Supreme Court Nominees not voted on

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,873
Reaction score
9,918
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
67,530
Reaction score
11,552
Points
2,030
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
Did you read your link?
 
OP
RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,873
Reaction score
9,918
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
Did you read your link?
Yes there are at least a dozen examples of NO VOTE or a vote to NOT vote the last before Obama was Eisenhower. You obviously did not read it.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
67,530
Reaction score
11,552
Points
2,030
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
Did you read your link?
Yes there are at least a dozen examples of NO VOTE or a vote to NOT vote the last before Obama was Eisenhower. You obviously did not read it.
And the link tells you why there was no vote in most of those cases...doesn't it.....

Please share that tidbit.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
25,853
Reaction score
8,317
Points
910
Location
Niagara Escarpment
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
It's not that they didn't vote on him. They wouldn't even meet with him or discuss his nomination. Period. No Senate in history has EVER done that. There many be nominees who didn't make it out of the Judiciary Committee, but none that the JC refused to meet with except Merrick Garland.
 

Ridgerunner

'Ole Wise One'
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2016
Messages
9,658
Reaction score
4,815
Points
1,095
Location
Honolulu, Hawaii
It's not that they didn't vote on him. They wouldn't even meet with him or discuss his nomination. Period.
As a canadian you should read our Constitution... The POTUS nominates... The Senate recommends or declines... Its pretty simple, but if your confused have an adult read it for you...
 
Last edited:
OP
RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,873
Reaction score
9,918
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
Did you read your link?
Yes there are at least a dozen examples of NO VOTE or a vote to NOT vote the last before Obama was Eisenhower. You obviously did not read it.
And the link tells you why there was no vote in most of those cases...doesn't it.....

Please share that tidbit.
The link if you bother to read it shows that about a dozen nominees were either never voted on or had a vote TO NOT VOTE ON THEM. Starting with the second Adams as President.
 
OP
RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,873
Reaction score
9,918
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
It's not that they didn't vote on him. They wouldn't even meet with him or discuss his nomination. Period. No Senate in history has EVER done that. There many be nominees who didn't make it out of the Judiciary Committee, but none that the JC refused to meet with except Merrick Garland.
Provide a link that proves that I have a link that shows numerous times that no vote was held and in most cases it can be assumed no meeting happened either as the senate was controlled by the opposing party and they made it clear that President would not get a vote.
 

MarathonMike

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
21,277
Reaction score
15,392
Points
2,445
Location
The Southwestern Desert
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
Democrats do not care about truth, or even lives. All they care about is POWER, and they will say or do anything to get it. That is why the Democratic Party is a true threat to this country.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
48,858
Reaction score
14,832
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
Democrats do not care about truth, or even lives. All they care about is POWER, and they will say or do anything to get it. That is why the Democratic Party is a true threat to this country.
And why do they care about power? Because they are in it to line their own pockets with cash and to do that they need power and control of government spending.
 

Osiris-ODS

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
639
Points
210
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
It's not that they didn't vote on him. They wouldn't even meet with him or discuss his nomination. Period. No Senate in history has EVER done that. There many be nominees who didn't make it out of the Judiciary Committee, but none that the JC refused to meet with except Merrick Garland.
Provide a link that proves that I have a link that shows numerous times that no vote was held and in most cases it can be assumed no meeting happened either as the senate was controlled by the opposing party and they made it clear that President would not get a vote.
Holy punctuation Batman

Just giving you a hard time ;)
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
67,530
Reaction score
11,552
Points
2,030
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
Did you read your link?
Yes there are at least a dozen examples of NO VOTE or a vote to NOT vote the last before Obama was Eisenhower. You obviously did not read it.
And the link tells you why there was no vote in most of those cases...doesn't it.....

Please share that tidbit.
The link if you bother to read it shows that about a dozen nominees were either never voted on or had a vote TO NOT VOTE ON THEM. Starting with the second Adams as President.
From your link, there were 4 listed in the table that had "no action" on them. Not a dozen. You should look at your own link.

Garland was one of them.
The other three...Bradford, Read and Ricou

the Senate session expired and the President could have nominated him again but declined; Edward Bradford.
the Senate did express that they would not confirm John Read and his nomination was withdrawn
the Senate did not act on William Micou because it was late in the senate session.

All 3 were from 1845 to 1853....160 years before McConnell pulled his shit with Garland who was nominated with over 10 months left in the Senate session.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2

buckeye45_73

Lakhota's my *****
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
30,429
Reaction score
4,569
Points
1,130
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
It's not that they didn't vote on him. They wouldn't even meet with him or discuss his nomination. Period. No Senate in history has EVER done that. There many be nominees who didn't make it out of the Judiciary Committee, but none that the JC refused to meet with except Merrick Garland.
Oh well, don't accuse our nominees of obviously false charges like gang rape......you fucktards deserve every fucking you get on the supreme court
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
25,853
Reaction score
8,317
Points
910
Location
Niagara Escarpment
It's not that they didn't vote on him. They wouldn't even meet with him or discuss his nomination. Period.
As a canadian you should read our Constitution... The POTUS nominates... The Senate recommends and or declines... Its pretty simple, but if your confused have an adult read it for you...
As an American, YOU should read your Constitution. Especially the whole idea of an indepdendant, non-partisan judiciary to act as a sober check and balance on an out of control Executive branch.

Also, explore the idea that any judge appointed by Trump should recuse themself from cases regarding his election.

Trump thinks that if he litigates the election, a conservative court where he had appointed 1/3 of those sitting on the bench, would rule in his favour. I can't see how they reasonable would or could. So far, Trump has lost every single one of the cases he's taken to the SC.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2

IM2

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
43,049
Reaction score
9,291
Points
2,070
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
It's not that they didn't vote on him. They wouldn't even meet with him or discuss his nomination. Period. No Senate in history has EVER done that. There many be nominees who didn't make it out of the Judiciary Committee, but none that the JC refused to meet with except Merrick Garland.
Provide a link that proves that I have a link that shows numerous times that no vote was held and in most cases it can be assumed no meeting happened either as the senate was controlled by the opposing party and they made it clear that President would not get a vote.
She doesn't have to. It has never happened. That's a fact whether you choose to believe it or not.
 

IM2

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
43,049
Reaction score
9,291
Points
2,070
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
Democrats do not care about truth, or even lives. All they care about is POWER, and they will say or do anything to get it. That is why the Democratic Party is a true threat to this country.
No, that's what republicans do.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
35,045
Reaction score
4,186
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
Did you read your link?
Yes there are at least a dozen examples of NO VOTE or a vote to NOT vote the last before Obama was Eisenhower. You obviously did not read it.
You have no clue who Carswell and Haynesworth were, or what they were. Your OP actually unwittingly makes the case for why Moscow Mitch's actions were norm shattering.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
67,530
Reaction score
11,552
Points
2,030
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
Did you read your link?
Yes there are at least a dozen examples of NO VOTE or a vote to NOT vote the last before Obama was Eisenhower. You obviously did not read it.
You have no clue who Carswell and Haynesworth were, or what they were. Your OP actually unwittingly makes the case for why Moscow Mitch's actions were norm shattering.
]\

In his own link it clearly states that only 4 justices had "no action" taken....One was withdrawn, two had the senate session expire while they were nominated and were not re-submitted (it may be because the president's term expired or lost) and then there was Garland who didn't get a vote.
 
OP
RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,873
Reaction score
9,918
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
The Senate has a HISTORY of not voting on Supreme Court Nominees that they dislike. This includes votes to HOLD NO VOTE.


The claim by the democrats that is is unheard of for that to happen is a farce , a lie and simply is NOT true.

I do not have the link but someone else posted that Nominations in an election year are not rare either. Putting another lie to the democrats.
Did you read your link?
Yes there are at least a dozen examples of NO VOTE or a vote to NOT vote the last before Obama was Eisenhower. You obviously did not read it.
You have no clue who Carswell and Haynesworth were, or what they were. Your OP actually unwittingly makes the case for why Moscow Mitch's actions were norm shattering.
]\

In his own link it clearly states that only 4 justices had "no action" taken....One was withdrawn, two had the senate session expire while they were nominated and were not re-submitted (it may be because the president's term expired or lost) and then there was Garland who didn't get a vote.
Of course you IGNORE the ones you can not defeat, How many were voted NO VOTE? You lying scum.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top