What's wrong with the GOP? Vote on Supreme Court Justice

[Slade3200]

You hit it on the head. It doesn't matter if Hillary or Trump wins. They won't have any choice but to approve of at least 2 SCOTUS in the next cycle regardless if they do nothing or do something. This is about "I Hate Obama.....spit on floor". It should have ended shortly after he was elected the first time but it's become a habit. That habit may be the end of the Whig.....er.......Republican unless it's turned around. They are too busy hating to actual govern. BTW, I am now supporting Trump. Trump may be the savior of the GOP yet or he may be the end of the GOP. If he doesn't save it then it's not worth saving.

so what if it's about: I hate Obama. when the Democrats did it to Bush, it was about, I hate Bush and you left/dems supported it then.

They were mean to us so now we get to be mean to them and it's ok!!! Is that your point?

You don't know that's the reality of life?



How old are you? Feel behind your ears, is it wet?

You live in your reality I'll live in mine. I'm well aware than many people think and live this way... Others hold themselves and others to a higher standard, those are the people I look for when placing my vote for leadership

So who do you write in then?

This election cycle is sad, Kasich is the best candidate on the GOP side but I don't think the electorate will give him a chance. It appears the circus will be coming to town, perhaps best to buy some popcorn and watch the show

 

[Slade3200]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

It seems to me like we are being given a very cogent and rational reason. Because of the timing - a year of a general election - let the electorate decide.

It could work out well for either side. Because the judiciary is functionally replacing the legislative branch, and because a single Justice is increasingly deciding extremely significant societal decisions, the American public should be directly involved in the selection of the decider.

This is particularly appropriate inasmuch as their awareness of the pertinent national questions is maximized through the ongoing dialogue extant in the public sphere.

To use a republican argument... Where in the constitution does it say "let the people decide" in an election year. The people voted for Obama, he gets 4 years, he is not a lame duck yet. The next president will get their 4 years.

 

[Slade3200]

Four key facts appear to be overlooked, committee approval, senate confirmation debate, vote, however most importantly the candidate can not render a opinion or vote on current cases before the court and must recluse him or herself due to not sitting for the entire case proceedings. The process is a long lengthy process designed to insure the integrity of the court and Constitution. There is no way a justice can be vetted within the time frame as proposed. The question needs to be answered, if in fact Reid and company were able to ram rod this candidate through the system what good would it do other than stacking the court for political reasons, most importantly at what cost, so why the hurry?
What has become apparent is that democrat's preach yet fail to follow through nor adhere with their prior stated positions and opinions when it fails to fill their political agenda. So what else is new, same old do as I say not as I do syndrome. Maybe its time for Senator's Reid and Schumer to shut their crooked mouths and let the process proceed at its own pace.

I haven't heard one person use the "we don't have enough time" argument. I haven't looked into it but since it isn't a talking point on the right I'm assuming it's not a valid point. Their case is. "The dems did it to us so we can do it to them" or "we are following the Biden rule" or "the people should decide, unless Hillary wins and if that's the case then we will vote on this nominee during the lame duck". It's quite laughable

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

WorldWatcher covered what is most likely the reason for this but I do have to agree somewhat with your assertions here. The right is not going to beat Hillary and there is no indications that it is even remotely likely at this point. They have the most power over the nomination right now - a power that is going to fast diminish as we get closer to the election and her election becomes more likely. A power that diminishes MUCH faster if the senate starts to look like it will flip as well.

If the senate does not flip they are in almost the exact same position. Nothing gained.

 

[FA_Q2]

A perfect justice for a republican: Someone who takes text, history, tradition, precedent when judging a statute to be constitutional.

A perfect justice for a democrat: Someone who takes text, history, tradition, precedent, the purpose of a statute, and the consequences. Notice the last two categories are nothing other than simply rewriting a law from the bench. Not to mention their infatuation with substantive due process.

These are two means of which judges generally differ. For most of our history "text, history, tradition, and precedent" have been the primary means of judging a statute. It wasn't until the New Deal Era when purpose and consequence became a major factor, granting rise to liberal judges who legislate from the bench and transform the U.S. Constitution into an object James Madison certainly wouldn't recognize without so much as a vote of the people, congress, and states who have the sole authority of amending the text.

This judge is big on "purpose" and "consequence." He is therefore a legislator not a judge. Republicans ought not to give him the time of day.

They can more effectively make that point by vetting, holding a hearing, voting, and then justifying that vote. By doing nothing they just look like obstructing assholes

It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.

Obama's nomination was one that he thought the Senate would have to do some soul searching to refuse. He should have nominated a Black male Democrat since Thomas is just Scalia in Blackface. The president chose a White male with outstanding credentials showing that once again he was trying to meet the Senate more than half way...much to the chagrin of his Black constituency. Still, this unprecedented refusal to vet by the Senate continues with impunity.

No, the Dems have NEVER done the same to the Pubs. You cannot show me where the Democrats have ever refused to vet a nominee. They might have voted against confirmation or filibustered,but they engaged in the process as ordained by the Constitution. They have never refused to vet or conduct a hearing on USSC nominees.
Nice try but go back to square one and try again.

That's because when the Democrats tried to do so they didn't have the votes to sustain. Nevertheless I think Reid holds the record on blocked judicial nominees. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Well, YOU WERE wrong when you said the Dems did it to the Pubs. I am not interested in anecdotal reasons as to why the Dems didn't do it. BTW the Pubs have a chance to break Reid's record on this singe appointment if only they would do their jobs.

No, they did do it, advocated for it and they simply failed. Just because they failed does not mean the responsibility for the action goes away.

Face it, the republicans are simply doing what the democrats already set a precedence for and the dems are incessantly shinning because of it. The hypocrisy within the parties is breathtaking. Even Obama is on record calling for what he states today is unconstitutional.

 

[FA_Q2]

They can more effectively make that point by vetting, holding a hearing, voting, and then justifying that vote. By doing nothing they just look like obstructing assholes

McConnell's not dumb.

He's not up for reelection for 4-years. What he's doing it keep any Obama nominee from being brought up for hearings and a vote so that the 24 R's up for reelection this year don't have to go on record in a vote of the Yeas and Nays voting against a highly qualified nominee.

He takes the heat now and is protecting the 24 R's planing on the "heat" being off the news cycle during the summer. That allows him to release the 4 or 5 Senators that have a serious chance of losing to distance themselves from HIS actions and disagree with him hoping for a better outcome in the Senate elections. If the ones in trouble get reelected then the Senate might remain a majority "R". He's afraid a highly qualified candidate being put through hearings now will result in those 4-5 candidates losing their race, meaning the D's become the majority party in January.

The plan is that by the time 4-years are up, the people will have forgotten all about his dereliction of duty when he's up for reelection.

**********************************************

They mantra that this is about "letting the people decide" in November on a next President is a lie.

This is NOT about the Supreme Court nominee, this is about the current Senate Leadership trying to stay in power.



>>>>

Good points. Thank you.

 

[JQPublic1]

But it seems only 1/4th of the government is holding things up out of unabashed spite and hatred. The question is whether the Senate has violated the Constitution by not even evaluating the nominee's credentials and or vetting him. The reason cited for doing so is lame. The GOP is saying that the next president ought to select the USSC vacancy on order to give the American people a voice in the selection. Well, Obama is the president and the voice of the people is still resonating from his last presidential victory. Obama's approval rating is over 50%. That ought to raise alarms in the obstructionist's chambers.

What Barack Obama’s Approval Rating Means for the Democratic Nominee in Campaign 2016

Its working perfectly and exactly as the founders intended it to. There's a reason we don't have a king making all the decisions with a wave if their hand. Its supposed to be difficult for congress to get anything done. Its supposed to be difficult for the President to get things passed in congress. There is a reason there is a Constitution that limits their power and a SCOTUS to defend the Constitution. This is by design, the founders who lived under the tyranny of a king predicted a tyrannical corrupt government and took measures to protect us from that.

No, it is NOT working perfectly. Sabotaging the vetting process is NOT what the founders intended, No one is asking the Senate to accept the candidate,they are simply being asked to evaluate the nominee as prescribed in the Constitution. They can either reject or confirm him but ignoring the entire process is not provided for in the Constitution

I sent my elected representatives to Washington with instructions to tell Obama and Democrats to go to hell and vote no on anything they ask for. I love it when a plan comes together. (lights a Hannibal Smith cigar, A-Team theme song starts playing)

I don't care what your Senators do s long as they don't interfere with the Constitutional process of vetting a USSC nominee. They are refusing to do that and I expect Obama fie a lawsuit. This is not a filibuster which is legal BTW and has been used before, this is an unprecedented breech of Constitutional doctrine that cannot be tolerated as it would set a precedent that could have ramifications on both sides of the isle for every future nomination.

you are so FOS. The dems did exactly that same thing when the parties were reversed. You libs are sick.

I can't hep that you don't know the difference between vetting and not doing a damn thing. The democrats have always vetted nominees.
That is the dynamic involved in Advise and Consent wherein acceptance or rejection are ensconced as the two Constitutional options. To do nothing is NOT an option.

 

[JQPublic1]

They can more effectively make that point by vetting, holding a hearing, voting, and then justifying that vote. By doing nothing they just look like obstructing assholes

It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.

Obama's nomination was one that he thought the Senate would have to do some soul searching to refuse. He should have nominated a Black male Democrat since Thomas is just Scalia in Blackface. The president chose a White male with outstanding credentials showing that once again he was trying to meet the Senate more than half way...much to the chagrin of his Black constituency. Still, this unprecedented refusal to vet by the Senate continues with impunity.

No, the Dems have NEVER done the same to the Pubs. You cannot show me where the Democrats have ever refused to vet a nominee. They might have voted against confirmation or filibustered,but they engaged in the process as ordained by the Constitution. They have never refused to vet or conduct a hearing on USSC nominees.
Nice try but go back to square one and try again.

That's because when the Democrats tried to do so they didn't have the votes to sustain. Nevertheless I think Reid holds the record on blocked judicial nominees. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Well, YOU WERE wrong when you said the Dems did it to the Pubs. I am not interested in anecdotal reasons as to why the Dems didn't do it. BTW the Pubs have a chance to break Reid's record on this singe appointment if only they would do their jobs.

No, they did do it, advocated for it and they simply failed. Just because they failed does not mean the responsibility for the action goes away.

Face it, the republicans are simply doing what the democrats already set a precedence for and the dems are incessantly shinning because of it. The hypocrisy within the parties is breathtaking. Even Obama is on record calling for what he states today is unconstitutional.

I see now the level of cognitive dissonance that marks the sheep mentality on the republican plantation. You cannot provide on instance of the Democrats just ignoring the vetting process. They have always engaged it and either rejected or confirmed the nominee.
They have NEVER just ignored the president and refused to even vet at all. The GOP hasn't done that either, until now. The precedent is being set now...with this foolishness...and it will haunt our political process for decades or even centuries.

 

[JQPublic1]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

wake up. a hearing where the outcome is already known would be a waste of time and a distraction from the election. That's why obozo is pushing this, to take the media attention off of Hillary and her FBI investigation and possible indictment.

this whole thing is politics, nothing more.

That what was thought once about Obamacare. Roberts proved that not all Republicans are blind sheep like ewe! The GOP is so fractured now by Trump that the Senate can''t take a chance that some moderate Republican senators might jump ship or be influenced by their local constituencies somehow to vote independently.

 

[JQPublic1]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

wake up. a hearing where the outcome is already known would be a waste of time and a distraction from the election. That's why obozo is pushing this, to take the media attention off of Hillary and her FBI investigation and possible indictment.

this whole thing is politics, nothing more.

Yeah, Obama orchestrated the whole thing,even Scalia's death, just to save Hillary. I suppose most of the working class republicans WOULD fall for that kind of logic.

 

[Andylusion]

What progress is being crippled? When Harry Reid would table bills, was progress being crippled?

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

That's fine. File a lawsuit, and prove it to everyone in the court system. If you can actually make the case, and take it to court, do so. Otherwise, it's just opinion.

And maybe you are right. Was the destruction of Robert Bork right? Was the attempted disembowment of Clarence Thomas right?

Who said this..... "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?" - Florynce Kennedy, a left wing feminist.

As far as I can tell, the left wing is who turned judge appointment into a political ram rod. Was it not FDR who threatened to pack the court to get whatever he wanted, and magically the court suddenly started agreeing with whatever was passed?

You people haven't cared what the constitution says anyway. Where is social security, and medicare, given as a power of the Federal Government? Not there. Does not exist. So lets end those first, and then we'll deal with whether the Senate must agree to an Obama appointment.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

You're making up all this shit that Biden didn't say. He put no conditions on it, he said no Republican should be submitted and if one is the Democrats wouldn't vote on it

What he said in June of 1992 was to hold hearings and a vote after the November election.

What we have now is the Senate Leadership saying take NO ACTION until a new President is elected.




They are not the exact same thing.

In November if he LOST.

>>>>

You think we're idiots to believe that Biden would allow Bush's nominee an interview after November elections if he LOST? Ha ha ha ha. No dumbass, we are interpreting Biden correctly. Obama picked his last lesbian/communist for the Court.

 

[Never3ndr]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

You hit it on the head. It doesn't matter if Hillary or Trump wins. They won't have any choice but to approve of at least 2 SCOTUS in the next cycle regardless if they do nothing or do something. This is about "I Hate Obama.....spit on floor". It should have ended shortly after he was elected the first time but it's become a habit. That habit may be the end of the Whig.....er.......Republican unless it's turned around. They are too busy hating to actual govern. BTW, I am now supporting Trump. Trump may be the savior of the GOP yet or he may be the end of the GOP. If he doesn't save it then it's not worth saving.

so what if it's about: I hate Obama. when the Democrats did it to Bush, it was about, I hate Bush and you left/dems supported it then.

I'd just like to point out, that if it really is about hating Obama, then it doubly makes more sense to push for a confirmation hearing now, when they know they hold the majority...why? Well, they can easily deny nomination. Instead, now they are sitting around stomping their feet and looking ridiculous instead of actually STOPPING a nomination from the guy you hate. What makes more sense?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

But I do agree with the Current Senate Majority Leader when he said:

"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate."

Can't. democrats pissed in the punch bowl and politicized Court Nominations. Judges should only be those who uphold the Constitution. Liberals won't allow that.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Another brainless bot OP that ignores history and the law.

One, leading Democrats have called for doing the exact same thing that the Republicans are doing now.

Two, the Constitution does not require the Senate to even hold hearings on the nomination. Its "advice and consent" can be to decide not to even consider the nomination.

Three, no one with two working brain cells would dispute the fact that if this were the second term of President McCain and a vacancy opened up and the Dems controlled the Senate, there is no way on this earth that the Dems would confirm the nominee (unless he were a liberal).

What goes around comes around. You guys smeared and blocked Bork and then blocked numerous highly qualified appellate court nominees (some of whom were black or Hispanic). And now you whine because the Republicans won't confirm the nominee of a guy who has already put two liberal robots on the court?

Well i guess the constitution doesn't say that the President HAS to appoint a nominee so in theory we could just not nominate anybody and let all the current justices die and then no more Supreme Court. Love the rationale of you nutjobs.

You know there are differences from past situations and this situation... and even if there are no differences, saying that the Dems did it before as justification for you doing it now is not an excuses... Whats wrong with you people?

We're not handing you a liberal court, so **** off! Kennedy, true to liberal form, swings both ways. We're approving only a conservative judge to keep the court in balance. Liberals want to declare 2nd amendment void. There will be a shooting war if a ******* Court does it for them.

 

[Never3ndr]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

wake up. a hearing where the outcome is already known would be a waste of time and a distraction from the election. That's why obozo is pushing this, to take the media attention off of Hillary and her FBI investigation and possible indictment.

this whole thing is politics, nothing more.

False, I'd again like to point out that a President has never failed to nominate a SCOTUS replacement in his last year in office. He's literally doing what he's expected. You hear all this media spin about how it isn't done that often, which is correct...but that is simply because Justices, in general, aren't replaced that often. Again, never on record has a President failed to nominate a Justice in his last year...its literally red media spin that makes it seem that Obama is doing something out of the ordinary.

 

[Vigilante]

This is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....

 

[Slade3200]

This is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....

Buncha pussys

 

[Vigilante]

This is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....

Buncha pussys

Yes,saying **** YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!

 

[Slade3200]

This is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....

Buncha pussys

Yes,saying **** YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!

It doesn't take balls to be a *****, quite the opposite. If they had real balls they stand up for themselves