Wow! Mcconnell vows to vote on nominee!

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
85,729
Reaction score
16,047
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Yet just a few short years ago

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday flatly rejected any person President Barack Obama nominates to the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, saying the voters should decide.

If the Communists had been in a majority that would have been different.

The Americans hold the Senate, so they get to decide, the Communists can go fuck themselves.
 

ColonelAngus

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
27,614
Reaction score
14,059
Points
1,415
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.
Yep, Split party...If Obama had a Dim Senate, it would have gone through. Thats politics. The nomination has to go to a Senate vote.

By your own explanation, its what Obama would have done with a Dim Senate.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
17,982
Reaction score
2,968
Points
290
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.
McConnell is a corrupt bastard. This could be the final nail in the Republican coffin. Democrats will control the everything and they can expand the court.
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
23,791
Reaction score
5,366
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
Yet just a few short years ago

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday flatly rejected any person President Barack Obama nominates to the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, saying the voters should decide.
Obama was a lame duck at the time. Big difference.
 

shockedcanadian

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
13,053
Reaction score
9,345
Points
2,255

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


Jo
He really has no choice politically. If he doesn't put a butt in that seat, the Democrats probably take the Senate because clearly that is the prize. They may take it anyway but instead of academic ideas about what a Democratic Controlled Senate would do...it would be you elect this...you get that or you get 4 years of "no" if the blob wins. The hypocrisy may cost R's the senate but he'll keep his seat. He may lose that if he were to not be a hypocrite.
This will motivate every voter to get out and vote. Suspect they will have control of Supreme Court, but not likely to win the Presidency or keep the Senate.
Who?

What if Trump says "let's wait until after the election"? That is going to ensure they ALL vote. Even the RINOS will be cornered.

If Trump does it before, he chooses a woman and gains more female votes. He's in a win/win situation.
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
2,589
Reaction score
495
Points
140
Yeah no reason except for what they did to Obama when he had every right to nominate someone to the court.
Oh he should wait for the election to be held and let the next president decide.

I am sure Trump will push for it and the line has been drawn
Obama wasn't denied the opportunity to nominate someone to the SC, Moron.

Please try again.

please learn to read
 

DukeU

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
1,336
Reaction score
1,358
Points
1,908
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.
Please name the year an opposing party confirmed a lame duck president's nomination for the S.C.

I'll wait.
 

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
82,848
Reaction score
22,384
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
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.
It's all talk. Too many soft flakey Republicans in the Senate. Highly unlikely he has the votes. Plus the optics of Republicans fighting internally RIGHT BEFORE the election would be bad.
 

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
24,137
Reaction score
5,188
Points
290
Location
Colorado
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.
What part of the Constitution did he violate?

Be specific and quote the actual Constitution Billy000
In the 2016 election year, the Senate refused to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, maintaining that no language in the Appointments Clause imposes an affirmative duty on the Senate to give any nominee a vote and that the Senate’s power to refuse consent under that clause implies the authority to determine whether, and under what political circumstances, actual consideration of a nominee should occur. This Article contends that the text of Article II actually provides a surprising level of guidance in discerning the respective powers of President and Senate in the appointment process. Specifically, it concludes that ARTICLE II, SECTION 2—both understood in whole and in its parts—requires the Senate to consider a President’s nominees. It posits further that the Constitution’s language implies some modest, but important, requirements for what Senate consideration must entail. Specifically, it observes that settled understandings of the Senate’s rule-making authority require that the Senate provide a process by which a President’s nominee could plausibly be confirmed. This Article will also examine how the Constitution’s original framers, advocates and opponents understood the distribution of power between the branches set forth in the Appointments Clause. By evaluating the instant constitutional problem with primary reference to a semantic analysis of the text—and thereafter exploring the reliability of those conclusions with reference to original understandings of that text—this Article’s interpretive framework conforms to the interpretive approach fervently preached by Justice Scalia and usually praised by the leadership of the 114th Senate.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2—both understood in whole and in its parts—requires the Senate to consider a President’s nominees. It posits further that the Constitution’s language implies some modest, but important,


I thought you idiots knew the constitution? The senate majority leader does NOT have SOLE AUTHORITY to change this. He was required to hold a vote on it.
 

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
82,848
Reaction score
22,384
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
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.
Please name the year an opposing party confirmed a lame duck president's nomination for the S.C.

I'll wait.
120 years?
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
17,919
Reaction score
13,546
Points
2,415
Yeah no reason except for what they did to Obama when he had every right to nominate someone to the court.
Oh he should wait for the election to be held and let the next president decide.

I am sure Trump will push for it and the line has been drawn
Obama wasn't denied the opportunity to nominate someone to the SC, Moron.

Please try again.

please learn to read
Learn history, Moron.


Barry wasn't up for another term. Go get educated.

This is gonna be a hoot.
 

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
82,848
Reaction score
22,384
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
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.
What part of the Constitution did he violate?

Be specific and quote the actual Constitution Billy000
In the 2016 election year, the Senate refused to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, maintaining that no language in the Appointments Clause imposes an affirmative duty on the Senate to give any nominee a vote and that the Senate’s power to refuse consent under that clause implies the authority to determine whether, and under what political circumstances, actual consideration of a nominee should occur. This Article contends that the text of Article II actually provides a surprising level of guidance in discerning the respective powers of President and Senate in the appointment process. Specifically, it concludes that ARTICLE II, SECTION 2—both understood in whole and in its parts—requires the Senate to consider a President’s nominees. It posits further that the Constitution’s language implies some modest, but important, requirements for what Senate consideration must entail. Specifically, it observes that settled understandings of the Senate’s rule-making authority require that the Senate provide a process by which a President’s nominee could plausibly be confirmed. This Article will also examine how the Constitution’s original framers, advocates and opponents understood the distribution of power between the branches set forth in the Appointments Clause. By evaluating the instant constitutional problem with primary reference to a semantic analysis of the text—and thereafter exploring the reliability of those conclusions with reference to original understandings of that text—this Article’s interpretive framework conforms to the interpretive approach fervently preached by Justice Scalia and usually praised by the leadership of the 114th Senate.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2—both understood in whole and in its parts—requires the Senate to consider a President’s nominees. It posits further that the Constitution’s language implies some modest, but important,
Irrelevant argument. Mitch is in control so it's his decision.
 

Missouri_Mike

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
16,986
Reaction score
5,893
Points
350
Yeah no reason except for what they did to Obama when he had every right to nominate someone to the court.
Oh he should wait for the election to be held and let the next president decide.

I am sure Trump will push for it and the line has been drawn
He did nominate someone. They weren’t approved.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
17,919
Reaction score
13,546
Points
2,415
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.
What part of the Constitution did he violate?

Be specific and quote the actual Constitution Billy000
In the 2016 election year, the Senate refused to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, maintaining that no language in the Appointments Clause imposes an affirmative duty on the Senate to give any nominee a vote and that the Senate’s power to refuse consent under that clause implies the authority to determine whether, and under what political circumstances, actual consideration of a nominee should occur. This Article contends that the text of Article II actually provides a surprising level of guidance in discerning the respective powers of President and Senate in the appointment process. Specifically, it concludes that ARTICLE II, SECTION 2—both understood in whole and in its parts—requires the Senate to consider a President’s nominees. It posits further that the Constitution’s language implies some modest, but important, requirements for what Senate consideration must entail. Specifically, it observes that settled understandings of the Senate’s rule-making authority require that the Senate provide a process by which a President’s nominee could plausibly be confirmed. This Article will also examine how the Constitution’s original framers, advocates and opponents understood the distribution of power between the branches set forth in the Appointments Clause. By evaluating the instant constitutional problem with primary reference to a semantic analysis of the text—and thereafter exploring the reliability of those conclusions with reference to original understandings of that text—this Article’s interpretive framework conforms to the interpretive approach fervently preached by Justice Scalia and usually praised by the leadership of the 114th Senate.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2—both understood in whole and in its parts—requires the Senate to consider a President’s nominees. It posits further that the Constitution’s language implies some modest, but important,
So?
 

White 6

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
9,376
Reaction score
4,365
Points
210

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


Jo
He really has no choice politically. If he doesn't put a butt in that seat, the Democrats probably take the Senate because clearly that is the prize. They may take it anyway but instead of academic ideas about what a Democratic Controlled Senate would do...it would be you elect this...you get that or you get 4 years of "no" if the blob wins. The hypocrisy may cost R's the senate but he'll keep his seat. He may lose that if he were to not be a hypocrite.
This will motivate every voter to get out and vote. Suspect they will have control of Supreme Court, but not likely to win the Presidency or keep the Senate.
Who?

What if Trump says "let's wait until after the election"? That is going to ensure they ALL vote. Even the RINOS will be cornered.

If Trump does it before, he chooses a woman and gains more female votes. He's in a win/win situation.
Voters will look at it as a complete betrayal by MCConnell, who said 10 months before election is too close before an election to make such a decision. They will take it out on Senate Republicans and on trump.
 

White 6

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
9,376
Reaction score
4,365
Points
210

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


Jo
He really has no choice politically. If he doesn't put a butt in that seat, the Democrats probably take the Senate because clearly that is the prize. They may take it anyway but instead of academic ideas about what a Democratic Controlled Senate would do...it would be you elect this...you get that or you get 4 years of "no" if the blob wins. The hypocrisy may cost R's the senate but he'll keep his seat. He may lose that if he were to not be a hypocrite.
This will motivate every voter to get out and vote. Suspect they will have control of Supreme Court, but not likely to win the Presidency or keep the Senate.
It should. But it won't.
I disagree.
 

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
24,137
Reaction score
5,188
Points
290
Location
Colorado
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.
What part of the Constitution did he violate?

Be specific and quote the actual Constitution Billy000
In the 2016 election year, the Senate refused to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, maintaining that no language in the Appointments Clause imposes an affirmative duty on the Senate to give any nominee a vote and that the Senate’s power to refuse consent under that clause implies the authority to determine whether, and under what political circumstances, actual consideration of a nominee should occur. This Article contends that the text of Article II actually provides a surprising level of guidance in discerning the respective powers of President and Senate in the appointment process. Specifically, it concludes that ARTICLE II, SECTION 2—both understood in whole and in its parts—requires the Senate to consider a President’s nominees. It posits further that the Constitution’s language implies some modest, but important, requirements for what Senate consideration must entail. Specifically, it observes that settled understandings of the Senate’s rule-making authority require that the Senate provide a process by which a President’s nominee could plausibly be confirmed. This Article will also examine how the Constitution’s original framers, advocates and opponents understood the distribution of power between the branches set forth in the Appointments Clause. By evaluating the instant constitutional problem with primary reference to a semantic analysis of the text—and thereafter exploring the reliability of those conclusions with reference to original understandings of that text—this Article’s interpretive framework conforms to the interpretive approach fervently preached by Justice Scalia and usually praised by the leadership of the 114th Senate.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2—both understood in whole and in its parts—requires the Senate to consider a President’s nominees. It posits further that the Constitution’s language implies some modest, but important,
Irrelevant argument. Mitch is in control so it's his decision.
Hey idiot, Mitch does not have SOLE AUTHORITY to block a senate vote on presidential pick. Why don’t you show me where that is in the constitution.

Also, if the shoe was on the other foot, you would throw a mega tantrum if a democrat in charge in the senate blocked a republican president’s pick. You’re so full of shit.
 

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
24,137
Reaction score
5,188
Points
290
Location
Colorado
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.
What part of the Constitution did he violate?

Be specific and quote the actual Constitution Billy000
In the 2016 election year, the Senate refused to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, maintaining that no language in the Appointments Clause imposes an affirmative duty on the Senate to give any nominee a vote and that the Senate’s power to refuse consent under that clause implies the authority to determine whether, and under what political circumstances, actual consideration of a nominee should occur. This Article contends that the text of Article II actually provides a surprising level of guidance in discerning the respective powers of President and Senate in the appointment process. Specifically, it concludes that ARTICLE II, SECTION 2—both understood in whole and in its parts—requires the Senate to consider a President’s nominees. It posits further that the Constitution’s language implies some modest, but important, requirements for what Senate consideration must entail. Specifically, it observes that settled understandings of the Senate’s rule-making authority require that the Senate provide a process by which a President’s nominee could plausibly be confirmed. This Article will also examine how the Constitution’s original framers, advocates and opponents understood the distribution of power between the branches set forth in the Appointments Clause. By evaluating the instant constitutional problem with primary reference to a semantic analysis of the text—and thereafter exploring the reliability of those conclusions with reference to original understandings of that text—this Article’s interpretive framework conforms to the interpretive approach fervently preached by Justice Scalia and usually praised by the leadership of the 114th Senate.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2—both understood in whole and in its parts—requires the Senate to consider a President’s nominees. It posits further that the Constitution’s language implies some modest, but important,
So?
Yep, you got nothing. I proved you wrong.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
31,568
Reaction score
15,788
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona
Yet just a few short years ago

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday flatly rejected any person President Barack Obama nominates to the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, saying the voters should decide.
Well he has the right to reject any person President Trump nominates today too. Don’t see why you are complaining.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top