Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election

wamose

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
6,448
Reaction score
5,448
Points
2,015
Location
Pennsylvania
Schumer is a disrespectful weasel blowing off poor Ruth's death and concentrating on stacking the SC with radical lefties. He forgot about her before she was cold the same way they forgot about Blasey-Ford after Kavanaugh was confirmed. Schumer is a classless opportunist. And his statement about delaying an appointment to give people a say is ridiculous. He says we should wait until we get a new President. Will someone please tell him that this is only Trump's first term. Waiting until 2024 for a new President is an absurd idea that only a buffoon like Schumer or Pelosi would come up with. MAGA
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,108
Reaction score
13,591
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.

Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.

This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
 

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
6,280
Reaction score
3,560
Points
903
Location
Las Vegas
Schumer is a disrespectful weasel blowing off poor Ruth's death and concentrating on stacking the SC with radical lefties. He forgot about her before she was cold the same way they forgot about Blasey-Ford after Kavanaugh was confirmed. Schumer is a classless opportunist. And his statement about delaying an appointment to give people a say is ridiculous. He says we should wait until we get a new President. Will someone please tell him that this is only Trump's first term. Waiting until 2024 for a new President is an absurd idea that only a buffoon like Schumer or Pelosi would come up with. MAGA
He is the most unscrupulous man in the entire East coast
 

xband

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
4,741
Reaction score
670
Points
140
Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
It’s a common practice since Washingto
It's a huge gamble for Republicans and the results could be huge and overwhelming.
I vote for Rudi Giuliani. Go Rudi!
 
Last edited:

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
6,280
Reaction score
3,560
Points
903
Location
Las Vegas
Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.

Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.

This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
Appoint !!!!
 

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
6,280
Reaction score
3,560
Points
903
Location
Las Vegas
White leftist are demons
They’re the only true threat left in America
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
15,095
Reaction score
4,494
Points
275
Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.

Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.

This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
You called him Guido. See the Prog for what they really are. Scalia was murdered.
 

Obiwan

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
11,023
Reaction score
7,289
Points
1,095
Location
Indiana
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

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

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
In case you can't figure it out, the Senate has a say....

And they can change the "precedent" if they want to....

The Democrats did it all the time when THEY were in charge!!!!!
True.

Except instead of changing the precedent set by the other party, turtle is changing his own precedent he set 48 months ago.
In the words of Harry Reid (when forced to admit that he lied on the Senate floor about Romney)...

So what???
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
25,490
Reaction score
11,302
Points
950
Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.

Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.

This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
You called him Guido. See the Prog for what they really are. Scalia was murdered.

Good point. The Friedrichs decision has just gone against Big Labor/ the La Cosa Nostra and was going to cost the Families literally billions of dollars. The only way to stop it was to bump off one of the "aye"votes. You do the math.
 

Johnlaw

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
8,957
Reaction score
5,398
Points
1,055
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

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

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
Sorry Chuck.....we don't negotiate with terrorists.
Just how stupid that comment is beyond description.
 

Johnlaw

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
8,957
Reaction score
5,398
Points
1,055
Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.

Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.

This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
The idea of fair play in the USA is gone. Your word means nothing in politics, especially for Republicans. McConnell’s decision to move forward on a nominee is hypocrisy of the highest order.
 

Darkwind

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
26,770
Reaction score
7,451
Points
290
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

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

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do. If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.

Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act. Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
 

Johnlaw

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
8,957
Reaction score
5,398
Points
1,055
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

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

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do. If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.

Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act. Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
97,098
Reaction score
24,719
Points
2,220
Location
Tested Negative For COVID-19
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

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

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
Sorry Chuck.....we don't negotiate with terrorists.
Just how stupid that comment is beyond description.
Only to a terrorist.
 

Johnlaw

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
8,957
Reaction score
5,398
Points
1,055
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

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

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
Sorry Chuck.....we don't negotiate with terrorists.
Just how stupid that comment is beyond description.
Only to a terrorist.
No to anyone with a friggin brain.
 
Last edited:

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
25,490
Reaction score
11,302
Points
950
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

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

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do. If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.

Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act. Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.

So what if McConnell "made the rule", (even though Joe Biden actually did).

McConnell took a HUGE amount of heat from liberals trying to get him to change the rule. So he did.

So you libs should be happy that The Turtle saw the "error of his ways" and is correcting his course.
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
15,095
Reaction score
4,494
Points
275
Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.

Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.

This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
The idea of fair play in the USA is gone. Your word means nothing in politics, especially for Republicans. McConnell’s decision to move forward on a nominee is hypocrisy of the highest order.
One of the most vile politicians ever in D.C. was Harry Reid. Progs must have had an almost total belief in a sure thing for total control to do things he did. It is possible by Prog standards, he screwed up.
 

DustyInfinity

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
2,504
Reaction score
1,193
Points
210
Location
Midwest
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

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

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
In case you can't figure it out, the Senate has a say....

And they can change the "precedent" if they want to....

The Democrats did it all the time when THEY were in charge!!!!!
True.

Except instead of changing the precedent set by the other party, turtle is changing his own precedent he set 48 months ago.
In the words of Harry Reid (when forced to admit that he lied on the Senate floor about Romney)...

So what???
Good ole Harry was the first open and unapologetic corrupt lifer. His stink still lingers among the cherry trees.
 

DustyInfinity

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
2,504
Reaction score
1,193
Points
210
Location
Midwest
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

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

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do. If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.

Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act. Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
Definitely not a time to revert to our spineless past.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top