Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[peach174]

re-read that.

Don't need to. The Senate cannot tell a president they can't appoint a Supreme Court justice.

Nobody said that.

There are Republican Senators who said that. The post I responded to was defending their position.

No they didn't, they said they would not confirm and that is their right.

Yes, they did say that. And you just said they don't get to pick and choose which presidents appoint replacements yet here you are defending their position. It's like you don't even comprehend the issue.

And why no answer to Nyvin's question. Since you support this bizarre notion that the Senate can prevent a president from appointing a replacement, why can't Democrats block the president from filling that seat until 2021 should a Republican win the presidency?

It is very evident that you don't comprehend how the Senate works.
Watch some C-Span 2 when they are in session. Then you will learn the rules.

 

[peach174]

re-read that.

Don't need to. The Senate cannot tell a president they can't appoint a Supreme Court justice.

Nobody said that.

There are Republican Senators who said that. The post I responded to was defending their position.

No they didn't, they said they would not confirm and that is their right.

Is English your second language? Telling a president they will not confirm their nominees is the same as telling the president he/she can't appoint a Supreme Court justice.

You really have no fucking clue what's being discussed, do you?

I know how the Senate works you don't.
Jeez they don't teach anything in school now days.

 

[Faun]

Don't need to. The Senate cannot tell a president they can't appoint a Supreme Court justice.

Nobody said that.

There are Republican Senators who said that. The post I responded to was defending their position.

No they didn't, they said they would not confirm and that is their right.

Yes, they did say that. And you just said they don't get to pick and choose which presidents appoint replacements yet here you are defending their position. It's like you don't even comprehend the issue.

And why no answer to Nyvin's question. Since you support this bizarre notion that the Senate can prevent a president from appointing a replacement, why can't Democrats block the president from filling that seat until 2021 should a Republican win the presidency?

It is very evident that you don't comprehend how the Senate works.
Watch some C-Span 2 when they are in session. Then you will learn the rules.

If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.

That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?

 

[peach174]

Nobody said that.

There are Republican Senators who said that. The post I responded to was defending their position.

No they didn't, they said they would not confirm and that is their right.

Yes, they did say that. And you just said they don't get to pick and choose which presidents appoint replacements yet here you are defending their position. It's like you don't even comprehend the issue.

And why no answer to Nyvin's question. Since you support this bizarre notion that the Senate can prevent a president from appointing a replacement, why can't Democrats block the president from filling that seat until 2021 should a Republican win the presidency?

It is very evident that you don't comprehend how the Senate works.
Watch some C-Span 2 when they are in session. Then you will learn the rules.

If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.

That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Re your bolding, how do you determine "for any reasons a majority of it's members" when the Senate Leadership has indicted they won't allow a vote? Isn't that a few making the decision for the Senate instead of submitting the question to the entire Senate so they can vote?


>>>>

 

[Faun]

There are Republican Senators who said that. The post I responded to was defending their position.

No they didn't, they said they would not confirm and that is their right.

Yes, they did say that. And you just said they don't get to pick and choose which presidents appoint replacements yet here you are defending their position. It's like you don't even comprehend the issue.

And why no answer to Nyvin's question. Since you support this bizarre notion that the Senate can prevent a president from appointing a replacement, why can't Democrats block the president from filling that seat until 2021 should a Republican win the presidency?

It is very evident that you don't comprehend how the Senate works.
Watch some C-Span 2 when they are in session. Then you will learn the rules.

If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.

That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...

So what kind of precedent does this set our country up for? When your party doesn't like a nominee (before they're even announced) because it's from a president in the opposite party you just block it until you get a president from your party?

If Republicans win in 2016 do Democrats just block all the nominees until 2021??? What's the plan here?​

As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.

 

[Flopper]

the Constitution would have said full senate if that was intended

there is no where it says there has to be a vote nowhere

You are correct. The Constitution says the President has to get the Senate's consent. Nowhere does it say the Senate has to give it.

And the rules of the Senate - as the Constitution specifically provides for the Senate to set - say that the leadership of the Senate gets to decide what does and doesn't get addressed.

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

yes yet most people are not that political and really care all that much about how the sausage is made

maybe if the left can shake up the hive enough perhaps then

but again when the hive is shook both right and left bees get excited

I think the only really effective attack democrats can launch is against republican senators up for election. They can use the Senate's lack of action as more evidence that the republican party is the part of no, but they've already done that.

 

[peach174]

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Re your bolding, how do you determine "for any reasons a majority of it's members" when the Senate Leadership has indicted they won't allow a vote? Isn't that a few making the decision for the Senate instead of submitting the question to the entire Senate so they can vote?


>>>>

It is their right to do so, period.
If it was the same in reverse, Dems would be doing the same exact thing.

 

[Faun]

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Re your bolding, how do you determine "for any reasons a majority of it's members" when the Senate Leadership has indicted they won't allow a vote? Isn't that a few making the decision for the Senate instead of submitting the question to the entire Senate so they can vote?


>>>>

It is their right to do so, period.
If it was the same in reverse, Dems would be doing the same exact thing.

Then you're in favor of Senate Drmocrat's telling a Republican president, should one be elected in November, that he cannot appoint a replacement to Scalia's seat, along with any others that open up. Is that right?

 

[Nyvin]

It is their right to do so, period.
If it was the same in reverse, Dems would be doing the same exact thing.

Except that they didn't. Reagan was President in 1988, the Democrat majority Senate voted on and confirmed Justice Kennedy in 1988.

You're wrong.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Re your bolding, how do you determine "for any reasons a majority of it's members" when the Senate Leadership has indicted they won't allow a vote? Isn't that a few making the decision for the Senate instead of submitting the question to the entire Senate so they can vote?


>>>>

It is their right to do so, period.
If it was the same in reverse, Dems would be doing the same exact thing.

Your quote said the decision for consent was a function of the majority of Senate. I ask again, how do you determine a majority when in fact only a few Senator's are blocking any vote?

And as a matter of historical record, Reagan (R) nominated Justice Kennedy and he was confirmed by the Dem led Senate in 1988.

And let's remember what the current Senate Majority Leader previously said:

"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate."​

>>>>

 

[peach174]

No they didn't, they said they would not confirm and that is their right.

Yes, they did say that. And you just said they don't get to pick and choose which presidents appoint replacements yet here you are defending their position. It's like you don't even comprehend the issue.

And why no answer to Nyvin's question. Since you support this bizarre notion that the Senate can prevent a president from appointing a replacement, why can't Democrats block the president from filling that seat until 2021 should a Republican win the presidency?

It is very evident that you don't comprehend how the Senate works.
Watch some C-Span 2 when they are in session. Then you will learn the rules.

If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.

That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...

So what kind of precedent does this set our country up for? When your party doesn't like a nominee (before they're even announced) because it's from a president in the opposite party you just block it until you get a president from your party?

If Republicans win in 2016 do Democrats just block all the nominees until 2021??? What's the plan here?​

As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.

What kind of precedent did the President set up from the start, when you call the opposite party the enemy and refuse to meet but just a very few times with the top leaders of both parties in his 7 years so far?
Most Presidents meet with them when they have differences of opinions to work things out, but he has not.
He has just let them duke it out.

 

[peach174]

It is their right to do so, period.
If it was the same in reverse, Dems would be doing the same exact thing.

Except that they didn't. Reagan was President in 1988, the Democrat majority Senate voted on and confirmed Justice Kennedy in 1988.

You're wrong.

No they didn't I agree.
Not the same as what I said just because it has not ever happened,Dems could do it also.

 

[Flopper]

the Constitution would have said full senate if that was intended

there is no where it says there has to be a vote nowhere

You are correct. The Constitution says the President has to get the Senate's consent. Nowhere does it say the Senate has to give it.

And the rules of the Senate - as the Constitution specifically provides for the Senate to set - say that the leadership of the Senate gets to decide what does and doesn't get addressed.

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

Well, I believe that's what we're proposing: letting the voters themselves decide. Why are you so insistent about denying it? Are you perhaps afraid to find out that the voters don't want Obama appointing a new Justice?

No, as I said voters will decide when delay becomes malfeasance. No, I don't think republicans want voters to decide. They just want to stop the appointment process. I can't see why republicans would want to turn their lack of action into a campaign issue. Democrats certainly want to make an issue of it.

 

[Nyvin]

Yes, they did say that. And you just said they don't get to pick and choose which presidents appoint replacements yet here you are defending their position. It's like you don't even comprehend the issue.

And why no answer to Nyvin's question. Since you support this bizarre notion that the Senate can prevent a president from appointing a replacement, why can't Democrats block the president from filling that seat until 2021 should a Republican win the presidency?

It is very evident that you don't comprehend how the Senate works.
Watch some C-Span 2 when they are in session. Then you will learn the rules.

If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.

That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...

So what kind of precedent does this set our country up for? When your party doesn't like a nominee (before they're even announced) because it's from a president in the opposite party you just block it until you get a president from your party?

If Republicans win in 2016 do Democrats just block all the nominees until 2021??? What's the plan here?​

As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.

What kind of precedent did the President set up from the start, when you call the opposite party the enemy and refuse to meet but just a very few times with the top leaders of both parties in his 7 years so far?
Most Presidents meet with them when they have differences of opinions to work things out, but he has not.
He has just let them duke it out.

Actually Obama made repeated attempts to visit with both McConnell and Boehner, but the Tea Party crazies went ape-sh!t everytime they visited with him.

There's even a direct quote from Boehner telling Obama he just can't go golfing with him anymore due to how much criticism he faces from the Tea Party for doing so.....we're talking about going golfing here...imagine if they tried to get a personal meeting with him about legislation!

 

[Nyvin]

It is their right to do so, period.
If it was the same in reverse, Dems would be doing the same exact thing.

Except that they didn't. Reagan was President in 1988, the Democrat majority Senate voted on and confirmed Justice Kennedy in 1988.

You're wrong.

No they didn't I agree.
Not the same as what I said just because it has not ever happened,Dems could do it also.

....but they don't. You're making up imaginary scenarios now.

 

[Faun]

Yes, they did say that. And you just said they don't get to pick and choose which presidents appoint replacements yet here you are defending their position. It's like you don't even comprehend the issue.

And why no answer to Nyvin's question. Since you support this bizarre notion that the Senate can prevent a president from appointing a replacement, why can't Democrats block the president from filling that seat until 2021 should a Republican win the presidency?

It is very evident that you don't comprehend how the Senate works.
Watch some C-Span 2 when they are in session. Then you will learn the rules.

If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.

That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...

So what kind of precedent does this set our country up for? When your party doesn't like a nominee (before they're even announced) because it's from a president in the opposite party you just block it until you get a president from your party?

If Republicans win in 2016 do Democrats just block all the nominees until 2021??? What's the plan here?​

As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.

What kind of precedent did the President set up from the start, when you call the opposite party the enemy and refuse to meet but just a very few times with the top leaders of both parties in his 7 years so far?
Most Presidents meet with them when they have differences of opinions to work things out, but he has not.
He has just let them duke it out.

The answer to a question is an answer, not an another question.

Again... should Democrats not allow a Republican president to fill any vacated seats? According to you, that is their right.

 

[peach174]

It is very evident that you don't comprehend how the Senate works.
Watch some C-Span 2 when they are in session. Then you will learn the rules.

If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.

That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...

So what kind of precedent does this set our country up for? When your party doesn't like a nominee (before they're even announced) because it's from a president in the opposite party you just block it until you get a president from your party?

If Republicans win in 2016 do Democrats just block all the nominees until 2021??? What's the plan here?​

As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.

What kind of precedent did the President set up from the start, when you call the opposite party the enemy and refuse to meet but just a very few times with the top leaders of both parties in his 7 years so far?
Most Presidents meet with them when they have differences of opinions to work things out, but he has not.
He has just let them duke it out.

Actually Obama made repeated attempts to visit with both McConnell and Boehner, but the Tea Party crazies went ape-sh!t everytime they visited with him.

There's even a direct quote from Boehner telling Obama he just can't go golfing with him anymore due to how much criticism he faces from the Tea Party for doing so.....we're talking about going golfing here...imagine if they tried to get a personal meeting with him about legislation!

I said both parties not just the R's.
Even some the Dem's were complaining about it 2009.
Look at his first two years before the Tea Party.

 

[peach174]

It is very evident that you don't comprehend how the Senate works.
Watch some C-Span 2 when they are in session. Then you will learn the rules.

If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.

That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...

So what kind of precedent does this set our country up for? When your party doesn't like a nominee (before they're even announced) because it's from a president in the opposite party you just block it until you get a president from your party?

If Republicans win in 2016 do Democrats just block all the nominees until 2021??? What's the plan here?​

As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.

What kind of precedent did the President set up from the start, when you call the opposite party the enemy and refuse to meet but just a very few times with the top leaders of both parties in his 7 years so far?
Most Presidents meet with them when they have differences of opinions to work things out, but he has not.
He has just let them duke it out.

The answer to a question is an answer, not an another question.

Again... should Democrats not allow a Republican president to fill any vacated seats? According to you, that is their right.

If it was under the same exact circumstances yes it is their right also, which is exactly what I said.

 

[Faun]

If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.

That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...

So what kind of precedent does this set our country up for? When your party doesn't like a nominee (before they're even announced) because it's from a president in the opposite party you just block it until you get a president from your party?

If Republicans win in 2016 do Democrats just block all the nominees until 2021??? What's the plan here?​

As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.

What kind of precedent did the President set up from the start, when you call the opposite party the enemy and refuse to meet but just a very few times with the top leaders of both parties in his 7 years so far?
Most Presidents meet with them when they have differences of opinions to work things out, but he has not.
He has just let them duke it out.

The answer to a question is an answer, not an another question.

Again... should Democrats not allow a Republican president to fill any vacated seats? According to you, that is their right.

If it was under the same exact circumstances yes it is their right also, which it exactly what I said.

Circumstances are irrelevant. Even you posted how the Senate needs no excuse or reason for why the reject a nominee.

So regardless of the circumstances, what you're saying is that you're ok with Senate Democrats shutting down the confirmation process until a Democrat is elected president.