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

[EvilCat Breath]

After

Usually I don't pay attention to anything Rush Limbaugh says because he is more often than not a pompous arrogant windbag....but I just read the headline talking about how Limbaugh made this suggestion.

He makes a great point - we know how this is going to go. In the coming confirmation hearings Democrats are going to do their very best to top their immoral, unethical, despicable assault they perpetrated against Kavanaugh.

The Kavanaugh hearings were a complete, disgusting, heinous waste of time...so why bother?!

Why put any candidate through such a despicable process when we already know in the end, even if the candidate displayed the wisdom of Solomon and walked on water, the Democrats would still NOT vote for them?

Complete the necessary legal background checks and just vote.

Everything from the moment the nominee is named to the moment the vote is held will be nothing but an immoral, unethical character / job / family / life assassination attempt by the Democrats who only want to prevent the vacancy from being filled by President Trump.

Why allow the Democrats do that to anyone?!

Limbaugh calls on Senate GOP to scrap Judiciary Committee hearing for Trump SCOTUS nominee

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee should proceed directly to a vote on President Trump's forthcoming Supreme Court nominee without bothering to hold a confirmation hearing, syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday.

www.foxnews.com

Go for it. Just remember you won’t always be the minority party in power, you’ll be the minority party out of power.

Link us up to when the minority Republican party pulled the bullshit you clowns pulled on Kavanaugh during the hearings.

After the bullshit pulled with Garland's nomination, Republicans deserve what they get.

There was no bullshit with Garland's nomination. He wasn't going to be confirmed no matter what. No need to have the hearing.

Democrats want a chance to out do their idiocy with another silly pretend hearing. We know how this ends. Confirm and get on with it.

Reclaiming my time.

 

[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.

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

As long as we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans, we get what we get. The people have the power to vote but we elect disasters. Look at the last two cycles, Clinton, Trump, Biden, none are deserving.

 

[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.

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

Very probably. At the very least, there was no real benefit to be had in going through the motions over just saying no at the outset.

 

[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.

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

As long as we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans, we get what we get. The people have the power to vote but we elect disasters. Look at the last two cycles, Clinton, Trump, Biden, none are deserving.

Yes, but who else are you going to elect besides Democrats and Republicans who's going to be less of a disaster? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein?

 

[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.

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

Why "should" they have held it then?

They held it so Obama would not have made another nominee and then start the process again.

 

[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.

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

As long as we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans, we get what we get. The people have the power to vote but we elect disasters. Look at the last two cycles, Clinton, Trump, Biden, none are deserving.

Yes, but who else are you going to elect besides Democrats and Republicans who's going to be less of a disaster? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein?

No
We have a binary system.

 

[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?

They held it so Obama would not have made another nominee and then start the process again.

I'm not sure, but I think we're talking about different things.

 

[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.

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

As long as we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans, we get what we get. The people have the power to vote but we elect disasters. Look at the last two cycles, Clinton, Trump, Biden, none are deserving.

Yes, but who else are you going to elect besides Democrats and Republicans who's going to be less of a disaster? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein?

No
We have a binary system.

Well, effectively we do. It doesn't really HAVE to be, but third parties and their candidates do a uniformly shit job of presenting themselves so that anyone sane can take them seriously. And the voters tend to find binary races simple and comfortable.

 

[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?

They held it so Obama would not have made another nominee and then start the process again.

I'm not sure, but I think we're talking about different things.

You 2 are using 2 different meanings for "held"

 

[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.

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

As long as we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans, we get what we get. The people have the power to vote but we elect disasters. Look at the last two cycles, Clinton, Trump, Biden, none are deserving.

Yes, but who else are you going to elect besides Democrats and Republicans who's going to be less of a disaster? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein?

No
We have a binary system.

Well, effectively we do. It doesn't really HAVE to be, but third parties and their candidates do a uniformly shit job of presenting themselves so that anyone sane can take them seriously. And the voters tend to find binary races simple and comfortable.

Effectively and literally
President Trump was Effectively a third party candidate who won the binary election.

Of course 3rd party people wanted an outsider just not that outsider (eye roll)

 

[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

As long as we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans, we get what we get. The people have the power to vote but we elect disasters. Look at the last two cycles, Clinton, Trump, Biden, none are deserving.

It takes a lot of money to win a campaign. Parties supply the money and support. Until we reform how we finance and run campaigns we are stuck with these problems

 

[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?

They held it so Obama would not have made another nominee and then start the process again.

I'm not sure, but I think we're talking about different things.

You 2 are using 2 different meanings for "held"

Yeah, that's what I think, too.

 

[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.

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

As long as we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans, we get what we get. The people have the power to vote but we elect disasters. Look at the last two cycles, Clinton, Trump, Biden, none are deserving.

Yes, but who else are you going to elect besides Democrats and Republicans who's going to be less of a disaster? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein?

No
We have a binary system.

Well, effectively we do. It doesn't really HAVE to be, but third parties and their candidates do a uniformly shit job of presenting themselves so that anyone sane can take them seriously. And the voters tend to find binary races simple and comfortable.

Effectively and literally
President Trump was Effectively a third party candidate who won the binary election.

Of course 3rd party people wanted an outsider just not that outsider (eye roll)

No, not literally. Remember Ross Perot? He did an excellent job of providing an independent candidate people could take seriously. Unfortunately, he couldn't maintain the appearance of a steady, serious candidate for the long haul. and he could have used a much more professional, efficient campaign.

 

[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.

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

As long as we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans, we get what we get. The people have the power to vote but we elect disasters. Look at the last two cycles, Clinton, Trump, Biden, none are deserving.

Yes, but who else are you going to elect besides Democrats and Republicans who's going to be less of a disaster? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein?

No
We have a binary system.

Well, effectively we do. It doesn't really HAVE to be, but third parties and their candidates do a uniformly shit job of presenting themselves so that anyone sane can take them seriously. And the voters tend to find binary races simple and comfortable.

Effectively and literally
President Trump was Effectively a third party candidate who won the binary election.

Of course 3rd party people wanted an outsider just not that outsider (eye roll)

No, not literally. Remember Ross Perot? He did an excellent job of providing an independent candidate people could take seriously. Unfortunately, he couldn't maintain the appearance of a steady, serious candidate for the long haul. and he could have used a much more professional, efficient campaign.

All Perot did was help elect Clinton -
Image a world where those two had simply remained big fish in the little pond of Arkansas and the balance of the country had never been subjected to their level of evil.

He was their throw way candidate no big name wanted to compete against 41 until Perot and the infamy of "read my lips"

 

[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.

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

As long as we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans, we get what we get. The people have the power to vote but we elect disasters. Look at the last two cycles, Clinton, Trump, Biden, none are deserving.

Yes, but who else are you going to elect besides Democrats and Republicans who's going to be less of a disaster? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein?

No
We have a binary system.

Well, effectively we do. It doesn't really HAVE to be, but third parties and their candidates do a uniformly shit job of presenting themselves so that anyone sane can take them seriously. And the voters tend to find binary races simple and comfortable.

Effectively and literally
President Trump was Effectively a third party candidate who won the binary election.

Of course 3rd party people wanted an outsider just not that outsider (eye roll)

No, not literally. Remember Ross Perot? He did an excellent job of providing an independent candidate people could take seriously. Unfortunately, he couldn't maintain the appearance of a steady, serious candidate for the long haul. and he could have used a much more professional, efficient campaign.

All Perot did was help elect Clinton -
Image a world where those two had simply remained big fish in the little pond of Arkansas and the balance of the country had never been subjected to their level of evil.

He was their throw way candidate no big name wanted to compete against 41 until Perot and the infamy of "read my lips"

And THAT mindset right there is the REAL reason we have a largely binary system. The binary system exists mostly in people's inability to see the system as anything but binary.

 

[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.

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

As long as we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans, we get what we get. The people have the power to vote but we elect disasters. Look at the last two cycles, Clinton, Trump, Biden, none are deserving.

Yes, but who else are you going to elect besides Democrats and Republicans who's going to be less of a disaster? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein?

No
We have a binary system.

Well, effectively we do. It doesn't really HAVE to be, but third parties and their candidates do a uniformly shit job of presenting themselves so that anyone sane can take them seriously. And the voters tend to find binary races simple and comfortable.

Effectively and literally
President Trump was Effectively a third party candidate who won the binary election.

Of course 3rd party people wanted an outsider just not that outsider (eye roll)

No, not literally. Remember Ross Perot? He did an excellent job of providing an independent candidate people could take seriously. Unfortunately, he couldn't maintain the appearance of a steady, serious candidate for the long haul. and he could have used a much more professional, efficient campaign.

All Perot did was help elect Clinton -
Image a world where those two had simply remained big fish in the little pond of Arkansas and the balance of the country had never been subjected to their level of evil.

He was their throw way candidate no big name wanted to compete against 41 until Perot and the infamy of "read my lips"

And THAT mindset right there is the REAL reason we have a largely binary system. The binary system exists mostly in people's inability to see the system as anything but binary.

No

 

[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.

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

As long as we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans, we get what we get. The people have the power to vote but we elect disasters. Look at the last two cycles, Clinton, Trump, Biden, none are deserving.

Yes, but who else are you going to elect besides Democrats and Republicans who's going to be less of a disaster? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein?

No
We have a binary system.

Well, effectively we do. It doesn't really HAVE to be, but third parties and their candidates do a uniformly shit job of presenting themselves so that anyone sane can take them seriously. And the voters tend to find binary races simple and comfortable.

Effectively and literally
President Trump was Effectively a third party candidate who won the binary election.

Of course 3rd party people wanted an outsider just not that outsider (eye roll)

No, not literally. Remember Ross Perot? He did an excellent job of providing an independent candidate people could take seriously. Unfortunately, he couldn't maintain the appearance of a steady, serious candidate for the long haul. and he could have used a much more professional, efficient campaign.

All Perot did was help elect Clinton -
Image a world where those two had simply remained big fish in the little pond of Arkansas and the balance of the country had never been subjected to their level of evil.

He was their throw way candidate no big name wanted to compete against 41 until Perot and the infamy of "read my lips"

And THAT mindset right there is the REAL reason we have a largely binary system. The binary system exists mostly in people's inability to see the system as anything but binary.

No

Well, that just settles it all, doesn't it? You just deny it, and that makes it so because you said it.

Doesn't matter to me if you accept that your own words reveal the binary thinking you're busily railing against or not. Facts don't care about your liking them or not.

 

[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

As long as we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans, we get what we get. The people have the power to vote but we elect disasters. Look at the last two cycles, Clinton, Trump, Biden, none are deserving.

Yes, but who else are you going to elect besides Democrats and Republicans who's going to be less of a disaster? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein?

No
We have a binary system.

Well, effectively we do. It doesn't really HAVE to be, but third parties and their candidates do a uniformly shit job of presenting themselves so that anyone sane can take them seriously. And the voters tend to find binary races simple and comfortable.

Effectively and literally
President Trump was Effectively a third party candidate who won the binary election.

Of course 3rd party people wanted an outsider just not that outsider (eye roll)

No, not literally. Remember Ross Perot? He did an excellent job of providing an independent candidate people could take seriously. Unfortunately, he couldn't maintain the appearance of a steady, serious candidate for the long haul. and he could have used a much more professional, efficient campaign.

All Perot did was help elect Clinton -
Image a world where those two had simply remained big fish in the little pond of Arkansas and the balance of the country had never been subjected to their level of evil.

He was their throw way candidate no big name wanted to compete against 41 until Perot and the infamy of "read my lips"

And THAT mindset right there is the REAL reason we have a largely binary system. The binary system exists mostly in people's inability to see the system as anything but binary.

“The binary system exists mostly in people's inability to see the system as anything but binary.” Haha ok sure, and hate groups exists because people get together to hate. But the real question is what causes these things. And the answer to the binary system largely is with how we Canadian. Both in the expense and fundraising aspects and also in the divisive nature that we demonize our enemy’s. Finding common ground serves very little advantage while campaigning so they go the opposite way

 

[Billy_Bob]

Usually I don't pay attention to anything Rush Limbaugh says because he is more often than not a pompous arrogant windbag....but I just read the headline talking about how Limbaugh made this suggestion.

He makes a great point - we know how this is going to go. In the coming confirmation hearings Democrats are going to do their very best to top their immoral, unethical, despicable assault they perpetrated against Kavanaugh.

The Kavanaugh hearings were a complete, disgusting, heinous waste of time...so why bother?!

Why put any candidate through such a despicable process when we already know in the end, even if the candidate displayed the wisdom of Solomon and walked on water, the Democrats would still NOT vote for them?

Complete the necessary legal background checks and just vote.

Everything from the moment the nominee is named to the moment the vote is held will be nothing but an immoral, unethical character / job / family / life assassination attempt by the Democrats who only want to prevent the vacancy from being filled by President Trump.

Why allow the Democrats do that to anyone?!

Limbaugh calls on Senate GOP to scrap Judiciary Committee hearing for Trump SCOTUS nominee

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee should proceed directly to a vote on President Trump's forthcoming Supreme Court nominee without bothering to hold a confirmation hearing, syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday.

www.foxnews.com

So you’re advocating breaking from the legal process that has been established over decades so you can push your parties candidate through before an election? Is that what I’m hearing? Do you plan on continuing to call yourself a supporter of law and order or do you just move to partisan hack?

I posted what the process is. Hearings must be held, hearings that could be a simple question and answer period, and those hearings can end based on a vote to send the decision to the floor for a vote.

I am not against the Constitution. I am against putting a nominee in front of Democrats who will ask questions only to cut them off before they can answer and rabidly, viciously, immorally attack them personally - AS THE DEMOCRATS DID RECENTLY TO US AG BARR...AS THEY DID AGAINST KAVANAUGH.

The disgusting attack on Barr recently shows the Democrats have not changed, that they don't want answers or to learn. They still engage in 'seek and destroy' missions, as they did with Kavanaught.

Nothing has changed. Barrett has not even named yet but the Democrats have already been immorally....and potentially ILLEGALLY (discrimination against religious faith) attacking her for being Catholic.

As I have already said, Democrats seek to destroy whatever nominee is named - at the end of their onslaught against the nominee not one Democrat will vote for them...just as was the case BEFORE they began attacking the nominee.

Allowing the Democrats to perpetrate another despicable personal attack - to execute their politics of personal destruction - against another nominee simply for being another party's nominee, should NOT be tolerated.

While I agree generally, having the rabid left show their ugly sides in an election cycle just before the election is one way to ensure we hold the Senate and why they do not want to play..

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I disagree. I don't think he had any obligation whatsoever to hold hearings. It wasn't going to happen, and it's not like the Senate has nothing else they need to be doing.

Obligation or not, the republicans would be in a far stronger political position today had they actually held the hearing and downvoted Garland.

The dems would not have such an easy time spinning it as deceitful or have reams of videos playing republicans claiming that they would not allow a republican president to seat a justice this close to an election.

It does rather shock me that they have not used the go-to and rather obvious excuse though - that a Biden appointee would be to radical to even risk the chance he wins the election. Seems as though that would play into the general narrative they want to paint but I do not really hear it from anyone yet.

A stronger position in what way? Because the Democrats would have liked them better and been friends? You talk as though you think there's anything the Senate Republicans could have done or could ever do which would somehow prevent the Democrats from employing an unhinged, scorched-earth policy to get their way.

It's long past time that Republicans and conservatives lose the notion that if we just play nice and be conciliatory, the Democrats will join us in doing the same, and if we dare to be so rude as to actually try to win in politics, then the reactions of the Democrats are OUR fault.

Sure the democrats will still have acted as they normally do but the senators running for reelection would not have had to pretend they directly stated a SCOTUS nominee should not be selected so close to an election. They would not be caught in outright lies claiming that the if this happened to a Republican you can 'use my words against me.' The democrats would not have such idea content to run in political ads in key senate races.

I could go on but I think you get the idea. Had they held a vote the business of the senate would have continued on exactly as the public expects it to and they would be in a more tenable situation than they are in now. It was a bad political move.