Wow! Mcconnell vows to vote on nominee!

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
85,182
Reaction score
15,339
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
You go, Mitch!

No reason to not replace her now.


McConnell: Trump's Supreme Court nominee 'will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate'


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said unequivocally Friday night that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Ginsburg, 87, died Friday from complications surrounding metastatic pancreas cancer.

“The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life,” McConnell said in a statement Friday.

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise,” McConnell continued. “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

McConnell added that “by contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.”

“Once again, we will keep our promise,” he said. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DIES AT 87

In May 2019, McConnell, R-Ky., made clear that should a vacancy materialize in the midst of the 2020 election cycle, the GOP-majority Senate would likely “fill it.”
McConnell’s comments last year were met with criticism from Democrats who accused him of hypocrisy, based on the treatment of former President Barack Obamas Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals chief Judge Merrick Garland.

Obama nominated Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016, but McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.

Speaking to Fox News last year, McConnell suggested his stance was not hypocritical -- because in 2020, Republicans would control both the White House and the Senate, unlike Democrats in 2016, who controlled only the White House.
Let’s not forget Mitch BLOCKED the senate from even having a vote on Garland even though it was blatantly unconstitutional. I’m sure republicans are thrilled at Ginsburg’s passing. Them winning is all that matters to them.

Oh and also don’t forget Mitch’s blatant hypocrisy about election years and voting on judges. He’s a sociopath without any principles.

You are an idiot.....it was perfectly constitutional, you moron....the Constitution does not say the Senate is a rubber stamp for Presidential nominees...it says advice and consent....they have the power to deny the nominee if they want....that is how the founders separated powers to diminish the acquisition of power by any one branch....you doofus.
So theoretically, the Senate could never appoint another justice or judge...ever in your world right?

There is a difference between denying a nominee--voting them down---and not having a vote at all.

Yep........that is how it was designed, it was a check on Presidential and Court power.......there is no difference....the Senate was given that power for a reason.

And the Senate under Harry Reid exercised that power to the extreme, the old porn actress had no problem with it then.

The Communists are just hypocritical hacks.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
25,172
Reaction score
8,361
Points
910
Location
Tejas

This is going to start a whole new round of crazy!


Jo
FINALLY, the turtle grew some FUCKING BALLS.

I guess I will need to refer to the GOP as the somewhat dog-shit party from now own.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
85,182
Reaction score
15,339
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
We must win the SC and this is amazing opportunity!!
Trump may lose in 50’days
Trump must have a 30% or greater lead over the Harris/Xi team. Republicans ALWAYS have to overcome the election fraud factor, but this time it will be extreme.

Trump doesn't just need to defeat the Harris/Biden/Xi team, but also corrupt judges in Pennsylvania, Colorado, etc. who have already declared they will cheat this election by "counting until Xi wins."
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
25,172
Reaction score
8,361
Points
910
Location
Tejas
"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," McConnell said in a statement hours after Scalia died in February 2016. - Mitch McConnell
GOOD!

FUCK YOU!

YOU GET NOTHING FOR BEING ASSHOLES FOR 4 YEARS!!!
 

Biff_Poindexter

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
10,921
Reaction score
2,529
Points
290
Location
USA
If Trumpers didn't engage in a constant state of unhinged hyperbole, self projecting and cognitive dissonance -- they would be faced with the reality that they ain't shit....

And that is a hard reality for them to have to face -- so they have to live in constant make-believe......that is why they have to keep pretending they never supported the guys they now claim to hate....
_006.gop.0(117).jpg


When you constantly need your depravity fed more and more -- to where you find out the guy you once worshiped doesn't quite scratch your itch anymore -- so now you need an even more depraved candidate than the previous one....the problem is you...
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
55,453
Reaction score
13,949
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
You go, Mitch!

No reason to not replace her now.


McConnell: Trump's Supreme Court nominee 'will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate'


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said unequivocally Friday night that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Ginsburg, 87, died Friday from complications surrounding metastatic pancreas cancer.

“The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life,” McConnell said in a statement Friday.

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise,” McConnell continued. “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

McConnell added that “by contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.”

“Once again, we will keep our promise,” he said. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DIES AT 87

In May 2019, McConnell, R-Ky., made clear that should a vacancy materialize in the midst of the 2020 election cycle, the GOP-majority Senate would likely “fill it.”
McConnell’s comments last year were met with criticism from Democrats who accused him of hypocrisy, based on the treatment of former President Barack Obamas Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals chief Judge Merrick Garland.

Obama nominated Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016, but McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.

Speaking to Fox News last year, McConnell suggested his stance was not hypocritical -- because in 2020, Republicans would control both the White House and the Senate, unlike Democrats in 2016, who controlled only the White House.
Let’s not forget Mitch BLOCKED the senate from even having a vote on Garland even though it was blatantly unconstitutional. I’m sure republicans are thrilled at Ginsburg’s passing. Them winning is all that matters to them.

Oh and also don’t forget Mitch’s blatant hypocrisy about election years and voting on judges. He’s a sociopath without any principles.

You are an idiot.....it was perfectly constitutional, you moron....the Constitution does not say the Senate is a rubber stamp for Presidential nominees...it says advice and consent....they have the power to deny the nominee if they want....that is how the founders separated powers to diminish the acquisition of power by any one branch....you doofus.
So theoretically, the Senate could never appoint another justice or judge...ever in your world right?

There is a difference between denying a nominee--voting them down---and not having a vote at all.

Yep........that is how it was designed, it was a check on Presidential and Court power.......there is no difference....the Senate was given that power for a reason.
The Senate gave no Advise and Consent, as the Constitution dictates? So how was what Mitch did to nominee Garland, constitutional?
 

Redcurtain

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
3,738
Reaction score
3,600
Points
1,908
You go, Mitch!

No reason to not replace her now.


McConnell: Trump's Supreme Court nominee 'will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate'


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said unequivocally Friday night that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Ginsburg, 87, died Friday from complications surrounding metastatic pancreas cancer.

“The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life,” McConnell said in a statement Friday.

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise,” McConnell continued. “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

McConnell added that “by contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.”

“Once again, we will keep our promise,” he said. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DIES AT 87

In May 2019, McConnell, R-Ky., made clear that should a vacancy materialize in the midst of the 2020 election cycle, the GOP-majority Senate would likely “fill it.”
McConnell’s comments last year were met with criticism from Democrats who accused him of hypocrisy, based on the treatment of former President Barack Obamas Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals chief Judge Merrick Garland.

Obama nominated Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016, but McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.

Speaking to Fox News last year, McConnell suggested his stance was not hypocritical -- because in 2020, Republicans would control both the White House and the Senate, unlike Democrats in 2016, who controlled only the White House.
Let’s not forget Mitch BLOCKED the senate from even having a vote on Garland even though it was blatantly unconstitutional. I’m sure republicans are thrilled at Ginsburg’s passing. Them winning is all that matters to them.

Oh and also don’t forget Mitch’s blatant hypocrisy about election years and voting on judges. He’s a sociopath without any principles.

You are an idiot.....it was perfectly constitutional, you moron....the Constitution does not say the Senate is a rubber stamp for Presidential nominees...it says advice and consent....they have the power to deny the nominee if they want....that is how the founders separated powers to diminish the acquisition of power by any one branch....you doofus.
So theoretically, the Senate could never appoint another justice or judge...ever in your world right?

There is a difference between denying a nominee--voting them down---and not having a vote at all.

Yep........that is how it was designed, it was a check on Presidential and Court power.......there is no difference....the Senate was given that power for a reason.
The Senate gave no Advise and Consent, as the Constitution dictates? So how was what Mitch did to nominee Garland, constitutional?
 The innocent aborted babies were crying out!! Her time came... #justice

“When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?””
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭6:9-10‬ ‭NASB‬‬
 

San Souci

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
689
Points
920
"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," McConnell said in a statement hours after Scalia died in February 2016. - Mitch McConnell
Right. He FINALLY showed some guts. If it had been the other way around ,Shumer would have done much worse. All McConnell did was ignore Garland. Schumer would have tried to destroy any Repub Nominee.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
55,453
Reaction score
13,949
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
You go, Mitch!

No reason to not replace her now.


McConnell: Trump's Supreme Court nominee 'will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate'


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said unequivocally Friday night that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Ginsburg, 87, died Friday from complications surrounding metastatic pancreas cancer.

“The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life,” McConnell said in a statement Friday.

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise,” McConnell continued. “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

McConnell added that “by contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.”

“Once again, we will keep our promise,” he said. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DIES AT 87

In May 2019, McConnell, R-Ky., made clear that should a vacancy materialize in the midst of the 2020 election cycle, the GOP-majority Senate would likely “fill it.”
McConnell’s comments last year were met with criticism from Democrats who accused him of hypocrisy, based on the treatment of former President Barack Obamas Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals chief Judge Merrick Garland.

Obama nominated Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016, but McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.

Speaking to Fox News last year, McConnell suggested his stance was not hypocritical -- because in 2020, Republicans would control both the White House and the Senate, unlike Democrats in 2016, who controlled only the White House.
Let’s not forget Mitch BLOCKED the senate from even having a vote on Garland even though it was blatantly unconstitutional. I’m sure republicans are thrilled at Ginsburg’s passing. Them winning is all that matters to them.

Oh and also don’t forget Mitch’s blatant hypocrisy about election years and voting on judges. He’s a sociopath without any principles.

You are an idiot.....it was perfectly constitutional, you moron....the Constitution does not say the Senate is a rubber stamp for Presidential nominees...it says advice and consent....they have the power to deny the nominee if they want....that is how the founders separated powers to diminish the acquisition of power by any one branch....you doofus.
So theoretically, the Senate could never appoint another justice or judge...ever in your world right?

There is a difference between denying a nominee--voting them down---and not having a vote at all.

Yep........that is how it was designed, it was a check on Presidential and Court power.......there is no difference....the Senate was given that power for a reason.
The Senate gave no Advise and Consent, as the Constitution dictates? So how was what Mitch did to nominee Garland, constitutional?
 The innocent aborted babies were crying out!! Her time came... #justice

“When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?””
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭6:9-10‬ ‭NASB‬‬
Clearly it is not talking about aborted children in this passage, because they never had the chance to stay holy and true to the testimony, and maintain the testimony, as the Bible passage states.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,475
Reaction score
21,989
Points
2,180
"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," McConnell said in a statement hours after Scalia died in February 2016. - Mitch McConnell
Right. He FINALLY showed some guts. If it had been the other way around ,Shumer would have done much worse. All McConnell did was ignore Garland. Schumer would have tried to destroy any Repub Nominee.

They did, his name was Brett Kavanaugh.....if he hadn't been confirmed, what do you think his chances of having a normal career would have been after being accused of "Rape Trains," and rape?
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,475
Reaction score
21,989
Points
2,180
You go, Mitch!

No reason to not replace her now.


McConnell: Trump's Supreme Court nominee 'will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate'


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said unequivocally Friday night that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Ginsburg, 87, died Friday from complications surrounding metastatic pancreas cancer.

“The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life,” McConnell said in a statement Friday.

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise,” McConnell continued. “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

McConnell added that “by contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.”

“Once again, we will keep our promise,” he said. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DIES AT 87

In May 2019, McConnell, R-Ky., made clear that should a vacancy materialize in the midst of the 2020 election cycle, the GOP-majority Senate would likely “fill it.”
McConnell’s comments last year were met with criticism from Democrats who accused him of hypocrisy, based on the treatment of former President Barack Obamas Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals chief Judge Merrick Garland.

Obama nominated Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016, but McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.

Speaking to Fox News last year, McConnell suggested his stance was not hypocritical -- because in 2020, Republicans would control both the White House and the Senate, unlike Democrats in 2016, who controlled only the White House.
Let’s not forget Mitch BLOCKED the senate from even having a vote on Garland even though it was blatantly unconstitutional. I’m sure republicans are thrilled at Ginsburg’s passing. Them winning is all that matters to them.

Oh and also don’t forget Mitch’s blatant hypocrisy about election years and voting on judges. He’s a sociopath without any principles.

You are an idiot.....it was perfectly constitutional, you moron....the Constitution does not say the Senate is a rubber stamp for Presidential nominees...it says advice and consent....they have the power to deny the nominee if they want....that is how the founders separated powers to diminish the acquisition of power by any one branch....you doofus.
So theoretically, the Senate could never appoint another justice or judge...ever in your world right?

There is a difference between denying a nominee--voting them down---and not having a vote at all.

Yep........that is how it was designed, it was a check on Presidential and Court power.......there is no difference....the Senate was given that power for a reason.
The Senate gave no Advise and Consent, as the Constitution dictates? So how was what Mitch did to nominee Garland, constitutional?

The Constitution doesn't say the consent is by taking a vote....not taking a vote is showing they do not consent to the nomination.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,475
Reaction score
21,989
Points
2,180
If Trumpers didn't engage in a constant state of unhinged hyperbole, self projecting and cognitive dissonance -- they would be faced with the reality that they ain't shit....

And that is a hard reality for them to have to face -- so they have to live in constant make-believe......that is why they have to keep pretending they never supported the guys they now claim to hate....
View attachment 390552

When you constantly need your depravity fed more and more -- to where you find out the guy you once worshiped doesn't quite scratch your itch anymore -- so now you need an even more depraved candidate than the previous one....the problem is you...

We didn't worship those guys....we supported them against the democrat party, you asshats build them up in direct proportion to how they attack other republicans....each one has been called nazis and killers by shit stains like you...until they attacked republicans or Trump...now you like them..

You are the moron, not us....
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
55,453
Reaction score
13,949
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
You go, Mitch!

No reason to not replace her now.


McConnell: Trump's Supreme Court nominee 'will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate'


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said unequivocally Friday night that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Ginsburg, 87, died Friday from complications surrounding metastatic pancreas cancer.

“The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life,” McConnell said in a statement Friday.

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise,” McConnell continued. “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

McConnell added that “by contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.”

“Once again, we will keep our promise,” he said. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DIES AT 87

In May 2019, McConnell, R-Ky., made clear that should a vacancy materialize in the midst of the 2020 election cycle, the GOP-majority Senate would likely “fill it.”
McConnell’s comments last year were met with criticism from Democrats who accused him of hypocrisy, based on the treatment of former President Barack Obamas Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals chief Judge Merrick Garland.

Obama nominated Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016, but McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.

Speaking to Fox News last year, McConnell suggested his stance was not hypocritical -- because in 2020, Republicans would control both the White House and the Senate, unlike Democrats in 2016, who controlled only the White House.
Let’s not forget Mitch BLOCKED the senate from even having a vote on Garland even though it was blatantly unconstitutional. I’m sure republicans are thrilled at Ginsburg’s passing. Them winning is all that matters to them.

Oh and also don’t forget Mitch’s blatant hypocrisy about election years and voting on judges. He’s a sociopath without any principles.

You are an idiot.....it was perfectly constitutional, you moron....the Constitution does not say the Senate is a rubber stamp for Presidential nominees...it says advice and consent....they have the power to deny the nominee if they want....that is how the founders separated powers to diminish the acquisition of power by any one branch....you doofus.
So theoretically, the Senate could never appoint another justice or judge...ever in your world right?

There is a difference between denying a nominee--voting them down---and not having a vote at all.

Yep........that is how it was designed, it was a check on Presidential and Court power.......there is no difference....the Senate was given that power for a reason.
The Senate gave no Advise and Consent, as the Constitution dictates? So how was what Mitch did to nominee Garland, constitutional?

The Constitution doesn't say the consent is by taking a vote....not taking a vote is showing they do not consent to the nomination.
Maybe,

I can see that perhaps being the case...

but they never went through the Advice/Advise part, which are the hearings, before the consent part?? Seems back assward?
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
85,182
Reaction score
15,339
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
If Trumpers didn't engage in a constant state of unhinged hyperbole, self projecting and cognitive dissonance -- they would be faced with the reality that they ain't shit....

And that is a hard reality for them to have to face -- so they have to live in constant make-believe......that is why they have to keep pretending they never supported the guys they now claim to hate....
View attachment 390552

When you constantly need your depravity fed more and more -- to where you find out the guy you once worshiped doesn't quite scratch your itch anymore -- so now you need an even more depraved candidate than the previous one....the problem is you...

I admit that I voted for ONE and only one of those drooling scumbags.

But in my own defense, Obama had PROVEN he was a traitorous pile of shit by then, and it was ONLY to try and block him.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,475
Reaction score
21,989
Points
2,180
You go, Mitch!

No reason to not replace her now.


McConnell: Trump's Supreme Court nominee 'will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate'


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said unequivocally Friday night that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Ginsburg, 87, died Friday from complications surrounding metastatic pancreas cancer.

“The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life,” McConnell said in a statement Friday.

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise,” McConnell continued. “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

McConnell added that “by contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.”

“Once again, we will keep our promise,” he said. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DIES AT 87

In May 2019, McConnell, R-Ky., made clear that should a vacancy materialize in the midst of the 2020 election cycle, the GOP-majority Senate would likely “fill it.”
McConnell’s comments last year were met with criticism from Democrats who accused him of hypocrisy, based on the treatment of former President Barack Obamas Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals chief Judge Merrick Garland.

Obama nominated Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016, but McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.

Speaking to Fox News last year, McConnell suggested his stance was not hypocritical -- because in 2020, Republicans would control both the White House and the Senate, unlike Democrats in 2016, who controlled only the White House.
Let’s not forget Mitch BLOCKED the senate from even having a vote on Garland even though it was blatantly unconstitutional. I’m sure republicans are thrilled at Ginsburg’s passing. Them winning is all that matters to them.

Oh and also don’t forget Mitch’s blatant hypocrisy about election years and voting on judges. He’s a sociopath without any principles.

You are an idiot.....it was perfectly constitutional, you moron....the Constitution does not say the Senate is a rubber stamp for Presidential nominees...it says advice and consent....they have the power to deny the nominee if they want....that is how the founders separated powers to diminish the acquisition of power by any one branch....you doofus.
So theoretically, the Senate could never appoint another justice or judge...ever in your world right?

There is a difference between denying a nominee--voting them down---and not having a vote at all.

Yep........that is how it was designed, it was a check on Presidential and Court power.......there is no difference....the Senate was given that power for a reason.
The Senate gave no Advise and Consent, as the Constitution dictates? So how was what Mitch did to nominee Garland, constitutional?

The Constitution doesn't say the consent is by taking a vote....not taking a vote is showing they do not consent to the nomination.
Maybe,

I can see that perhaps being the case...

but they never went through the Advice/Advise part, which are the hearings, before the consent part?? Seems back assward?
And again, the Constitution does not state what form "Advise," is supposed to take.......and telling the President we don't want that guy and we aren't voting for him is pretty much advising him his pick isn't getting consent.....

If obama had put up a real justice pick they would have consented without a problem....but he didn't.
 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
50,288
Reaction score
17,805
Points
2,280
If Trumpers didn't engage in a constant state of unhinged hyperbole, self projecting and cognitive dissonance -- they would be faced with the reality that they ain't shit....

And that is a hard reality for them to have to face -- so they have to live in constant make-believe......that is why they have to keep pretending they never supported the guys they now claim to hate....
View attachment 390552

When you constantly need your depravity fed more and more -- to where you find out the guy you once worshiped doesn't quite scratch your itch anymore -- so now you need an even more depraved candidate than the previous one....the problem is you...
They were supported due to the nature of the opposition.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
85,182
Reaction score
15,339
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
The Senate gave no Advise and Consent, as the Constitution dictates? So how was what Mitch did to nominee Garland, constitutional?

The Senate advised that Garland would not be considered for the job.

Even IF the Americans were to not confirm a SCOTUS pick, and EVEN IF you Communists are able to corrupt the election so severely that you seize the presidency (at this point no amount of fraud will get the Senate for the Khmer Rouge, the Americans will pick up two more seats, Jones is obvious and Peters will be ousted by James).

EVEN IF you Communists did both, Trump will STILL appoint the next justice, and the Senate will confirm, prior to January.

There is no way for you Maoists to win on this (which is why you plan a civil war). The court WILL have a 5-4 Constitutional majority, with squishy fish Roberts likely to join the Constitutionalists since he loses his power as spoiler. Roberts was never a dedicated Marxist, he's just a worm.
 

TroglocratsRdumb

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
16,756
Reaction score
6,319
Points
360

This is going to start a whole new round of crazy!


Jo
The Antifa Spokesman Chuck Schumer is apoplectic.
Schumer has vowed to stop all of President Trump's judges.
Schumer is a despicable demagogue.
 

DrLove

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
20,454
Reaction score
5,585
Points
290
Location
Central Oregon Coast
He's gonna have neither the time, NOR the votes. Collins and Romney already have said they won't confirm. There are another 6-8 in extremely tight races. Lil Lindsey for one!

 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
55,453
Reaction score
13,949
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
You go, Mitch!

No reason to not replace her now.


McConnell: Trump's Supreme Court nominee 'will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate'


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said unequivocally Friday night that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Ginsburg, 87, died Friday from complications surrounding metastatic pancreas cancer.

“The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life,” McConnell said in a statement Friday.

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise,” McConnell continued. “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

McConnell added that “by contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.”

“Once again, we will keep our promise,” he said. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DIES AT 87

In May 2019, McConnell, R-Ky., made clear that should a vacancy materialize in the midst of the 2020 election cycle, the GOP-majority Senate would likely “fill it.”
McConnell’s comments last year were met with criticism from Democrats who accused him of hypocrisy, based on the treatment of former President Barack Obamas Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals chief Judge Merrick Garland.

Obama nominated Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016, but McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.

Speaking to Fox News last year, McConnell suggested his stance was not hypocritical -- because in 2020, Republicans would control both the White House and the Senate, unlike Democrats in 2016, who controlled only the White House.
Let’s not forget Mitch BLOCKED the senate from even having a vote on Garland even though it was blatantly unconstitutional. I’m sure republicans are thrilled at Ginsburg’s passing. Them winning is all that matters to them.

Oh and also don’t forget Mitch’s blatant hypocrisy about election years and voting on judges. He’s a sociopath without any principles.

You are an idiot.....it was perfectly constitutional, you moron....the Constitution does not say the Senate is a rubber stamp for Presidential nominees...it says advice and consent....they have the power to deny the nominee if they want....that is how the founders separated powers to diminish the acquisition of power by any one branch....you doofus.
So theoretically, the Senate could never appoint another justice or judge...ever in your world right?

There is a difference between denying a nominee--voting them down---and not having a vote at all.

Yep........that is how it was designed, it was a check on Presidential and Court power.......there is no difference....the Senate was given that power for a reason.
The Senate gave no Advise and Consent, as the Constitution dictates? So how was what Mitch did to nominee Garland, constitutional?

The Constitution doesn't say the consent is by taking a vote....not taking a vote is showing they do not consent to the nomination.
Maybe,

I can see that perhaps being the case...

but they never went through the Advice/Advise part, which are the hearings, before the consent part?? Seems back assward?
And again, the Constitution does not state what form "Advise," is supposed to take.......and telling the President we don't want that guy and we aren't voting for him is pretty much advising him his pick isn't getting consent.....

If obama had put up a real justice pick they would have consented without a problem....but he didn't.
Are you nuts?

Garland was a superb pick! Why do you think McConnell held out on hearings and a vote?

Because there were several Republicans in the Senate that would have voted for Garland, and he would have been confirmed, with the Republican support to break the filibuster.

That's the only reason Mitch did not even bring him up for hearings.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top