Blumenthal, The Liar, Says He Won't Legitimize Barrett's Nomination

[BasicHumanUnit]

In Reply to Coyote.......

Bullshit.
Everyone knows what 2016 was about.
Why don't you do some real reading before posting and making an ass of yourself.

Too late. As always

 

[XponentialChaos]

What exactly is the issue here? Conservatives are upset with something related to the Supreme Court?

Neat. Maybe you can make up a rule to address it and then throw it away whenever it's convenient.

You can when you have the votes......welcome to majority rules! That's what you guys want......LOLOLOL

Salty tears are delicious

It is what it is. I'm still not sure what the issue is here.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What exactly is the issue here? Conservatives are upset with something related to the Supreme Court?

Neat. Maybe you can make up a rule to address it and then throw it away whenever it's convenient.

The issue is Blumenthal calling a valid constitutional process illegitimate. And refusing to meeting with the nominee.

Then the thread gets derailed because Coyote has some issue with McConnell hiding behind a Biden speech (that was completely meaningless....but which McConnell called the Biden Rule) as a smokescreen for not having a hearing for Garland.

To which I say Tough Shit.

When you own the senate you don't need rules.

You have the constitution.

Suck on it.

Does the Constitution say that he has to meet with the nominee?

Why don't you go read it for yourself and find out.

The answer is no.

So what does the constitution have to do with this?

IT doesnt say that, but it looks tacky...and I don't give a fuck...
Danang Dick can take his stolen valor and fuck himself......
Another dem showing their true jerkoff colors........nice

 

[XponentialChaos]

IT doesnt say that, but it looks tacky...and I don't give a fuck...
Danang Dick can take his stolen valor and fuck himself......
Another dem showing their true jerkoff colors........nice

Oh, so it's not a constitutional rule. It just looks tacky. Got it.

Does it also look tacky to make up rules and then disregard them a few years later? Just wondering. You know, since you guys are so concerned with what looks tacky and all.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What exactly is the issue here? Conservatives are upset with something related to the Supreme Court?

Neat. Maybe you can make up a rule to address it and then throw it away whenever it's convenient.

You can when you have the votes......welcome to majority rules! That's what you guys want......LOLOLOL

Salty tears are delicious

It is what it is. I'm still not sure what the issue is here.

People whining about McConell, the McConell rule is, if you don't have the votes, you don't get the nominee
the dems could block it, if they only had the filibuster......thanks Harry Reid...best dem senator ever!

 

[OKTexas]

This fucker lied about going to Vietnam...repeatedly. And never apologized for it.

Now he says Barrett's nomination is not legitimate.

There is nothing unconstitutional about what is happening.

When this fucker dies, I'll piss on his grave too. And might even take a shit on it.

Hirono, Blumenthal say they won’t meet with Amy Coney Barrett

Two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have said they will not meet with Amy Coney Barrett -- President Trump’s pick to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.

www.foxnews.com

The only one she should consider meeting with is maybe Joe Mansion. The rest she should tell to piss up a rope.

.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What exactly is the issue here? Conservatives are upset with something related to the Supreme Court?

Neat. Maybe you can make up a rule to address it and then throw it away whenever it's convenient.

The issue is Blumenthal calling a valid constitutional process illegitimate. And refusing to meeting with the nominee.

Then the thread gets derailed because Coyote has some issue with McConnell hiding behind a Biden speech (that was completely meaningless....but which McConnell called the Biden Rule) as a smokescreen for not having a hearing for Garland.

To which I say Tough Shit.

When you own the senate you don't need rules.

You have the constitution.

Suck on it.

Does the Constitution say that he has to meet with the nominee?

Why don't you go read it for yourself and find out.

The answer is no.

So what does the constitution have to do with this?

Read the OP ? Read the title ?

Here...from the article:

said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

He's calling it a sham and illegitimate.

This lying fucker has some balls.

So, what does the constitution have to do with it ?

Everything as it is totally legitimate and his crying out his ass is nothing more than a smoke screen for the fact that she'll be confirmed and there is not damn thing he can do about it......because it is legitimate.

 

[skye]

they don't come worse than that POS Blumenthal

Have Mercy with us LORD!

 

[OKTexas]

He is right. According to McConnell’s rule of 2016 ....and Republican statements.

Blumenthal’s not the problem...you lot are.

What every Republican senator has said about filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death leaves a vacancy on the Supreme Court just before the presidential election, as Justice Antonin Scalia's did in 2016, when Barack Obama was president. Here’s what Senate Republicans said in 2016, and what they’ve said publicly now.

www.pbs.org

maobama was a lame duck, Trump isn't.

.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Read the OP ? Read the title ?

Here...from the article:

said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

He's calling it a sham and illegitimate.

This lying fucker has some balls.

So, what does the constitution have to do with it ?

Everything as it is totally legitimate and his crying out his ass is nothing more than a smoke screen for the fact that she'll be confirmed and there is not damn thing he can do about it......because it is legitimate.

There's no rule in the constitution that says he has to be there or that he has to find this nomination legitimate.

As far as I'm concerned, his actions have nothing to do with the constitution. So again, I don't know what you're complaining about.

 

[buckeye45_73]

IT doesnt say that, but it looks tacky...and I don't give a fuck...
Danang Dick can take his stolen valor and fuck himself......
Another dem showing their true jerkoff colors........nice

Oh, so it's not a constitutional rule. It just looks tacky. Got it.

Does it also look tacky to make up rules and then disregard them a few years later? Just wondering. You know, since you guys are so concerned with what looks tacky and all.

Sure it does, but it's politics.....Blumenthal gains nothing by being tacky, McConnell gains a USCJ......

If it weren't for how the dems treat our nominees, I might actually feel bad.....but with the bullshit and personal attacks with zero merit they pull, they can all fuck themselves...the more the scream, the more excited I get.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Read the OP ? Read the title ?

Here...from the article:

said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

He's calling it a sham and illegitimate.

This lying fucker has some balls.

So, what does the constitution have to do with it ?

Everything as it is totally legitimate and his crying out his ass is nothing more than a smoke screen for the fact that she'll be confirmed and there is not damn thing he can do about it......because it is legitimate.

There's no rule in the constitution that says he has to be there or that he has to find this nomination legitimate.

You can sleep better knowing your side elects senators who are more beholden to power than they are the constitution.

His calling it illegitimate only show what a fucking shitbag Conn has in congress.

And we want to put these ignorant fuckers in charge of health care.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Sure it does, but it's politics.....Blumenthal gains nothing by being tacky, McConnell gains a USCJ......

Oh ok. So you think it's ok when Mitch is tacky, but it's not ok when Blumenthal is tacky. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Read the OP ? Read the title ?

Here...from the article:

said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

He's calling it a sham and illegitimate.

This lying fucker has some balls.

So, what does the constitution have to do with it ?

Everything as it is totally legitimate and his crying out his ass is nothing more than a smoke screen for the fact that she'll be confirmed and there is not damn thing he can do about it......because it is legitimate.

There's no rule in the constitution that says he has to be there or that he has to find this nomination legitimate.

As far as I'm concerned, his actions have nothing to do with the constitution. So again, I don't know what you're complaining about.

The same thing you guys always whine about Trump...Poor look....and this guy is a dirtbag for a much worse reason....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Read the OP ? Read the title ?

Here...from the article:

said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

He's calling it a sham and illegitimate.

This lying fucker has some balls.

So, what does the constitution have to do with it ?

Everything as it is totally legitimate and his crying out his ass is nothing more than a smoke screen for the fact that she'll be confirmed and there is not damn thing he can do about it......because it is legitimate.

There's no rule in the constitution that says he has to be there or that he has to find this nomination legitimate.

As far as I'm concerned, his actions have nothing to do with the constitution. So again, I don't know what you're complaining about.

Who said there was one ?

Would you please find some other thread to demonstrate your complete lack of context.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Sure it does, but it's politics.....Blumenthal gains nothing by being tacky, McConnell gains a USCJ......

Oh ok. So you think it's ok when Mitch is tacky, but it's not ok when Blumenthal is tacky. Thanks for clarifying.

Quote my whole post you piece of shit

 

[XponentialChaos]

You can sleep better knowing your side elects senators who are more beholden to power than they are the constitution.

You're doing it again. None of his actions are against the constitution.

If you think otherwise, then site the specific part of the constitution that you don't feel he is complying with.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Sure it does, but it's politics.....Blumenthal gains nothing by being tacky, McConnell gains a USCJ......

Oh ok. So you think it's ok when Mitch is tacky, but it's not ok when Blumenthal is tacky. Thanks for clarifying.

Fuck off.

Really. Get off the thread. You want to defend Blumenthal's ignorance of the constitution, go ahead. Otherwise STFU.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Read the OP ? Read the title ?

Here...from the article:

said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”

He's calling it a sham and illegitimate.

This lying fucker has some balls.

So, what does the constitution have to do with it ?

Everything as it is totally legitimate and his crying out his ass is nothing more than a smoke screen for the fact that she'll be confirmed and there is not damn thing he can do about it......because it is legitimate.

There's no rule in the constitution that says he has to be there or that he has to find this nomination legitimate.

As far as I'm concerned, his actions have nothing to do with the constitution. So again, I don't know what you're complaining about.

Who said there was one ?

Would you please find some other thread to demonstrate your complete lack of context.

You're the one bringing up the constitution and saying that he's not complying with it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You can sleep better knowing your side elects senators who are more beholden to power than they are the constitution.

You're doing it again. None of his actions are against the constitution.

If you think otherwise, then site the specific part of the constitution that you don't feel he is complying with.

Nobody said they were.

But when he directly counters the constitution and what it says by calling the proceedings illegitimate.

He's either ignorant.

Or he's just more interested in power.

Now fuck off.