Replacing Ginsberg before the election isn't "unprecedented". Been done 19 times, with 17 confirmations.

[easyt65]

You called Kavanaugh a gang rapist in front of his family and you don’t think they will appoint a new judge!?

Buh-Bam!

Karma / pay-back is a cold bitch.

 

[Penelope]

Turkey neck is going to go for it, let him I say. I love it.

 

[White 6]

Of course it absolutely true, doing so is 180 degrees from his principled/unprincipled? stance of 2016

This part is not true.

1. OBAMA WAS IN HIS LAST YEAR.
2. The Senate was of the opposing party.

You would expect the Dems to reject a Republican nominee too. In fact they have a name for it -- THE BIDEN RULE

Unlikely that can be sold to the public, though popular with the trumper base. It is kind of like people on here talking about coups that were never coups, and now Durham does not have anybody to try for treason or hatching a coup. Popular with the trumper base, but Durham knows he cannot sell it to 12 jurors, much less the public at large. In Mitch's shoes you could call me a lying cocksucker till the cows come home and I still would do the same thing. Would not mean you were wrong, as sometimes it is the calling card of politicians, and I would still know it would be held against me and those under me at the polls, but not all wins are free.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I didn't agree with McConnell doing it in 2016, and I don't agree with the democrats doing it now.

Trump was elected to a four year term, not a three year term. He doesn't suddenly abdicate his Constitutional responsibilities just because it's an election year...

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I didn't agree with McConnell doing it in 2016, and I don't agree with the democrats doing it now.

Trump was elected to a four year term, not a three year term. He doesn't suddenly abdicate his Constitutional responsibilities just because it's an election year...

The senate has the right to REJECT a nominee. They did. Now they choose to accept any qualified Trump nominee. Democrat whining is irrelevant

 

[Norman]

On top of that, we have had 3 confirmations after the sitting President lost the election.


So all the bedwetting by Dimwingers in Congress, and on this board, is nothing more than a diversion from reality. Suck it up Buttercups, Trump is appointing a replacement for Ginsberg.


Sen. Ted Cruz: After Ginsburg -- 3 reasons why Senate must confirm her successor before Election Day


Second, twenty-nine times in our nation’s history we’ve seen a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year or before an inauguration and in every instance, the president proceeded with a nomination.

Nine presidents, including George Washington, Woodrow Wilson, William Taft, and Herbert Hoover, faced with whether to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year, did so before Election Day when their party held the majority in the Senate.

And on nineteen different occasions up to 1968, the president sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy while his own party controlled the Senate. Nine out of the ten nominations made before Election Day were successfully confirmed, while eight out of the nine nominations made after Election Day were also successfully confirmed.

Three presidents, who had already lost the presidential election, have filled lame-duck Supreme Court vacancies.

Sen. Ted Cruz: After Ginsburg -- 3 reasons why Senate must confirm her successor before Election Day

Friday’s news about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death was instantaneously followed by the question of when to fill the vacancy that now stands on the Supreme Court.

www.foxnews.com

Absolutely replace her.

 

[2aguy]

I didn't agree with McConnell doing it in 2016, and I don't agree with the democrats doing it now.

Trump was elected to a four year term, not a three year term. He doesn't suddenly abdicate his Constitutional responsibilities just because it's an election year...

If obama had put up Amy Barret, the Republicans would have confirmed her....he didn't so they didn't give their consent to the America hating, anti-Constitution judge he appointed.

 

[daveman]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016, reaffirmed on Tuesday that he would happily ram through confirmation of one of President Donald Trump’s nominees if a vacancy occurred in the final months of Trump’s term.

Now, his office is defending that statement, claiming it was not a reversal of McConnell’s previous comments on the matter.

McConnell claimed in 2016 that Garland’s nomination by President Barack Obama, following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, should not be brought to a vote because “the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.” In February of that year, he released a statement vowing to keep the seat open so that the next president would be able to fill it.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell’s office desperately tries to rewrite history on Merrick Garland

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) kept Garland from getting a vote, but now says he'd confirm a Trump nominee just before the 2020 election.

archive.thinkprogress.org

They tape this stuff you know Mitch

As I said yesterday, Mitch will definitely move to confirm a nominee, nominated by the president. Of course it absolutely true, doing so is 180 degrees from his principled/unprincipled? stance of 2016. Anybody that thought principle or lack thereof would slow down the process for people like Mitch were living in a dream world. It is equally true that it will not be looked on favorably by the electorate, and will hand the Presidency to the Biden and deliver the Senate to the Democrats. Trump does not give a damn about the Senate, as on his side of the fence they are reduced to boot lickers, place holders, and turncoats to the cult of trump and were probably going to lose the Senate anyway, so they are perfect to take one for the cause, tough patooties.

Everyday, Trump does something that you bozos claim will hand victory to Biden and Democrats.

That won't turn out the way you hope.

 

[daveman]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016, reaffirmed on Tuesday that he would happily ram through confirmation of one of President Donald Trump’s nominees if a vacancy occurred in the final months of Trump’s term.

Now, his office is defending that statement, claiming it was not a reversal of McConnell’s previous comments on the matter.

McConnell claimed in 2016 that Garland’s nomination by President Barack Obama, following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, should not be brought to a vote because “the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.” In February of that year, he released a statement vowing to keep the seat open so that the next president would be able to fill it.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell’s office desperately tries to rewrite history on Merrick Garland

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) kept Garland from getting a vote, but now says he'd confirm a Trump nominee just before the 2020 election.

archive.thinkprogress.org

They tape this stuff you know Mitch

Nobody cares.

Thanks for saying that. I now have enough responses to play back for everyone when the time comes

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016, reaffirmed on Tuesday that he would happily ram through confirmation of one of President Donald Trump’s nominees if a vacancy occurred in the final months of Trump’s term.

Now, his office is defending that statement, claiming it was not a reversal of McConnell’s previous comments on the matter.

McConnell claimed in 2016 that Garland’s nomination by President Barack Obama, following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, should not be brought to a vote because “the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.” In February of that year, he released a statement vowing to keep the seat open so that the next president would be able to fill it.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell’s office desperately tries to rewrite history on Merrick Garland

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) kept Garland from getting a vote, but now says he'd confirm a Trump nominee just before the 2020 election.

archive.thinkprogress.org

They tape this stuff you know Mitch

You know, the Republican Senate actually did its job then. You just didnt like the choice they made. They REJECTED Obama's choice. That is their right. If they decide to approve Trump's nomination, theres not a damn thing tou can do about it.

Ok. If that's how you guys want to play it?

Just remember, you said it.

Make sure you spell our names right this time.

Seriously, what do you idiots expect? Trump has a Constitutional duty to appoint a Justice, and the Senate has the duty to confirm or reject said nominee.

No one -- NO ONE -- is obligated to ignore the Constitution because you idiot children are butthurt.

 

[daveman]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016, reaffirmed on Tuesday that he would happily ram through confirmation of one of President Donald Trump’s nominees if a vacancy occurred in the final months of Trump’s term.

Now, his office is defending that statement, claiming it was not a reversal of McConnell’s previous comments on the matter.

McConnell claimed in 2016 that Garland’s nomination by President Barack Obama, following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, should not be brought to a vote because “the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.” In February of that year, he released a statement vowing to keep the seat open so that the next president would be able to fill it.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell’s office desperately tries to rewrite history on Merrick Garland

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) kept Garland from getting a vote, but now says he'd confirm a Trump nominee just before the 2020 election.

archive.thinkprogress.org

They tape this stuff you know Mitch

Moscow Mitch is getting old , too old and senile.

Coming from a Biden supporter, that's utterly meaningless.

 

[daveman]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016, reaffirmed on Tuesday that he would happily ram through confirmation of one of President Donald Trump’s nominees if a vacancy occurred in the final months of Trump’s term.

Now, his office is defending that statement, claiming it was not a reversal of McConnell’s previous comments on the matter.

McConnell claimed in 2016 that Garland’s nomination by President Barack Obama, following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, should not be brought to a vote because “the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.” In February of that year, he released a statement vowing to keep the seat open so that the next president would be able to fill it.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell’s office desperately tries to rewrite history on Merrick Garland

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) kept Garland from getting a vote, but now says he'd confirm a Trump nominee just before the 2020 election.

archive.thinkprogress.org

They tape this stuff you know Mitch

Nobody cares.

Thanks for saying that. I now have enough responses to play back for everyone when the time comes

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016, reaffirmed on Tuesday that he would happily ram through confirmation of one of President Donald Trump’s nominees if a vacancy occurred in the final months of Trump’s term.

Now, his office is defending that statement, claiming it was not a reversal of McConnell’s previous comments on the matter.

McConnell claimed in 2016 that Garland’s nomination by President Barack Obama, following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, should not be brought to a vote because “the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.” In February of that year, he released a statement vowing to keep the seat open so that the next president would be able to fill it.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell’s office desperately tries to rewrite history on Merrick Garland

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) kept Garland from getting a vote, but now says he'd confirm a Trump nominee just before the 2020 election.

archive.thinkprogress.org

They tape this stuff you know Mitch

You know, the Republican Senate actually did its job then. You just didnt like the choice they made. They REJECTED Obama's choice. That is their right. If they decide to approve Trump's nomination, theres not a damn thing tou can do about it.

Ok. If that's how you guys want to play it?

Just remember, you said it.

I remember when Harry Reid changed the 60 vote rule to a simple majority (which it should be anyway), McConnell warned the Democrats they would live to regret it.

Democrats HATE it when you use their rules against them.

Screw 'em. They're yet again a victim of their own short-sightedness.

 

[daveman]

Turkey neck is going to go for it, let him I say. I love it.

He doesn't need your permission.

I'll give you a moment to deal with the shock.

 

[White 6]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016, reaffirmed on Tuesday that he would happily ram through confirmation of one of President Donald Trump’s nominees if a vacancy occurred in the final months of Trump’s term.

Now, his office is defending that statement, claiming it was not a reversal of McConnell’s previous comments on the matter.

McConnell claimed in 2016 that Garland’s nomination by President Barack Obama, following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, should not be brought to a vote because “the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.” In February of that year, he released a statement vowing to keep the seat open so that the next president would be able to fill it.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell’s office desperately tries to rewrite history on Merrick Garland

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) kept Garland from getting a vote, but now says he'd confirm a Trump nominee just before the 2020 election.

archive.thinkprogress.org

They tape this stuff you know Mitch

As I said yesterday, Mitch will definitely move to confirm a nominee, nominated by the president. Of course it absolutely true, doing so is 180 degrees from his principled/unprincipled? stance of 2016. Anybody that thought principle or lack thereof would slow down the process for people like Mitch were living in a dream world. It is equally true that it will not be looked on favorably by the electorate, and will hand the Presidency to the Biden and deliver the Senate to the Democrats. Trump does not give a damn about the Senate, as on his side of the fence they are reduced to boot lickers, place holders, and turncoats to the cult of trump and were probably going to lose the Senate anyway, so they are perfect to take one for the cause, tough patooties.

Everyday, Trump does something that you bozos claim will hand victory to Biden and Democrats.

That won't turn out the way you hope.

It very welll might. Guess we'll have to wait till the early voting, in person voting and mail in / absentee voting is counted.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Replacing Ginsberg before the election isn't "unprecedented". Been done 19 times, with 17 confirmations.


Why didn’t you post this thread in 2016?

Interesting factoid. Obama did nominate someone to the SCOTUS in 2016. No one stopped him from doing that. Didn't know that, huh?

Merrick Garland

Exactly. Thank you. You lied, Obama made a SCOTUS nomination. You lied and said he wasn't allowed to do that. He was allowed, and he did make a nomination. Please stick to truth and stop lying. Thanks

He was not allowed to fill a seat during his legal term as President.

Republicans did not say Garland is an unacceptable choice, McConnell said......We will not allow you to fill a vacancy during an election year.

Now, it seems, McConnell is saying election year has nothing to do with it. He is saying you are not allowed to fill a seat while an opposition party holds the Senate

The senate didn't stop Obama from filling the seat. All he had to do was to nominate someone acceptable to the republicans. He chose not to nominate anyone when the senate rejected Garland by ignoring the nomination. There was a time, not even that long ago, that SCOTUS nominees were people that both parties could agree on. The Democrats changed that.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016, reaffirmed on Tuesday that he would happily ram through confirmation of one of President Donald Trump’s nominees if a vacancy occurred in the final months of Trump’s term.

Now, his office is defending that statement, claiming it was not a reversal of McConnell’s previous comments on the matter.

McConnell claimed in 2016 that Garland’s nomination by President Barack Obama, following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, should not be brought to a vote because “the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.” In February of that year, he released a statement vowing to keep the seat open so that the next president would be able to fill it.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell’s office desperately tries to rewrite history on Merrick Garland

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) kept Garland from getting a vote, but now says he'd confirm a Trump nominee just before the 2020 election.

archive.thinkprogress.org

They tape this stuff you know Mitch

Nobody cares.

Thanks for saying that. I now have enough responses to play back for everyone when the time comes

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016, reaffirmed on Tuesday that he would happily ram through confirmation of one of President Donald Trump’s nominees if a vacancy occurred in the final months of Trump’s term.

Now, his office is defending that statement, claiming it was not a reversal of McConnell’s previous comments on the matter.

McConnell claimed in 2016 that Garland’s nomination by President Barack Obama, following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, should not be brought to a vote because “the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.” In February of that year, he released a statement vowing to keep the seat open so that the next president would be able to fill it.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell’s office desperately tries to rewrite history on Merrick Garland

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) kept Garland from getting a vote, but now says he'd confirm a Trump nominee just before the 2020 election.

archive.thinkprogress.org

They tape this stuff you know Mitch

You know, the Republican Senate actually did its job then. You just didnt like the choice they made. They REJECTED Obama's choice. That is their right. If they decide to approve Trump's nomination, theres not a damn thing tou can do about it.

Ok. If that's how you guys want to play it?

Just remember, you said it.

I remember when Harry Reid changed the 60 vote rule to a simple majority (which it should be anyway), McConnell warned the Democrats they would live to regret it.

Democrats HATE it when you use their rules against them.

Screw 'em. They're yet again a victim of their own short-sightedness.

McConnell warned Harry Reid they would regret his rule change

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

senate didn't stop Obama from filling the seat. All he had to do was to nominate someone acceptable to the republicans. He chose not to nominate anyone when the senate rejected Garland by ignoring the nomination. There was a time, not even that long ago, that SCOTUS nominees were people that both parties could agree on. The Democrats changed that.

Democrat picks always sail thru 98/2.
But when a Republican president nominates anyone it's always on party lines 51/49

 

[daveman]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016, reaffirmed on Tuesday that he would happily ram through confirmation of one of President Donald Trump’s nominees if a vacancy occurred in the final months of Trump’s term.

Now, his office is defending that statement, claiming it was not a reversal of McConnell’s previous comments on the matter.

McConnell claimed in 2016 that Garland’s nomination by President Barack Obama, following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, should not be brought to a vote because “the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.” In February of that year, he released a statement vowing to keep the seat open so that the next president would be able to fill it.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell’s office desperately tries to rewrite history on Merrick Garland

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) kept Garland from getting a vote, but now says he'd confirm a Trump nominee just before the 2020 election.

archive.thinkprogress.org

They tape this stuff you know Mitch

As I said yesterday, Mitch will definitely move to confirm a nominee, nominated by the president. Of course it absolutely true, doing so is 180 degrees from his principled/unprincipled? stance of 2016. Anybody that thought principle or lack thereof would slow down the process for people like Mitch were living in a dream world. It is equally true that it will not be looked on favorably by the electorate, and will hand the Presidency to the Biden and deliver the Senate to the Democrats. Trump does not give a damn about the Senate, as on his side of the fence they are reduced to boot lickers, place holders, and turncoats to the cult of trump and were probably going to lose the Senate anyway, so they are perfect to take one for the cause, tough patooties.

Everyday, Trump does something that you bozos claim will hand victory to Biden and Democrats.

That won't turn out the way you hope.

It very welll might. Guess we'll have to wait till the early voting, in person voting and mail in / absentee voting is counted.

Does that include all the ballots marked D that are suddenly "found" in close precincts?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016, reaffirmed on Tuesday that he would happily ram through confirmation of one of President Donald Trump’s nominees if a vacancy occurred in the final months of Trump’s term.

Now, his office is defending that statement, claiming it was not a reversal of McConnell’s previous comments on the matter.

McConnell claimed in 2016 that Garland’s nomination by President Barack Obama, following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, should not be brought to a vote because “the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.” In February of that year, he released a statement vowing to keep the seat open so that the next president would be able to fill it.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell’s office desperately tries to rewrite history on Merrick Garland

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) kept Garland from getting a vote, but now says he'd confirm a Trump nominee just before the 2020 election.

archive.thinkprogress.org

They tape this stuff you know Mitch

As I said yesterday, Mitch will definitely move to confirm a nominee, nominated by the president. Of course it absolutely true, doing so is 180 degrees from his principled/unprincipled? stance of 2016. Anybody that thought principle or lack thereof would slow down the process for people like Mitch were living in a dream world. It is equally true that it will not be looked on favorably by the electorate, and will hand the Presidency to the Biden and deliver the Senate to the Democrats. Trump does not give a damn about the Senate, as on his side of the fence they are reduced to boot lickers, place holders, and turncoats to the cult of trump and were probably going to lose the Senate anyway, so they are perfect to take one for the cause, tough patooties.

Everyday, Trump does something that you bozos claim will hand victory to Biden and Democrats.

That won't turn out the way you hope.

It very welll might. Guess we'll have to wait till the early voting, in person voting and mail in / absentee voting is counted.

Does that include all the ballots marked D that are suddenly "found" in close precincts?

We all know that's gonna happen. Republicans always have to win big because of Democrat cheating

 

[kaz]

Replacing Ginsberg before the election isn't "unprecedented". Been done 19 times, with 17 confirmations.


Why didn’t you post this thread in 2016?

Interesting factoid. Obama did nominate someone to the SCOTUS in 2016. No one stopped him from doing that. Didn't know that, huh?

Merrick Garland

Exactly. Thank you. You lied, Obama made a SCOTUS nomination. You lied and said he wasn't allowed to do that. He was allowed, and he did make a nomination. Please stick to truth and stop lying. Thanks

He was not allowed to fill a seat during his legal term as President.

Republicans did not say Garland is an unacceptable choice, McConnell said......We will not allow you to fill a vacancy during an election year.

Now, it seems, McConnell is saying election year has nothing to do with it. He is saying you are not allowed to fill a seat while an opposition party holds the Senate

The senate didn't stop Obama from filling the seat. All he had to do was to nominate someone acceptable to the republicans. He chose not to nominate anyone when the senate rejected Garland by ignoring the nomination. There was a time, not even that long ago, that SCOTUS nominees were people that both parties could agree on. The Democrats changed that.

Yep. Democrats changed that and invented the term to "Bork" someone at the same time. Then they Borked Thomas. Republicans continued to confirm leftist Democrats for two Obama picks, Sotomayor and Kagan.

Failing to confirm far left Garland was the first time they fought back.

Democrats in their typical form do what they do then whine when they get it back

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

We

Replacing Ginsberg before the election isn't "unprecedented". Been done 19 times, with 17 confirmations.


Why didn’t you post this thread in 2016?

Interesting factoid. Obama did nominate someone to the SCOTUS in 2016. No one stopped him from doing that. Didn't know that, huh?

Merrick Garland

Exactly. Thank you. You lied, Obama made a SCOTUS nomination. You lied and said he wasn't allowed to do that. He was allowed, and he did make a nomination. Please stick to truth and stop lying. Thanks

He was not allowed to fill a seat during his legal term as President.

Republicans did not say Garland is an unacceptable choice, McConnell said......We will not allow you to fill a vacancy during an election year.

Now, it seems, McConnell is saying election year has nothing to do with it. He is saying you are not allowed to fill a seat while an opposition party holds the Senate

The senate didn't stop Obama from filling the seat. All he had to do was to nominate someone acceptable to the republicans. He chose not to nominate anyone when the senate rejected Garland by ignoring the nomination. There was a time, not even that long ago, that SCOTUS nominees were people that both parties could agree on. The Democrats changed that.

Yep. Democrats changed that and invented the term to "Bork" someone at the same time. Then they Borked Thomas. Republicans continued to confirm leftist Democrats for two Obama picks, Sotomayor and Kagan.

Failing to confirm far left Garland was the first time they fought back.

Democrats in their typical form do what they do then whine when they get it back

We dont repay them for their bad behavior. We really need to start.