Pelosi won't rule out launching new impeachment inquiry to block Trump SCOTUS nominee

They can drag this out but not like this. But I say go for it.

What we had under Obama was the Republicans blocking him from getting a vote on a Supreme Court justice. Now the Dem's will attempt to do the same.

So we have had Pelosi running with impeachment to try and stop Trump from doing anything but what is going to happen is the Republicans will do the same thing when a (D) president wins.

Being that we are now run by extremely partisan imbeciles on both sides, gridlock will be a good thing.

That's different because the Republicans had the power to block Obama's nominee. The Democrats as a minority don't have that option available. It would be like if the Democrats led the Senate now. They would be able to block any of Trump's nominees.

So what Piglosi is saying is they will do anything they can, regardless of how illegal it may be, to usurp the power of the Senate.

Impeachment is a punitive action for high crimes and misdemeanors. A President or Senate doing their job as outlined in the Constitution is neither.

The Constitution gives a sitting president the right to nominate and have his candidate considered.
Lies.

The Constitution gives the power to nominate to the President. His power ends there. The Constitution give the advise and consent power to the Senate to do however they see fit.

Ignoring a nomination has been done several times in the past. Nothing Mitch did has not been done before.
 
They can drag this out but not like this. But I say go for it.

What we had under Obama was the Republicans blocking him from getting a vote on a Supreme Court justice. Now the Dem's will attempt to do the same.

So we have had Pelosi running with impeachment to try and stop Trump from doing anything but what is going to happen is the Republicans will do the same thing when a (D) president wins.

Being that we are now run by extremely partisan imbeciles on both sides, gridlock will be a good thing.

That's different because the Republicans had the power to block Obama's nominee. The Democrats as a minority don't have that option available. It would be like if the Democrats led the Senate now. They would be able to block any of Trump's nominees.

So what Piglosi is saying is they will do anything they can, regardless of how illegal it may be, to usurp the power of the Senate.

Impeachment is a punitive action for high crimes and misdemeanors. A President or Senate doing their job as outlined in the Constitution is neither.

The Constitution gives a sitting president the right to nominate and have his candidate considered.
Lies.

The Constitution gives the power to nominate to the President. His power ends there. The Constitution give the advise and consent power to the Senate to do however they see fit.

Ignoring a nomination has been done several times in the past. Nothing Mitch did has not been done before.

The Senate was never permitted to do so.
 
They can drag this out but not like this. But I say go for it.

What we had under Obama was the Republicans blocking him from getting a vote on a Supreme Court justice. Now the Dem's will attempt to do the same.

So we have had Pelosi running with impeachment to try and stop Trump from doing anything but what is going to happen is the Republicans will do the same thing when a (D) president wins.

Being that we are now run by extremely partisan imbeciles on both sides, gridlock will be a good thing.

That's different because the Republicans had the power to block Obama's nominee. The Democrats as a minority don't have that option available. It would be like if the Democrats led the Senate now. They would be able to block any of Trump's nominees.

So what Piglosi is saying is they will do anything they can, regardless of how illegal it may be, to usurp the power of the Senate.

Impeachment is a punitive action for high crimes and misdemeanors. A President or Senate doing their job as outlined in the Constitution is neither.

The Constitution gives a sitting president the right to nominate and have his candidate considered.

Okay, so how would that have changed the outcome? They would have heard it and said no, just like the Democrats would have. You people on the left only bring up that issue as spilled milk. It wouldn't have made a hill of beans difference.
 
They can drag this out but not like this. But I say go for it.

What we had under Obama was the Republicans blocking him from getting a vote on a Supreme Court justice. Now the Dem's will attempt to do the same.

So we have had Pelosi running with impeachment to try and stop Trump from doing anything but what is going to happen is the Republicans will do the same thing when a (D) president wins.

Being that we are now run by extremely partisan imbeciles on both sides, gridlock will be a good thing.

That's different because the Republicans had the power to block Obama's nominee. The Democrats as a minority don't have that option available. It would be like if the Democrats led the Senate now. They would be able to block any of Trump's nominees.

So what Piglosi is saying is they will do anything they can, regardless of how illegal it may be, to usurp the power of the Senate.

Impeachment is a punitive action for high crimes and misdemeanors. A President or Senate doing their job as outlined in the Constitution is neither.

The Constitution gives a sitting president the right to nominate and have his candidate considered.

Okay, so how would that have changed the outcome? They would have heard it and said no, just like the Democrats would have. You people on the left only bring up that issue as spilled milk. It wouldn't have made a hill of beans difference.

I think Trump should get his pick considered now just as I believe Obama should have been allowed to have his considered then. You are arguing that the only time a Justice gets confirmed is when the same party holds the White House and Senate.

As I stated in my first post. I'm fine with things falling apart.
 
They can drag this out but not like this. But I say go for it.

What we had under Obama was the Republicans blocking him from getting a vote on a Supreme Court justice. Now the Dem's will attempt to do the same.

So we have had Pelosi running with impeachment to try and stop Trump from doing anything but what is going to happen is the Republicans will do the same thing when a (D) president wins.

Being that we are now run by extremely partisan imbeciles on both sides, gridlock will be a good thing.

That's different because the Republicans had the power to block Obama's nominee. The Democrats as a minority don't have that option available. It would be like if the Democrats led the Senate now. They would be able to block any of Trump's nominees.

So what Piglosi is saying is they will do anything they can, regardless of how illegal it may be, to usurp the power of the Senate.

Impeachment is a punitive action for high crimes and misdemeanors. A President or Senate doing their job as outlined in the Constitution is neither.

The Constitution gives a sitting president the right to nominate and have his candidate considered.
Lies.

The Constitution gives the power to nominate to the President. His power ends there. The Constitution give the advise and consent power to the Senate to do however they see fit.

Ignoring a nomination has been done several times in the past. Nothing Mitch did has not been done before.

The Senate was never permitted to do so.
So? Letting a nomination die on the vine has been done several times. Mitch makes the rules in the Senate.

"Elections have consequences"-Barry Hussein Obama.
 
They can drag this out but not like this. But I say go for it.

What we had under Obama was the Republicans blocking him from getting a vote on a Supreme Court justice. Now the Dem's will attempt to do the same.

So we have had Pelosi running with impeachment to try and stop Trump from doing anything but what is going to happen is the Republicans will do the same thing when a (D) president wins.

Being that we are now run by extremely partisan imbeciles on both sides, gridlock will be a good thing.

That's different because the Republicans had the power to block Obama's nominee. The Democrats as a minority don't have that option available. It would be like if the Democrats led the Senate now. They would be able to block any of Trump's nominees.

So what Piglosi is saying is they will do anything they can, regardless of how illegal it may be, to usurp the power of the Senate.

Impeachment is a punitive action for high crimes and misdemeanors. A President or Senate doing their job as outlined in the Constitution is neither.

The Constitution gives a sitting president the right to nominate and have his candidate considered.
Lies.

The Constitution gives the power to nominate to the President. His power ends there. The Constitution give the advise and consent power to the Senate to do however they see fit.

Ignoring a nomination has been done several times in the past. Nothing Mitch did has not been done before.

The Senate was never permitted to do so.
So? Letting a nomination die on the vine has been done several times. Mitch makes the rules in the Senate.

"Elections have consequences"-Barry Hussein Obama.

My position has nothing to do with personalities. It has to do with the smooth running of the government. So we are going to perhaps have years with fewer than 9 justices or perhaps we will get up to 40 justices. Won't that be fun?
 
Unfreaking believable. Pelosi is threatening Trump with impeachment for doing his constitutional duty.

Pelosi, appearing in an interview with ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos, would not rule out launching impeachment proceedings in order to block the Senate from confirming a nominee from President Donald Trump.


Discuss.

.
Maybe time to launch criminal charges against her for abuse of office............
 
Unfreaking believable. Pelosi is threatening Trump with impeachment for doing his constitutional duty.

Pelosi, appearing in an interview with ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos, would not rule out launching impeachment proceedings in order to block the Senate from confirming a nominee from President Donald Trump.


Discuss.

.
Both sides do shit like that. Try to block the other side no matter what's at stake, just for the sake of blocking the other side. The GOP did it in the Senate for Trump's un-American activities with Ukraine.


Frivolous doesn't come close to defining what Pelosi is contemplating, so try to stay on topic.

.
 
Let her. Her last impeachment was just as valid. And has just as much chance to get through the senate. All it does is show even more how desperate and corrupt the democrats are.

If they did it, it wouldn't be to get Trump thrown out, it would be to try and stall until after the election.
Exactly and even there corrupt ass media could not hide it this time.
 
Let her. In fact, launching an impeachment will have nothing to do with the Senate at all so all it will do is expose her (again) for the lying hypocrite that she is.

It would also give the GOP huge amounts of ammunition to use in the election.
This!!! Let her. Especially before elections!! Hahaha hahaha gun say hi to foot!
 
They can drag this out but not like this. But I say go for it.

What we had under Obama was the Republicans blocking him from getting a vote on a Supreme Court justice. Now the Dem's will attempt to do the same.

So we have had Pelosi running with impeachment to try and stop Trump from doing anything but what is going to happen is the Republicans will do the same thing when a (D) president wins.

Being that we are now run by extremely partisan imbeciles on both sides, gridlock will be a good thing.

That's different because the Republicans had the power to block Obama's nominee. The Democrats as a minority don't have that option available. It would be like if the Democrats led the Senate now. They would be able to block any of Trump's nominees.

So what Piglosi is saying is they will do anything they can, regardless of how illegal it may be, to usurp the power of the Senate.

Impeachment is a punitive action for high crimes and misdemeanors. A President or Senate doing their job as outlined in the Constitution is neither.

The Constitution gives a sitting president the right to nominate and have his candidate considered.

Okay, so how would that have changed the outcome? They would have heard it and said no, just like the Democrats would have. You people on the left only bring up that issue as spilled milk. It wouldn't have made a hill of beans difference.

I think Trump should get his pick considered now just as I believe Obama should have been allowed to have his considered then. You are arguing that the only time a Justice gets confirmed is when the same party holds the White House and Senate.

As I stated in my first post. I'm fine with things falling apart.

That's apples and oranges given who the leadership of the Senate are now and then. You and I both know that with a Republican Senate, there is no way they'd ever give a nod to any of Obama's nominees. All they did was save a lot of time. Now there is a chance that his Senate will confirm her because we also have leadership of the Senate again.
 
Last edited:
Unfreaking believable. Pelosi is threatening Trump with impeachment for doing his constitutional duty.

Pelosi, appearing in an interview with ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos, would not rule out launching impeachment proceedings in order to block the Senate from confirming a nominee from President Donald Trump.


Discuss.

.
So, she won't rule it out. Big deal. Would giving free rein for any crime that comes up or might occur make you feel better if it were a democrat in office. I don't think so. Quit whining.:boo_hoo14:
Um, impeachment is there to use in case a crime might occur, Stupid.

And please explain what crime would occur from President Trump nominating a SC justice as is spelled out in the Constitution.
Not at all inconceivable that a crime will occur with this president. Did anybody say there was anything illegal about nominating a Supreme. I missed it. Post us a link.
Not inconceivable that anyone could commit a crime.

If you want impeachment hearings how about
bringing Pelosi up on charges of obstructing the president of the nation from conducting his legal
constitutionally required duties and business and severely abusing her position as speaker of the house.

There is an impeachment I could get behind.
 
So you democrats want to drag America through another impeachment to save the SC seat? During an election that will kill democrats chances of winning senate seats!? Well ok then.
 
Unfreaking believable. Pelosi is threatening Trump with impeachment for doing his constitutional duty.

Pelosi, appearing in an interview with ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos, would not rule out launching impeachment proceedings in order to block the Senate from confirming a nominee from President Donald Trump.


Discuss.

.
Both sides do shit like that. Try to block the other side no matter what's at stake, just for the sake of blocking the other side. The GOP did it in the Senate for Trump's un-American activities with Ukraine.


Frivolous doesn't come close to defining what Pelosi is contemplating, so try to stay on topic.

.
She's just doing something that the GOP would also do in a heartbeat if the tables were turned. And you're totally delusional if you don't think that they would.
 
They can drag this out but not like this. But I say go for it.

What we had under Obama was the Republicans blocking him from getting a vote on a Supreme Court justice. Now the Dem's will attempt to do the same.

So we have had Pelosi running with impeachment to try and stop Trump from doing anything but what is going to happen is the Republicans will do the same thing when a (D) president wins.

Being that we are now run by extremely partisan imbeciles on both sides, gridlock will be a good thing.

That's different because the Republicans had the power to block Obama's nominee. The Democrats as a minority don't have that option available. It would be like if the Democrats led the Senate now. They would be able to block any of Trump's nominees.

So what Piglosi is saying is they will do anything they can, regardless of how illegal it may be, to usurp the power of the Senate.

Impeachment is a punitive action for high crimes and misdemeanors. A President or Senate doing their job as outlined in the Constitution is neither.

The Constitution gives a sitting president the right to nominate and have his candidate considered.
i wish they would set a timeframe or shut up about who said what. but no - we're back to this shit again.
 
She's just doing something that the GOP would also do in a heartbeat if the tables were turned. And you're totally delusional if you don't think that they would.
That's a child's rationalization. It belongs in preschool.

Everyone is swiping candy from the store...you know you want to.
 
Unfreaking believable. Pelosi is threatening Trump with impeachment for doing his constitutional duty.

Pelosi, appearing in an interview with ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos, would not rule out launching impeachment proceedings in order to block the Senate from confirming a nominee from President Donald Trump.


Discuss.

.
Both sides do shit like that. Try to block the other side no matter what's at stake, just for the sake of blocking the other side. The GOP did it in the Senate for Trump's un-American activities with Ukraine.


Frivolous doesn't come close to defining what Pelosi is contemplating, so try to stay on topic.

.
She's just doing something that the GOP would also do in a heartbeat if the tables were turned. And you're totally delusional if you don't think that they would.

Oh please, the Republicans are not such power hungry animals like the Democrats are. They would never do anything unethical to stop a justice from being nominated. Fight against it yes, but not to illegally use impeachment.
 

Forum List

Back
Top