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

[Slade3200]

If the Republicans attempt to short circuit the confirmation process, the Democrats should walk out and deny them a quorum. If Scalia dying in Feb. of an election year was too close to the election, then RBG's death in Sept. should be even more so, unless you're a total hypocrite.

RBG herself declared in 2016 that it is a PRESIDENT'S right and duty to fill vacancies, that a President does not stop being a President in his last year.

Barry declared if he had the opportunity to fill a vacancy his last year he would, and Democrats su]ported him.

Hypocrite? STFU! The Democrats are the living embodiment of the word. Stop you crying and temper tantrum.

As usual, ignoring the time restraints and attempting to shove his selection down our throats. Why wasn't there enough time in '16, but there is enough time now? What's the SPIN on that one? I say, Dems walk out. Deny them a quorum. Don't participate in this farce at all.

The senate GOP is saying they had a mandate to block Obama’s pick and this time they have a mandate to select Trumps. It has to do with the Party in power. Each one of those senators and Trump have recordings of them directly contradicting themselves between then and now. This new spin of theirs is not adequate. None of them including Trump should ever be believed, they are all political hacks. But most of us already knew that.

You mean each of the Democrat Senators, of course.

The situation is not the same - you won't admit that, and that's okay.

No two situations are the same but these two are similar enough to show the blatant hypocrisy of both parties. More so from the GOP as the Dems can claim the move to successfully block Garland set a precedent

Each involves filling an empty seat
Other than that nothing similar.

Really? How is this situation different that what Graham’s comments say? There are dozens of other examples

I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination," Graham said

You realize that in 2016 the sitting President was term limited out of office and now he is not, yes?
You do understand that in 2016 the WH and The Senate were controlled by different parties
and today they are controlled by the same party, yes?

If either party controlled each of those - the nomination would be expected to and would go forward.
Plenty of precedent for that.

I’m sorry do I need to break Graham’s quote down for you? It’s quite simple. He said if Trump is elected and a vacancy occurs in the last year of his FIRST term then the next president should get that nomination. Are you not understanding basic English?

 

[Slade3200]

Really? How is this situation different that what Graham’s comments say? There are dozens of other examples

I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination," Graham said

"A President has the right and obligation to fill a USSC vacancy as quickly as possible. A President does not stop being a President his last year in office."
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg

(*** And not one single condemnation of the Democrats who pissed on RBG's legacy and beliefs by LYING THEIR ASSES OFF about 'RBG's 'last dying wish' bullshit in an attempt to pull off an 'EMOTIONAL SCAM' for their own political benefit!)


'If I get a chance to fill a USSC vacancy I will.'
- President Barak Obama, 2016 - his final year in office
* Democrats had no problem with it when he declared he would do so

Democrats have always been comfortable knowing the GOP were too much of a 'Boy Scout' to do to Democrats what Democrats always boldly did to the GOP....until this wake-up call from a Republican President who does not cower from a fight but instead says, "Bring it the f* on - I will fight fire with fire!"

You know damn-well that if Obama was in office right now he and Democrats would have the 'gas pedal' pushed to the floor to fill this vacancy. Stop being a lying hypocritical POS, acting as if you believe for a second that is not the case / FACT!

Stop blubbering and showing your ass like a child throwing a temper tantrum. Life is a ***** and you don't always get your way. If you want to be pissed at someone be pissed at the short-sighted Democrat Leaders who killed the Filibuster and instituted the 'Nuclear option'.... THAT Democrat f*-up sure stings like a ***** right now, don't it?!

I agree that Trump has the right to make his nomination just as Obama had a right to make his. The foul here was McConnell not giving Garland a hearing And the blatant flip flop by the GOP, nothing they say can be trusted and this is concrete evidence

 

[Billiejeens]

If the Republicans attempt to short circuit the confirmation process, the Democrats should walk out and deny them a quorum. If Scalia dying in Feb. of an election year was too close to the election, then RBG's death in Sept. should be even more so, unless you're a total hypocrite.

RBG herself declared in 2016 that it is a PRESIDENT'S right and duty to fill vacancies, that a President does not stop being a President in his last year.

Barry declared if he had the opportunity to fill a vacancy his last year he would, and Democrats su]ported him.

Hypocrite? STFU! The Democrats are the living embodiment of the word. Stop you crying and temper tantrum.

As usual, ignoring the time restraints and attempting to shove his selection down our throats. Why wasn't there enough time in '16, but there is enough time now? What's the SPIN on that one? I say, Dems walk out. Deny them a quorum. Don't participate in this farce at all.

The senate GOP is saying they had a mandate to block Obama’s pick and this time they have a mandate to select Trumps. It has to do with the Party in power. Each one of those senators and Trump have recordings of them directly contradicting themselves between then and now. This new spin of theirs is not adequate. None of them including Trump should ever be believed, they are all political hacks. But most of us already knew that.

You mean each of the Democrat Senators, of course.

The situation is not the same - you won't admit that, and that's okay.

No two situations are the same but these two are similar enough to show the blatant hypocrisy of both parties. More so from the GOP as the Dems can claim the move to successfully block Garland set a precedent

Each involves filling an empty seat
Other than that nothing similar.

Really? How is this situation different that what Graham’s comments say? There are dozens of other examples

I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination," Graham said

You realize that in 2016 the sitting President was term limited out of office and now he is not, yes?
You do understand that in 2016 the WH and The Senate were controlled by different parties
and today they are controlled by the same party, yes?

If either party controlled each of those - the nomination would be expected to and would go forward.
Plenty of precedent for that.

I’m sorry do I need to break Graham’s quote down for you? It’s quite simple. He said if Trump is elected and a vacancy occurs in the last year of his FIRST term then the next president should get that nomination. Are you not understanding basic English?

Do you?

 

[Diver Diva]

I agree that Trump has the right to make his nomination just as Obama had a right to make his. The foul here was McConnell not giving Garland a hearing And the blatant flip flop by the GOP, nothing they say can be trusted and this is concrete evidence

Oh puh-leeze, spare me. If the Dems were in the same position they would ram a Supreme through too.

"Elections have consequences." - Barack Hussein Obama

 

[Norman]

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.

 

[easyt65]

I’m sorry do I need to break Graham’s quote down for you? It’s quite simple. He said if Trump is elected and a vacancy occurs in the last year of his FIRST term then the next president should get that nomination. Are you not understanding basic English?

BJ understands English just fine - do YOU?

Graham did not speak for RBG, and in 2016 RBG herself helped show Graham where he was wrong in his opposition to a President BEING a President and carrying out his obligations AS President, even in his final year. Perhaps YOU should try to learn from former USSC Justice RBG as well.

 

[easyt65]

I agree that Trump has the right to make his nomination just as Obama had a right to make his. The foul here was McConnell not giving Garland a hearing And the blatant flip flop by the GOP, nothing they say can be trusted and this is concrete evidence

How is McConnell fulfilling HIS Constitutional Duty of filling a vacancy by fulfilling his 'Advise and Consent' duties as Leader of the Senate a 'FOUL'?

Just as RBG said a President does not stop being a President his last year, the Leader of the Senate does not stop being Leader of the Senate the President's last year in office.

Again, stop your crying temper tantrum over the President who triggers your irrational hate getting to fill 2 USSC vacancies.

As Obama said, 'Elections have consequences'.

 

[Slade3200]

If the Republicans attempt to short circuit the confirmation process, the Democrats should walk out and deny them a quorum. If Scalia dying in Feb. of an election year was too close to the election, then RBG's death in Sept. should be even more so, unless you're a total hypocrite.

RBG herself declared in 2016 that it is a PRESIDENT'S right and duty to fill vacancies, that a President does not stop being a President in his last year.

Barry declared if he had the opportunity to fill a vacancy his last year he would, and Democrats su]ported him.

Hypocrite? STFU! The Democrats are the living embodiment of the word. Stop you crying and temper tantrum.

As usual, ignoring the time restraints and attempting to shove his selection down our throats. Why wasn't there enough time in '16, but there is enough time now? What's the SPIN on that one? I say, Dems walk out. Deny them a quorum. Don't participate in this farce at all.

The senate GOP is saying they had a mandate to block Obama’s pick and this time they have a mandate to select Trumps. It has to do with the Party in power. Each one of those senators and Trump have recordings of them directly contradicting themselves between then and now. This new spin of theirs is not adequate. None of them including Trump should ever be believed, they are all political hacks. But most of us already knew that.

You mean each of the Democrat Senators, of course.

The situation is not the same - you won't admit that, and that's okay.

No two situations are the same but these two are similar enough to show the blatant hypocrisy of both parties. More so from the GOP as the Dems can claim the move to successfully block Garland set a precedent

Each involves filling an empty seat
Other than that nothing similar.

Really? How is this situation different that what Graham’s comments say? There are dozens of other examples

I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination," Graham said

You realize that in 2016 the sitting President was term limited out of office and now he is not, yes?
You do understand that in 2016 the WH and The Senate were controlled by different parties
and today they are controlled by the same party, yes?

If either party controlled each of those - the nomination would be expected to and would go forward.
Plenty of precedent for that.

I’m sorry do I need to break Graham’s quote down for you? It’s quite simple. He said if Trump is elected and a vacancy occurs in the last year of his FIRST term then the next president should get that nomination. Are you not understanding basic English?

Do you?

No I’m good as I just explained. Thanks for playing

 

[Slade3200]

I agree that Trump has the right to make his nomination just as Obama had a right to make his. The foul here was McConnell not giving Garland a hearing And the blatant flip flop by the GOP, nothing they say can be trusted and this is concrete evidence

Oh puh-leeze, spare me. If the Dems were in the same position they would ram a Supreme through too.

"Elections have consequences." - Barack Hussein Obama

If the Dems did what the GOP did then they would be just as wrong. And yes I have little doubt they would have done the same thing. Doesn’t make this situation any different

 

[Slade3200]

I’m sorry do I need to break Graham’s quote down for you? It’s quite simple. He said if Trump is elected and a vacancy occurs in the last year of his FIRST term then the next president should get that nomination. Are you not understanding basic English?

BJ understands English just fine - do YOU?

Graham did not speak for RBG, and in 2016 RBG herself helped show Graham where he was wrong in his opposition to a President BEING a President and carrying out his obligations AS President, even in his final year. Perhaps YOU should try to learn from former USSC Justice RBG as well.

Did graham acknowledge his mistake and take back his statement? Did any of the other GOPers? Cause I sure as hell didn’t hear any of them stick up for Garland in 2016

 

[easyt65]

Did graham acknowledge his mistake and take back his statement? Did any of the other GOPers? Cause I sure as hell didn’t hear any of them stick up for Garland in 2016

Failed attempt to keep focusing on the insignificant / irrelevant. The only thing important is the fact that, as RBG herself stated, a President does not stop being a President his 4th year in office and that A President has the right and OBLIGATION to fill a vacancy.

You keeping focusing on what GRAHAM said. I am going to focus on what the CONSTITUTION says.

 

[Slade3200]

Did graham acknowledge his mistake and take back his statement? Did any of the other GOPers? Cause I sure as hell didn’t hear any of them stick up for Garland in 2016

Failed attempt to keep focusing on the insignificant / irrelevant. The only thing important is the fact that, as RBG herself stated, a President does not stop being a President his 4th year in office and that A President has the right and OBLIGATION to fill a vacancy.

Do you not read my replies? I’ve been saying exactly that. Trump has a right to fill the seat. The foul was McConnell blocking Obama’s right to fill the seat for 9 months with the support of the GOP and Trump

 

[easyt65]

The foul was McConnell blocking Obama’s right to fill the seat for 9 months with the support of the GOP and Trump

You keep repeating the same stupid shit and expect it to somehow sound more intelligent than it did the time before. It doesn't. McConnell has the obligation to fill his 'Advise and Consent' role, just as Trump has his obligation to fill the vacancy.

The only 'foul' is the snowflake perceived notion that it is so <boohoo> UNFAIR for the GOP President to fill another vacancy.

Again, stop your triggered whining and crying - 'Elections Have Consequences'.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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 ******* 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!

 

[easyt65]

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 ******* 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!

Nice insults, snowflake. Other than that you have nothing, except obfuscation (if you don't understand that big word you may need an English language tutor), denial, and parroting Democrat propaganda.

 

[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 ******* 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.

 

[konradv]

You keeping focusing on what GRAHAM said. I am going to focus on what the CONSTITUTION says.

Except that the Constitution doesn't say anything about this situation. There's nothing about times, so all we can do is go with precedent and what people like Graham have said. You're not fooling anyone but the brain dead.

 

[Slade3200]

The foul was McConnell blocking Obama’s right to fill the seat for 9 months with the support of the GOP and Trump

You keep repeating the same stupid shit and expect it to somehow sound more intelligent than it did the time before. It doesn't. McConnell has the obligation to fill his 'Advise and Consent' role, just as Trump has his obligation to fill the vacancy.

The only 'foul' is the snowflake perceived notion that it is so <boohoo> UNFAIR for the GOP President to fill another vacancy.

Again, stop your triggered whining and crying - 'Elections Have Consequences'.

So would you say Graham was wrong by saying what he said? He straight up lied as did most the other GOPers

 

[easyt65]

The foul was McConnell blocking Obama’s right to fill the seat for 9 months with the support of the GOP and Trump

You keep repeating the same stupid shit and expect it to somehow sound more intelligent than it did the time before. It doesn't. McConnell has the obligation to fill his 'Advise and Consent' role, just as Trump has his obligation to fill the vacancy.

The only 'foul' is the snowflake perceived notion that it is so <boohoo> UNFAIR for the GOP President to fill another vacancy.

Again, stop your triggered whining and crying - 'Elections Have Consequences'.

So would you say Graham was wrong by saying what he said? He straight up lied as did most the other GOPers

I would not say a damn thing about what Graham did or did not say because it is both IRRELEVANT and INSIGNIFICANT.

You just keep focusing on what Graham said, lil' tantrum throwing snowflake - I am going to focus on what the Constitution says.

 

[Billiejeens]

If the Republicans attempt to short circuit the confirmation process, the Democrats should walk out and deny them a quorum. If Scalia dying in Feb. of an election year was too close to the election, then RBG's death in Sept. should be even more so, unless you're a total hypocrite.

RBG herself declared in 2016 that it is a PRESIDENT'S right and duty to fill vacancies, that a President does not stop being a President in his last year.

Barry declared if he had the opportunity to fill a vacancy his last year he would, and Democrats su]ported him.

Hypocrite? STFU! The Democrats are the living embodiment of the word. Stop you crying and temper tantrum.

As usual, ignoring the time restraints and attempting to shove his selection down our throats. Why wasn't there enough time in '16, but there is enough time now? What's the SPIN on that one? I say, Dems walk out. Deny them a quorum. Don't participate in this farce at all.

The senate GOP is saying they had a mandate to block Obama’s pick and this time they have a mandate to select Trumps. It has to do with the Party in power. Each one of those senators and Trump have recordings of them directly contradicting themselves between then and now. This new spin of theirs is not adequate. None of them including Trump should ever be believed, they are all political hacks. But most of us already knew that.

You mean each of the Democrat Senators, of course.

The situation is not the same - you won't admit that, and that's okay.

No two situations are the same but these two are similar enough to show the blatant hypocrisy of both parties. More so from the GOP as the Dems can claim the move to successfully block Garland set a precedent

Each involves filling an empty seat
Other than that nothing similar.

Really? How is this situation different that what Graham’s comments say? There are dozens of other examples

I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination," Graham said

You realize that in 2016 the sitting President was term limited out of office and now he is not, yes?
You do understand that in 2016 the WH and The Senate were controlled by different parties
and today they are controlled by the same party, yes?

If either party controlled each of those - the nomination would be expected to and would go forward.
Plenty of precedent for that.

I’m sorry do I need to break Graham’s quote down for you? It’s quite simple. He said if Trump is elected and a vacancy occurs in the last year of his FIRST term then the next president should get that nomination. Are you not understanding basic English?

Do you?

No I’m good as I just explained. Thanks for playing

This is what he said.

"I want you to use my words against me."

You are doing that -
I understand his words completely, I still see no evidence that you actually do.