Wow! Mcconnell vows to vote on nominee!

White 6

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
9,440
Reaction score
4,398
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.
Are you claiming McConnell doesn’t have the right to pause the confirmation and vote on a SCOTUS nomination?
He has the right to put it off, but will not. Would you? Hell, would I? No. Mitch sucks, but he would be proud to go back home or become minority leader, knowing he put the deciding right wing vote on the Supreme Court for the next 15 - 20 years. You or I would also, if in his shoes. He sucked for what he did on the Obama nomination, but yes he will suck for what he is about to do on this one also.
 

ColonelAngus

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
27,637
Reaction score
14,111
Points
1,415
It fully follows the Constituton for Trump to name a nominee and the nominee to get voted on.

Now some Senate Repulicans may flip, but there should be a vote.

Obama and Schumer would do it, we all know it.
The left are already freaking out and threatening violence. Trump has a constitutional right to nominate a replacement and the Senate has a Constitutional right to confirm.
Absolutely. There is nothing in the Constitution that says there cannot be a nominee vote during an election year.

Anyone who claims Obama wouldnt have sent through Garland if he had the Senate is a liar.
 

TheGreatSatan

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2019
Messages
3,720
Reaction score
3,841
Points
1,970
It fully follows the Constituton for Trump to name a nominee and the nominee to get voted on.

Now some Senate Repulicans may flip, but there should be a vote.

Obama and Schumer would do it, we all know it.
The left are already freaking out and threatening violence. Trump has a constitutional right to nominate a replacement and the Senate has a Constitutional right to confirm.
It fully follows the Constituton for Trump to name a nominee and the nominee to get voted on.

Now some Senate Repulicans may flip, but there should be a vote.

Obama and Schumer would do it, we all know it.
The left are already freaking out and threatening violence. Trump has a constitutional right to nominate a replacement and the Senate has a Constitutional right to confirm.
Absolutely. There is nothing in the Constitution that says there cannot be a nominee vote during an election year.

Anyone who claims Obama wouldnt have sent through Garland if he had the Senate is a liar.
Democrats are scum and knowing lie when they claim they wouldn't do this. Remember Harry Reid?
 

Sun Devil 92

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
31,755
Reaction score
10,724
Points
1,410

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


Jo
At this point, the leftist hatred of Trump is so irrational he could nominate Obama and they'd fight it to the death.
You are absolutely right, this time. No way they will trust trump to make a moderate nominee, because they know he will not. He will put somebody that distinctly right of center. Somebody above said think of it like the Kavanaugh hearing, except with guns and knives. In the end, trumps nominee will be confirmed. It is what trump has to do, as any president would do. McConnell and the Senate will take the blame for pushing it through. Trump and 23 Republican Senators will be punished at the polls. Amazing, trump and McConnell (McConnell who blocked even a hearing on Obama's nominee 10 months out from an election) will just be playing the cards dealt, but they will be punished none the less, and Senate Republicans along with them.
When you own the senate, you can do what they want.

Nobody is going to punish anyone.

Not with the assholes on the left burning down cities.

People could give a fuck about pushing through a nomination.
 

White 6

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
9,440
Reaction score
4,398
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.
Are you claiming McConnell doesn’t have the right to pause the confirmation and vote on a SCOTUS nomination?
He has that right. One would expect the rules of the Senate wouldn't change based on the the party of the President however.
The Constitution hasn’t changed. The President has the power to appoint a Justice. The Senate is to counsel and confirm. Nothing has changed from 2016 and now. Nothing prevented Obama from nominating someone. The Senate had the power to confirm, or not to. They chose not to. To claim they must do the same for an entirely different nominee is absurd.
Nobody is saying he can't, only that it is a complete reversal of his position, last time and with this time only being 46 days till election, not 10 months. Voters have an idea of fairness. Unfairness leaves a bitter taste, not forgotten. No way it will not be forgotten within 46 days.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
69,498
Reaction score
12,580
Points
2,180

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.
Are you claiming McConnell doesn’t have the right to pause the confirmation and vote on a SCOTUS nomination?
He has that right. One would expect the rules of the Senate wouldn't change based on the the party of the President however.
The Constitution hasn’t changed. The President has the power to appoint a Justice. The Senate is to counsel and confirm. Nothing has changed from 2016 and now. Nothing prevented Obama from nominating someone. The Senate had the power to confirm, or not to. They chose not to. To claim they must do the same for an entirely different nominee is absurd.
Why would that be absurd?

That "they" chose not to in one instance and "they" are choosing to in another instance is definitely a change. Politically, McConnell has no choice.
 

occupied

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
24,906
Reaction score
5,599
Points
280
"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
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.

"You have to go back to 1880s to find the last time a Senate controlled by a party different from the president filled a vacancy on the Supreme Court that was created in the middle of a presidential election year," McConnell told Fox News.
Just an excuse. The raw exercise of power without any ethical bounds is the only dynamic at work here. If this is how you people want it to be then America is dead as an ideal. It's banana republic bullshit and you know it.
 

ColonelAngus

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
27,637
Reaction score
14,111
Points
1,415
So the left is mad that Trump will likely follow the Constitution?

It will be so absurd to riot because the President followed the Constituton.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
31,618
Reaction score
15,893
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona

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.
Are you claiming McConnell doesn’t have the right to pause the confirmation and vote on a SCOTUS nomination?
He has that right. One would expect the rules of the Senate wouldn't change based on the the party of the President however.
The Constitution hasn’t changed. The President has the power to appoint a Justice. The Senate is to counsel and confirm. Nothing has changed from 2016 and now. Nothing prevented Obama from nominating someone. The Senate had the power to confirm, or not to. They chose not to. To claim they must do the same for an entirely different nominee is absurd.
Why would that be absurd?

That "they" chose not to in one instance and "they" are choosing to in another instance is definitely a change. Politically, McConnell has no choice.
Are you saying they had to confirm Obama’s nominee, but they shouldn’t vote on President Trump’s?
 

HenryBHough

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
29,502
Reaction score
5,754
Points
290
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
I'd rather see there be NO discussion of a replacement until after President Trump's re-inauguration.

But if it has to be otherwise, maybe it'll have a positive side.

It would make it necessary for senators up for re-election to make it clear where they stand. RINOs won't be able to resist obstructing and that could bring them down in November. If there is to be a pre-inauguration vote it MUST be forced before the election so there are no unswered questions of who's for America and who's a Socialist-in-disguise.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
69,498
Reaction score
12,580
Points
2,180

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.
Are you claiming McConnell doesn’t have the right to pause the confirmation and vote on a SCOTUS nomination?
He has that right. One would expect the rules of the Senate wouldn't change based on the the party of the President however.
The Constitution hasn’t changed. The President has the power to appoint a Justice. The Senate is to counsel and confirm. Nothing has changed from 2016 and now. Nothing prevented Obama from nominating someone. The Senate had the power to confirm, or not to. They chose not to. To claim they must do the same for an entirely different nominee is absurd.
Why would that be absurd?

That "they" chose not to in one instance and "they" are choosing to in another instance is definitely a change. Politically, McConnell has no choice.
Are you saying they had to confirm Obama’s nominee, but they shouldn’t vote on President Trump’s?
From a personal standpoint, they had to give a hearing...win lose or draw it's fine. But you at least fulfill your duty under the constitution.

If you're going to not give a hearing based on how much longer the term of the President is in office....that should be the standard. Consistency.

Politically, the turtle has no choice. He loses his job if he doesn't fill the seat by election day because he won't be the majority leader if democrats think that if they win the Senate, there is a clear prize on the line; not just getting the majority to have power...there is actually a prize. So if I were McConnell, I'd shitcan my ethics too and put Judge Judy on the bench before I'd leave it empty.

A fun fact...if Trump wanted to nominate Ivanka...he could. The justices on the court need not be lawyers.
 

Sun Devil 92

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
31,755
Reaction score
10,724
Points
1,410

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.
Are you claiming McConnell doesn’t have the right to pause the confirmation and vote on a SCOTUS nomination?
He has that right. One would expect the rules of the Senate wouldn't change based on the the party of the President however.
The Constitution hasn’t changed. The President has the power to appoint a Justice. The Senate is to counsel and confirm. Nothing has changed from 2016 and now. Nothing prevented Obama from nominating someone. The Senate had the power to confirm, or not to. They chose not to. To claim they must do the same for an entirely different nominee is absurd.
Why would that be absurd?

That "they" chose not to in one instance and "they" are choosing to in another instance is definitely a change. Politically, McConnell has no choice.
Are you saying they had to confirm Obama’s nominee, but they shouldn’t vote on President Trump’s?
From a personal standpoint, they had to give a hearing...win lose or draw it's fine. But you at least fulfill your duty under the constitution.

If you're going to not give a hearing based on how much longer the term of the President is in office....that should be the standard. Consistency.

Politically, the turtle has no choice. He loses his job if he doesn't fill the seat by election day because he won't be the majority leader if democrats think that if they win the Senate, there is a clear prize on the line; not just getting the majority to have power...there is actually a prize. So if I were McConnell, I'd shitcan my ethics too and put Judge Judy on the bench before I'd leave it empty.

A fun fact...if Trump wanted to nominate Ivanka...he could. The justices on the court need not be lawyers.
Agreed....except you don't have any ethics.
 

ColonelAngus

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
27,637
Reaction score
14,111
Points
1,415

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.
Are you claiming McConnell doesn’t have the right to pause the confirmation and vote on a SCOTUS nomination?
He has that right. One would expect the rules of the Senate wouldn't change based on the the party of the President however.
The Constitution hasn’t changed. The President has the power to appoint a Justice. The Senate is to counsel and confirm. Nothing has changed from 2016 and now. Nothing prevented Obama from nominating someone. The Senate had the power to confirm, or not to. They chose not to. To claim they must do the same for an entirely different nominee is absurd.
Nobody is saying he can't, only that it is a complete reversal of his position, last time and with this time only being 46 days till election, not 10 months. Voters have an idea of fairness. Unfairness leaves a bitter taste, not forgotten. No way it will not be forgotten within 46 days.
If voters cared about fairness, no one would ever vote Dim.

Obama was the one who said it. Elections have consequences.

I’ll keep repeating it and we know its true...if Obama had the Senate, Garland goes through. He proved it my even nominating Garland with A Pub Senate. That tells you everything. If Dims believed there shouldnt be a nominee during an election year then Obama wouldnt have named Garland.
 

Sun Devil 92

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
31,755
Reaction score
10,724
Points
1,410
As long as the left keeps burning Seattle, Portland, Chicago, D.C. and other shitholes......nobody is going to pay attention to this nomination.

Go Donny !!!!
 

Nosmo King

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
26,053
Reaction score
6,928
Points
290
Location
Buckle of the Rust Belt
"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
Things have changed.

Fuck the Communists.
You're a blithering idiot! Steeped in cynicism and anti-democratic conspiracy theories your mind has been poisoned. What is it about America you claim to love? It certainly isn't the democracy part.

Move to Russia with Trump come February. You two Authoritarians should get along like grand old comrades!
 

Nosmo King

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
26,053
Reaction score
6,928
Points
290
Location
Buckle of the Rust Belt

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.
Are you claiming McConnell doesn’t have the right to pause the confirmation and vote on a SCOTUS nomination?
He has that right. One would expect the rules of the Senate wouldn't change based on the the party of the President however.
The Constitution hasn’t changed. The President has the power to appoint a Justice. The Senate is to counsel and confirm. Nothing has changed from 2016 and now. Nothing prevented Obama from nominating someone. The Senate had the power to confirm, or not to. They chose not to. To claim they must do the same for an entirely different nominee is absurd.
Nobody is saying he can't, only that it is a complete reversal of his position, last time and with this time only being 46 days till election, not 10 months. Voters have an idea of fairness. Unfairness leaves a bitter taste, not forgotten. No way it will not be forgotten within 46 days.
If voters cared about fairness, no one would ever vote Dim.

Obama was the one who said it. Elections have consequences.

I’ll keep repeating it and we know its true...if Obama had the Senate, Garland goes through. He proved it my even nominating Garland with A Pub Senate. That tells you everything. If Dims believed there shouldnt be a nominee during an election year then Obama wouldnt have named Garland.
One party rule?

Another traitor is heard from.
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
772
Reaction score
755
Points
883
Location
Arizona
There will be a vote. The nominee will probably be ratified. The WH and the Senate will go blue, and then the Senate will add six new seats to SCOTUS.
And the SCOTUS will rule the expansion illegal. Check and mate.
 

White 6

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
9,440
Reaction score
4,398
Points
210
There will be a vote. The nominee will probably be ratified. The WH and the Senate will go blue, and then the Senate will add six new seats to SCOTUS.
And the SCOTUS will rule the expansion illegal. Check and mate.
Why would they do that? Nothing wrong with it according to the Constitution? Are you suggesting they will not be bound by that document any more? If so, than it is over, isn't it? Time to start buying stock in fish eggs and Vodka. Putin and the totalitarians win and the constitution and the people lose.
 

Sun Devil 92

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
31,755
Reaction score
10,724
Points
1,410
There will be a vote. The nominee will probably be ratified. The WH and the Senate will go blue, and then the Senate will add six new seats to SCOTUS.
And the SCOTUS will rule the expansion illegal. Check and mate.
Actually, Trump stays and so does the senate.

Then Trump can expand it himself.

Fuck Joe Biden

Fuck Kamala Harris

Fuck JakeStarkey
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top