirmed a Democrat nominee because I knew he didn't mean that. But I don't have issues with honesty like you do

Keep on with the excuses.

So....should the Democrats then do what I mentioned, should they gain majority?

First I want to hear your excuse why you can drive through green lights. Explain it. What is your excuse?

Can't answer a question? Now, you are not only making excuses, you are deflecting.

Here's an answer: Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Should Democrats end the filibuster and go by simple majorities should they win power?

If it's "driving through a green light"...why has NO one done that?

Now do you see how stupid your attempted deflection is?

Wait, not stupid...just another excuse on your part.

 

[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

You:
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.


Any more non-excuse excuses?

kaz: I drove through a green light, you would have done the same

Coyote: OMG, any more excuses, kaz?

As stupid as it sounds. You have a serious issue with honesty.

I never said Biden meant in 1992 that he wouldn't have confirmed a Democrat nominee because I knew he didn't mean that. But I don't have issues with honesty like you do

Keep on with the excuses.

So....should the Democrats then do what I mentioned, should they gain majority?

First I want to hear your excuse why you can drive through green lights. Explain it. What is your excuse?

Can't answer a question? Now, you are not only making excuses, you are deflecting.

Here's an answer: Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Should Democrats end the filibuster and go by simple majorities should they win power?

If it's "driving through a green light"...why has NO one done that?

Now do you see how stupid your attempted deflection is?

Wait, not stupid...just another excuse on your part.

Coyote: "Should Democrats end the filibuster and go by simple majorities should they win power?"

See post #58 above.

Coyote: "If it's "driving through a green light"...why has NO one done that?"

Give examples of parties where the President and Senate were in the same party in an election year and they did not confirm a SCOTUS pick.

And if you believe that so strongly, why did Obama make a nomination? Why didn't he say wait until after the election? And why did Democrats scream to high heaven about it if you don't think they should have been confirmed?

You can't even make a consistent claim