Should the Judiciary Hearing Be Scrapped & Just A Confirmation Vote Be Held?

[hadit]

Just as it is within the power of the president to appoint a judge, it is totally within the power of the senate to refuse to confirm them.

That might be the dumbest f*ing thing I hear all day, even dumber than what Slade keeps repeating. Now why in the hell would the GOP want to throw the Democrats - who illegally spied on everyone, conducted a failed political coup attempt, who continued to conduct failed coup attempts, who savagely and immorally put Kavanaugh through hell - a bone and refuse to fill the vacancy?!


Bwuhahahahaha.....

You might want to read that again, it says EXACTLY the opposite of what you think it says.

You are correct, and I apologize. McConnell had an obligation to bring Garland up for hearings. His decision not to falls more under 'Elections have consequences...but who has the votes rule.' The Democrats were kind enough to do away with the filibuster and institute the 'nuclear option, one decision I am sure they now regret.

Judges like Garland and Kavanaugh are unfortunately used and abused - victims of partisan politics.Garland, however, was spared the immoral 'politics of destruction' Kavanaugh was forced to endure.

Garland would never have been nominated had Obama thought that he would actually get a vote.
Was not nearly far left enough.

Garland was nominated and McConnell failed to do his job and was supported by most of the GOP as seen in the many many quotes that are circulating from 2016. They should all be booted from office

Okay, so they'll do their job this time around. Why are you complaining about them doing now what you said they should done 4 years ago? It couldn't be that your position has hypocritically shifted, could it?

 

[hadit]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

They should have held the vote then and they should hold it now.

 

[Papageorgio]

I bet every Trump cultist involved in this discussion was all for no Garland nomination hearings.
Because you dorks are nothing but Trump hand-puppets, your opinions are 100% Trump’s opinions every single time.
Are there any Little Trumpsters on this board that are even a little bit able to think pragmatically? Answer; absolutely not.

Which has nothing to do with anything. Garland had no chance of being confirmed, none. Furthermore, if the situation was reversed, the Democrats would have done the same. The Republicans have the advantage and they should seize it. I also know the Democrats would do the same and I believe they should seize it when they can.

 

[hadit]

I bet every Trump cultist involved in this discussion was all for no Garland nomination hearings.
Because you dorks are nothing but Trump hand-puppets, your opinions are 100% Trump’s opinions every single time.
Are there any Little Trumpsters on this board that are even a little bit able to think pragmatically? Answer; absolutely not.

Which has nothing to do with anything. Garland had no chance of being confirmed, none. Furthermore, if the situation was reversed, the Democrats would have done the same. The Republicans have the advantage and they should seize it. I also know the Democrats would do the same and I believe they should seize it when they can.

Seriously. You don't get many chances to appoint a SC justice, especially to replace a raging liberal, and it is one of the reasons why TRUMP! was elected.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

I think that now, AND I thought that then. It was nice to finally see the Republicans say, "Nope, we're not interested in confirming this guy, and we're not going to waste time pretending we might just to make nice with a bunch of jackals who are going to attack us in extremely nasty terms no matter what we do." And it's nice to see them now saying, "The people voted us into office for this, and this is what we're going to do. You guys don't waste any time pandering to us when YOU'RE in power, and there's no reason we should pander to you."

Republicans are always so afraid to say "fuck you" to the Democrats, because it might offend the voters. They never consider that the voters might like them better if they did it more often.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I bet every Trump cultist involved in this discussion was all for no Garland nomination hearings.
Because you dorks are nothing but Trump hand-puppets, your opinions are 100% Trump’s opinions every single time.
Are there any Little Trumpsters on this board that are even a little bit able to think pragmatically? Answer; absolutely not.

Which has nothing to do with anything. Garland had no chance of being confirmed, none. Furthermore, if the situation was reversed, the Democrats would have done the same. The Republicans have the advantage and they should seize it. I also know the Democrats would do the same and I believe they should seize it when they can.

Hey, that's the game, and that's the way it's played. I'm sick unto death of Democrats demanding that Republicans play by different, more restrictive rules than they do, and Republicans just meekly agreeing with them. You got the vote, you got the power, damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead!

 

[Cecilie1200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

They should have held the vote then and they should hold it now.

Why "should" they have held it then?

 

[hadit]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

They should have held the vote then and they should hold it now.

Why "should" they have held it then?

Remember, there was no legal reason why they should have, I just think they should have had the balls to hold the vote and serve notice that they would only confirm an originalist. Or hold to tradition and give Obama what he wanted.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

They should have held the vote then and they should hold it now.

Why "should" they have held it then?

Remember, there was no legal reason why they should have, I just think they should have had the balls to hold the vote and serve notice that they would only confirm an originalist. Or hold to tradition and give Obama what he wanted.

And I'm still not seeing any reason they should have held a vote. What, because going through a little time-wasting pantomime of hearings and votes was "having balls" and "serving notice they would only confirm an originalist" more than simply saying, "No"?

 

[Papageorgio]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

I think that now, AND I thought that then. It was nice to finally see the Republicans say, "Nope, we're not interested in confirming this guy, and we're not going to waste time pretending we might just to make nice with a bunch of jackals who are going to attack us in extremely nasty terms no matter what we do." And it's nice to see them now saying, "The people voted us into office for this, and this is what we're going to do. You guys don't waste any time pandering to us when YOU'RE in power, and there's no reason we should pander to you."

Republicans are always so afraid to say "fuck you" to the Democrats, because it might offend the voters. They never consider that the voters might like them better if they did it more often.

I think back to when Obama had the House and Senate and he made statements like get in the back of the bus, elections have consequences and other such divisive rhetoric. With Trump, they have impeachment in their minds and the Republicans never forgot it and now the Republicans are excerising their power that the voters gave them. Long gone is Clinton and Gingrich and Reagan and O’Neil. Now, it is not negotiable, not bending, no compromise.

 

[Slade3200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

Pretty sad when you need to go back over a hundred years to find precedent... during time when our nation was still getting its sea legs and ironing out the wrinkles. What a great shining example!!

 

[Slade3200]

Just as it is within the power of the president to appoint a judge, it is totally within the power of the senate to refuse to confirm them.

That might be the dumbest f*ing thing I hear all day, even dumber than what Slade keeps repeating. Now why in the hell would the GOP want to throw the Democrats - who illegally spied on everyone, conducted a failed political coup attempt, who continued to conduct failed coup attempts, who savagely and immorally put Kavanaugh through hell - a bone and refuse to fill the vacancy?!


Bwuhahahahaha.....

You might want to read that again, it says EXACTLY the opposite of what you think it says.

You are correct, and I apologize. McConnell had an obligation to bring Garland up for hearings. His decision not to falls more under 'Elections have consequences...but who has the votes rule.' The Democrats were kind enough to do away with the filibuster and institute the 'nuclear option, one decision I am sure they now regret.

Judges like Garland and Kavanaugh are unfortunately used and abused - victims of partisan politics.Garland, however, was spared the immoral 'politics of destruction' Kavanaugh was forced to endure.

Garland would never have been nominated had Obama thought that he would actually get a vote.
Was not nearly far left enough.

Garland was nominated and McConnell failed to do his job and was supported by most of the GOP as seen in the many many quotes that are circulating from 2016. They should all be booted from office

Okay, so they'll do their job this time around. Why are you complaining about them doing now what you said they should done 4 years ago? It couldn't be that your position has hypocritically shifted, could it?

Please quote me on what you think I’m complaining about in regards to what they are doing now

 

[Slade3200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

They should have held the vote then and they should hold it now.

I agree. They should also hold another review to Boot Mitch out of power. The guy is an embarrassment

 

[Slade3200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

They should have held the vote then and they should hold it now.

Why "should" they have held it then?

Remember, there was no legal reason why they should have, I just think they should have had the balls to hold the vote and serve notice that they would only confirm an originalist. Or hold to tradition and give Obama what he wanted.

And I'm still not seeing any reason they should have held a vote. What, because going through a little time-wasting pantomime of hearings and votes was "having balls" and "serving notice they would only confirm an originalist" more than simply saying, "No"?

You are basically making the case that the senate majority picks SCOTUS justices. If the senate majority is the opposite party as the president then they just ignore his picks and wait till their party wins the white house or they lose the senate. Does that really sound like a healthy system to use?

 

[hadit]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

They should have held the vote then and they should hold it now.

Why "should" they have held it then?

Remember, there was no legal reason why they should have, I just think they should have had the balls to hold the vote and serve notice that they would only confirm an originalist. Or hold to tradition and give Obama what he wanted.

And I'm still not seeing any reason they should have held a vote. What, because going through a little time-wasting pantomime of hearings and votes was "having balls" and "serving notice they would only confirm an originalist" more than simply saying, "No"?

Such is politics, a lot of bluster, hand waving and posturing. Most of what they do is wasted time and imagery.

 

[hadit]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

They should have held the vote then and they should hold it now.

I agree. They should also hold another review to Boot Mitch out of power. The guy is an embarrassment

And the House should remove Pelosi for the same reason. She's nuts.

 

[Slade3200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

I think that now, AND I thought that then. It was nice to finally see the Republicans say, "Nope, we're not interested in confirming this guy, and we're not going to waste time pretending we might just to make nice with a bunch of jackals who are going to attack us in extremely nasty terms no matter what we do." And it's nice to see them now saying, "The people voted us into office for this, and this is what we're going to do. You guys don't waste any time pandering to us when YOU'RE in power, and there's no reason we should pander to you."

Republicans are always so afraid to say "fuck you" to the Democrats, because it might offend the voters. They never consider that the voters might like them better if they did it more often.

I think back to when Obama had the House and Senate and he made statements like get in the back of the bus, elections have consequences and other such divisive rhetoric. With Trump, they have impeachment in their minds and the Republicans never forgot it and now the Republicans are excerising their power that the voters gave them. Long gone is Clinton and Gingrich and Reagan and O’Neil. Now, it is not negotiable, not bending, no compromise.

The way it is now is a disaster after disaster waiting to happen. We shouldn’t stand for it

 

[Slade3200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

They should have held the vote then and they should hold it now.

I agree. They should also hold another review to Boot Mitch out of power. The guy is an embarrassment

And the House should remove Pelosi for the same reason. She's nuts.

Agreed. They are both rotten

 

[Cecilie1200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

They should have held the vote then and they should hold it now.

Why "should" they have held it then?

Remember, there was no legal reason why they should have, I just think they should have had the balls to hold the vote and serve notice that they would only confirm an originalist. Or hold to tradition and give Obama what he wanted.

And I'm still not seeing any reason they should have held a vote. What, because going through a little time-wasting pantomime of hearings and votes was "having balls" and "serving notice they would only confirm an originalist" more than simply saying, "No"?

Such is politics, a lot of bluster, hand waving and posturing. Most of what they do is wasted time and imagery.

Well, frankly, I appreciate the Senate Republicans declining this particular waste of time. And I think it got the desired message across better than acceding to Democrat demands for hearing and votes would have.

 

[Billiejeens]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

They should have held the vote then and they should hold it now.

Why "should" they have held it then?

Remember, there was no legal reason why they should have, I just think they should have had the balls to hold the vote and serve notice that they would only confirm an originalist. Or hold to tradition and give Obama what he wanted.

The problem is that McConnell probably knew that he couldn't trust a few RINO's not to sabotage the vote.