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?

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...

I personally don't care who gets appointed, just pointing out that both sides will have used legal blocking techniques. (I'm a Libertarian).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

.

this is wonderful news how many voters will the republicans gain over this lawless shit?

 

[Nostra]

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.

What Mitch McConnell did with the Merrick Garland nomination has NEVER been done before.

Been done several times. Your continued ignorance of our system and history is astounding. Why do you come here on a daily basis and humiliate yourself with you complete lack of knowledge?

 

[Taz]

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.

"the Judicial judgement of this Senate"? Like letting an impeached President go without even blinking an eye? Ummm... No.

 

[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.

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

It can't be done!!!!

Elections have consequences...

I personally don't care who gets appointed, just pointing out that both sides will have used legal blocking techniques. (I'm a Libertarian).

It's not legal, it's unconstitutional. Impeachment is the process used against somebody for committing impeachable acts or high crimes and misdemeanors. Nancy would need to leave her seat and office because she violated her oath to uphold the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

so you gave your opinion now how about showing some supporting links that supports your opinion.

 

[Nostra]

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.

"the Judicial judgement of this Senate"? Like letting an impeached President go without even blinking an eye? Ummm... No.

the House Clowns had no case. That's why Trump was exonerated.

 

[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...

I personally don't care who gets appointed, just pointing out that both sides will have used legal blocking techniques. (I'm a Libertarian).

So you consider an impeachment without even a hint of legal grounds to be a legal blocking technique???

I hate to tell you this, but Trump's approval rating went up during the last impeachment....

Something this frivolous would send it into the stratosphere....

 

[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.

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

It can't be done!!!!

Elections have consequences...

I personally don't care who gets appointed, just pointing out that both sides will have used legal blocking techniques. (I'm a Libertarian).

It's not legal, it's unconstitutional. Impeachment is the process used against somebody for committing impeachable acts or high crimes and misdemeanors. Nancy would need to leave her seat and office because she violated her oath to uphold the Constitution.

Boo fucking hoo. Need a tissue?

 

[Taz]

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.

"the Judicial judgement of this Senate"? Like letting an impeached President go without even blinking an eye? Ummm... No.

the House Clowns had no case. That's why Trump was exonerated.

he had ALREADY been impeached. So yes, there was a case. the GOP didn't even look at it and let Trump walk. Talk about clowns to left of and clowns to the right...

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Actually is has been done before, only twice of 8 times has a supreme court nominee been confirmed when the WH and senate were held by different parties in an election year, in US history. That's reality.

.

 

[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.

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

It can't be done!!!!

Elections have consequences...

I personally don't care who gets appointed, just pointing out that both sides will have used legal blocking techniques. (I'm a Libertarian).

It's not legal, it's unconstitutional. Impeachment is the process used against somebody for committing impeachable acts or high crimes and misdemeanors. Nancy would need to leave her seat and office because she violated her oath to uphold the Constitution.

Boo fucking hoo. Need a tissue?

Oh come on man, are you some kind of junkie or something? I'm not crying about anything, and even Piglosi knows she'd end up in a world of shit for trying such a stunt.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

this is wonderful news how many voters will the republicans gain over this lawless shit?

A bunch, I hope.

.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

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.

Trump tried to get Ukraine to help him win re-election. That's much, much worse than what Pelosi is doing.

How did Trump do that when he didn't even know who he'd be running against? And what law is there that a President cannot ask another world leader to look into a matter of impropriety?

I'm not even going there, you know what he did was wrong.

What he did was appropriate.
We did after all have Hiden admit it on national TV.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

"the Judicial judgement of this Senate"? Like letting an impeached President go without even blinking an eye? Ummm... No.

the House Clowns had no case. That's why Trump was exonerated.

he had ALREADY been impeached. So yes, there was a case. the GOP didn't even look at it and let Trump walk. Talk about clowns to left of and clowns to the right...

Right, because none of the Republican Senators watched the House clown show. They were at the bar.,

 

[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.

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

It can't be done!!!!

Elections have consequences...

I personally don't care who gets appointed, just pointing out that both sides will have used legal blocking techniques. (I'm a Libertarian).

So you consider an impeachment without even a hint of legal grounds to be a legal blocking technique???

I hate to tell you this, but Trump's approval rating went up during the last impeachment....

Something this frivolous would send it into the stratosphere....

From what I can tell, Trump is behind in the polls to a guy that doesn't even have all his marbles. Not a pretty sight, lol.

As far as the SCOTUS thing goes, both sides are insane, it's like watching some bizarro world cartoon.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

We've been through this already...several times.

 

[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.

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.

Trump tried to get Ukraine to help him win re-election. That's much, much worse than what Pelosi is doing.

How did Trump do that when he didn't even know who he'd be running against? And what law is there that a President cannot ask another world leader to look into a matter of impropriety?

I'm not even going there, you know what he did was wrong.

What he did was appropriate.
We did after all have Hiden admit it on national TV.

Asking a foreign country to make up some dirt on his main rival or they get no $$$? Geez, maybe I'm not talking to a sane person.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

No they didn’t. Obama completed his constitutional duty by appointing Merrick. The republicans completed their constitutional duty by privately considering him and rejecting him. Where does the Constitution call for public senate hearings to consider a nominee?

 

[eagle1462010]

Desperate people do desperate things............

Please send your extra anti deodorant to the DNC as quickly as possible.......sweat glands are working overtime there.