Schumer vows to block SCOTUS pick

[eddiew37]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

They'd might as well. It would be no different than the reps refusing to vet appointments.

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

Maybe Trump should get one who says its against the law to grab *****.

What law did Trump violate by talking about grabbing him some?
The only actual accusation of any kind of sexual assault against Mr Trump was blown out of the water by a witness to the supposed event. You will notice that only you and rachel maddow are still dragging this up these days.

And his wife accusing him of rape is ok with repubs ?? Figures

 

[eddiew37]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

They'd might as well. It would be no different than the reps refusing to vet appointments.

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

Maybe Trump should get one who says its against the law to grab *****.

Half the republicans would land in jail

 

[eddiew37]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

They'd might as well. It would be no different than the reps refusing to vet appointments.

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

Any repub turd would be better than Scalia

 

[peach174]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

They'd might as well. It would be no different than the reps refusing to vet appointments.

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

Maybe Trump should get one who says its against the law to grab *****.

What law did Trump violate by talking about grabbing him some?
The only actual accusation of any kind of sexual assault against Mr Trump was blown out of the water by a witness to the supposed event. You will notice that only you and rachel maddow are still dragging this up these days.

And his wife accusing him of rape is ok with repubs ?? Figures

If you would have been an adult at the time of that divorce, it was easy to tell she was after as large of sum as she could get.
Nothing was ever proved in their divorce case on that alleged rape.

 

[eddiew37]

They'd might as well. It would be no different than the reps refusing to vet appointments.

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

Maybe Trump should get one who says its against the law to grab *****.

What law did Trump violate by talking about grabbing him some?
The only actual accusation of any kind of sexual assault against Mr Trump was blown out of the water by a witness to the supposed event. You will notice that only you and rachel maddow are still dragging this up these days.

And his wife accusing him of rape is ok with repubs ?? Figures

If you would have been an adult at the time of that divorce, it was easy to tell she was after as large of sum as she could get.
Nothing was ever proved in their divorce case on that alleged rape.

Just her word against a slimebag

 

[peach174]

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

Maybe Trump should get one who says its against the law to grab *****.

What law did Trump violate by talking about grabbing him some?
The only actual accusation of any kind of sexual assault against Mr Trump was blown out of the water by a witness to the supposed event. You will notice that only you and rachel maddow are still dragging this up these days.

And his wife accusing him of rape is ok with repubs ?? Figures

If you would have been an adult at the time of that divorce, it was easy to tell she was after as large of sum as she could get.
Nothing was ever proved in their divorce case on that alleged rape.

Just her word against a slimebag

Unlike her , I would have saved the hair that she said was pulled. out.
She didn't do that because it never happened.

 

[eddiew37]

Maybe Trump should get one who says its against the law to grab *****.

What law did Trump violate by talking about grabbing him some?
The only actual accusation of any kind of sexual assault against Mr Trump was blown out of the water by a witness to the supposed event. You will notice that only you and rachel maddow are still dragging this up these days.

And his wife accusing him of rape is ok with repubs ?? Figures

If you would have been an adult at the time of that divorce, it was easy to tell she was after as large of sum as she could get.
Nothing was ever proved in their divorce case on that alleged rape.

Just her word against a slimebag

Unlike her , I would have saved the hair that she said was pulled. out.
She didn't do that because it never happened.

She couldn't pull her own hair out? The chances are she was bought off

 

[Penelope]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

They'd might as well. It would be no different than the reps refusing to vet appointments.

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

Maybe Trump should get one who says its against the law to grab *****.

What law did Trump violate by talking about grabbing him some?
The only actual accusation of any kind of sexual assault against Mr Trump was blown out of the water by a witness to the supposed event. You will notice that only you and rachel maddow are still dragging this up these days.

I'll keep bringing it up, he admitted he does and he also kisses women on the lips if he wants. How would he know you can get away with it, if he didn't??

 

[Ernie S.]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

They'd might as well. It would be no different than the reps refusing to vet appointments.

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

Maybe Trump should get one who says its against the law to grab *****.

What law did Trump violate by talking about grabbing him some?
The only actual accusation of any kind of sexual assault against Mr Trump was blown out of the water by a witness to the supposed event. You will notice that only you and rachel maddow are still dragging this up these days.

And his wife accusing him of rape is ok with repubs ?? Figures

She retracted that accusation. She made it in a divorce case. Please check your facts.

 

[Ernie S.]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

They'd might as well. It would be no different than the reps refusing to vet appointments.

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

Any repub turd would be better than Scalia

OK I think Mark Levin should be the nominee.

 

[Ernie S.]

They'd might as well. It would be no different than the reps refusing to vet appointments.

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

Maybe Trump should get one who says its against the law to grab *****.

What law did Trump violate by talking about grabbing him some?
The only actual accusation of any kind of sexual assault against Mr Trump was blown out of the water by a witness to the supposed event. You will notice that only you and rachel maddow are still dragging this up these days.

And his wife accusing him of rape is ok with repubs ?? Figures

If you would have been an adult at the time of that divorce, it was easy to tell she was after as large of sum as she could get.
Nothing was ever proved in their divorce case on that alleged rape.

He's apparently still not an adult.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

Maybe Trump should get one who says its against the law to grab *****.

What law did Trump violate by talking about grabbing him some?
The only actual accusation of any kind of sexual assault against Mr Trump was blown out of the water by a witness to the supposed event. You will notice that only you and rachel maddow are still dragging this up these days.

And his wife accusing him of rape is ok with repubs ?? Figures

If you would have been an adult at the time of that divorce, it was easy to tell she was after as large of sum as she could get.
Nothing was ever proved in their divorce case on that alleged rape.

Just her word against a slimebag

She retracted her word, you dumbshit.

 

[Ernie S.]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

They'd might as well. It would be no different than the reps refusing to vet appointments.

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

Maybe Trump should get one who says its against the law to grab *****.

What law did Trump violate by talking about grabbing him some?
The only actual accusation of any kind of sexual assault against Mr Trump was blown out of the water by a witness to the supposed event. You will notice that only you and rachel maddow are still dragging this up these days.

I'll keep bringing it up, he admitted he does and he also kisses women on the lips if he wants. How would he know you can get away with it, if he didn't??

SMH...

 

[eddiew37]

Maybe Trump should get one who says its against the law to grab *****.

What law did Trump violate by talking about grabbing him some?
The only actual accusation of any kind of sexual assault against Mr Trump was blown out of the water by a witness to the supposed event. You will notice that only you and rachel maddow are still dragging this up these days.

And his wife accusing him of rape is ok with repubs ?? Figures

If you would have been an adult at the time of that divorce, it was easy to tell she was after as large of sum as she could get.
Nothing was ever proved in their divorce case on that alleged rape.

Just her word against a slimebag

She retracted her word, you dumbshit.

ASSHOLE how much did it cost chump for her to retract?

 

[peach174]

What law did Trump violate by talking about grabbing him some?
The only actual accusation of any kind of sexual assault against Mr Trump was blown out of the water by a witness to the supposed event. You will notice that only you and rachel maddow are still dragging this up these days.

And his wife accusing him of rape is ok with repubs ?? Figures

If you would have been an adult at the time of that divorce, it was easy to tell she was after as large of sum as she could get.
Nothing was ever proved in their divorce case on that alleged rape.

Just her word against a slimebag

She retracted her word, you dumbshit.

ASSHOLE how much did it cost chump for her to retract?

Appropriate avatar name, because you remind me of Eddie Haskel, on leave it to Beaver.

 

[eddiew37]

And his wife accusing him of rape is ok with repubs ?? Figures

If you would have been an adult at the time of that divorce, it was easy to tell she was after as large of sum as she could get.
Nothing was ever proved in their divorce case on that alleged rape.

Just her word against a slimebag

She retracted her word, you dumbshit.

ASSHOLE how much did it cost chump for her to retract?

Appropriate avatar name, because you remind me of Eddie Haskel, on leave it to Beaver.

Friends call me fast eddie

 

[HenryBHough]

Where are Trumps taxes, waiting.......

President Trump is only waiting for ONE (1, liberals) of those requesting to include a .pdf file of their own tax returns with their request.

You, Penny, could be first on your block!

Provided, of course, welfare benefits are generous enough to warrant filing a tax return.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

Damm yore dumm FA_Q2 .

You must have gone to publik skool and slept throo Civics and History to.

Actually, he's quite correct. Democrats changed the rules with a simple majority vote to limit debate on appointments to the lower courts. The GOP is now in the majority and can extent the rules to include SCOTUS. That, of course is a risky move, but even without that, Schumer will be told in no uncertain terms that if he doesn't bring Trump's nominees up for a vote, he will be the ultimate loser; unable to get so much as a dime for his pet programs.

How would bringing them up for a vote, be up to Schumer? He's NOT the majority leader, schumer can't stop Trump's nominee from coming up for a vote unless there are 12 Republicans moving to support Schumer on a filibuster, no???

You need to google "filibuster" Care4all .

Google is your friend.

I know a little bit about it, without googling, (though I will google later to refresh my memory, thx for the advice! )

And the Dems only have 48 senators, they would need 60 in order to filibuster if memory serves...? And that would mean, not only would schumer need the 48 in the Dem coalition, but they would need another 12 republicans to get to the 60 needed to hold the filibuster, wouldn't they?

No. You best get to reading up on it.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

So Chucky has decided to block Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy. Good for him.

I suggest Trump play hardball with him. What I would do is nominate a Constitutionalist with decent Conservative credentials and see what Schumer does. If Democrats filibuster, withdraw the nomination and put up an even more Conservative jurist.
After 3 or 4 tries at this, Trump sits down with Senator Schumer and simply tells him to either play ball or there will be dire consequences.
If Trump knows anything, it's how to negotiate from a position of strength.

Trump could also make sure to veto anything that required funding for New York that was backed by Schumer. This would very quickly make the Senator ineffective and make it very hard for him to seek reelection.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

They'd might as well. It would be no different than the reps refusing to vet appointments.

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

Maybe Trump should get one who says its against the law to grab *****.

What law did Trump violate by talking about grabbing him some?
The only actual accusation of any kind of sexual assault against Mr Trump was blown out of the water by a witness to the supposed event. You will notice that only you and rachel maddow are still dragging this up these days.

And his wife accusing him of rape is ok with repubs ?? Figures

Another liberal lie.