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

[FA_Q2]

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

easy, are you still to fucking lazy to read the Constitution? Your dumb ass needs to get a 4th grader to "advise" you about Article 2, Sec 2, Cls 2 to enlighten your ignorant ass about the "advise and consent " requirements in the Constitution; especially as it pertains to judges. Oh, and pass that on to that idiot Rush and your idiotic brethren who responded to the OP with such vacuous un-Constitutional suggestions!

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

It should be obvious to anyone who could read and understand what I cited from the OP and replied to in my oh so complex response. Obviously, you're having the same difficulty in your grasp of 18th Century English. If you are unable to comprehend those few words perhaps you can get together with easyT and share the time and costs of his 4th grade tutor!

So nothing.

So nothing.

So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

I'll make it easy on you and point you toward the Framers'explanation of "advise and consent". Hamilton wrote about that in The Federalist #75 & #76. Ever hear about checks and balances being part of the Constitution, Bunkey? Read those two arguments and learn something about the Law of the Land you ignorant fuck!

What advise and consent did Garland get?

It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.

That’s a nice attempt to spin but no it was not congresses job to advise the President to not perform his constitutional duty... that’s not how the process was designed to work and you know it. Obama nominated a judge. It was congresses job to advise him on the pick and consent or not consent. Had they held a hearing and not consented through a vote then the president should then nominate somebody else. This is not what happened as we well know. The GOP side of Congress blankety stonewalled the nomination in the name of the election year and wanting the people to decide. Most of us knew then that their excuse was bullshit and it’s concretely confirmed now that it was bullshit as they all flat out lied. Get it?

You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:


'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'
Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'

That’s fine if that’s your view on how things should work. Just don’t complain next time the Dems take power and abuse it. You best believe that a move like this validates the Dems to add seats to the court and fill them should they take the majority

Nothing warrants packing the courts. That signals the absolute end to everything the judiciary stands for.

For me, that is no less a threat than the president refusing to pass power onto the next president. The fact the democrats even allow such an evil concept to pass their lips is strongly driving me to vote for republicans and do not kid yourself - they are not threatening this because the republicans are going to appoint a replacement for RGB. This is NOT the first time they have threatened such.

Your own words demonize the GOP with what they did to the courts over the last 8 years. Block Obama’s nominations and then expedite Trumps.

Adding two seats doesn’t pack the court it balances it. And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems

Yes what they did was wrong - they should have held a hearing. Beyond that, the shenanigans they pulled changed, quite literally, nothing at all. Garland was not going to get nominated. The answer to them doing something wrong is NOT burning the entire institution to the damn ground. That is absolutely nuts.

And yes, adding justices to ensure you control the court politics is the very definition of packing the court. How can you claim otherwise with a straight face?

It is massively ironic that you post this half a page later as well:

What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity

 

[Billiejeens]

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

easy, are you still to fucking lazy to read the Constitution? Your dumb ass needs to get a 4th grader to "advise" you about Article 2, Sec 2, Cls 2 to enlighten your ignorant ass about the "advise and consent " requirements in the Constitution; especially as it pertains to judges. Oh, and pass that on to that idiot Rush and your idiotic brethren who responded to the OP with such vacuous un-Constitutional suggestions!

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

It should be obvious to anyone who could read and understand what I cited from the OP and replied to in my oh so complex response. Obviously, you're having the same difficulty in your grasp of 18th Century English. If you are unable to comprehend those few words perhaps you can get together with easyT and share the time and costs of his 4th grade tutor!

So nothing.

So nothing.

So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

I'll make it easy on you and point you toward the Framers'explanation of "advise and consent". Hamilton wrote about that in The Federalist #75 & #76. Ever hear about checks and balances being part of the Constitution, Bunkey? Read those two arguments and learn something about the Law of the Land you ignorant fuck!

What advise and consent did Garland get?

It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.

That’s a nice attempt to spin but no it was not congresses job to advise the President to not perform his constitutional duty... that’s not how the process was designed to work and you know it. Obama nominated a judge. It was congresses job to advise him on the pick and consent or not consent. Had they held a hearing and not consented through a vote then the president should then nominate somebody else. This is not what happened as we well know. The GOP side of Congress blankety stonewalled the nomination in the name of the election year and wanting the people to decide. Most of us knew then that their excuse was bullshit and it’s concretely confirmed now that it was bullshit as they all flat out lied. Get it?

You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:


'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'
Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'

That’s fine if that’s your view on how things should work. Just don’t complain next time the Dems take power and abuse it. You best believe that a move like this validates the Dems to add seats to the court and fill them should they take the majority

Nothing warrants packing the courts. That signals the absolute end to everything the judiciary stands for.

For me, that is no less a threat than the president refusing to pass power onto the next president. The fact the democrats even allow such an evil concept to pass their lips is strongly driving me to vote for republicans and do not kid yourself - they are not threatening this because the republicans are going to appoint a replacement for RGB. This is NOT the first time they have threatened such.

Your own words demonize the GOP with what they did to the courts over the last 8 years. Block Obama’s nominations and then expedite Trumps.

Adding two seats doesn’t pack the court it balances it. And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems

Yes what they did was wrong - they should have held a hearing. Beyond that, the shenanigans they pulled changed, quite literally, nothing at all. Garland was not going to get nominated. The answer to them doing something wrong is NOT burning the entire institution to the damn ground. That is absolutely nuts.

And yes, adding justices to ensure you control the court politics is the very definition of packing the court. How can you claim otherwise with a straight face?

It is massively ironic that you post this half a page later as well:

What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity

His only consistent is that he is consistently wrong.

 

[Slade3200]

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

easy, are you still to fucking lazy to read the Constitution? Your dumb ass needs to get a 4th grader to "advise" you about Article 2, Sec 2, Cls 2 to enlighten your ignorant ass about the "advise and consent " requirements in the Constitution; especially as it pertains to judges. Oh, and pass that on to that idiot Rush and your idiotic brethren who responded to the OP with such vacuous un-Constitutional suggestions!

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

It should be obvious to anyone who could read and understand what I cited from the OP and replied to in my oh so complex response. Obviously, you're having the same difficulty in your grasp of 18th Century English. If you are unable to comprehend those few words perhaps you can get together with easyT and share the time and costs of his 4th grade tutor!

So nothing.

So nothing.

So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

I'll make it easy on you and point you toward the Framers'explanation of "advise and consent". Hamilton wrote about that in The Federalist #75 & #76. Ever hear about checks and balances being part of the Constitution, Bunkey? Read those two arguments and learn something about the Law of the Land you ignorant fuck!

What advise and consent did Garland get?

It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.

That’s a nice attempt to spin but no it was not congresses job to advise the President to not perform his constitutional duty... that’s not how the process was designed to work and you know it. Obama nominated a judge. It was congresses job to advise him on the pick and consent or not consent. Had they held a hearing and not consented through a vote then the president should then nominate somebody else. This is not what happened as we well know. The GOP side of Congress blankety stonewalled the nomination in the name of the election year and wanting the people to decide. Most of us knew then that their excuse was bullshit and it’s concretely confirmed now that it was bullshit as they all flat out lied. Get it?

You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:


'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'
Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'

That’s fine if that’s your view on how things should work. Just don’t complain next time the Dems take power and abuse it. You best believe that a move like this validates the Dems to add seats to the court and fill them should they take the majority

Nothing warrants packing the courts. That signals the absolute end to everything the judiciary stands for.

For me, that is no less a threat than the president refusing to pass power onto the next president. The fact the democrats even allow such an evil concept to pass their lips is strongly driving me to vote for republicans and do not kid yourself - they are not threatening this because the republicans are going to appoint a replacement for RGB. This is NOT the first time they have threatened such.

Your own words demonize the GOP with what they did to the courts over the last 8 years. Block Obama’s nominations and then expedite Trumps.

Adding two seats doesn’t pack the court it balances it. And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems

Yes what they did was wrong - they should have held a hearing. Beyond that, the shenanigans they pulled changed, quite literally, nothing at all. Garland was not going to get nominated. The answer to them doing something wrong is NOT burning the entire institution to the damn ground. That is absolutely nuts.

And yes, adding justices to ensure you control the court politics is the very definition of packing the court. How can you claim otherwise with a straight face?

It is massively ironic that you post this half a page later as well:

What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity

Why wouldn’t Garland have been nominated?

 

[Billiejeens]

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

easy, are you still to fucking lazy to read the Constitution? Your dumb ass needs to get a 4th grader to "advise" you about Article 2, Sec 2, Cls 2 to enlighten your ignorant ass about the "advise and consent " requirements in the Constitution; especially as it pertains to judges. Oh, and pass that on to that idiot Rush and your idiotic brethren who responded to the OP with such vacuous un-Constitutional suggestions!

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

It should be obvious to anyone who could read and understand what I cited from the OP and replied to in my oh so complex response. Obviously, you're having the same difficulty in your grasp of 18th Century English. If you are unable to comprehend those few words perhaps you can get together with easyT and share the time and costs of his 4th grade tutor!

So nothing.

So nothing.

So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

I'll make it easy on you and point you toward the Framers'explanation of "advise and consent". Hamilton wrote about that in The Federalist #75 & #76. Ever hear about checks and balances being part of the Constitution, Bunkey? Read those two arguments and learn something about the Law of the Land you ignorant fuck!

What advise and consent did Garland get?

It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.

That’s a nice attempt to spin but no it was not congresses job to advise the President to not perform his constitutional duty... that’s not how the process was designed to work and you know it. Obama nominated a judge. It was congresses job to advise him on the pick and consent or not consent. Had they held a hearing and not consented through a vote then the president should then nominate somebody else. This is not what happened as we well know. The GOP side of Congress blankety stonewalled the nomination in the name of the election year and wanting the people to decide. Most of us knew then that their excuse was bullshit and it’s concretely confirmed now that it was bullshit as they all flat out lied. Get it?

You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:


'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'
Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'

That’s fine if that’s your view on how things should work. Just don’t complain next time the Dems take power and abuse it. You best believe that a move like this validates the Dems to add seats to the court and fill them should they take the majority

Nothing warrants packing the courts. That signals the absolute end to everything the judiciary stands for.

For me, that is no less a threat than the president refusing to pass power onto the next president. The fact the democrats even allow such an evil concept to pass their lips is strongly driving me to vote for republicans and do not kid yourself - they are not threatening this because the republicans are going to appoint a replacement for RGB. This is NOT the first time they have threatened such.

Your own words demonize the GOP with what they did to the courts over the last 8 years. Block Obama’s nominations and then expedite Trumps.

Adding two seats doesn’t pack the court it balances it. And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems

Yes what they did was wrong - they should have held a hearing. Beyond that, the shenanigans they pulled changed, quite literally, nothing at all. Garland was not going to get nominated. The answer to them doing something wrong is NOT burning the entire institution to the damn ground. That is absolutely nuts.

And yes, adding justices to ensure you control the court politics is the very definition of packing the court. How can you claim otherwise with a straight face?

It is massively ironic that you post this half a page later as well:

What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity

Why wouldn’t Garland have been nominated?

Because he was not far left enough - by a long shot

Why does everything that happens in the real world have to be spelled out for you?

 

[Slade3200]

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

easy, are you still to fucking lazy to read the Constitution? Your dumb ass needs to get a 4th grader to "advise" you about Article 2, Sec 2, Cls 2 to enlighten your ignorant ass about the "advise and consent " requirements in the Constitution; especially as it pertains to judges. Oh, and pass that on to that idiot Rush and your idiotic brethren who responded to the OP with such vacuous un-Constitutional suggestions!

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

It should be obvious to anyone who could read and understand what I cited from the OP and replied to in my oh so complex response. Obviously, you're having the same difficulty in your grasp of 18th Century English. If you are unable to comprehend those few words perhaps you can get together with easyT and share the time and costs of his 4th grade tutor!

So nothing.

So nothing.

So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

I'll make it easy on you and point you toward the Framers'explanation of "advise and consent". Hamilton wrote about that in The Federalist #75 & #76. Ever hear about checks and balances being part of the Constitution, Bunkey? Read those two arguments and learn something about the Law of the Land you ignorant fuck!

What advise and consent did Garland get?

It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.

That’s a nice attempt to spin but no it was not congresses job to advise the President to not perform his constitutional duty... that’s not how the process was designed to work and you know it. Obama nominated a judge. It was congresses job to advise him on the pick and consent or not consent. Had they held a hearing and not consented through a vote then the president should then nominate somebody else. This is not what happened as we well know. The GOP side of Congress blankety stonewalled the nomination in the name of the election year and wanting the people to decide. Most of us knew then that their excuse was bullshit and it’s concretely confirmed now that it was bullshit as they all flat out lied. Get it?

You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:


'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'
Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'

That’s fine if that’s your view on how things should work. Just don’t complain next time the Dems take power and abuse it. You best believe that a move like this validates the Dems to add seats to the court and fill them should they take the majority

Nothing warrants packing the courts. That signals the absolute end to everything the judiciary stands for.

For me, that is no less a threat than the president refusing to pass power onto the next president. The fact the democrats even allow such an evil concept to pass their lips is strongly driving me to vote for republicans and do not kid yourself - they are not threatening this because the republicans are going to appoint a replacement for RGB. This is NOT the first time they have threatened such.

Your own words demonize the GOP with what they did to the courts over the last 8 years. Block Obama’s nominations and then expedite Trumps.

Adding two seats doesn’t pack the court it balances it. And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems

Yes what they did was wrong - they should have held a hearing. Beyond that, the shenanigans they pulled changed, quite literally, nothing at all. Garland was not going to get nominated. The answer to them doing something wrong is NOT burning the entire institution to the damn ground. That is absolutely nuts.

And yes, adding justices to ensure you control the court politics is the very definition of packing the court. How can you claim otherwise with a straight face?

It is massively ironic that you post this half a page later as well:

What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity

Why was my comment ironic?

 

[kaz]

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

Fair question, but I think it would not be wise from a PR perspective to not have any hearings. I do agree though they should be limited

 

[Slade3200]

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

easy, are you still to fucking lazy to read the Constitution? Your dumb ass needs to get a 4th grader to "advise" you about Article 2, Sec 2, Cls 2 to enlighten your ignorant ass about the "advise and consent " requirements in the Constitution; especially as it pertains to judges. Oh, and pass that on to that idiot Rush and your idiotic brethren who responded to the OP with such vacuous un-Constitutional suggestions!

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

It should be obvious to anyone who could read and understand what I cited from the OP and replied to in my oh so complex response. Obviously, you're having the same difficulty in your grasp of 18th Century English. If you are unable to comprehend those few words perhaps you can get together with easyT and share the time and costs of his 4th grade tutor!

So nothing.

So nothing.

So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

I'll make it easy on you and point you toward the Framers'explanation of "advise and consent". Hamilton wrote about that in The Federalist #75 & #76. Ever hear about checks and balances being part of the Constitution, Bunkey? Read those two arguments and learn something about the Law of the Land you ignorant fuck!

What advise and consent did Garland get?

It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.

That’s a nice attempt to spin but no it was not congresses job to advise the President to not perform his constitutional duty... that’s not how the process was designed to work and you know it. Obama nominated a judge. It was congresses job to advise him on the pick and consent or not consent. Had they held a hearing and not consented through a vote then the president should then nominate somebody else. This is not what happened as we well know. The GOP side of Congress blankety stonewalled the nomination in the name of the election year and wanting the people to decide. Most of us knew then that their excuse was bullshit and it’s concretely confirmed now that it was bullshit as they all flat out lied. Get it?

You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:


'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'
Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'

That’s fine if that’s your view on how things should work. Just don’t complain next time the Dems take power and abuse it. You best believe that a move like this validates the Dems to add seats to the court and fill them should they take the majority

Nothing warrants packing the courts. That signals the absolute end to everything the judiciary stands for.

For me, that is no less a threat than the president refusing to pass power onto the next president. The fact the democrats even allow such an evil concept to pass their lips is strongly driving me to vote for republicans and do not kid yourself - they are not threatening this because the republicans are going to appoint a replacement for RGB. This is NOT the first time they have threatened such.

Your own words demonize the GOP with what they did to the courts over the last 8 years. Block Obama’s nominations and then expedite Trumps.

Adding two seats doesn’t pack the court it balances it. And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems

Yes what they did was wrong - they should have held a hearing. Beyond that, the shenanigans they pulled changed, quite literally, nothing at all. Garland was not going to get nominated. The answer to them doing something wrong is NOT burning the entire institution to the damn ground. That is absolutely nuts.

And yes, adding justices to ensure you control the court politics is the very definition of packing the court. How can you claim otherwise with a straight face?

It is massively ironic that you post this half a page later as well:

What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity

Why wouldn’t Garland have been nominated?

Because he was not far left enough - by a long shot

Why does everything that happens in the real world have to be spelled out for you?

You don’t think Garland was far enough left? So you think the Dems would have voted no on Obama’s pick? Why then didn’t the GOP let the vote go forward and embarrass Obama with the No vote by his own party.

I aks fro poeple lkie yuo to splel thnigs otu becuase its fnuny to see hwo bad yuo aer at spellnig

 

[Orangecat]

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

Just hand out DVDs of the hearings they had on her recently. Then give each senator a minute and a half to add their opinions on what she's done since then. It should be great entertainment watch the hypocritical democrats relentlessly attacking a highly accomplished woman.

 

[Billiejeens]

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

easy, are you still to fucking lazy to read the Constitution? Your dumb ass needs to get a 4th grader to "advise" you about Article 2, Sec 2, Cls 2 to enlighten your ignorant ass about the "advise and consent " requirements in the Constitution; especially as it pertains to judges. Oh, and pass that on to that idiot Rush and your idiotic brethren who responded to the OP with such vacuous un-Constitutional suggestions!

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

It should be obvious to anyone who could read and understand what I cited from the OP and replied to in my oh so complex response. Obviously, you're having the same difficulty in your grasp of 18th Century English. If you are unable to comprehend those few words perhaps you can get together with easyT and share the time and costs of his 4th grade tutor!

So nothing.

So nothing.

So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

I'll make it easy on you and point you toward the Framers'explanation of "advise and consent". Hamilton wrote about that in The Federalist #75 & #76. Ever hear about checks and balances being part of the Constitution, Bunkey? Read those two arguments and learn something about the Law of the Land you ignorant fuck!

What advise and consent did Garland get?

It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.

That’s a nice attempt to spin but no it was not congresses job to advise the President to not perform his constitutional duty... that’s not how the process was designed to work and you know it. Obama nominated a judge. It was congresses job to advise him on the pick and consent or not consent. Had they held a hearing and not consented through a vote then the president should then nominate somebody else. This is not what happened as we well know. The GOP side of Congress blankety stonewalled the nomination in the name of the election year and wanting the people to decide. Most of us knew then that their excuse was bullshit and it’s concretely confirmed now that it was bullshit as they all flat out lied. Get it?

You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:


'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'
Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'

That’s fine if that’s your view on how things should work. Just don’t complain next time the Dems take power and abuse it. You best believe that a move like this validates the Dems to add seats to the court and fill them should they take the majority

Nothing warrants packing the courts. That signals the absolute end to everything the judiciary stands for.

For me, that is no less a threat than the president refusing to pass power onto the next president. The fact the democrats even allow such an evil concept to pass their lips is strongly driving me to vote for republicans and do not kid yourself - they are not threatening this because the republicans are going to appoint a replacement for RGB. This is NOT the first time they have threatened such.

Your own words demonize the GOP with what they did to the courts over the last 8 years. Block Obama’s nominations and then expedite Trumps.

Adding two seats doesn’t pack the court it balances it. And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems

Yes what they did was wrong - they should have held a hearing. Beyond that, the shenanigans they pulled changed, quite literally, nothing at all. Garland was not going to get nominated. The answer to them doing something wrong is NOT burning the entire institution to the damn ground. That is absolutely nuts.

And yes, adding justices to ensure you control the court politics is the very definition of packing the court. How can you claim otherwise with a straight face?

It is massively ironic that you post this half a page later as well:

What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity

Why wouldn’t Garland have been nominated?

Because he was not far left enough - by a long shot

Why does everything that happens in the real world have to be spelled out for you?

You don’t think Garland was far enough left? So you think the Dems would have voted no on Obama’s pick? Why then didn’t the GOP let the vote go forward and embarrass Obama with the No vote by his own party.

I aks fro poeple lkie yuo to splel thnigs otu becuase its fnuny to see hwo bad yuo aer at spellnig

I think that Obama knew that there would be no vote - as I plainly said.

 

[easyt65]

Wow...we are still talking about this.

Garland did not get his due hearings.
This was pure politics - shouldn't have happened.
Shouldn't happen again.
What should have happened then is at least happening now.
Democrats were immoral, unethical, despicable pricks with Kavanaugh.
Shouldn't have happened.
Shouldn't happen again.
The President fulfilled his Obligation to fill vacancies asap.
Barrett has been selected.
Democrats have already taken their 'Politics of Personal Destruction' manuals off the shelf and their Kavanaugh cloaks out of the closet

They had best not pull another 'Kavanaugh assassination attempt' this close to the election for fear of losing Catholics, women, and good, descent American voters....

 

[g5000]

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

Yeah, why bother with the Constitution? It's just a scrap of paper.

Let's ram this farce through post-haste.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Or Bork, or Thomas, both times under the direction of Joe Biden

 

[Billiejeens]

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

Yeah, why bother with the Constitution? It's just a scrap of paper.

Let's ram this farce through post-haste.

Is there something in the mix that you think is unconstitutional?

 

[Slade3200]

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

easy, are you still to fucking lazy to read the Constitution? Your dumb ass needs to get a 4th grader to "advise" you about Article 2, Sec 2, Cls 2 to enlighten your ignorant ass about the "advise and consent " requirements in the Constitution; especially as it pertains to judges. Oh, and pass that on to that idiot Rush and your idiotic brethren who responded to the OP with such vacuous un-Constitutional suggestions!

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

It should be obvious to anyone who could read and understand what I cited from the OP and replied to in my oh so complex response. Obviously, you're having the same difficulty in your grasp of 18th Century English. If you are unable to comprehend those few words perhaps you can get together with easyT and share the time and costs of his 4th grade tutor!

So nothing.

So nothing.

So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

I'll make it easy on you and point you toward the Framers'explanation of "advise and consent". Hamilton wrote about that in The Federalist #75 & #76. Ever hear about checks and balances being part of the Constitution, Bunkey? Read those two arguments and learn something about the Law of the Land you ignorant fuck!

What advise and consent did Garland get?

It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.

That’s a nice attempt to spin but no it was not congresses job to advise the President to not perform his constitutional duty... that’s not how the process was designed to work and you know it. Obama nominated a judge. It was congresses job to advise him on the pick and consent or not consent. Had they held a hearing and not consented through a vote then the president should then nominate somebody else. This is not what happened as we well know. The GOP side of Congress blankety stonewalled the nomination in the name of the election year and wanting the people to decide. Most of us knew then that their excuse was bullshit and it’s concretely confirmed now that it was bullshit as they all flat out lied. Get it?

You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:


'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'
Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'

That’s fine if that’s your view on how things should work. Just don’t complain next time the Dems take power and abuse it. You best believe that a move like this validates the Dems to add seats to the court and fill them should they take the majority

Nothing warrants packing the courts. That signals the absolute end to everything the judiciary stands for.

For me, that is no less a threat than the president refusing to pass power onto the next president. The fact the democrats even allow such an evil concept to pass their lips is strongly driving me to vote for republicans and do not kid yourself - they are not threatening this because the republicans are going to appoint a replacement for RGB. This is NOT the first time they have threatened such.

Your own words demonize the GOP with what they did to the courts over the last 8 years. Block Obama’s nominations and then expedite Trumps.

Adding two seats doesn’t pack the court it balances it. And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems

Yes what they did was wrong - they should have held a hearing. Beyond that, the shenanigans they pulled changed, quite literally, nothing at all. Garland was not going to get nominated. The answer to them doing something wrong is NOT burning the entire institution to the damn ground. That is absolutely nuts.

And yes, adding justices to ensure you control the court politics is the very definition of packing the court. How can you claim otherwise with a straight face?

It is massively ironic that you post this half a page later as well:

What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity

Why wouldn’t Garland have been nominated?

Because he was not far left enough - by a long shot

Why does everything that happens in the real world have to be spelled out for you?

You don’t think Garland was far enough left? So you think the Dems would have voted no on Obama’s pick? Why then didn’t the GOP let the vote go forward and embarrass Obama with the No vote by his own party.

I aks fro poeple lkie yuo to splel thnigs otu becuase its fnuny to see hwo bad yuo aer at spellnig

I think that Obama knew that there would be no vote - as I plainly said.

Would you support the notion that SCOTUS nominees should only be added to the court when the party controlling the senate also controls the White House? Otherwise the open seats should remain empty until the controlling parties sync up?

 

[Billiejeens]

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

easy, are you still to fucking lazy to read the Constitution? Your dumb ass needs to get a 4th grader to "advise" you about Article 2, Sec 2, Cls 2 to enlighten your ignorant ass about the "advise and consent " requirements in the Constitution; especially as it pertains to judges. Oh, and pass that on to that idiot Rush and your idiotic brethren who responded to the OP with such vacuous un-Constitutional suggestions!

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

It should be obvious to anyone who could read and understand what I cited from the OP and replied to in my oh so complex response. Obviously, you're having the same difficulty in your grasp of 18th Century English. If you are unable to comprehend those few words perhaps you can get together with easyT and share the time and costs of his 4th grade tutor!

So nothing.

So nothing.

So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

I'll make it easy on you and point you toward the Framers'explanation of "advise and consent". Hamilton wrote about that in The Federalist #75 & #76. Ever hear about checks and balances being part of the Constitution, Bunkey? Read those two arguments and learn something about the Law of the Land you ignorant fuck!

What advise and consent did Garland get?

It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.

That’s a nice attempt to spin but no it was not congresses job to advise the President to not perform his constitutional duty... that’s not how the process was designed to work and you know it. Obama nominated a judge. It was congresses job to advise him on the pick and consent or not consent. Had they held a hearing and not consented through a vote then the president should then nominate somebody else. This is not what happened as we well know. The GOP side of Congress blankety stonewalled the nomination in the name of the election year and wanting the people to decide. Most of us knew then that their excuse was bullshit and it’s concretely confirmed now that it was bullshit as they all flat out lied. Get it?

You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:


'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'
Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'

That’s fine if that’s your view on how things should work. Just don’t complain next time the Dems take power and abuse it. You best believe that a move like this validates the Dems to add seats to the court and fill them should they take the majority

Nothing warrants packing the courts. That signals the absolute end to everything the judiciary stands for.

For me, that is no less a threat than the president refusing to pass power onto the next president. The fact the democrats even allow such an evil concept to pass their lips is strongly driving me to vote for republicans and do not kid yourself - they are not threatening this because the republicans are going to appoint a replacement for RGB. This is NOT the first time they have threatened such.

Your own words demonize the GOP with what they did to the courts over the last 8 years. Block Obama’s nominations and then expedite Trumps.

Adding two seats doesn’t pack the court it balances it. And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems

Yes what they did was wrong - they should have held a hearing. Beyond that, the shenanigans they pulled changed, quite literally, nothing at all. Garland was not going to get nominated. The answer to them doing something wrong is NOT burning the entire institution to the damn ground. That is absolutely nuts.

And yes, adding justices to ensure you control the court politics is the very definition of packing the court. How can you claim otherwise with a straight face?

It is massively ironic that you post this half a page later as well:

What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity

Why wouldn’t Garland have been nominated?

Because he was not far left enough - by a long shot

Why does everything that happens in the real world have to be spelled out for you?

You don’t think Garland was far enough left? So you think the Dems would have voted no on Obama’s pick? Why then didn’t the GOP let the vote go forward and embarrass Obama with the No vote by his own party.

I aks fro poeple lkie yuo to splel thnigs otu becuase its fnuny to see hwo bad yuo aer at spellnig

I think that Obama knew that there would be no vote - as I plainly said.

Would you support the notion that SCOTUS nominees should only be added to the court when the party controlling the senate also controls the White House? Otherwise the open seats should remain empty until the controlling parties sync up?

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

"We should have given the Democrats what they wanted, so they wouldn't be so mean to us now!"

Yeah, okay.

 

[Slade3200]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

 

[Turtlesoup]

Afraid that whatever looney bird is willing to stand for nomination and participate in this travesty might not be up to the standards we should expect of a SC justice? You ought to be.

How is this a travesty?

US gets a new more American judge. That's great news no matter how it is handled.

But that's not enough. Once president Trump wins I propose he stacks the court with devoted fanatical American justices.

Replace Roberts for his Epstein episodes,
Get rid of Kaegan for lying on her application
And impeach sotomyer for both racism and incompetence.

 

[Billiejeens]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

 

[Slade3200]

I see that being impractical and politically unwise
I dont see it being unconstitutional.

Impractical?! It’s literally the precedent that the GOP is setting as we speak

It's not.

It absolutely is