Republican Senator admits Supreme Court block is Partisan

[Skylar]

Except that they didn't....Kennedy got confirmed, and Bork at least got hearings.

And partisan politics had nothing to Bork not being confirmed?

There is no time frame in the Constitution, to hold Senate hearings.

No, actually, "ethics" had to do with Bord not being confirmed.

Out of 54 Democrats, 2 voted for confirmation. Out of 46 Republicans, 6 voted against confirmation.

Again partisan politics were played. It always has and always will.

So he got a hearing correct? They made arguments against a candidate and then voted him down. That's following procedure exactly as planned. Not even holding a hearing, or even "meeting" the nominee, however, is not normal.

when the outcome is already known, what is gained by wasting time with a hearing?

this is nothing but political bullshit from both sides. accept it for what it is and ignore it, its much ado about nothing.

The president is constitutionally required to nominate a justice for the supreme court. He has. The senate refuses to even hold a hearing. Let alone a vote. And that's where they failed.

Trying to blame their refusal to even hold a hearing on Obama.......is laughable. And another superb demonstration that in the party of personal responsibility...its always someone else's fault.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama will not be allowed to appoint another SCOTUS, boohoo. Also the wall will be built, illegals will be deported, coal will dug and burned, oil will be drilled and refined, you libs are in for some rough times.

 

[Papageorgio]

Wow, Republicans are partisans! I'll let everyone in on another secret, the Democrats are partisan to! If the roles were reversed the Democratic Party would do the same.

Lol!

Except that they didn't....Kennedy got confirmed, and Bork at least got hearings.

And partisan politics had nothing to Bork not being confirmed?

There is no time frame in the Constitution, to hold Senate hearings.

No, actually, "ethics" had to do with Bord not being confirmed.

Out of 54 Democrats, 2 voted for confirmation. Out of 46 Republicans, 6 voted against confirmation.

Again partisan politics were played. It always has and always will.

So he got a hearing correct? They made arguments against a candidate and then voted him down. That's following procedure exactly as planned. Not even holding a hearing, or even "meeting" the nominee, however, is not normal.

Right it is partisan, just as when Biden threaten, just as many have done in the past. Did you honestly not believe the Republicans were not being partisan. When the possibility was for the Democrats they said the same. Are you really that partisan that you don't see it?

 

[Redfish]

GOP Senator Gets Honest: 'Trust Me, We Will Not Allow The Supreme Court To Flip'

“No, trust me, we will not allow the Supreme Court to flip,” Johnson told a Wisconsin radio station on Friday. “It’s not going to happen.”

“When other Americans, other than the members of the press, can get their message out, the press’s power is reduced. You engage in campaign finance reform, which restricts free speech, that makes a few members of the press have all the more power. So the press is really not for freedom of speech. They like restrictions in speech because it gives them more power. So again, they want to see the Supreme Court flipped. I got that.”

In an attempt to block campaign finance reform...Senate Republicans are blocking a Supreme Court nomination, to prevent it from being "flipped". There is nothing the Republicans have against the nominee Obama put up in particular...it's all just partisan obstruction of Constitutional duties.

CNN.com - Democrats grill Supreme Court nominee - Jan 11, 2006

At least he got a hearing.

Not just a hearing. He got the confirmation.

Republicans won't even hold a hearing. Which they blame on democrats.

See, in the party of personal responsibility...its always someone else's fault. The folks least responsible for Republican policy....are republicans.

the outcome is already known, what would be accomplished by wasting time with a hearing?

 

[Skylar]

Since its completely obvious you can't show us even ONE example of the democrats ever refusing to conduct a hearing on a presidential nominee for the Supreme Court because the 'next president should decide......when did Harry Reid 'shut down the government'?

Magic Negro, huh? And republicans wonder why black folks don't vote for them.

A vote for a democrat is a vote for whites. We can count on democrats keeping blacks on the plantation.

Keep babbling about the 'magic negro'. I'm sure that will convince them to vote republican.

I mean, it always has before, right?

Nothing has changed for blacks under Obama. They are still the race with the highest unemployment rate by far. Black unemployment stats for 25 and under is staggering. But whites seem to be doing fine. Of course that doesn't take into account the amount of whiles who stopped looking for a job and don't count against unemployment, but I digress. Please, keep voting democrat. White people thank you. It's the big dirty secret in politics. LOL

Laughing......and republicans and their 'magic negro' babble are going to do better or black folks, huh?

Odd that they don't believe you.

The stats don't lie. Really, why would a white person care if blacks constantly vote for a party that does nothing for them. LOL

And with your 'magic negro' babble, why do you think blacks would believe the republicans would do any better for them?

 

[Fang]

And partisan politics had nothing to Bork not being confirmed?

There is no time frame in the Constitution, to hold Senate hearings.

No, actually, "ethics" had to do with Bord not being confirmed.

Out of 54 Democrats, 2 voted for confirmation. Out of 46 Republicans, 6 voted against confirmation.

Again partisan politics were played. It always has and always will.

So he got a hearing correct? They made arguments against a candidate and then voted him down. That's following procedure exactly as planned. Not even holding a hearing, or even "meeting" the nominee, however, is not normal.

when the outcome is already known, what is gained by wasting time with a hearing?

this is nothing but political bullshit from both sides. accept it for what it is and ignore it, its much ado about nothing.

The president is constitutionally required to nominate a justice for the supreme court. He has. The senate refuses to even hold a hearing. Let alone a vote. And that's where they failed.

They're doing what they were voted into office to do. You've lost this debate.

A vote for a democrat is a vote for whites. We can count on democrats keeping blacks on the plantation.

Keep babbling about the 'magic negro'. I'm sure that will convince them to vote republican.

I mean, it always has before, right?

Nothing has changed for blacks under Obama. They are still the race with the highest unemployment rate by far. Black unemployment stats for 25 and under is staggering. But whites seem to be doing fine. Of course that doesn't take into account the amount of whiles who stopped looking for a job and don't count against unemployment, but I digress. Please, keep voting democrat. White people thank you. It's the big dirty secret in politics. LOL

Laughing......and republicans and their 'magic negro' babble are going to do better or black folks, huh?

Odd that they don't believe you.

The stats don't lie. Really, why would a white person care if blacks constantly vote for a party that does nothing for them. LOL

And with your 'magic negro' babble, why do you think blacks would believe the republicans would do any better for them?

I never used that term. Go back and show me. And if someone else did it's no worse then what Harry Reid has said.

 

[Skylar]

No, actually, "ethics" had to do with Bord not being confirmed.

Out of 54 Democrats, 2 voted for confirmation. Out of 46 Republicans, 6 voted against confirmation.

Again partisan politics were played. It always has and always will.

So he got a hearing correct? They made arguments against a candidate and then voted him down. That's following procedure exactly as planned. Not even holding a hearing, or even "meeting" the nominee, however, is not normal.

when the outcome is already known, what is gained by wasting time with a hearing?

this is nothing but political bullshit from both sides. accept it for what it is and ignore it, its much ado about nothing.

The president is constitutionally required to nominate a justice for the supreme court. He has. The senate refuses to even hold a hearing. Let alone a vote. And that's where they failed.

They're doing what they were voted into office to do. You've lost this debate.

They were voted into office to NOT perform their duties?

Says who?

I never used that term. Go back and show me. And if someone else did it's no worse then what Harry Reid has said.

But your ilk does regularly. Now why would black folk think they'd get better policy for them under the 'magic negro' babble of the republican party, darling of the White Nationalist Movement.........than the do the democrats?

 

[Redfish]

And partisan politics had nothing to Bork not being confirmed?

There is no time frame in the Constitution, to hold Senate hearings.

No, actually, "ethics" had to do with Bord not being confirmed.

Out of 54 Democrats, 2 voted for confirmation. Out of 46 Republicans, 6 voted against confirmation.

Again partisan politics were played. It always has and always will.

So he got a hearing correct? They made arguments against a candidate and then voted him down. That's following procedure exactly as planned. Not even holding a hearing, or even "meeting" the nominee, however, is not normal.

when the outcome is already known, what is gained by wasting time with a hearing?

this is nothing but political bullshit from both sides. accept it for what it is and ignore it, its much ado about nothing.

The president is constitutionally required to nominate a justice for the supreme court. He has. The senate refuses to even hold a hearing. Let alone a vote. And that's where they failed.

Trying to blame their refusal to even hold a hearing on Obama.......is laughable. And another superb demonstration that in the party of personal responsibility...its always someone else's fault.

there are no time limits specified in the constitution. The senate is charged with "advice and consent" on SC nominees, again with no time limits. The senate has provided its "advice and consent" by telling Obama that no hearings will be held on this nominee. Both parties have fulfilled their constitutional duties. You libs don't like the outcome----------------------tough shit

 

[Skylar]

No, actually, "ethics" had to do with Bord not being confirmed.

Out of 54 Democrats, 2 voted for confirmation. Out of 46 Republicans, 6 voted against confirmation.

Again partisan politics were played. It always has and always will.

So he got a hearing correct? They made arguments against a candidate and then voted him down. That's following procedure exactly as planned. Not even holding a hearing, or even "meeting" the nominee, however, is not normal.

when the outcome is already known, what is gained by wasting time with a hearing?

this is nothing but political bullshit from both sides. accept it for what it is and ignore it, its much ado about nothing.

The president is constitutionally required to nominate a justice for the supreme court. He has. The senate refuses to even hold a hearing. Let alone a vote. And that's where they failed.

Trying to blame their refusal to even hold a hearing on Obama.......is laughable. And another superb demonstration that in the party of personal responsibility...its always someone else's fault.

there are no time limits specified in the constitution. The senate is charged with "advice and consent" on SC nominees, again with no time limits. The senate has provided its "advice and consent" by telling Obama that no hearings will be held on this nominee. Both parties have fulfilled their constitutional duties. You libs don't like the outcome----------------------tough shit

So if they Senate never voted on another Supreme Court justice again.....they'd be perfectly in line with the Constitution according to you?

 

[Papageorgio]

Out of 54 Democrats, 2 voted for confirmation. Out of 46 Republicans, 6 voted against confirmation.

Again partisan politics were played. It always has and always will.

So he got a hearing correct? They made arguments against a candidate and then voted him down. That's following procedure exactly as planned. Not even holding a hearing, or even "meeting" the nominee, however, is not normal.

when the outcome is already known, what is gained by wasting time with a hearing?

this is nothing but political bullshit from both sides. accept it for what it is and ignore it, its much ado about nothing.

The president is constitutionally required to nominate a justice for the supreme court. He has. The senate refuses to even hold a hearing. Let alone a vote. And that's where they failed.

Trying to blame their refusal to even hold a hearing on Obama.......is laughable. And another superb demonstration that in the party of personal responsibility...its always someone else's fault.

there are no time limits specified in the constitution. The senate is charged with "advice and consent" on SC nominees, again with no time limits. The senate has provided its "advice and consent" by telling Obama that no hearings will be held on this nominee. Both parties have fulfilled their constitutional duties. You libs don't like the outcome----------------------tough shit

So if they Senate never voted on another Supreme Court justice again.....they'd be perfectly in line with the Constitution according to you?

Where are they failing their duties. What is the Constitutional timeline that the Senate has to follow?

 

[BlindBoo]

GOP Senator Gets Honest: 'Trust Me, We Will Not Allow The Supreme Court To Flip'

“No, trust me, we will not allow the Supreme Court to flip,” Johnson told a Wisconsin radio station on Friday. “It’s not going to happen.”

“When other Americans, other than the members of the press, can get their message out, the press’s power is reduced. You engage in campaign finance reform, which restricts free speech, that makes a few members of the press have all the more power. So the press is really not for freedom of speech. They like restrictions in speech because it gives them more power. So again, they want to see the Supreme Court flipped. I got that.”

In an attempt to block campaign finance reform...Senate Republicans are blocking a Supreme Court nomination, to prevent it from being "flipped". There is nothing the Republicans have against the nominee Obama put up in particular...it's all just partisan obstruction of Constitutional duties.

CNN.com - Democrats grill Supreme Court nominee - Jan 11, 2006

At least he got a hearing.

Not just a hearing. He got the confirmation.

Republicans won't even hold a hearing. Which they blame on democrats.

See, in the party of personal responsibility...its always someone else's fault. The folks least responsible for Republican policy....are republicans.

It's just another Albatross the Republicans have hung around their necks.

 

[Skylar]

So he got a hearing correct? They made arguments against a candidate and then voted him down. That's following procedure exactly as planned. Not even holding a hearing, or even "meeting" the nominee, however, is not normal.

when the outcome is already known, what is gained by wasting time with a hearing?

this is nothing but political bullshit from both sides. accept it for what it is and ignore it, its much ado about nothing.

The president is constitutionally required to nominate a justice for the supreme court. He has. The senate refuses to even hold a hearing. Let alone a vote. And that's where they failed.

Trying to blame their refusal to even hold a hearing on Obama.......is laughable. And another superb demonstration that in the party of personal responsibility...its always someone else's fault.

there are no time limits specified in the constitution. The senate is charged with "advice and consent" on SC nominees, again with no time limits. The senate has provided its "advice and consent" by telling Obama that no hearings will be held on this nominee. Both parties have fulfilled their constitutional duties. You libs don't like the outcome----------------------tough shit

So if they Senate never voted on another Supreme Court justice again.....they'd be perfectly in line with the Constitution according to you?

Where are they failing their duties. What is the Constitutional timeline that the Senate has to follow?

So if the Senate never holds a hearing for another supreme court nominee, nor ever confirms another justice to the Supreme Court....per you, they've met their constitutional duties?

 

[Skylar]

GOP Senator Gets Honest: 'Trust Me, We Will Not Allow The Supreme Court To Flip'

“No, trust me, we will not allow the Supreme Court to flip,” Johnson told a Wisconsin radio station on Friday. “It’s not going to happen.”

“When other Americans, other than the members of the press, can get their message out, the press’s power is reduced. You engage in campaign finance reform, which restricts free speech, that makes a few members of the press have all the more power. So the press is really not for freedom of speech. They like restrictions in speech because it gives them more power. So again, they want to see the Supreme Court flipped. I got that.”

In an attempt to block campaign finance reform...Senate Republicans are blocking a Supreme Court nomination, to prevent it from being "flipped". There is nothing the Republicans have against the nominee Obama put up in particular...it's all just partisan obstruction of Constitutional duties.

CNN.com - Democrats grill Supreme Court nominee - Jan 11, 2006

At least he got a hearing.

Not just a hearing. He got the confirmation.

Republicans won't even hold a hearing. Which they blame on democrats.

See, in the party of personal responsibility...its always someone else's fault. The folks least responsible for Republican policy....are republicans.

It's just another Albatross the Republicans have hung around their necks.

This is just ******* stupid. Even George Will gave the GOP a great big 'WTF, dude' on this issue.

 

[bendog]

Obama plays McConnell like a bad gong. Of course it's political, and no the dems really have not done the same thing to a goper president, and the closet parallel was when the dem senate confirmed Kennedy .... but the scoutus was already GOP leaning then, so whether the gop is right in not even considering Garland is not really the issue. The issue is that the dems will do this to the gop someday in the future .... but they might have anyway.

But Obama nominated a guy who truly is not a judicial activist. He largely defers to the authority of the other two branches. Obama knows Garland has no chance, but the nomination both illustrates the gop is actually the party preferring activist judges, and McConnell is facing his own senators telling him, "JFC if Trump loses, which he will, Hillary will go left of Sontomayor!"

 

[Redfish]

Out of 54 Democrats, 2 voted for confirmation. Out of 46 Republicans, 6 voted against confirmation.

Again partisan politics were played. It always has and always will.

So he got a hearing correct? They made arguments against a candidate and then voted him down. That's following procedure exactly as planned. Not even holding a hearing, or even "meeting" the nominee, however, is not normal.

when the outcome is already known, what is gained by wasting time with a hearing?

this is nothing but political bullshit from both sides. accept it for what it is and ignore it, its much ado about nothing.

The president is constitutionally required to nominate a justice for the supreme court. He has. The senate refuses to even hold a hearing. Let alone a vote. And that's where they failed.

Trying to blame their refusal to even hold a hearing on Obama.......is laughable. And another superb demonstration that in the party of personal responsibility...its always someone else's fault.

there are no time limits specified in the constitution. The senate is charged with "advice and consent" on SC nominees, again with no time limits. The senate has provided its "advice and consent" by telling Obama that no hearings will be held on this nominee. Both parties have fulfilled their constitutional duties. You libs don't like the outcome----------------------tough shit

So if they Senate never voted on another Supreme Court justice again.....they'd be perfectly in line with the Constitution according to you?

technically yes. but that's not going to happen. face reality, neither party is going to let a lame duck president from the other party appoint a SC justice. Biden made that very clear, as did Schumer.

 

[Redfish]

GOP Senator Gets Honest: 'Trust Me, We Will Not Allow The Supreme Court To Flip'

In an attempt to block campaign finance reform...Senate Republicans are blocking a Supreme Court nomination, to prevent it from being "flipped". There is nothing the Republicans have against the nominee Obama put up in particular...it's all just partisan obstruction of Constitutional duties.

CNN.com - Democrats grill Supreme Court nominee - Jan 11, 2006

At least he got a hearing.

Not just a hearing. He got the confirmation.

Republicans won't even hold a hearing. Which they blame on democrats.

See, in the party of personal responsibility...its always someone else's fault. The folks least responsible for Republican policy....are republicans.

It's just another Albatross the Republicans have hung around their necks.

This is just ******* stupid. Even George Will gave the GOP a great big 'WTF, dude' on this issue.

George Will???? well holy shit, I'm sure that has them shaking in their boots.

 

[Redfish]

Obama plays McConnell like a bad gong. Of course it's political, and no the dems really have not done the same thing to a goper president, and the closet parallel was when the dem senate confirmed Kennedy .... but the scoutus was already GOP leaning then, so whether the gop is right in not even considering Garland is not really the issue. The issue is that the dems will do this to the gop someday in the future .... but they might have anyway.

But Obama nominated a guy who truly is not a judicial activist. He largely defers to the authority of the other two branches. Obama knows Garland has no chance, but the nomination both illustrates the gop is actually the party preferring activist judges, and McConnell is facing his own senators telling him, "JFC if Trump loses, which he will, Hillary will go left of Sontomayor!"

the guy is anti 2nd amendment. that alone gets him more nays than ayes.

 

[Papageorgio]

when the outcome is already known, what is gained by wasting time with a hearing?

this is nothing but political bullshit from both sides. accept it for what it is and ignore it, its much ado about nothing.

The president is constitutionally required to nominate a justice for the supreme court. He has. The senate refuses to even hold a hearing. Let alone a vote. And that's where they failed.

Trying to blame their refusal to even hold a hearing on Obama.......is laughable. And another superb demonstration that in the party of personal responsibility...its always someone else's fault.

there are no time limits specified in the constitution. The senate is charged with "advice and consent" on SC nominees, again with no time limits. The senate has provided its "advice and consent" by telling Obama that no hearings will be held on this nominee. Both parties have fulfilled their constitutional duties. You libs don't like the outcome----------------------tough shit

So if they Senate never voted on another Supreme Court justice again.....they'd be perfectly in line with the Constitution according to you?

Where are they failing their duties. What is the Constitutional timeline that the Senate has to follow?

So if the Senate never holds a hearing for another supreme court nominee, nor ever confirms another justice to the Supreme Court....per you, they've met their constitutional duties?

That won't happen so the question is irrelevant. The Senate does not have to have a timeline to hold hearings. They could hold hearings this summer or this fall or next year.

 

[Papageorgio]

Obama plays McConnell like a bad gong. Of course it's political, and no the dems really have not done the same thing to a goper president, and the closet parallel was when the dem senate confirmed Kennedy .... but the scoutus was already GOP leaning then, so whether the gop is right in not even considering Garland is not really the issue. The issue is that the dems will do this to the gop someday in the future .... but they might have anyway.

But Obama nominated a guy who truly is not a judicial activist. He largely defers to the authority of the other two branches. Obama knows Garland has no chance, but the nomination both illustrates the gop is actually the party preferring activist judges, and McConnell is facing his own senators telling him, "JFC if Trump loses, which he will, Hillary will go left of Sontomayor!"

the guy is anti 2nd amendment. that alone gets him more nays than ayes.

The Senate should hold hearings in the summer and then vote him down. I think it will force Obama to choose a moderate. Then see how the election goes before hearings.

 

[bendog]

Obama plays McConnell like a bad gong. Of course it's political, and no the dems really have not done the same thing to a goper president, and the closet parallel was when the dem senate confirmed Kennedy .... but the scoutus was already GOP leaning then, so whether the gop is right in not even considering Garland is not really the issue. The issue is that the dems will do this to the gop someday in the future .... but they might have anyway.

But Obama nominated a guy who truly is not a judicial activist. He largely defers to the authority of the other two branches. Obama knows Garland has no chance, but the nomination both illustrates the gop is actually the party preferring activist judges, and McConnell is facing his own senators telling him, "JFC if Trump loses, which he will, Hillary will go left of Sontomayor!"

the guy is anti 2nd amendment. that alone gets him more nays than ayes.

Not really. It was 5-4 whether there was an individual right. The only way Heller isn't reversed is if the next judge believes stare decisis controls the issue, and it's settled. Garland was pretty much the best bet besides the Governor from Nev.

The Gop wanted Roberts to rule the congress doesn't have the power to tax people over healthcare because it's not spelled out in the constitution. But that's the same argument used 100 years ago to argue a progressive income tax was unconstitutional. It's about 70-30 that the dems will keep the WH. Obama got Mitch bent over a desk. LOL