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

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?

 

[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?

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

she also will never answer your questions then just bitch because she THINKS you are never answering hers. watching her melt down cause i answered her questions once and followed up with my own was pretty interesting.

 

[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?

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

you can seldom be consistent when you're driven by ever changing emotions.

 

[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.

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

 

[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

you can seldom be consistent when you're driven by ever changing emotions.

I don't know that I'd say it's emotions. I think she's doing pretty well considering she's defending Democrats and as such has a pair of twos in her hand

 

[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?

"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.

 

[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?

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

you can seldom be consistent when you're driven by ever changing emotions.

I don't know that I'd say it's emotions. I think she's doing pretty well considering she's defending Democrats and as such has a pair of twos in her hand

she can present her side well, at times. but if you try to stick to a singular topic, it sets her off to no end. awhile back she and i made a deal to no longer do "whataboutisms" to each other. i held to it, she didn't and when called upon it, tore into me and stopped talking to me.

prime example of her wanting rules for everyone but her and "her side". near as i could ever figure, she would say you need to follow the rules and she would say they do too. UNTIL they had to. then suddenly "this is different" and needs special consideration. that shit pops up.

 

[Coyote]

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.

 

[Coyote]

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?

 

[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?

"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.

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?

The fact is that Democrats would have denied a Republican Garland and they would confirm a Democrat Barrett, and you know that

argue with Ginsburg:

In a July 2016 interview with The New York Times, Ginsburg responded to a question about whether the U.S. Senate was obligated to assess the qualifications of Judge Merrick Garland for a seat on the High Court. She said: “That’s their job. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
-----
so under the constitution it's trumps job to do this. the senate will pass it more than likely.

now is what they did to not vote on obama's pick "fair"? no. it sure isn't. but it doesn't negate from the fact is was a pure political move by politicians and ANY POLITICAL PARTY would have done the same.

this is why no one cares about your crocodile tears.

 

[Borillar]

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

Where in the Constitution does it say that a Senator has to vote in favor of a SCOTUS nominee?

 

[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.

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 ...

 

[kaz]

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

 

[kaz]

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

 

[Coyote]

,.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?

 

[Lysistrata]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 2, Section 2.

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

does "the senate majority" have an obligation to the American People or just their donors? How many people live in the districts they represent and what was the vote of these people? If you live in a district in which 51% voted your way, and 49% voted my way, the only thing that your candidate can do is be a moderate.

 

[kaz]

,.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?

Strawman. McConnell never said that.

In fact you're the one who argued a few posts ago that no one filled a seat in an election year. You're flip flopping like a Democrat now.

Democrats would have done exactly what McConnell did both times. You're lying and you know it

 

[Coyote]

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.

 

[Coyote]

,.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?

Strawman. McConnell never said that.

In fact you're the one who argued a few posts ago that no one filled a seat in an election year. You're flip flopping like a Democrat now.

Democrats would have done exactly what McConnell did both times. You're lying and you know it

Now you are flat out lying. I was talking about McConnell.

If Dems could have and would have...why didn't they?

 

[kaz]

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?