RBG dead

[Jhhnn]

So tell me where Democrats stated that they now accept this rule as the new law of the land and that they would abide by this precedent for any future similar situations that they come across.

So dishonest. McConnell snubbed Garland, changed the rules to confirm Gorsuch & Kavanaugh and will now ram thru whoever Trump nominates simply because he has the power & the lack of principles to execute the maneuver. Fuck you, Libtards.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So dishonest. McConnell snubbed Garland, changed the rules to confirm Gorsuch & Kavanaugh and will now ram thru whoever Trump nominates simply because he has the power & the lack of principles to execute the maneuver. Fuck you, Libtards.

He doesn't have to ram it though, it's just standard procedure. The President nominates and the Senate confirms.

 

[MrSquished]

He doesn't have to ram it though, it's just standard procedure. The President nominates and the Senate confirms.

Sure it's legal but it's highly unethical. A lot of things in history have been legal but either completely morally wrong to totally unethical. Not like Republicans give two shits about either scenario.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So dishonest. McConnell snubbed Garland, changed the rules to confirm Gorsuch & Kavanaugh and will now ram thru whoever Trump nominates simply because he has the power & the lack of principles to execute the maneuver. Fuck you, Libtards.

He didn't change the rules in the slightest. I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding history with something that has occurred multiple times in the past.

And thank you for admitting that you couldn't answer my previous post - where I asked for you to cite where Democrats stated that they now accept this rule as the new law of the land and that they would abide by this precedent for any future similar situations that they come across.

 

[hal2kilo]

He didn't change the rules in the slightest. I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding history.

Sorry you have difficultly understanding common decency.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Sorry you have difficultly understanding common decency.

Would it have made you feel better if they held a hearing for Garland and declined him? Because that's virtually the same thing that has occurred plenty of times as well.

In fact, in the entire history of the US there have been 10 nominations for SC vacancies that occurred during the election year AND with the opposing party in political power. Of those 10 nominations, only 2 have ever been confirmed.

This is nothing new. I'm sorry you're misinformed and don't understand the basic premises of our judicial system.


Continue crying in the corner as you continue to lose SCOTUS' and elections and say "This game isn't fair! I want to play basketball instead of baseball!"

 

[Jhhnn]

He doesn't have to ram it though, it's just standard procedure. The President nominates and the Senate confirms.

He'll have to hustle up considerably more than usual to git 'er dun before the election-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/19/is-it-too-close-election-confirm-supreme-court-nominee/?arc404=true

 

[Jhhnn]

He didn't change the rules in the slightest. I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding history with something that has occurred multiple times in the past.

And thank you for admitting that you couldn't answer my previous post - where I asked for you to cite where Democrats stated that they now accept this rule as the new law of the land and that they would abide by this precedent for any future similar situations that they come across.

McConnell did, in fact, change the rules to disallow filibuster of SCOTUS nominees. That's indisputable. It is exactly as I offered.

 

[Grey_Beard]

Would it have made you feel better if they held a hearing for Garland and declined him? Because that's virtually the same thing that has occurred plenty of times as well.

In fact, in the entire history of the US there have been 10 nominations for SC vacancies that occurred during the election year AND with the opposing party in political power. Of those 10 nominations, only 2 have ever been confirmed.

This is nothing new. I'm sorry you're misinformed and don't understand the basic premises of our judicial system.


Continue crying in the corner as you continue to lose SCOTUS' and elections and say "This game isn't fair! I want to play basketball instead of baseball!"

Yes, it would have been better to hold the hearing and vote no. Of the 8 you mention above that we’re not confirmed, all 8 got the respect and the President got the ability to submit the nomination. The hearings were held and the vote happened. That is called procedure.

To use your example, the 1960 Yankees are playing the Pirates in World Series. Since the Yankees are such heavy favorites and have one the best teams in history, why play the World Series? It seems clear that the Yankees will be crowded the champions. Why not just give them the trophy and not play the games? That is reasonable given the circumstances. It’s not all that different from this situation since you know the expected outcome. Lordy be, would you believe it that after out scoring the Pirates 55-27, the Pirates win the World Series in the 9th inning of game 7 on a walk off home run. Imagine that.

This is why McConnell did that. Garland was a great choice and if they went through the process he may have been confirmed. He could not risk that, so he did what he did. That is the change in procedure. You got to play the baseball game even if you think you are playing basketball.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Sure it's legal but it's highly unethical. A lot of things in history have been legal but either completely morally wrong to totally unethical. Not like Republicans give two shits about either scenario.

Why would it be unethical? It's standard procedure except for a short time in 2016 and the Democrats convinced us all it shouldn't happen again.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

He'll have to hustle up considerably more than usual to git 'er dun before the election-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/19/is-it-too-close-election-confirm-supreme-court-nominee/?arc404=true

He's got the votes, no big deal to git er done.

 

[MrSquished]

Why would it be unethical? It's standard procedure except for a short time in 2016 and the Democrats convinced us all it shouldn't happen again.

Someone who has no ethics clearly is unable to understand what is unethical. I mean seriously, you people are civically useless when it comes to contributing to a functioning western democracy. I mean I could post all the quotes from McConnell and almost every other Republican senator - they never said an SC justice should not be picked in an election year only by a Democratic president, they said by a president, period. But you clearly don't have an ounce of integrity - like typical Trump trash.

 

[Jhhnn]

He's got the votes, no big deal to git er done.

Right you are. Integrity doesn't have anything to do with it, either.

 

[Sunburn74]

Would it have made you feel better if they held a hearing for Garland and declined him? Because that's virtually the same thing that has occurred plenty of times as well.

In fact, in the entire history of the US there have been 10 nominations for SC vacancies that occurred during the election year AND with the opposing party in political power. Of those 10 nominations, only 2 have ever been confirmed.

This is nothing new. I'm sorry you're misinformed and don't understand the basic premises of our judicial system.


Continue crying in the corner as you continue to lose SCOTUS' and elections and say "This game isn't fair! I want to play basketball instead of baseball!"

The GOP was extremely clear. Many including McConnell said no nominee by any president in an election year. They didn't mince words. They used absolutes that didn't leave ground for alternative explanation. You can try and point and history and try and point and precedent but the fact are they changed the precedents in 2016 and now they want to change it back. Shame on them and they will pay a price.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The GOP was extremely clear. Many including McConnell said no nominee by any president in an election year. They didn't mince words. They used absolutes that didn't leave ground for alternative explanation. You can try and point and history and try and point and precedent but the fact are they changed the precedents in 2016 and now they want to change it back. Shame on them and they will pay a price.

They actually made those statements would with the statement of "a lame duck president".

So no. You're misconstruing.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Right you are. Integrity doesn't have anything to do with it, either.

It has nothing to do with integrity. Laws and rules of appointments aren't made for integrity. They are made for what rules should be abided.

There is also nothing more unethical than saying "You MUST appoint the presidential nominee" quickly flopping to "You MUST wait until after the election"


Anyhow, enjoy some hilarious irony of a boatload of contradicting statements.

 

[ivwshane]

They actually made those statements would with the statement of "a lame duck president".

So no. You're misconstruing.

Listen you ignorant piece of shit, learn to fucking fact check your dumb ass so others don’t have to constantly call you out for your lies and bull shit.

GOP senators confront past comments on Supreme Court vote

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican senators weighing what to do about the vacancy on the Supreme Court are facing questions about their own past comments amid complaints by Democrats that their views have shifted with changing political reality.

apnews.com

Two years earlier, in the midst of the Garland battle, the South Carolina senator was even more emphatic, urging listeners at a Judiciary Committee meeting to “use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president (elected) in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, ‘Let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.’”

 

[Jhhnn]

They actually made those statements would with the statement of "a lame duck president".

So no. You're misconstruing.

So dishonest. It's perfectly clear that Clinton would have continued Obama's legacy. There never was any honest objection to Garland other than Obama having nominated him.

 

[MrSquished]

They actually made those statements would with the statement of "a lame duck president".

So no. You're misconstruing.

First of all many of the statements did not mention lame duck anything. Second you don't even have a clue what a lame duck president is - it's a president who is president after a successor has been chosen, or will be soon. Trump has a solid chance of having a successor chosen anyways. I can go find the post with all the quotes of Republican senators that said nothing of lame duck, but you have no integrity so your make something else up.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So dishonest. It's perfectly clear that Clinton would have continued Obama's legacy. There never was any honest objection to Garland other than Obama having nominated him.

And once again, this is nothing new. I outlined how this same case has happened 8 times in our history.

Of the Senate had a hearing and declined him would you still be butt hurt?

 

[MrSquished]

The Republicans said during a closely contested election year, or America is divided and the next president should choose, yada yada. Well this election is of an even more divided America and much closer to an election with a good chance of a new president being elected - in fact people have already started voting, so it's an actual ongoing election. Even worse.

Republican defenders are unethical trash.

 

[Grey_Beard]

They actually made those statements would with the statement of "a lame duck president".

So no. You're misconstruing.

No again. Multiple Senators said multiple times that if this happened with tRump as President they would let the people decide and delay to the results of the pending election. This is until they found another rationalization that they could use to create a scenario where they can dribble on about this is why the people already decided. Remember integrity is not defined as changing your approach or rationale to justify why you do things in each situation you need a different approach.

 

[Grey_Beard]

And once again, this is nothing new. I outlined how this same case has happened 8 times in our history.

Of the Senate had a hearing and declined him would you still be butt hurt?

Even though you avoided my last response, I will say again, yes it would be different.

I will just quote myself.

Yes, it would have been better to hold the hearing and vote no. Of the 8 you mention above that we’re not confirmed, all 8 got the respect and the President got the ability to submit the nomination. The hearings were held and the vote happened. That is called procedure.

To use your example, the 1960 Yankees are playing the Pirates in World Series. Since the Yankees are such heavy favorites and have one the best teams in history, why play the World Series? It seems clear that the Yankees will be crowded the champions. Why not just give them the trophy and not play the games? That is reasonable given the circumstances. It’s not all that different from this situation since you know the expected outcome. Lordy be, would you believe it that after out scoring the Pirates 55-27, the Pirates win the World Series in the 9th inning of game 7 on a walk off home run. Imagine that.

This is why McConnell did that. Garland was a great choice and if they went through the process he may have been confirmed. He could not risk that, so he did what he did. That is the change in procedure. You got to play the baseball game even if you think you are playing basketball.

 

[Jhhnn]

And once again, this is nothing new. I outlined how this same case has happened 8 times in our history.

Of the Senate had a hearing and declined him would you still be butt hurt?

What 8 times? Only 4 nominations resulted in no action, the last in 1853-

Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[zinfamous]

Except... You know.... We didn't have a popular vote.

Continuing to say we won the popular vote in an election that has nothing to do with the popular vote is simply saying "If we weren't playing basketball then I would have beaten you at bowling"

It makes zero sense. No, you can't make the assertion that you would have won the popular vote if we had one - because we never have had one.

no, it's correcting people when they say "the people chose." that's the sum total of the correction people are making, and you don't get it. It's very simple, but you are putting words in their mouths.

"the people" don't choose anyone in the EC. When shitforbrains sister-fuckers try to tell us that "the people chose Trump!", a correction is absolutely warranted, because it is factually, indisputably, fucking untrue that "the people chose Trump."

do you not agree? it's a very simple concept.