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

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,071
Reaction score
10,703
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
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
Pffft. I WISH Republicans acted in their own self-interest 100% of the times. I've never seen such a bunch for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
True, but that is another discussion, LOL
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,071
Reaction score
10,703
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
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.
I don't need to. I'm not the one that thinks a president doesn't have a right to fill a vacancy and I'm not the one running around moving goalposts.

In fact...it appears you (Republicans) need to keep making up new "rules" to justify your constant position changes.

Between 1887 (when Congress stablized the court at 9) to now, there have been 70 vacancies filled. Nine of those vacancies were during an election year. Of those, one was by a 1956 uncontested recess appointment and eight were by Senate confirmation. These occurred in both divided and unified party control.

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?
I don't think you understand my position. I happen think a president has a right to fill the vacancy. However, McConnell created a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy in an election year...a rule he has just now amended to make it - only if the Congress is divided. My position is if your 2016 rule was good enough for Obama then surely it's good enough for Trump.
Of course you have to prove your own claim. WTF. You said no one tried to confirm a nomination in an election year. So who didn't when they had the President and Senate? Prove your own assertion
What? No. Unless it was a typo I did not say that. In fact, I linked to a source that showed such confirmations are routine. Try again.
Fair enough. Then what did you say has never been done before?
A nomination for SCOTUS, denied a hearing and vote because it was an election year.
OK, so let's start with the double standard. So you're admitting Biden had his head shoved up his ass when he said no hearings for an HW appointment in a Democrat Senate?
No.

I am saying that was a hypothetical conversation in 1992 that is irrelevant today. Extracting that one item from it, and pretending it's a "rule" is a stretch by any definition.

IF YOU insist it is a rule...then it would appear that rule was only meant for 2016 after which it could be conveniently discarded.

There are some heads stuffed up asses...but they look more like elephants to me.
So you wouldn't be blasting something Republicans said in 1992 or holding them to it. You'd say "it was a hypothetical conversation."

You drew the tough side. I don't have to defend the endless hypocrisy that you do. But you did pick the side
But you are...that's the problem. First you mustn't fill it, then you must....and a bunch of invented "rules" to cover yourself - what next?

And for the first part - no, I wouldn't. It's not a RULE. It's part of a conversation. That's it. Does this mean you are going to go back in history to pick out convenient bits of conversation to support what you want to do and claim it's a "rule"?
My point was the hypocrisy you are supporting. Which I clearly demonstrated with your endless excuses for what Biden said. Oh, he didn't mean it, oh, it was "hypothetical." You won't criticize him for it.

I have no hypocrisy. I said I'm fine with what Biden said and what McConnell did. You're the one who's switching position based on party.

It would be really hard for the two parties to agree to a nominee in an election year. I get that. You do too, unless the President is a Republican ...
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,071
Reaction score
10,703
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
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.
I don't need to. I'm not the one that thinks a president doesn't have a right to fill a vacancy and I'm not the one running around moving goalposts.

In fact...it appears you (Republicans) need to keep making up new "rules" to justify your constant position changes.

Between 1887 (when Congress stablized the court at 9) to now, there have been 70 vacancies filled. Nine of those vacancies were during an election year. Of those, one was by a 1956 uncontested recess appointment and eight were by Senate confirmation. These occurred in both divided and unified party control.

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?
I don't think you understand my position. I happen think a president has a right to fill the vacancy. However, McConnell created a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy in an election year...a rule he has just now amended to make it - only if the Congress is divided. My position is if your 2016 rule was good enough for Obama then surely it's good enough for Trump.
The Senate and the President are divided, just like in 2016. There is no difference here. You are just stupid and making excuses. The House has no role whatsoever.
And when I pointed out what Biden said in 1992, Coyote just flowed the excuses as if her double standard somehow made sense.

Obviously the double standard shows what I said all along. The Democrats would have done the same thing, she'd have purred like a kitten while they did it. And she knows it
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,071
Reaction score
10,703
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
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
Thanks, Cecilie. Notice Coyote is hiding from this one like the plague
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
2,816
Reaction score
3,042
Points
1,918
Location
Sunny Florida
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?
Do you remember what Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer said in 2016?
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,071
Reaction score
10,703
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
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.
Lots of Senates have done what you're "outraged" about. The fact that YOU don't know about it changes nothing.
Coyote provided a link showing it only happened three times. Twice of those were in the 1800s.

The only modern one was when Powell retired 1 1/2 years before the election. Democrats voted down Bork. Kennedy was nominated in December. He was finally confirmed at the beginning of the year on February 3, barely into the election cycle.

So really it hasn't happened before relevantly that one party confirmed the other party's nominee in an election year. Powell's replacement would have been 1 1/2 years and the others were before my grandparents were born
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,758
Reaction score
9,997
Points
2,030
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.
Lots of Senates have done what you're "outraged" about. The fact that YOU don't know about it changes nothing.
Coyote provided a link showing it only happened three times. Twice of those were in the 1800s.

The only modern one was when Powell retired 1 1/2 years before the election. Democrats voted down Bork. Kennedy was nominated in December. He was finally confirmed at the beginning of the year on February 3, barely into the election cycle.

So really it hasn't happened before relevantly that one party confirmed the other party's nominee in an election year. Powell's replacement would have been 1 1/2 years and the others were before my grandparents were born
Coyote's link is wrong.

John Quincy Adams made a nomination in 1828. The Senate, rather than voting on his nominee, voted to "postpone" it, which had the effect of leaving the seat for Andrew Jackson to fill.

Andrew Jackson made a nomination in 1835. The Senate voted to "postpone" it indefinitely. He nominated the same guy again at the end of the year, after the composition of the Senate had changed.

John Tyler had a nightmare getting any nominations through; his Senate apparently hated him. They voted down his first nominee, then voted to "table" his second nominee, so he withdrew it. They also voted to table his third nominee, which then expired when the Senate session ended. Tyler re-nominated the guy, and this time the Senate just ignored it entirely. He tried twice more, and the nominations were "tabled". He nominated another guy, but the motion to even consider the nomination was defeated, and it went away. He finally got a nominee confirmed 13 months after his first nomination.

Millard Fillmore made three nominations to fill a vacancy, and the Democrat-controlled Senate ignored all three of them. Democrat Franklin Pierce, the next President, eventually filled that seat.

Andrew Johnson had two vacancies, and made one nomination, but then Congress passed a law reducing the number of Justices to seven, and his nomination was nullified.

Rutherford B. Hayes made a nomination at the end of his term, and the Senate ignored it. When Garfield took office right after Hayes, he re-nominated the same guy, who was then confirmed.

Warren Harding made a nomination in 1922, and the Senate flatly refused to even consider it.

Dwight Eisenhower made a nomination in 1954, but it didn't even get reported out of committee.

No, those aren't all in election years. So obviously, the Senate has always considered itself to have the ability to simply ignore nomination it doesn't like, at any time and for any reason.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
28,519
Reaction score
7,149
Points
290
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.
Saying and doing are two different things. Doing away with the filibuster means when one's own party is no longer in power...well you get the picture. Stacking the court lacks support in his own party. Unlikely. Words are not actions. Unlike McConnell.


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?
Words aren't actions and you and I both know that 75% of political rhetoric is just that...words.

Then when Republicans get power back they will increase it to 21. And so on. Nice solution
Which is what I said (and no not a nice solution).

So, after all this - do you think the Democrats SHOULD do this?
False equivalency. The process for filling a SCOTUS seat is directly prescribed in the Constitution. The filibuster and stacking the courts may not be against the Constitution, but they are not mentioned in it. That's a false equivalency. You're trying to ask a screwed up question to confuse the issue.

The fact is that Democrats would have denied a Republican Garland and they would confirm a Democrat Barrett, and you know that
it's the purest form of WHATABOUTISM she hates used against her, but uses it to her advantage every chance she gets.
Yep. WHATABOUTISM is yet another flagrant Democrats hypocrisy. They whine like hell and do it all the time.

kaz's law (in my sig) is a demonstration of that. Mention Biden and get ready for But Trump, But Trump, But Trump ...
and if you do a BUT OBAMA shit, may as well shit in their post toasties.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
28,519
Reaction score
7,149
Points
290
,.m
False equivalency. The process for filling a SCOTUS seat is directly prescribed in the Constitution. The filibuster and stacking the courts may not be against the Constitution, but they are not mentioned in it. That's a false equivalency. You're trying to ask a screwed up question to confuse the issue.

Not at all.

A lot of things are not mentioned in the Constitution, including your bizarre new "rule" that if a President/Congress is under divided party control a president can not fill a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year.

The Constitution mentions none of that, so let's dispense with that excuse.

Should the Dems do this?
Coyote: "A lot of things are not mentioned in the Constitution, including your bizarre new "rule" that if a President/Congress is under divided party control a president can not fill a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year."

Strawman. I never said that. Now you're getting desperate
It would seem the is what McConnell is saying. Now, should the Dems do it?
you know the dems would. so what is your point?
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
28,519
Reaction score
7,149
Points
290
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.
Lots of Senates have done what you're "outraged" about. The fact that YOU don't know about it changes nothing.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
28,519
Reaction score
7,149
Points
290
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.
I don't need to. I'm not the one that thinks a president doesn't have a right to fill a vacancy and I'm not the one running around moving goalposts.

In fact...it appears you (Republicans) need to keep making up new "rules" to justify your constant position changes.

Between 1887 (when Congress stablized the court at 9) to now, there have been 70 vacancies filled. Nine of those vacancies were during an election year. Of those, one was by a 1956 uncontested recess appointment and eight were by Senate confirmation. These occurred in both divided and unified party control.

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?
I don't think you understand my position. I happen think a president has a right to fill the vacancy. However, McConnell created a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy in an election year...a rule he has just now amended to make it - only if the Congress is divided. My position is if your 2016 rule was good enough for Obama then surely it's good enough for Trump.
Of course you have to prove your own claim. WTF. You said no one tried to confirm a nomination in an election year. So who didn't when they had the President and Senate? Prove your own assertion
What? No. Unless it was a typo I did not say that. In fact, I linked to a source that showed such confirmations are routine. Try again.
Fair enough. Then what did you say has never been done before?
A nomination for SCOTUS, denied a hearing and vote because it was an election year.
it was political. an "election year" was just the momentum biden set with his stupid "suggestion". i agree it was wrong to do but i don't understand why you won't simply admit if the democrats were in position to do it, they would and you'd be arguing why they SHOULD be allowed to.

forgive me if i simply don't buy into your overly biased bullshit.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,071
Reaction score
10,703
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
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.
I don't need to. I'm not the one that thinks a president doesn't have a right to fill a vacancy and I'm not the one running around moving goalposts.

In fact...it appears you (Republicans) need to keep making up new "rules" to justify your constant position changes.

Between 1887 (when Congress stablized the court at 9) to now, there have been 70 vacancies filled. Nine of those vacancies were during an election year. Of those, one was by a 1956 uncontested recess appointment and eight were by Senate confirmation. These occurred in both divided and unified party control.

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?
I don't think you understand my position. I happen think a president has a right to fill the vacancy. However, McConnell created a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy in an election year...a rule he has just now amended to make it - only if the Congress is divided. My position is if your 2016 rule was good enough for Obama then surely it's good enough for Trump.
Of course you have to prove your own claim. WTF. You said no one tried to confirm a nomination in an election year. So who didn't when they had the President and Senate? Prove your own assertion
What? No. Unless it was a typo I did not say that. In fact, I linked to a source that showed such confirmations are routine. Try again.
Fair enough. Then what did you say has never been done before?
A nomination for SCOTUS, denied a hearing and vote because it was an election year.
it was political. an "election year" was just the momentum biden set with his stupid "suggestion". i agree it was wrong to do but i don't understand why you won't simply admit if the democrats were in position to do it, they would and you'd be arguing why they SHOULD be allowed to.

forgive me if i simply don't buy into your overly biased bullshit.
I gave Coyote a long list of times Democrats changed rules, changed precident and manipulated the system to get what they want. And she failed to address any of it. She's still sitting there saying NNNnnnaaaaooooooooo. Democrats would nnnneeevvvvvveeeeerrrrrrrrrrrr withhold a Republican nomination just because they ccccouuuuuullllllddddddddd. Of couuuurrrrsssseeeeeeee not.

Even though I have a long list of times they did since W, Biden said they would not hold hearings on a Republican nomination and Democrats have voted no on every Trump pick for both the judiciary and his own administration.

You have to give it to coyote the ability to lie to that level and keep a straight face while she does it
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
28,519
Reaction score
7,149
Points
290
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.
I don't need to. I'm not the one that thinks a president doesn't have a right to fill a vacancy and I'm not the one running around moving goalposts.

In fact...it appears you (Republicans) need to keep making up new "rules" to justify your constant position changes.

Between 1887 (when Congress stablized the court at 9) to now, there have been 70 vacancies filled. Nine of those vacancies were during an election year. Of those, one was by a 1956 uncontested recess appointment and eight were by Senate confirmation. These occurred in both divided and unified party control.

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?
I don't think you understand my position. I happen think a president has a right to fill the vacancy. However, McConnell created a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy in an election year...a rule he has just now amended to make it - only if the Congress is divided. My position is if your 2016 rule was good enough for Obama then surely it's good enough for Trump.
Of course you have to prove your own claim. WTF. You said no one tried to confirm a nomination in an election year. So who didn't when they had the President and Senate? Prove your own assertion
What? No. Unless it was a typo I did not say that. In fact, I linked to a source that showed such confirmations are routine. Try again.
Fair enough. Then what did you say has never been done before?
A nomination for SCOTUS, denied a hearing and vote because it was an election year.
OK, so let's start with the double standard. So you're admitting Biden had his head shoved up his ass when he said no hearings for an HW appointment in a Democrat Senate?
No.

I am saying that was a hypothetical conversation in 1992 that is irrelevant today. Extracting that one item from it, and pretending it's a "rule" is a stretch by any definition.

IF YOU insist it is a rule...then it would appear that rule was only meant for 2016 after which it could be conveniently discarded.

There are some heads stuffed up asses...but they look more like elephants to me.
So you wouldn't be blasting something Republicans said in 1992 or holding them to it. You'd say "it was a hypothetical conversation."

You drew the tough side. I don't have to defend the endless hypocrisy that you do. But you did pick the side
But you are...that's the problem. First you mustn't fill it, then you must....and a bunch of invented "rules" to cover yourself - what next?

And for the first part - no, I wouldn't. It's not a RULE. It's part of a conversation. That's it. Does this mean you are going to go back in history to pick out convenient bits of conversation to support what you want to do and claim it's a "rule"?
My point was the hypocrisy you are supporting. Which I clearly demonstrated with your endless excuses for what Biden said. Oh, he didn't mean it, oh, it was "hypothetical." You won't criticize him for it.

I have no hypocrisy. I said I'm fine with what Biden said and what McConnell did. You're the one who's switching position based on party.

It would be really hard for the two parties to agree to a nominee in an election year. I get that. You do too, unless the President is a Republican ...
it gets so old TRYING to talk with someone who forgives everything for her side, or excuses it, yet attacks anything for the other side. even if they're doing the very same thing.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,071
Reaction score
10,703
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
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.
I don't need to. I'm not the one that thinks a president doesn't have a right to fill a vacancy and I'm not the one running around moving goalposts.

In fact...it appears you (Republicans) need to keep making up new "rules" to justify your constant position changes.

Between 1887 (when Congress stablized the court at 9) to now, there have been 70 vacancies filled. Nine of those vacancies were during an election year. Of those, one was by a 1956 uncontested recess appointment and eight were by Senate confirmation. These occurred in both divided and unified party control.

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?
I don't think you understand my position. I happen think a president has a right to fill the vacancy. However, McConnell created a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy in an election year...a rule he has just now amended to make it - only if the Congress is divided. My position is if your 2016 rule was good enough for Obama then surely it's good enough for Trump.
Of course you have to prove your own claim. WTF. You said no one tried to confirm a nomination in an election year. So who didn't when they had the President and Senate? Prove your own assertion
What? No. Unless it was a typo I did not say that. In fact, I linked to a source that showed such confirmations are routine. Try again.
Fair enough. Then what did you say has never been done before?
A nomination for SCOTUS, denied a hearing and vote because it was an election year.
OK, so let's start with the double standard. So you're admitting Biden had his head shoved up his ass when he said no hearings for an HW appointment in a Democrat Senate?
No.

I am saying that was a hypothetical conversation in 1992 that is irrelevant today. Extracting that one item from it, and pretending it's a "rule" is a stretch by any definition.

IF YOU insist it is a rule...then it would appear that rule was only meant for 2016 after which it could be conveniently discarded.

There are some heads stuffed up asses...but they look more like elephants to me.
So you wouldn't be blasting something Republicans said in 1992 or holding them to it. You'd say "it was a hypothetical conversation."

You drew the tough side. I don't have to defend the endless hypocrisy that you do. But you did pick the side
But you are...that's the problem. First you mustn't fill it, then you must....and a bunch of invented "rules" to cover yourself - what next?

And for the first part - no, I wouldn't. It's not a RULE. It's part of a conversation. That's it. Does this mean you are going to go back in history to pick out convenient bits of conversation to support what you want to do and claim it's a "rule"?
My point was the hypocrisy you are supporting. Which I clearly demonstrated with your endless excuses for what Biden said. Oh, he didn't mean it, oh, it was "hypothetical." You won't criticize him for it.

I have no hypocrisy. I said I'm fine with what Biden said and what McConnell did. You're the one who's switching position based on party.

It would be really hard for the two parties to agree to a nominee in an election year. I get that. You do too, unless the President is a Republican ...
it gets so old TRYING to talk with someone who forgives everything for her side, or excuses it, yet attacks anything for the other side. even if they're doing the very same thing.
Yep. That's Coyote
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top