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

[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.

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

Show me where I said he wasn't complying with it.

 

[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.

Fuck off.

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

What ignorance of the constitution is he demonstrating?

Oh right, nothing. Every one of his actions is perfectly compliant with the constitution and you just have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Dragonlady]

the Blumethal who said he fought in Vietman and it was a lie?

that piece of crap?

THAT PIECE OF CRAP?????????

Better than the current piece of crap in the White House who called soldiers "suckers", thinks the Generals are stupid, and lied about bone spurs to avoid service. He didn't even defend the troops from Putin's Bounties. What a piece of crap!!

 

[XponentialChaos]

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

He's not countering the constitution. I don't know why this is so difficult for you.

 

[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.

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.

No he didnt say it, calling it illegitimate is bullshit, he brought up the Constitution, because the pick is legal and Constitutional....so quit being such a whiney bitch........and so should Blumenthal.....he lost, he can't do shit....basically McConell is fucking his girl in front of him, and there is nothing the fake soldier can do......he just has to watch.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

the Blumethal who said he fought in Vietman and it was a lie?

that piece of crap?

THAT PIECE OF CRAP?????????

Better than the current piece of crap in the White House who called soldiers "suckers", thinks the Generals are stupid, and lied about bone spurs to avoid service. He didn't even defend the troops from Putin's Bounties. What a piece of crap!!

No matter....he was elected.

Suck on it.

He's nominated #3 and she'll be confirmed.

Suck on it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

He's not countering the constitution. I don't know why this is so difficult for you.

Yeah he is, he's saying this process is not Constitutional....it is, he's a liar

 

[iceberg]

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

Bullshit.

Everyone knows what 2016 was about.

Why don't you do some real reading before posting and making an ass of yourself.

Yes. It was about preventing a president from legitimately filling a vacancy by creating a brand new “rule” that was promptly abandoned in 2020. I don’t know why you act ignorant.

What rule......when was the last time a president didn't appoint a justice?
When was the last time the party in power was the same party as the president and did not confirm?

You guys invented the rule and then unvented it...and now your spinning like crazy...don’t ask me.

If the democrats could do it, would they?

You know damn good and well they would.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Show me where I said he wasn't complying with it.

"But when he directly counters the constitution..."

 

[XponentialChaos]

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

He's not countering the constitution. I don't know why this is so difficult for you.

Yeah he is, he's saying this process is not Constitutional....it is, he's a liar

You got a quote for that? Or are you just making it up?

It's ok. I know you don't.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

He's not countering the constitution. I don't know why this is so difficult for you.

Yeah he is, he's saying this process is not Constitutional....it is, he's a liar

I've been down this road with this shithead before.

Give it up. He makes up shit to argue against and becomes a angstrom grade literalist.

It's a classic technique for deflection and diversion.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Show me where I said he wasn't complying with it.

"But when he directly counters the constitution..."

The word complying isn't in there.

Do you need glasses.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Richard Blumenthal’s Words on Vietnam Service Differ From History (Published 2010)

Blumenthal, a Democrat of Connecticut who is running for the Senate, told veterans he “served in Vietnam.” But he did not.

www.nytimes.com

What makes this more funny is that he does not know how to tell the truth.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Show me where I said he wasn't complying with it.

"But when he directly counters the constitution..."

The word complying isn't in there.

Do you need glasses.

No. Do you need a thesaurus?

 

[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

Bullshit.

Everyone knows what 2016 was about.

Why don't you do some real reading before posting and making an ass of yourself.

Yes. It was about preventing a president from legitimately filling a vacancy by creating a brand new “rule” that was promptly abandoned in 2020. I don’t know why you act ignorant.

Oh right, opposing parties in the WH and Senate have only filled two such vacancies in US history. It was nothing unprecedented or even unusual for that matter.

.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The legend if Senator Dick Blumenthal (hilarious) - AR15.COM

Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.

www.ar15.com

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

BE SPECIFIC now Coyote and post a link to the article that makes President Trump nominating someone UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And then explain how what the republican Senate did in 2016 was Unconstitutional also. The Biden rule is that when the President does not control the Senate in an election year then the Senate does not vote on nominees for Supreme Court. It is just a statement of intent as no such rule actually exists just as no rule law or constitutional clause exists to prevent 2016 or NOW.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Bullshit.

Everyone knows what 2016 was about.

Why don't you do some real reading before posting and making an ass of yourself.

Yes. It was about preventing a president from legitimately filling a vacancy by creating a brand new “rule” that was promptly abandoned in 2020. I don’t know why you act ignorant.

Oh right, opposing parties in the WH and Senate have only filled two such vacancies in US history. It was nothing unprecedented or even unusual for that matter.

.

She long since vacated given her penchant for bunny turd dropping into a thread and quickly leaving when shot down.

There was no brand new rule because there was no rule.

It was a postulation by Biden (the same guy who smeared robert bork before his hearing and is now a petrified piece of shit running for POTUS) in 1992.

Why McConnell thought he needed to say anything in 2016, I'll never know.

What he should have said is "We own the senate and we ain't confirming your nomination...and we can do that because it's been done before".

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

BE SPECIFIC now Coyote and post a link to the article that makes President Trump nominating someone UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And then explain how what the republican Senate did in 2016 was Unconstitutional also. The Biden rule is that when the President does not control the Senate in an election year then the Senate does not vote on nominees for Supreme Court. It is just a statement of intent as no such rule actually exists just as no rule law or constitutional clause exists to prevent 2016 or NOW.

And she knows it.

She's a butthurt left winger.

it's a fact of life.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

He's not countering the constitution. I don't know why this is so difficult for you.

Yeah he is, he's saying this process is not Constitutional....it is, he's a liar

You got a quote for that? Or are you just making it up?

It's ok. I know you don't.

Quote for what? Blumenthal or the Constitution?