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

[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 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!

 

[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 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!

Wow....you claim others 'dodge' when you did it 1st....nice to see 'projection' has not been abandoned by Democrats /snowflakes.

 

[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!

Well -
you sure that you meant 75 and 76?
They don't appear to buttress your position.

 

[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

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.

Of course you wouldn’t say a thing about that quote because it proves my point and you can’t admit that I’m right. Yes I focus on Graham’s quote because he literally spells it out. Go away now you’re being annoying.

 

[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

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.

Then explain to me how his words from then justify what he is doing now.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

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. I do think McConnell was wrong to refuse to give Garland a proper hearing and vote - they should have actually put their ass on record rather than McConnell providing cover for them with refusing even a hearing but refusing to confirm the appointee is well within the purview of the senate.

 

[easyt65]

Of course you wouldn’t say a thing about that quote because it proves my point and you can’t admit that I’m right.

You continue to say the same stupid shit ...and falsely accuse me of saying things I have not said. You display the same kindergarten reading comprehension level as many of your fellow triggered snowflake allies.

You continue to focus on what SENATOR Lindsey Graham said YEARS ago rather than what the United States Constitution says, which makes you a flaming, butt-hurt, straw-grasping, insignificant and irrelevant distraction-attempting, Trump-hating snowflake.

Your continue pathetic attempt to ignore what RBG herself stated in 2016 and what the US constitution states is embarrassing. I almost feel sorry for you...almost.

'Elections have consequences'.

The President has an obligation to fill vacancies, and the Leader of the Senate has an obligation to fulfill his 'Advise and Consent' role asap to fill the vacancy.

Please, carry on......

 

[easyt65]

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.....

 

[FA_Q2]

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/18/why-mitch-mcconnell-intends-confirm-new-supreme-court-justice-now-when-he-wouldnt-2016/

Don't really care about the piece but it does have the relevant video.

McConnell was actually somewhat artful ion the fact he was always pointing out that the situation in 2016 (and he was saying this then and not now) was one where the president and the senate were of opposing parties. What McConnell did was not only not surprising but what would be generally expected - using the rightful political powers of the senate to push the agenda that their constituents want. The right has always been very keen on judicial powers and appointments.

Graham, OTOH, is tasting genuine shoe leather. I mean, the end of the video in the article is hilarious considering where we are now - a position that I think Graham never expected to actually be in.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

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


Bwuhahahahaha.....

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

 

[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.

Then explain to me how his words from then justify what he is doing now.

Do you not know what "hold it against him" means?

 

[Billiejeens]

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

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. I do think McConnell was wrong to refuse to give Garland a proper hearing and vote - they should have actually put their ass on record rather than McConnell providing cover for them with refusing even a hearing but refusing to confirm the appointee is well within the purview of the senate.

It is within their purview for sure.
But what sense would it have made to put Garland up for a vote and risk it?

 

[Billiejeens]

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/18/why-mitch-mcconnell-intends-confirm-new-supreme-court-justice-now-when-he-wouldnt-2016/

Don't really care about the piece but it does have the relevant video.

McConnell was actually somewhat artful ion the fact he was always pointing out that the situation in 2016 (and he was saying this then and not now) was one where the president and the senate were of opposing parties. What McConnell did was not only not surprising but what would be generally expected - using the rightful political powers of the senate to push the agenda that their constituents want. The right has always been very keen on judicial powers and appointments.

Graham, OTOH, is tasting genuine shoe leather. I mean, the end of the video in the article is hilarious considering where we are now - a position that I think Graham never expected to actually be in.

"The right has always been very keen on judicial powers and appointments."

Not so sure about that - the right continually nominates people that are not of like Constitutional views.

 

[easyt65]

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.

 

[DJT for Life]

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

No. The hearings are the most important part.

The hearings represent the tool to send Independents to the voting booth for the GOP.
Let the Dems make asses of themselves again.

Recent History...


The GOP blocks Garland from a confirmation in 2016. The Dems do not rally and win the Presidency....The Donald wins
30 states in an electoral rout.

In 2018...the Kavanaugh hearings become a democrat sponsored shit-show. Kavanaugh gets confirmed and
the Dems go into the mid-terms believing they had an advantage. They lose 3 more seats in the Senate.

Let the Dems do their thing in September and October and the GOP will do our thing in November.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

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


Bwuhahahahaha.....

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

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

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

Oddly, the democrats seem utterly unaware of the pivotal role they played in ensuring Kavanaugh was able to get nominated and how they are utterly unable to stop Trump filling this seat. It really is nuts but now, after the utter folly of doing away with the filibuster for judicial nominations has been proven, they want to do away with the filibuster entirely. Even going so far is to evoke the oft used lie that it is a Jim Crow relic.

Had they never went down that road, there is zero chance Trump would be able to push this nomination now.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/18/why-mitch-mcconnell-intends-confirm-new-supreme-court-justice-now-when-he-wouldnt-2016/

Don't really care about the piece but it does have the relevant video.

McConnell was actually somewhat artful ion the fact he was always pointing out that the situation in 2016 (and he was saying this then and not now) was one where the president and the senate were of opposing parties. What McConnell did was not only not surprising but what would be generally expected - using the rightful political powers of the senate to push the agenda that their constituents want. The right has always been very keen on judicial powers and appointments.

Graham, OTOH, is tasting genuine shoe leather. I mean, the end of the video in the article is hilarious considering where we are now - a position that I think Graham never expected to actually be in.

"The right has always been very keen on judicial powers and appointments."

Not so sure about that - the right continually nominates people that are not of like Constitutional views.

Does not change the fact that the right is motivated by judicial appointments.

The fact that the powers that be often nominate poor appointees is just par for the course with politicians that do not actually espouse the values they are pretending to support.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

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. I do think McConnell was wrong to refuse to give Garland a proper hearing and vote - they should have actually put their ass on record rather than McConnell providing cover for them with refusing even a hearing but refusing to confirm the appointee is well within the purview of the senate.

It is within their purview for sure.
But what sense would it have made to put Garland up for a vote and risk it?

They gave a lot of fodder to the left by playing politics. There was little to no risk and, to be quite frank, I think politicians should be held accountable for their positions. I am against anything that covers them for such.

I know I was not pleased they were playing games rather than just actually following the process. I am sure others were as well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I'm going to make a radical suggestion here. Everyone hold onto your seats.

The primary concern in regards to the federal government should be what's best for the country and the American people.

I'll pause for the gasps of shock, horror, and confusion.

The Senate exists to serve the country and the people in it. It does not exist for the Senators to make new friends, or congratulate themselves on how many little collegial handshakes they give out, or how well they follow this or that obscure unwritten rule.

I don't actually give a fuck what previous Senates have done. For the most part, I didn't vote for those people, because I wasn't alive then. I also don't give much of a fuck about "Well, LAST time they did THIS and said THAT!" Last time ain't this time. Different players, different circumstances, over and done and not now. Also, the primary purpose of the Senate and the Senators in it is not to "be consistent in the eyes of the media". Their purpose is to do what's best for the country in THIS time and THESE circumstances. If doing so means you have to live with being called a hypocrite, suck it the fuck up.

We have been through a chaotic and catastrophic year that has brought our nation to the brink of implosion. And now the flaming dumpster fire we have become is tottering its way into a hotly-disputed Presidential election in which one side has vowed to trash anything and everything in its way to get what they want. You think Bush v. Gore was a long, drawn-out, tense mess? Try on the Biden campaign trying an amped-up version of that trick in every single battleground state at once.

Now imagine that with no one having the ability to decide the fight one way or another, because the Supreme Court has an even split (which means no decision is rendered at all).

The American people need a functioning Supreme Court right now. They exist to serve us and the country, as well, and far too often all they do is swan around, lecturing the rest of us on how morally superior they are to us and how we "rubes" need to change the way we live our lives to meet their standards. This one circumstance, though, they are crucial in and we cannot do without them. I don't think it's any exaggeration to say that if the election is allowed to degenerate into endless, unsolvable fights, the United States will collapse. We simply can't afford to have our last bulwark of the law sidelined because of petty bullshit.

So the President and the Senate need to suck it up, strap on a pair, and do what's in the Constitution, fuck all this other nonsense that isn't in there. If they need a reason to explain why they've changed their minds from four years ago, they're welcome to quote me.

 

[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?