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

[Taz]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[bluzman61]

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.

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

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.

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.

Once again, impeachment isn't used in case some future crime might occur, you raving lunatic.

Ruling out closes and option that could become necessary. Learn from 20 years combat operation, always leave options open until must be closed due to circumstance. Found the same thing true in business. Did you learn something different somewhere, or are you just whining because somebody wasn't easy to manipulate?

Meaningless drivel.

Learn what is required for impeachment. Nominating a SC justice as spelled out in the Constitution is not an impeachable offence you raving lunatic.

 

[bluzman61]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[Taz]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

It would be a blatant abuse of power by Nazi Pelousy.

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[bluzman61]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

It would be a blatant abuse of power by Nazi Pelousy.

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

It would be a blatant abuse of power by Nazi Pelousy.

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

You remember correctly. The Republicans had that authority to block his nominee, just as they have the authority now to allow his nominee onto the courts.

 

[Taz]

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.

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

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.

Bullshit.

Did Republicans threaten to impeach Barry Hussein to keep him from carrying out his Constitutional duty of nominating a justice?

They would have had they had something on him. And you know they would have.

If Barry committed a high crime or misdemeanor, as spelled out in the Constitution, they might have impeached.

Nazi is threatening impeachment of Trump if he does his Constitutional duty. If you can't see how that is wrong you have the IQ of a retarded pencil.

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

By impeaching Obama????

Doesn't matter the method, the GOP also blocked Obummer from his Constitutional duty. Tit for tat.

 

[Obiwan]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

It would be a blatant abuse of power by Nazi Pelousy.

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

So let the Democrats in the Senate try to block Trump's appointment.....

Oops, the Democrats fucked that one up already, didn't they....

Now it only takes 51 votes (including the VP as a tiebreaker), instead of 60 to confirm the nominee.....

 

[Taz]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

The Blues are for pussies like you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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

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.

Bullshit.

Did Republicans threaten to impeach Barry Hussein to keep him from carrying out his Constitutional duty of nominating a justice?

They would have had they had something on him. And you know they would have.

If Barry committed a high crime or misdemeanor, as spelled out in the Constitution, they might have impeached.

Nazi is threatening impeachment of Trump if he does his Constitutional duty. If you can't see how that is wrong you have the IQ of a retarded pencil.

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

By impeaching Obama????

Doesn't matter the method, the GOP also blocked Obummer from his Constitutional duty. Tit for tat.

They didn't block him from doing anything. They simply stated they won't hear the case.

 

[Taz]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

It would be a blatant abuse of power by Nazi Pelousy.

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

You remember correctly. The Republicans had that authority to block his nominee, just as they have the authority now to allow his nominee onto the courts.

Tit for tat.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

It would be a blatant abuse of power by Nazi Pelousy.

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

You remember correctly. The Republicans had that authority to block his nominee, just as they have the authority now to allow his nominee onto the courts.

Tit for tat.

No, it's not tit for tat, it's the communists using power they don't have for political purposes. They are usurping the United States Senate.

 

[Taz]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

It would be a blatant abuse of power by Nazi Pelousy.

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

You remember correctly. The Republicans had that authority to block his nominee, just as they have the authority now to allow his nominee onto the courts.

Tit for tat.

No, it's not tit for tat, it's the communists using power they don't have for political purposes. They are usurping the United States Senate.

Communists. LOL! I knew you were deranged from your avatar.

 

[Nostra]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

It would be a blatant abuse of power by Nazi Pelousy.

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

So? They followed the rules, and that has been done several times in the past.

Impeaching a President to obstruct the nomination of a SC justice is abuse of power, you colossal imbecile.

 

[Obiwan]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

It would be a blatant abuse of power by Nazi Pelousy.

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

You remember correctly. The Republicans had that authority to block his nominee, just as they have the authority now to allow his nominee onto the courts.

Tit for tat.

So let the Democrats in the Senate try to block it....

It can't be done!!!!

Elections have consequences...

 

[Missourian]

scotus appointment until after Trump was elected.

...and if the Democrats had won control of the Senate in the not one, but TWO federal election opportunities they've had since Obama's nominee was blocked...they could do the same.

But they haven't...so they can't.

If anything , that failure in itself reinforces the faith of the American electorate in the Judicial judgement of this Senate.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

How many times do you have to be told !!!!
The dems didnt control the senate,too Fucken bad!

 

[Taz]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

It would be a blatant abuse of power by Nazi Pelousy.

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

So? They followed the rules, and that has been done several times in the past.

Impeaching a President to obstruct the nomination of a SC justice is abuse of power, you colossal imbecile.

Using a lawful means to block an appointment. Done by both sides. Your hair splitting technique is an EPIC FAIL!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Swiping candy is illegal, what Pelosi is doing isn't. See the difference?

No. Not at all and like all shallow thinking literalists you miss the entire point and it is not at all "legal" for Pelosi to use impeachment to achieve her political ends (though she does and threatens to do so again).
Not one for conceptual thinking, are you.

Pelosi doesn't have one single ounce of legal or moral right and authority to impeach the president for
appointing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Ginsburg.
Not one! That's what presidents do.
Whether you like it or approve is immaterial. Who tried to impeach Barry Obama for trying to get Merrick Garland on the court as a lame duck president?

It would be a blatant abuse of power by Nazi Pelousy.

I seem to remember the GOP blocking Obummer's court appointee at the end of his second term. Pot. Kettle. Black.

You remember correctly. The Republicans had that authority to block his nominee, just as they have the authority now to allow his nominee onto the courts.

Tit for tat.

No, it's not tit for tat, it's the communists using power they don't have for political purposes. They are usurping the United States Senate.

Communists. LOL! I knew you were deranged from your avatar.

Glad you feel that way. I should have used the word Nazi. it's more appropriate if they would try to do something like this.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Look at you. Spouting the Republican Party lies like a good little sheeple. What Mitch McConnell did with the Merrick Garland nomination has NEVER been done before.

No Senate in history had ever refused to CONSIDER or meet with a nominee previously, and McConnell's excuse - that it was an election year, was bullshit. 11 months prior to the election.