The Dems may not like what the GOP Senators consider "disqualifying" going forward

[joaquinmiller]

Yup. Republicans brought this on themselves.

By enough Senate Republicans voting to add Supreme Court Justices to the cloture vote rule Senate Democrats had already voted to change.

What was the vote on the Biden Rule?

(The Senate votes on Rules.)

 

[g5000]

Karma's a *****.

The Republicans blocked a perfectly valid nominee. They disqualified him just for being nominated by a President they hated. They didn't even give him a chance for a fair hearing.

Then they went nuclear and changed the Senate rules so they could force through their choice.

What did you stupid ***** expect the Democrats to do? Just sit there and take it?

The Democrats had no choice but to go low. It's the only weapon they had left.

So enjoy your karma, bitches. Hope it's tasty.

 

[kyzr]

No, by telling a sitting president he would not be allowed to seat any more Supreme Court justices for the remainder of his presidency.

Majority Leader McConnell didn't have to tell the President anything, the vote wasn't happening, because he wasn't bringing it to the floor and had the power necessary to make it so.

And future Senate Majority Leaders will have no problem doing the same thing. Leave a seat unfilled until you have a President from your party

Not sure about this, saw it in a post. But suppose that Garland's voting record was 95% in line with Kavanaugh's. IMHO that nominee could get support from both sides. If a president recognizes the reality that he won't get anyone approved except a moderate that might help get nominees thru even a partisan Senate of the opposite party.

 

[hadit]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

Oh, yes, the feeble Garland defense. What was he accused of again?

Being an Obama nominee.

That's enough to destroy a life, for sure, but how's that the Republican's fault?

Who blocked his confirmation hearings if not Republicans?

Blocking his hearing was wrong, as I have maintained all along. It did not, however, destroy his life, family, or career. No one accused him of misconduct, no one sent the FBI to interview people about allegations from his childhood, no one came out of the woodwork with tales carefully crafted so as to be almost impossible to verify, and on it goes. Aside from being associated with Obama, nothing negative happened to him, as no one used anything from his life and career as a reason to vote against him.

Contrast that with the concerted attempt to personally destroy Kavanaugh by any means necessary and possible. It seems that you're trying to equate the two and excuse what's going on as a consequence. That's ludicrous.

 

[g5000]

No, by telling a sitting president he would not be allowed to seat any more Supreme Court justices for the remainder of his presidency.

Majority Leader McConnell didn't have to tell the President anything, the vote wasn't happening, because he wasn't bringing it to the floor and had the power necessary to make it so.

And future Senate Majority Leaders will have no problem doing the same thing. Leave a seat unfilled until you have a President from your party

Not sure about this, saw it in a post. But suppose that Garland's voting record was 95% in line with Kavanaugh's. IMHO that nominee could get support from both sides. If a president recognizes the reality that he won't get anyone approved except a moderate that might help get nominees thru even a partisan Senate of the opposite party.

The pseudocons were told that Garland was an extreme far left judge. They blindly parroted that without knowing ****-all about him.

 

[g5000]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

Oh, yes, the feeble Garland defense. What was he accused of again?

Being an Obama nominee.

That's enough to destroy a life, for sure, but how's that the Republican's fault?

Who blocked his confirmation hearings if not Republicans?

Blocking his hearing was wrong, as I have maintained all along. It did not, however, destroy his life, family, or career.

Did not destroy his career? Hello? He was not able to sit on the Supreme Court! I'd say that is a pretty big ******* blow to one's career.

 

[Auld Phart]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

He was?

Don't remember reading anything about him being 'disqualified'.

Yes he was. He was disqualified for being a nominee of Obama's.

pretty much.

McConnell, AND Biden, felt that the nomination should be delayed til after an upcoming presidential election, giving the new, or incoming president, the chance to name their own Justice.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

Ask Biden why Garland was disqualified.

 

[iceberg]

No, by telling a sitting president he would not be allowed to seat any more Supreme Court justices for the remainder of his presidency.

Majority Leader McConnell didn't have to tell the President anything, the vote wasn't happening, because he wasn't bringing it to the floor and had the power necessary to make it so.

And future Senate Majority Leaders will have no problem doing the same thing. Leave a seat unfilled until you have a President from your party

Not sure about this, saw it in a post. But suppose that Garland's voting record was 95% in line with Kavanaugh's. IMHO that nominee could get support from both sides. If a president recognizes the reality that he won't get anyone approved except a moderate that might help get nominees thru even a partisan Senate of the opposite party.

The pseudocons were told that Garland was an extreme far left judge. They blindly parroted that without knowing ****-all about him.

and the liberals are now running with the RAPIST mantra and don't know **** about him either other than their "side" doesn't want him in - now go attack them in the streets as waters and other liberal leaders condone.

 

[Hiryuu]

Yup. Republicans brought this on themselves.

By enough Senate Republicans voting to add Supreme Court Justices to the cloture vote rule Senate Democrats had already voted to change.

What was the vote on the Biden Rule?

(The Senate votes on Rules.)

Then Judiciary Committee Chairman Biden, made a speech about how he thought President Bush should not present an Associate Supreme Court Justice nomination, prior to the upcoming Presidential Election, and added that if the nomination was brought forth and sent to the Senate floor, Senators could delay the vote or put off conformation if that is what they chose to do.

What Senator Biden offered was a speech that had no actual rule, and simply included his suggestion as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and that provided political cover for those in Congress who may have wanted to stall the vote.

Whatever garbage may also be associated with the "Biden Rule", or how anyone has attempted to apply it to something else, when it was never a rule to start with, is simple partisan nonsense (much like then Chairman Biden's speech in the first place).

President Bush could nominate an Associate Supreme Court Justice, the Senate Judiciary could send that nomination to the Senate floor and the Senate could vote on the nomination, if the Senate Majority Leader brought the vote forward for consideration.

 

[Auld Phart]

Oh, yes, the feeble Garland defense. What was he accused of again?

Being an Obama nominee.

That's enough to destroy a life, for sure, but how's that the Republican's fault?

Who blocked his confirmation hearings if not Republicans?

Blocking his hearing was wrong, as I have maintained all along. It did not, however, destroy his life, family, or career.

Did not destroy his career? Hello? He was not able to sit on the Supreme Court! I'd say that is a pretty big ******* blow to one's career.

Did it drag his name thru the mud?

Was there a guarantee he would have made it thru the Senate vote?

 

[kyzr]

No, by telling a sitting president he would not be allowed to seat any more Supreme Court justices for the remainder of his presidency.

Majority Leader McConnell didn't have to tell the President anything, the vote wasn't happening, because he wasn't bringing it to the floor and had the power necessary to make it so.

And future Senate Majority Leaders will have no problem doing the same thing. Leave a seat unfilled until you have a President from your party

Not sure about this, saw it in a post. But suppose that Garland's voting record was 95% in line with Kavanaugh's. IMHO that nominee could get support from both sides. If a president recognizes the reality that he won't get anyone approved except a moderate that might help get nominees thru even a partisan Senate of the opposite party.

The pseudocons were told that Garland was an extreme far left judge. They blindly parroted that without knowing ****-all about him.

I agree with the post that said that if Hillary won Garland would have been rushed thru and seated before Hillary could nominate a radical left wing *****. Credit Obama for picking a moderate (if that moderate voting record is indeed true). As you said, most people don't know anything about USSC nominees, especially in the age of "fake news".

 

[Auld Phart]

No, by telling a sitting president he would not be allowed to seat any more Supreme Court justices for the remainder of his presidency.

Majority Leader McConnell didn't have to tell the President anything, the vote wasn't happening, because he wasn't bringing it to the floor and had the power necessary to make it so.

And future Senate Majority Leaders will have no problem doing the same thing. Leave a seat unfilled until you have a President from your party

Not sure about this, saw it in a post. But suppose that Garland's voting record was 95% in line with Kavanaugh's. IMHO that nominee could get support from both sides. If a president recognizes the reality that he won't get anyone approved except a moderate that might help get nominees thru even a partisan Senate of the opposite party.

The pseudocons were told that Garland was an extreme far left judge. They blindly parroted that without knowing ****-all about him.

I agree with the post that said that if Hillary won Garland would have been rushed thru and seated before Hillary could nominate a radical left wing *****. Credit Obama for picking a moderate (if that moderate voting record is indeed true). As you said, most people don't know anything about USSC nominees, especially in the age of "fake news".

That's providing, of course, a woman didn't come forward claiming he molested her in High School.

(hmmm, wonder if the dems would have bothered digging that far for an Obama nominee?)

 

[joaquinmiller]

Yup. Republicans brought this on themselves.

By enough Senate Republicans voting to add Supreme Court Justices to the cloture vote rule Senate Democrats had already voted to change.

What was the vote on the Biden Rule?

(The Senate votes on Rules.)

Then Judiciary Committee Chairman Biden, made a speech about how he thought President Bush should not present an Associate Supreme Court Justice nomination, prior to the upcoming Presidential Election, and added that if the nomination was brought forth and sent to the Senate floor, Senators could delay the vote or put off conformation if that is what they chose to do.

What Senator Biden offered was a speech that had no actual rule, and simply included his suggestion as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and that provided political cover for those in Congress who may have wanted to stall the vote.

Whatever garbage may also be associated with the "Biden Rule", or how anyone has attempted to apply it to something else, when it was never a rule to start with, is simple partisan nonsense (much like then Chairman Biden's speech in the first place).

President Bush could nominate an Associate Supreme Court Justice, the Senate Judiciary could send that nomination to the Senate floor and the Senate could vote on the nomination, if the Senate Majority Leader brought the vote forward for consideration.

Yes, a quote from a speech is not a Rule. Never has been, but that doesn't keep Republicans from dishonestly invoking it.

 

[easyt65]

'What will the GOP controlled Senate consider disqualifying for dem USSC nominees going forward?'

Here are some suggestions:

1. Having ever operated an illegal unauthorized unencrypted unsecured personal server containing Top Secret Information.

2. Having compromised national security by allowing Russia, China, & 4 other foreign entities steal TS information

3. Having climbed into bed with the ChiComm President / Govt, made millions, and facilitated Chinese espionage by harboring a Chinese spy in your office for 20 years

4. Having sexually groped a girl without her consent

5. Having covered up sexual crimes by paying for victims' silence with tax payer money...for 15 years

6. As an elected govt official or employee of the United States Government, having ever publicly declared that 'you' were 100% committed to opposing the actions in the best interest of the country by the democratically elected President and / or Congress for the sole purpose of political party gain

7. Making proven false allegations against anyone for partisan gain

8. Declaring 'your' belief that 'the burden of proof is on the accused rather than the accuser', 'your' belief that anyone is Guilty until proven innocent'

9. Having been caught engaging in deceitful, immoral, unethical theatrics / actions for partisan gain

10. Having Obstructed Justice, committed Perjury, violated the FOIA / Federal Records Act, refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas, found to have illegally conspired against the federal government, elected officials the President of the United States

...

 

[Hiryuu]

Yes, a quote from a speech is not a Rule. Never has been, but that doesn't keep Republicans from dishonestly invoking it.

I didn't suggest it did. In fact I specifically stated that invoking it was the same "partisan nonsense", and would be just as dishonest in regards to suggesting it meant anything, as when then Chairman Biden spoke the words in the first place, goofball

 

[Faun]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

Oh, yes, the feeble Garland defense. What was he accused of again?

Being an Obama nominee.

That's enough to destroy a life, for sure, but how's that the Republican's fault?

Who blocked his confirmation hearings if not Republicans?

Blocking his hearing was wrong, as I have maintained all along. It did not, however, destroy his life, family, or career. No one accused him of misconduct, no one sent the FBI to interview people about allegations from his childhood, no one came out of the woodwork with tales carefully crafted so as to be almost impossible to verify, and on it goes. Aside from being associated with Obama, nothing negative happened to him, as no one used anything from his life and career as a reason to vote against him.

Contrast that with the concerted attempt to personally destroy Kavanaugh by any means necessary and possible. It seems that you're trying to equate the two and excuse what's going on as a consequence. That's ludicrous.

You play with the cards you’re dealt. Democrats didn’t have a hand where they had any control over blocking Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

 

[Faun]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

He was?

Don't remember reading anything about him being 'disqualified'.

Yes he was. He was disqualified for being a nominee of Obama's.

pretty much.

McConnell, AND Biden, felt that the nomination should be delayed til after an upcoming presidential election, giving the new, or incoming president, the chance to name their own Justice.

Uh, no. Biden said Bush should wait until after the election and then name his nominee; McConnell said, **** you, don’t bother naming a nominee, not even after the election. Also, Biden said that 4 months before the election. McConnell said it when Obama still had 11months left in his presidency.

 

[g5000]

You play with the cards you’re dealt. Democrats didn’t have a hand where they had any control over blocking Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Exactly. The Republicans forced the Democrats into a corner when the Republicans went nuclear.

The Republicans wanted a nuclear war, and they got one.

 

[Hiryuu]

You play with the cards you’re dealt. Democrats didn’t have a hand where they had any control over blocking Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

It's the same players on the Republican side, Senator Flake was the one who urged Garland shouldn't get a hearing or be confirmed unless Hillary Clinton won the election (Senator Hatch signed on to that idea afterwards). Senators Murkowski and Collins pushed for hearings prior to the election.

It's like walking around the block to get next door.