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

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
4,186
Reaction score
2,100
Points
920
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.
McConnell made the rule.

NO


Biden made the rule. in 1992
Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion. An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.


(psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)

and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.
No it's not. Are you familiar with the Nuclear Option and the Senate Rules? Biden wasn't a Senator when Ried and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees.
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
13,999
Reaction score
3,816
Points
275
Fuck the Schmuck...

Trump should go for it!!!!
He will, of course. And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP. One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.

The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble. This vision is being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy.

Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago, have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.
You're just mad because McConnell is going to do exactly what the Democrats would do in this situation. The Democrats would do as they please and not give a damn about the opposition.

I encourage EVERY Republican to do the same, and continue to do just that until the Democrats learn to negotiate and compromise.
Mad? Have you not read through this thread and the comments above, (mostly ad hominems)?

Maybe you need to touch base with reality, making this false allegation that Democrats won't negotiate or compromise is ludicrous.
Politicians have gotten worse. And Progs do not compromise. They have to get their "cut" in every negotiation even if they are not in power.
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
4,186
Reaction score
2,100
Points
920
Fuck the Schmuck...

Trump should go for it!!!!
He will, of course. And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP. One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.

The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble. This vision is being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy.

Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago, have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.
I remember reading forums and not this one when Scalia died. He was roasted and laughed at. The media gave a grudging respect to him. Contrast that to now with Ginsberg. She could do no wrong as she is sanctified. She is a murderer. No progression of rights can be cemented without primal ways interfering with it if things become bad. It is just what the alignments are when it occurs. There are a lot of people who have scores to settle. And would if they were suddenly empowered in some way if the worse happens with an economic downturn or something similar.
Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. Your use of murder / homicide in this post is untrue, and nothing more than an echo of a BIG LIE.
 

WillHaftawaite

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
60,516
Reaction score
18,288
Points
2,250
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.
McConnell made the rule.

NO


Biden made the rule. in 1992
Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion. An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.


(psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)

and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.
No it's not. Are you familiar with the Nuclear Option and the Senate Rules? Biden wasn't a Senator when Ried and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees.
" Biden wasn't a Senator when Reid and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees."

NO, but he WAS a senator when he stated, on the record, that a Justice not be confirmed prior to an election.


or did you not watch the video?
 

Otium

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
24,581
Reaction score
8,420
Points
2,295
Location
South Florida
Fuck the Schmuck...

Trump should go for it!!!!
He will, of course. And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP. One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.

The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble. This vision is being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy.

Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago, have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.
" Real Republicans" ? Like Romney? Flake? Bush? LOL.


We call them RINOs. With expendable "values".

Let's see. According to Senate records? Justices Ginsberg, Stevens and O'Connor were al confirmed in short periods of time.


Stevens took 19 days, O'Connor took 33 and Ginsboig took 42.


We got this.

I hope Trump goes for Estrada. Let the unhinged left / media/Dems demonize a Hispanic heading into Nov 3.
 
Last edited:

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
15,823
Reaction score
6,439
Points
400
Okay...if you say so, as you did in 2016, Joe.

A man of deep wisdom and honor, such as yourself, would not argue forcefully for the Obama nominee
Merrick Garland to go through the process of appointment to the court, during the elections of 2016, and then just three years later, claim the republicans cannot dare to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg under similar circumstances and conditions. No one could be that tone deaf.

That would make you look like an old fraud. A hypocrite. A lying partisan stooge saying anything to gain political advantage one year and then the exact opposite the next as it benefits the party you shill for.

Is this how you wish to be remembered, Joe, as you spend you last days in the public eye before a stinging
landslide loss in yet another failed attempt to become president?

Look back at what you said about Merrick Garland and see if it doesn't clash furiously with what you
claim now. And think how that makes you look....like a deceitful old hack who will say and do anything
to gain political advantage. And then be willing to switch back again and contradict you own words
if that's what the political moment calls for.
Yes, Merrick Garland MUST be put onto the court. But NO, we cannot allow the successor to Ginsburg
the same treatment. Sad.

That's not a man who should be president of the United States of America. That's a cynical, vain political
windsock of a man, willing to go in any direction at any time, depending on how political winds blow, if it brings advantage to your party.
You're a sorry sad old man, Joe Biden. Here's hoping you get to meet Ruth Ginsburg very soon.
 
Last edited:

Otium

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
24,581
Reaction score
8,420
Points
2,295
Location
South Florida
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.
McConnell made the rule.

NO


Biden made the rule. in 1992
Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion. An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.


(psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)

and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.
No it's not. Are you familiar with the Nuclear Option and the Senate Rules? Biden wasn't a Senator when Ried and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees.
" Biden wasn't a Senator when Reid and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees."

NO, but he WAS a senator when he stated, on the record, that a Justice not be confirmed prior to an election.


or did you not watch the video?

So what? Biden has said a lot of foolish things both prior to his dementia onset and since.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
115,615
Reaction score
28,420
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
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.
The American people surely support a political Party that loves criminals, hates the Constitution and wants to reeducate people who don't fall in lock step with their Communist ideology!
 

wamose

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
6,087
Reaction score
4,858
Points
2,015
Location
Pennsylvania
Ginsburg was a blatant partisan who didn't belong on the court in the first place. She was a radical activist whose claim to fame was her support of women's rights, otherwise known as killing babies. I see no major accomplishments on her resume. I also see no reason to wait till after the election to nominate a new judge. This is nothing like the Garland nomination because Trump is not a lame duck. So lets just move this thing along and see what Biden's army of lawyers do to delay the process, lowlife Marxists that they are. MAGA
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
15,823
Reaction score
6,439
Points
400
From a practical point of view, the Senate should approve President Trump's nominee before the election. Then they will be sure of having the position filled by a conservative if (as is likely), President Trump loses.

If this were a perfect world and IF the Dems had acted in a gentlemanly fashion during the last four years, then the Republicans should wait for the election winner to nominate someone, as they told President Obama when he sent the name of his nominee, and the Republicans refused to even hold hearings.
Yes. That would be nice. Too bad the democrats crossed over that Rubicon the second Trump became the republican nominee for president. He's been ruthlessly attacked personally and as president and was
the target of two illegal and ill advised attempts to remove him from office.

We are still in the middle of the job of identifying the people behind the coup and prosecuting them.

No going back now. No crying when he pushes your faces in the dirt.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
15,823
Reaction score
6,439
Points
400
The American people surely support a political Party that loves criminals, hates the Constitution and wants to reeducate people who don't fall in lock step with their Communist ideology!
Of course! Nothing says America like that.
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
4,186
Reaction score
2,100
Points
920
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.
McConnell made the rule.

NO


Biden made the rule. in 1992
Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion. An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.


(psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)

and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.
No it's not. Are you familiar with the Nuclear Option and the Senate Rules? Biden wasn't a Senator when Ried and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees.
" Biden wasn't a Senator when Reid and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees."

NO, but he WAS a senator when he stated, on the record, that a Justice not be confirmed prior to an election.


or did you not watch the video?
I watched the video, Biden's statement was a political comment, he was speaking to a taping in what was likely and empty chamber. All Senators do so, they are speaking to their constituents and telling them what they want to hear.

It was not a rule of the Senate until Reid and then McConnell used a fait accompli to make it so.
 

Obiwan

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
10,868
Reaction score
6,958
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.
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.
McConnell made the rule.

NO


Biden made the rule. in 1992
Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion. An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.


(psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)

and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.
No it's not. Are you familiar with the Nuclear Option and the Senate Rules? Biden wasn't a Senator when Ried and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees.
" Biden wasn't a Senator when Reid and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees."

NO, but he WAS a senator when he stated, on the record, that a Justice not be confirmed prior to an election.


or did you not watch the video?
I watched the video, Biden's statement was a political comment, he was speaking to a taping in what was likely and empty chamber. All Senators do so, they are speaking to their constituents and telling them what they want to hear.

It was not a rule of the Senate until Reid and then McConnell used a fait accompli to make it so.
So Biden couldn't even get folks to show up and listen to him then, either????

 

WillHaftawaite

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
60,516
Reaction score
18,288
Points
2,250
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.
McConnell made the rule.

NO


Biden made the rule. in 1992
Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion. An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.


(psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)

and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.
No it's not. Are you familiar with the Nuclear Option and the Senate Rules? Biden wasn't a Senator when Ried and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees.
" Biden wasn't a Senator when Reid and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees."

NO, but he WAS a senator when he stated, on the record, that a Justice not be confirmed prior to an election.


or did you not watch the video?
I watched the video, Biden's statement was a political comment, he was speaking to a taping in what was likely and empty chamber. All Senators do so, they are speaking to their constituents and telling them what they want to hear.

It was not a rule of the Senate until Reid and then McConnell used a fait accompli to make it so.
It was not a rule of the Senate until Reid and then McConnell used a fait accompli to make it so.
Your opinion.

The video proves you to be in error.
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
4,186
Reaction score
2,100
Points
920
From a practical point of view, the Senate should approve President Trump's nominee before the election. Then they will be sure of having the position filled by a conservative if (as is likely), President Trump loses.

If this were a perfect world and IF the Dems had acted in a gentlemanly fashion during the last four years, then the Republicans should wait for the election winner to nominate someone, as they told President Obama when he sent the name of his nominee, and the Republicans refused to even hold hearings.
Yes. That would be nice. Too bad the democrats crossed over that Rubicon the second Trump became the republican nominee for president. He's been ruthlessly attacked personally and as president and was
the target of two illegal and ill advised attempts to remove him from office.

We are still in the middle of the job of identifying the people behind the coup and prosecuting them.

No going back now. No crying when he pushes your faces in the dirt.
"We are still in the middle of the job of identifying the people behind the coup and prosecuting them"


coup, "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government" Hmmmm... when did this happen?

The process to legally impeach an elected official, and in this case The President, was not a coup, it was not sudden and it was not violent. For the record, Trump was Impeached, and he was not acquitted.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
67,238
Reaction score
11,323
Points
2,030
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.
They would do the same exact thing.
 

TheParser

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
3,247
Reaction score
1,592
Points
210
Then they will be sure of having the position filled by a conservative if (as is likely), President Trump loses.


Likely?


LOL. Trump is en route to a landslide re election. Possibly a record -breaker.


Pull the lens back.
Personally, I hope you're right that the President will be reelected.

It will teach the Dems that abetting violence is a bad career move.

But the polls ...

And the late mail ballots coming in after November 3 ...

There's plenty of room for mischief from the Dems.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
15,823
Reaction score
6,439
Points
400
Conveniently ignoring the first attempt to remove Trump from office with the absurd Russia-gate nonsense
aren't you? Yes. Of course you are.

Trump was impeached entirely along partisan lines so who is surprised by that?
That Schumer and that bug eyed fucker Adam Schiff couldn't get anyone to go along with the thinly
veiled attempt at a coup is hardly surprising.

Here Schiff tries to put the milk back into the bottle once it's been spilled all over the floor.

I wonder what fascist soy boy Eric Ciaramella is doing now? Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump | RealClearInvestigations
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top