A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

[DarkFury]

There are legitimate reasons why Trump should not be allowed to pick a supreme court justice.

A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

By Paul Schiff Berman

Mr. Berman is a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall — a version of the same argument that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions.

But there is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.

True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues. But it highlights the real risk involved in letting a deeply compromised president shape a court that may one day stand between him and impeachment.

www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/a-better-reason-to-delay-kennedys-replacement.html

Fortunately the Democrats don'thave a choice, they have to do what they can until after the election. It's fair game at this point.

Why is that lying like a bazaar full of rugs is always "doing what they can" with Democrats?

Who is lying?

There should have been a floor vote for Garland, there wasn't and McConnell made up the "Biden rule" which wasn't a rule to justify him not doing his job. Now the Democrats are saying we are in another election year, while the President isn't up for re election, the body that is confirming the nominee is and the President is also under investigation. So, there is more than enough justification for the Democrats to do anything they legally can to delay the vote if we are to live by McConnel's standards.

McConnell didn't make up a damned thing. And he WAS doing his job; you just didn't like that it was him doing it, because that meant it involved keeping you from getting what you wanted. Had it been a leftist in that position, using the legitimate rules and power of the position to block a Republican President's nomination, you'd have been cheering, and we both know it.

Now the Democrats are saying, "All elections must be the same, because we're powerless otherwise", and it's horse shit. They're also saying - as they pretty much always do - "Our accusations should be treated as convictions!" Not only are we not going to allow them to paralyze the Presidency every time they're out of power, but we are also not interested in this hypocrisy, given that leftists certainly do not treat accusations of wrongdoing toward THEIR Presidents as prima facie evidence that he should not be allowed to exercise the powers of the office.

That is not "McConnell's standard", unless and until you can provide any evidence of him EVER suggesting that it should be applied to any election other than the Presidential. You don't get to invent shit on the fly and then make other people responsible for it.

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'm quite sure professor Berman would like to hear your well educated legal opinions.

Professor Berman is not a member of the House or the Senate and if they decide to vote to replace Justice Kennedy, then it will happen. His opinion is just that an opinion.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, it really isn't news that leftists are squirming around like worms in hot ashes, trying to find some way out of their mess, you're right about that.

It's actually a mess that McConnell started and if Trump picks somebody on the far right it's not going to help the Republicans in November.

Oh but it WILL. This WINNING is kind of growing on us. I expect a HIGHER republican turn out because of it.

I hope you really think so.

The more you warn us that we shouldn't do it because it'll hurt us, the more sure we become that it's exactly what we should do, because you're actually afraid it will hurt YOU.

It'll hurt the country sure, no doubt about it.

The libs on the court are hurting the country.

 

[OKTexas]

There are legitimate reasons why Trump should not be allowed to pick a supreme court justice.

A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

By Paul Schiff Berman

Mr. Berman is a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall — a version of the same argument that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions.

But there is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.

True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues. But it highlights the real risk involved in letting a deeply compromised president shape a court that may one day stand between him and impeachment.

www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/a-better-reason-to-delay-kennedys-replacement.html

Fortunately the Democrats don'thave a choice, they have to do what they can until after the election. It's fair game at this point.

Why is that lying like a bazaar full of rugs is always "doing what they can" with Democrats?

Who is lying?

There should have been a floor vote for Garland, there wasn't and McConnell made up the "Biden rule" which wasn't a rule to justify him not doing his job. Now the Democrats are saying we are in another election year, while the President isn't up for re election, the body that is confirming the nominee is and the President is also under investigation. So, there is more than enough justification for the Democrats to do anything they legally can to delay the vote if we are to live by McConnel's standards.

Yep, which is nothing they can do to delay the vote.


.

I'm not sure Republicans will have the votes. We'll find out.

If Trump doesn't pick an idiot they will admit they would prejudge a case, there no reason for not confirming. Right now the only regressive argument is Trump is making the pick, that won't wash. Hell they don't even know who it will be yet and their wasting all this bandwidth and air time.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, it really isn't news that leftists are squirming around like worms in hot ashes, trying to find some way out of their mess, you're right about that.

It's actually a mess that McConnell started and if Trump picks somebody on the far right it's not going to help the Republicans in November.

Oh but it WILL. This WINNING is kind of growing on us. I expect a HIGHER republican turn out because of it.

I hope you really think so.

The more you warn us that we shouldn't do it because it'll hurt us, the more sure we become that it's exactly what we should do, because you're actually afraid it will hurt YOU.

It'll hurt the country sure, no doubt about it.

HOW????????? You don't even know who the pick is.


.

 

[HappyJoy]

There are legitimate reasons why Trump should not be allowed to pick a supreme court justice.

A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

By Paul Schiff Berman

Mr. Berman is a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall — a version of the same argument that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions.

But there is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.

True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues. But it highlights the real risk involved in letting a deeply compromised president shape a court that may one day stand between him and impeachment.

www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/a-better-reason-to-delay-kennedys-replacement.html

Fortunately the Democrats don'thave a choice, they have to do what they can until after the election. It's fair game at this point.

Why is that lying like a bazaar full of rugs is always "doing what they can" with Democrats?

Who is lying?

There should have been a floor vote for Garland, there wasn't and McConnell made up the "Biden rule" which wasn't a rule to justify him not doing his job. Now the Democrats are saying we are in another election year, while the President isn't up for re election, the body that is confirming the nominee is and the President is also under investigation. So, there is more than enough justification for the Democrats to do anything they legally can to delay the vote if we are to live by McConnel's standards.

McConnell didn't make up a damned thing. And he WAS doing his job; you just didn't like that it was him doing it, because that meant it involved keeping you from getting what you wanted. Had it been a leftist in that position, using the legitimate rules and power of the position to block a Republican President's nomination, you'd have been cheering, and we both know it.

Now the Democrats are saying, "All elections must be the same, because we're powerless otherwise", and it's horse shit. They're also saying - as they pretty much always do - "Our accusations should be treated as convictions!" Not only are we not going to allow them to paralyze the Presidency every time they're out of power, but we are also not interested in this hypocrisy, given that leftists certainly do not treat accusations of wrongdoing toward THEIR Presidents as prima facie evidence that he should not be allowed to exercise the powers of the office.

That is not "McConnell's standard", unless and until you can provide any evidence of him EVER suggesting that it should be applied to any election other than the Presidential. You don't get to invent shit on the fly and then make other people responsible for it.

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

 

[HappyJoy]

It's actually a mess that McConnell started and if Trump picks somebody on the far right it's not going to help the Republicans in November.

Oh but it WILL. This WINNING is kind of growing on us. I expect a HIGHER republican turn out because of it.

I hope you really think so.

The more you warn us that we shouldn't do it because it'll hurt us, the more sure we become that it's exactly what we should do, because you're actually afraid it will hurt YOU.

It'll hurt the country sure, no doubt about it.

The libs on the court are hurting the country.

Ahh, poor baby.

 

[OKTexas]

Fortunately the Democrats don'thave a choice, they have to do what they can until after the election. It's fair game at this point.

Why is that lying like a bazaar full of rugs is always "doing what they can" with Democrats?

Who is lying?

There should have been a floor vote for Garland, there wasn't and McConnell made up the "Biden rule" which wasn't a rule to justify him not doing his job. Now the Democrats are saying we are in another election year, while the President isn't up for re election, the body that is confirming the nominee is and the President is also under investigation. So, there is more than enough justification for the Democrats to do anything they legally can to delay the vote if we are to live by McConnel's standards.

McConnell didn't make up a damned thing. And he WAS doing his job; you just didn't like that it was him doing it, because that meant it involved keeping you from getting what you wanted. Had it been a leftist in that position, using the legitimate rules and power of the position to block a Republican President's nomination, you'd have been cheering, and we both know it.

Now the Democrats are saying, "All elections must be the same, because we're powerless otherwise", and it's horse shit. They're also saying - as they pretty much always do - "Our accusations should be treated as convictions!" Not only are we not going to allow them to paralyze the Presidency every time they're out of power, but we are also not interested in this hypocrisy, given that leftists certainly do not treat accusations of wrongdoing toward THEIR Presidents as prima facie evidence that he should not be allowed to exercise the powers of the office.

That is not "McConnell's standard", unless and until you can provide any evidence of him EVER suggesting that it should be applied to any election other than the Presidential. You don't get to invent shit on the fly and then make other people responsible for it.

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

He did in the end because he got 5 picks.


.

 

[HappyJoy]

Fortunately the Democrats don'thave a choice, they have to do what they can until after the election. It's fair game at this point.

Why is that lying like a bazaar full of rugs is always "doing what they can" with Democrats?

Who is lying?

There should have been a floor vote for Garland, there wasn't and McConnell made up the "Biden rule" which wasn't a rule to justify him not doing his job. Now the Democrats are saying we are in another election year, while the President isn't up for re election, the body that is confirming the nominee is and the President is also under investigation. So, there is more than enough justification for the Democrats to do anything they legally can to delay the vote if we are to live by McConnel's standards.

Yep, which is nothing they can do to delay the vote.


.

I'm not sure Republicans will have the votes. We'll find out.

If Trump doesn't pick an idiot they will admit they would prejudge a case, there no reason for not confirming. Right now the only regressive argument is Trump is making the pick, that won't wash. Hell they don't even know who it will be yet and their wasting all this bandwidth and air time.


.

Some justices do have a history, ya' know? He's got that list of very conservative candidates and if they have expressed a view of not following precedence then that's a pretty good clue.

Anyway, I have no problem with Democrats trying to hold off the vote and I can think of a couple Republicans who are going to get a lot of phone calls.

Anyway, I'm not making any predictions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fortunately the Democrats don'thave a choice, they have to do what they can until after the election. It's fair game at this point.

Why is that lying like a bazaar full of rugs is always "doing what they can" with Democrats?

Who is lying?

There should have been a floor vote for Garland, there wasn't and McConnell made up the "Biden rule" which wasn't a rule to justify him not doing his job. Now the Democrats are saying we are in another election year, while the President isn't up for re election, the body that is confirming the nominee is and the President is also under investigation. So, there is more than enough justification for the Democrats to do anything they legally can to delay the vote if we are to live by McConnel's standards.

McConnell didn't make up a damned thing. And he WAS doing his job; you just didn't like that it was him doing it, because that meant it involved keeping you from getting what you wanted. Had it been a leftist in that position, using the legitimate rules and power of the position to block a Republican President's nomination, you'd have been cheering, and we both know it.

Now the Democrats are saying, "All elections must be the same, because we're powerless otherwise", and it's horse shit. They're also saying - as they pretty much always do - "Our accusations should be treated as convictions!" Not only are we not going to allow them to paralyze the Presidency every time they're out of power, but we are also not interested in this hypocrisy, given that leftists certainly do not treat accusations of wrongdoing toward THEIR Presidents as prima facie evidence that he should not be allowed to exercise the powers of the office.

That is not "McConnell's standard", unless and until you can provide any evidence of him EVER suggesting that it should be applied to any election other than the Presidential. You don't get to invent shit on the fly and then make other people responsible for it.

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee.

You make it sound like Garland was the first nominee who didn't get a vote during a Presidential election year.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Facts are such bitches. I have not absolutely confirmed this but I believe four recent justices have been confirmed during a mid term election year. Don’t do as I do, do as I say.

 

[HappyJoy]

Why is that lying like a bazaar full of rugs is always "doing what they can" with Democrats?

Who is lying?

There should have been a floor vote for Garland, there wasn't and McConnell made up the "Biden rule" which wasn't a rule to justify him not doing his job. Now the Democrats are saying we are in another election year, while the President isn't up for re election, the body that is confirming the nominee is and the President is also under investigation. So, there is more than enough justification for the Democrats to do anything they legally can to delay the vote if we are to live by McConnel's standards.

McConnell didn't make up a damned thing. And he WAS doing his job; you just didn't like that it was him doing it, because that meant it involved keeping you from getting what you wanted. Had it been a leftist in that position, using the legitimate rules and power of the position to block a Republican President's nomination, you'd have been cheering, and we both know it.

Now the Democrats are saying, "All elections must be the same, because we're powerless otherwise", and it's horse shit. They're also saying - as they pretty much always do - "Our accusations should be treated as convictions!" Not only are we not going to allow them to paralyze the Presidency every time they're out of power, but we are also not interested in this hypocrisy, given that leftists certainly do not treat accusations of wrongdoing toward THEIR Presidents as prima facie evidence that he should not be allowed to exercise the powers of the office.

That is not "McConnell's standard", unless and until you can provide any evidence of him EVER suggesting that it should be applied to any election other than the Presidential. You don't get to invent shit on the fly and then make other people responsible for it.

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee.

You make it sound like Garland was the first nominee who didn't get a vote during a Presidential election year.

Supreme Court nominee? Who?

 

[WillowTree]

Fortunately the Democrats don'thave a choice, they have to do what they can until after the election. It's fair game at this point.

Why is that lying like a bazaar full of rugs is always "doing what they can" with Democrats?

Who is lying?

There should have been a floor vote for Garland, there wasn't and McConnell made up the "Biden rule" which wasn't a rule to justify him not doing his job. Now the Democrats are saying we are in another election year, while the President isn't up for re election, the body that is confirming the nominee is and the President is also under investigation. So, there is more than enough justification for the Democrats to do anything they legally can to delay the vote if we are to live by McConnel's standards.

McConnell didn't make up a damned thing. And he WAS doing his job; you just didn't like that it was him doing it, because that meant it involved keeping you from getting what you wanted. Had it been a leftist in that position, using the legitimate rules and power of the position to block a Republican President's nomination, you'd have been cheering, and we both know it.

Now the Democrats are saying, "All elections must be the same, because we're powerless otherwise", and it's horse shit. They're also saying - as they pretty much always do - "Our accusations should be treated as convictions!" Not only are we not going to allow them to paralyze the Presidency every time they're out of power, but we are also not interested in this hypocrisy, given that leftists certainly do not treat accusations of wrongdoing toward THEIR Presidents as prima facie evidence that he should not be allowed to exercise the powers of the office.

That is not "McConnell's standard", unless and until you can provide any evidence of him EVER suggesting that it should be applied to any election other than the Presidential. You don't get to invent shit on the fly and then make other people responsible for it.

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

What rule?

 

[HappyJoy]

Facts are such bitches. I have not absolutely confirmed this but I believe four recent justices have been confirmed during a mid term election year. Don’t do as I do, do as I say.

Was the Pres under investigation?

 

[HappyJoy]

Why is that lying like a bazaar full of rugs is always "doing what they can" with Democrats?

Who is lying?

There should have been a floor vote for Garland, there wasn't and McConnell made up the "Biden rule" which wasn't a rule to justify him not doing his job. Now the Democrats are saying we are in another election year, while the President isn't up for re election, the body that is confirming the nominee is and the President is also under investigation. So, there is more than enough justification for the Democrats to do anything they legally can to delay the vote if we are to live by McConnel's standards.

McConnell didn't make up a damned thing. And he WAS doing his job; you just didn't like that it was him doing it, because that meant it involved keeping you from getting what you wanted. Had it been a leftist in that position, using the legitimate rules and power of the position to block a Republican President's nomination, you'd have been cheering, and we both know it.

Now the Democrats are saying, "All elections must be the same, because we're powerless otherwise", and it's horse shit. They're also saying - as they pretty much always do - "Our accusations should be treated as convictions!" Not only are we not going to allow them to paralyze the Presidency every time they're out of power, but we are also not interested in this hypocrisy, given that leftists certainly do not treat accusations of wrongdoing toward THEIR Presidents as prima facie evidence that he should not be allowed to exercise the powers of the office.

That is not "McConnell's standard", unless and until you can provide any evidence of him EVER suggesting that it should be applied to any election other than the Presidential. You don't get to invent shit on the fly and then make other people responsible for it.

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

What rule?

The so called 'Biden rule'.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who is lying?

There should have been a floor vote for Garland, there wasn't and McConnell made up the "Biden rule" which wasn't a rule to justify him not doing his job. Now the Democrats are saying we are in another election year, while the President isn't up for re election, the body that is confirming the nominee is and the President is also under investigation. So, there is more than enough justification for the Democrats to do anything they legally can to delay the vote if we are to live by McConnel's standards.

McConnell didn't make up a damned thing. And he WAS doing his job; you just didn't like that it was him doing it, because that meant it involved keeping you from getting what you wanted. Had it been a leftist in that position, using the legitimate rules and power of the position to block a Republican President's nomination, you'd have been cheering, and we both know it.

Now the Democrats are saying, "All elections must be the same, because we're powerless otherwise", and it's horse shit. They're also saying - as they pretty much always do - "Our accusations should be treated as convictions!" Not only are we not going to allow them to paralyze the Presidency every time they're out of power, but we are also not interested in this hypocrisy, given that leftists certainly do not treat accusations of wrongdoing toward THEIR Presidents as prima facie evidence that he should not be allowed to exercise the powers of the office.

That is not "McConnell's standard", unless and until you can provide any evidence of him EVER suggesting that it should be applied to any election other than the Presidential. You don't get to invent shit on the fly and then make other people responsible for it.

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee.

You make it sound like Garland was the first nominee who didn't get a vote during a Presidential election year.

Supreme Court nominee? Who?

As I demonstrated in Monday’s column, Democratic efforts to claim that Judge Gorsuch should be defeated because Republicans “stole” a seat that rightfully belonged to Merrick Garland and President Obama collapse when you look at the history of election-year nominations. This is the seventh time that the Senate has left an election-year Supreme Court vacancy open for the next president, and of the ten such vacancies to happen when the president and the Senate were from different parties, six were left vacant, three were confirmed after Election Day in favor of the party that won the election, and only one (in 1888) was confirmed before Election Day.

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

 

[HappyJoy]

McConnell didn't make up a damned thing. And he WAS doing his job; you just didn't like that it was him doing it, because that meant it involved keeping you from getting what you wanted. Had it been a leftist in that position, using the legitimate rules and power of the position to block a Republican President's nomination, you'd have been cheering, and we both know it.

Now the Democrats are saying, "All elections must be the same, because we're powerless otherwise", and it's horse shit. They're also saying - as they pretty much always do - "Our accusations should be treated as convictions!" Not only are we not going to allow them to paralyze the Presidency every time they're out of power, but we are also not interested in this hypocrisy, given that leftists certainly do not treat accusations of wrongdoing toward THEIR Presidents as prima facie evidence that he should not be allowed to exercise the powers of the office.

That is not "McConnell's standard", unless and until you can provide any evidence of him EVER suggesting that it should be applied to any election other than the Presidential. You don't get to invent shit on the fly and then make other people responsible for it.

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee.

You make it sound like Garland was the first nominee who didn't get a vote during a Presidential election year.

Supreme Court nominee? Who?

As I demonstrated in Monday’s column, Democratic efforts to claim that Judge Gorsuch should be defeated because Republicans “stole” a seat that rightfully belonged to Merrick Garland and President Obama collapse when you look at the history of election-year nominations. This is the seventh time that the Senate has left an election-year Supreme Court vacancy open for the next president, and of the ten such vacancies to happen when the president and the Senate were from different parties, six were left vacant, three were confirmed after Election Day in favor of the party that won the election, and only one (in 1888) was confirmed before Election Day.

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

Oh, this is embarrassing...for you. Who were the nominees that didn't get a vote? That's what you said, right? Let me quote you:

You make it sound like Garland was the first nominee who didn't get a vote during a Presidential election year.

So, which nominees weren't given a vote? I'm not interested in which vacancies were open if no one was nominated at the time or if a nominee is filibustered due to their own character flaws. Did NR pull one over on you?

So, one again who were the nominees who didn't get a vote due to an election year? Good luck with that.

 

[WillowTree]

Who is lying?

There should have been a floor vote for Garland, there wasn't and McConnell made up the "Biden rule" which wasn't a rule to justify him not doing his job. Now the Democrats are saying we are in another election year, while the President isn't up for re election, the body that is confirming the nominee is and the President is also under investigation. So, there is more than enough justification for the Democrats to do anything they legally can to delay the vote if we are to live by McConnel's standards.

McConnell didn't make up a damned thing. And he WAS doing his job; you just didn't like that it was him doing it, because that meant it involved keeping you from getting what you wanted. Had it been a leftist in that position, using the legitimate rules and power of the position to block a Republican President's nomination, you'd have been cheering, and we both know it.

Now the Democrats are saying, "All elections must be the same, because we're powerless otherwise", and it's horse shit. They're also saying - as they pretty much always do - "Our accusations should be treated as convictions!" Not only are we not going to allow them to paralyze the Presidency every time they're out of power, but we are also not interested in this hypocrisy, given that leftists certainly do not treat accusations of wrongdoing toward THEIR Presidents as prima facie evidence that he should not be allowed to exercise the powers of the office.

That is not "McConnell's standard", unless and until you can provide any evidence of him EVER suggesting that it should be applied to any election other than the Presidential. You don't get to invent shit on the fly and then make other people responsible for it.

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

What rule?

The so called 'Biden rule'.

How did McConnell make up the Biden rule?

 

[HappyJoy]

McConnell didn't make up a damned thing. And he WAS doing his job; you just didn't like that it was him doing it, because that meant it involved keeping you from getting what you wanted. Had it been a leftist in that position, using the legitimate rules and power of the position to block a Republican President's nomination, you'd have been cheering, and we both know it.

Now the Democrats are saying, "All elections must be the same, because we're powerless otherwise", and it's horse shit. They're also saying - as they pretty much always do - "Our accusations should be treated as convictions!" Not only are we not going to allow them to paralyze the Presidency every time they're out of power, but we are also not interested in this hypocrisy, given that leftists certainly do not treat accusations of wrongdoing toward THEIR Presidents as prima facie evidence that he should not be allowed to exercise the powers of the office.

That is not "McConnell's standard", unless and until you can provide any evidence of him EVER suggesting that it should be applied to any election other than the Presidential. You don't get to invent shit on the fly and then make other people responsible for it.

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

What rule?

The so called 'Biden rule'.

How did McConnell make up the Biden rule?

By calling something the 'Biden rule' when it's not.

 

[WillowTree]

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

What rule?

The so called 'Biden rule'.

How did McConnell make up the Biden rule?

By calling something the 'Biden rule' when it's not.

What was the Biden rule?