Supreme Court Nominees not voted on

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
67,076
Reaction score
11,246
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In his own link it clearly states that only 4 justices had "no action" taken....One was withdrawn, two had the senate session expire while they were nominated and were not re-submitted (it may be because the president's term expired or lost) and then there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.
Of course you IGNORE the ones you can not defeat, How many were voted NO VOTE? You lying scum.
I was just quoting your source. Deal with it
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,758
Reaction score
9,997
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.
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.
"Never mind your link. I was told that this was bad, and so I'm just going to keep talking like it's a fact!"

Try to focus, LizardBitch. I know you have no way of knowing what the law and precedent REALLY is in a foreign country, but our Senate isn't required to give any consideration to a nominee at all if they don't want to. I know your media told you they do, and you think you're an expert on US law based on the talking points you were given because you're an arrogant moron who mistakes your ignorance for knowledge, but the US Senate really does not have to act on nominations. And they haven't acted on nominations many times in the past.
 

JustAGuy1

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
5,313
Reaction score
3,494
Points
940
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?
Repeat after me, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Nothing you can do.
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
581
Reaction score
558
Points
493
Location
Arizona
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.
It doesn't matter. There is no specified process for vetting a presidential nomination. the opposing party can sit down over lunch and decide to ignore the nominee of it wants to.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top