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

Diver Diva

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2019
Messages
631
Reaction score
315
Points
870
Location
Florida
How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority
They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
Points
1,140
How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority
They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.
How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

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

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
46,602
Reaction score
8,289
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
After
Usually I don't pay attention to anything Rush Limbaugh says because he is more often than not a pompous arrogant windbag....but I just read the headline talking about how Limbaugh made this suggestion.

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

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

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

Complete the necessary legal background checks and just vote.

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

Why allow the Democrats do that to anyone?!


Go for it. Just remember you won’t always be the minority party in power, you’ll be the minority party out of power.
Link us up to when the minority Republican party pulled the bullshit you clowns pulled on Kavanaugh during the hearings.
After the bullshit pulled with Garland's nomination, Republicans deserve what they get.
In 2016 if the situation was reversed you know damn well the Democrats wouldn’t allow a vote on the nominee and today if the President and the Senate was Democratic, they would confirm a judge and I would expect them to.

The reasoning is simple. Republicans and Democrats both feel they know how best to run the country and the other side is clueless. Therefore you take every advantage to help America because you believe your way is best.
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
4,993
Points
290
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?!


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:

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

Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'


:p
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

I really feel as if this is a fairly minor incident and pales by comparison to normal Democrat abuse.
Dems are fixated because they use the SC to push positions they could never get the people's representatives
(Congress) to pass actual legislation on.
That is a far more significant abuse of power, for certain.
I don’t mind conservative judges. Our system is set up to legislate through Congress and not the courts. It’s unfortunate that congress is so bad at their jobs and incapable of getting a respectable amount of work done. These divisive power grab games that the GOP has been pulling for the past 8 years is only making the stagnation worse. At some point you gotta stop blaming everything on the evil Dems and look in the mirror.

Our system is set up to legislate through Congress and not the courts

Unfortunately the Democrats have continually ( and effectively) bypassed using legislation that they knew would never be accepted by mainstream voters, in favor of Judicial fiat.
They have affectively ruled against the majority of the country outside of NYCity and LACounty.
So have republicans genius. How many executive orders has Trump thrown out? How many times has he been sued for illegally executing his power? Open your eyes. Congress is stagnant and both Obama and Trump got creative to try and make change.

As for judges there are multiple legitimate viewpoints and interpretations of law. It’s important to have all those viewpoints represented by our best people to debate and deliberate in our highest court. Read some of what Scalia and RBG wrote about that. He saw her as an asset not a poison pill despite their differences. It’s a shame you don’t understand why.
Can you give some examples where Republican or Conservative Justices wrote law from the bench like that?
What percentage of President Trump's EO's have been to block Obama's EO's ?

Congress was actually mostly were doing their job, for good or for bad until 2008 -

Congress made a conscious effort to make itself irrelevant in favor of the First Half Black President using a phone and a pen.

They knew that he could go way farther left than Congress could as very few were willing to challenge him.
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
65,164
Reaction score
21,980
Points
2,290
with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices....
What you call 'power grab games' are what USSC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called carrying out 'Constitutional Obligations':

"The President of the United States has the right and an obligation to fill a USSC vacancy as soon as possible. A President does not stop being President his last year in office."
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2016

In the same manner, the Senate Majority Leader has both the right and obligation to hold Judicial Confirmation hearings for a President's Judicial nominees to fill vacancies as soon as possible, and HE does not stop being Senate Majority Leader until he relinquishes or loses that position.

Yes, I am fully aware that Garland was not given the Judicial Confirmation Hearing he was due, and not getting those was an injustice. Denying a nominee a Judicial Confirmation Hearing NOW would be just as wrong now as it was then. The Judicial Nominee process is moving forward as the Constitution dictates now. The Left's desire for 'revenge' by denying one now would be a continued deviation from the Constitution and would be evidence they really don't care about the Constitution but is instead all about whatis best for them / the Democrat Party.
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
65,164
Reaction score
21,980
Points
2,290
After
Usually I don't pay attention to anything Rush Limbaugh says because he is more often than not a pompous arrogant windbag....but I just read the headline talking about how Limbaugh made this suggestion.

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

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

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

Complete the necessary legal background checks and just vote.

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

Why allow the Democrats do that to anyone?!


Go for it. Just remember you won’t always be the minority party in power, you’ll be the minority party out of power.
Link us up to when the minority Republican party pulled the bullshit you clowns pulled on Kavanaugh during the hearings.
After the bullshit pulled with Garland's nomination, Republicans deserve what they get.
In 2016 if the situation was reversed you know damn well the Democrats wouldn’t allow a vote on the nominee and today if the President and the Senate was Democratic, they would confirm a judge and I would expect them to.

The reasoning is simple. Republicans and Democrats both feel they know how best to run the country and the other side is clueless. Therefore you take every advantage to help America because you believe your way is best.
In 2016 Barry made it clear if he got the chance he would have filled a vacancy....and Democrats and snowflakes were fine with it because THEY and not the GOP would have been getting to do so.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
18,851
Reaction score
3,070
Points
290
Location
Washington State
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.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
18,851
Reaction score
3,070
Points
290
Location
Washington State
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?!


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:

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

Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'


:p
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.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
46,602
Reaction score
8,289
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority
They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.
How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t
The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
Points
1,140
Yo
with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices....
What you call 'power grab games' are what USSC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called carrying out 'Constitutional Obligations':

"The President of the United States has the right and an obligation to fill a USSC vacancy as soon as possible. A President does not stop being President his last year in office."
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2016

In the same manner, the Senate Majority Leader has both the right and obligation to hold Judicial Confirmation hearings for a President's Judicial nominees to fill vacancies as soon as possible, and HE does not stop being Senate Majority Leader until he relinquishes or loses that position.

Yes, I am fully aware that Garland was not given the Judicial Confirmation Hearing he was due, and not getting those was an injustice. Denying a nominee a Judicial Confirmation Hearing NOW would be just as wrong now as it was then. The Judicial Nominee process is moving forward as the Constitution dictates now. The Left's desire for 'revenge' by denying one now would be a continued deviation from the Constitution and would be evidence they really don't care about the Constitution but is instead all about whatis best for them / the Democrat Party.
you're not paying attention. I’m not talking about Trump nominating somebody now. I’ve said over and over that he has that right. The game was what happened to Garland and the new precedent that Reps tried to set about nominating justices during an election year.... and then completely flip flopping on it during the next term. Obama should have gotten Garland and Trump should get this pick. We all know this
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
Points
1,140
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?!


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:

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

Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'


:p
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
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
Points
1,140
How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority
They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.
How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t
The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.
The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
4,993
Points
290
How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority
They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.
How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t
The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.
The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all
Yet you still don't understand his quote
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
65,164
Reaction score
21,980
Points
2,290
you're not paying attention. I’m not talking about Trump nominating somebody now. I’ve said over and over that he has that right. The game was what happened to Garland and the new precedent that Reps tried to set about nominating justices during an election year.... and then completely flip flopping on it during the next term. Obama should have gotten Garland and Trump should get this pick. We all know this
Yeah, I am trying to ignore your ignorance for the most part.

1. Garland is in the past...let it go.

2. What 'precedence' regarding nominating Judges in an election year' did the GOP set?



3. Yes, Garland should have gotten his hearings. Sadly, he didn't. Welcome to POLITICS.

And 'for the record, we both know if GBG would have bailed in September 2016 Barry and the Democrats would have broken their collective asses trying to fill the vacancy. Barry even said if one came available that he year he would have.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
Points
1,140
How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority
They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.
How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t
The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.
The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all
Yet you still don't understand his quote
What do you think I’m misunderstanding?
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
4,993
Points
290
How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority
They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.
How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t
The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.
The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all
Yet you still don't understand his quote
What do you think I’m misunderstanding?
The meaning.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
Points
1,140
you're not paying attention. I’m not talking about Trump nominating somebody now. I’ve said over and over that he has that right. The game was what happened to Garland and the new precedent that Reps tried to set about nominating justices during an election year.... and then completely flip flopping on it during the next term. Obama should have gotten Garland and Trump should get this pick. We all know this
Yeah, I am trying to ignore your ignorance for the most part.

1. Garland is in the past...let it go.

2. What 'precedence' regarding nominating Judges in an election year' did the GOP set?



3. Yes, Garland should have gotten his hearings. Sadly, he didn't. Welcome to POLITICS.

And 'for the record, we both know if GBG would have bailed in September 2016 Barry and the Democrats would have broken their collective asses trying to fill the vacancy. Barry even said if one came available that he year he would have.
Ho hum let it go doesn’t fly when you’re talking about robbing a president of his constitutional right to Appoint a Supreme Court justice. The reasoning they used and the precedent they set was that a judge should not be appointed in an election year. The people should decide through their vote. Since that was a lie. The precedent now set is if the opposition party is in power they should block a presidents SCOTUS pick. What would stop them from blocking it for 2 years next time?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,834
Reaction score
4,328
Points
1,140
How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority
They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.
How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t
The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.
The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all
Yet you still don't understand his quote
What do you think I’m misunderstanding?
The meaning.
Well then explain it. I’ll gladly point out where you are wrong
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top