Dems- please quit whining about Garland

[Coyote]

You all refused to give an up and down vote to John Bolton back in the day, even though he was as "entitled" to a hearing and vote as anyone else.

What goes around comes around.

Democrats Block a Vote on Bolton for the Second Time

You realize that Bolton is the neocon's neocon right?

Last I heard...Trumpers weren't too fond of neocons.

Has that changed already?

The point was that the Libs never allowed Bolton to be put up for a vote in the Senate.

And Bolton wasn't the only one, Judge Pickering was a highly qualified jurist chosen by Dubya for a federal judgeship.

And again, the libs didn't allow votes.


For Liberal to whine about Garland not getting a vote, when they did the same thing with Bush's appointees, shows their hypocrisy.

That is common on BOTH SIDES. Obama had the largest number of court vacancies unfilled because of just what you describe. It is highly uncommon for Supreme Court nominees. You set a precedent. Who is going to end it?

 

[2aguy]

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

Yep.....because the Republicans won the Senate and had the power to do it.....it is called Checks and Balances....and luckily for us, it worked...

 

[2aguy]

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

And so if they went through the process and he was still voted down, would you on the left have been any happier? Would you not be bringing it up today?

It's more temper tantrum nonsense. Kavanaugh only received one Democrat vote, and the only reason for that is because we already had enough votes to confirm.

Garland is a moderate with a sterling record. If Republicans refused to seat him on party line vote...they would have looked really bad. He likely would have been confirmed...but we'll never know because McConnell refused to even consider giving him even a hearing

Wrong...McConnell considered it and said nope......

 

[2aguy]

You all refused to give an up and down vote to John Bolton back in the day, even though he was as "entitled" to a hearing and vote as anyone else.

What goes around comes around.

Democrats Block a Vote on Bolton for the Second Time

You realize that Bolton is the neocon's neocon right?

Last I heard...Trumpers weren't too fond of neocons.

Has that changed already?

The point was that the Libs never allowed Bolton to be put up for a vote in the Senate.

And Bolton wasn't the only one, Judge Pickering was a highly qualified jurist chosen by Dubya for a federal judgeship.

And again, the libs didn't allow votes.


For Liberal to whine about Garland not getting a vote, when they did the same thing with Bush's appointees, shows their hypocrisy.

That is common on BOTH SIDES. Obama had the largest number of court vacancies unfilled because of just what you describe. It is highly uncommon for Supreme Court nominees. You set a precedent. Who is going to end it?

Wrong......Federal judicial nominations by president - Ballotpedia

During his two terms in office, President Barack Obama made 333 judicial appointments.

During his two terms in office, President George W. Bush made 330 judicial appointments.

During his two terms in office, President Bill Clinton made 379 judicial appointments.

During his term in office, President George H.W. Bush made 194 judicial appointments.

 

[Meathead]

Yup. Just like he declared, shortly after Obama was elected, he would do everything possible to obstruct and make him a one term memory. The Republican memory is quit deficient when it comes to the conduct of their own.

He wasn't successful in making Obama a one-term president or repealing Obamacare but has been masterful with SCOTUS and undoing Obama''s horrible legacy.

 

[Crepitus]

You all refused to give an up and down vote to John Bolton back in the day, even though he was as "entitled" to a hearing and vote as anyone else.

What goes around comes around.

Democrats Block a Vote on Bolton for the Second Time

Right, because a short term appointment as a diplomat is totally the same as a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

Yup. Just like he declared, shortly after Obama was elected, he would do everything possible to obstruct and make him a one term memory. The Republican memory is quit deficient when it comes to the conduct of their own.

Isn't that the goal of any Congress member of a party opposite of the President, to make him a one term President?

 

[Meathead]

Right, because a short term appointment as a diplomat is totally the same as a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

Wonderful, ain't it?

Now, Ginsberg has to croak.

 

[Lesh]

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

Yup. Just like he declared, shortly after Obama was elected, he would do everything possible to obstruct and make him a one term memory. The Republican memory is quit deficient when it comes to the conduct of their own.

Isn't that the goal of any Congress member of the opposite party of the President, to make him a one term President?

It may be a tertiary goal...it is certainly not normal to make it the MAIN goal

 

[Crepitus]

Right, because a short term appointment as a diplomat is totally the same as a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

Wonderful, ain't it?

Now, Ginsberg has to croak.

Naw, I'm hoping O'Kavanaugh and Gorsuch get run over by the same bus.

 

[Ame®icano]

Right, because a short term appointment as a diplomat is totally the same as a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

Wonderful, ain't it?

Now, Ginsberg has to croak.

Naw, I'm hoping O'Kavanaugh and Gorsuch get run over by the same bus.

Let me guess, you're bus driver?

 

[Polishprince]

You all refused to give an up and down vote to John Bolton back in the day, even though he was as "entitled" to a hearing and vote as anyone else.

What goes around comes around.

Democrats Block a Vote on Bolton for the Second Time

Right, because a short term appointment as a diplomat is totally the same as a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

This past month, the Left tried to block President Trump's choice indefinitely for the Supreme Court.

For them to complain about the efforts to delay Garland is hypocritical to the max.

My complaint isn't the fact that libs tried to stop Kav. That was their right. But the fact they went into the gutter to defame the man and call him a drunken gang raper to try and stop him. The GOP didn't make those kinds of personal attacks on Garland.

 

[Crepitus]

Right, because a short term appointment as a diplomat is totally the same as a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

Wonderful, ain't it?

Now, Ginsberg has to croak.

Naw, I'm hoping O'Kavanaugh and Gorsuch get run over by the same bus.

Let me guess, you're bus driver?

Nope, why?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

Yup. Just like he declared, shortly after Obama was elected, he would do everything possible to obstruct and make him a one term memory. The Republican memory is quit deficient when it comes to the conduct of their own.

Isn't that the goal of any Congress member of the opposite party of the President, to make him a one term President?

It may be a tertiary goal...it is certainly not normal to make it the MAIN goal

Sure it's their main goal. It is every election. Look how hard they are trying to get Trump out. Did the Republicans or McConnell do anything like this to DumBama????

 

[Crepitus]

You all refused to give an up and down vote to John Bolton back in the day, even though he was as "entitled" to a hearing and vote as anyone else.

What goes around comes around.

Democrats Block a Vote on Bolton for the Second Time

Right, because a short term appointment as a diplomat is totally the same as a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

This past month, the Left tried to block President Trump's choice indefinitely for the Supreme Court.

For them to complain about the efforts to delay Garland is hypocritical to the max.

My complaint isn't the fact that libs tried to stop Kav. That was their right. But the fact they went into the gutter to defame the man and call him a drunken gang raper to try and stop him. The GOP didn't make those kinds of personal attacks on Garland.

LMf'nAO!!!

You've got that shit totally bass ackwards kid.

 

[Crepitus]

You all refused to give an up and down vote to John Bolton back in the day, even though he was as "entitled" to a hearing and vote as anyone else.

What goes around comes around.

Democrats Block a Vote on Bolton for the Second Time

Right, because a short term appointment as a diplomat is totally the same as a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

This past month, the Left tried to block President Trump's choice indefinitely for the Supreme Court.

For them to complain about the efforts to delay Garland is hypocritical to the max.

My complaint isn't the fact that libs tried to stop Kav. That was their right. But the fact they went into the gutter to defame the man and call him a drunken gang raper to try and stop him. The GOP didn't make those kinds of personal attacks on Garland.

Only if he actually isn't. Which I doubt.

 

[jknowgood]

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

And so if they went through the process and he was still voted down, would you on the left have been any happier? Would you not be bringing it up today?

It's more temper tantrum nonsense. Kavanaugh only received one Democrat vote, and the only reason for that is because we already had enough votes to confirm.

Garland is a moderate with a sterling record. If Republicans refused to seat him on party line vote...they would have looked really bad. He likely would have been confirmed...but we'll never know because McConnell refused to even consider giving him even a hearing

Maybe McConnell could've pulled a Ford on him, then you would've demanded investigations. Oh wait, you're a liberal sexual abuse doesn't matter when it's one of your own.

 

[Ame®icano]

Right, because a short term appointment as a diplomat is totally the same as a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

Wonderful, ain't it?

Now, Ginsberg has to croak.

Naw, I'm hoping O'Kavanaugh and Gorsuch get run over by the same bus.

Let me guess, you're bus driver?

Nope, why?

You're so smart, figure it out.

 

[Coyote]

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

And so if they went through the process and he was still voted down, would you on the left have been any happier? Would you not be bringing it up today?

It's more temper tantrum nonsense. Kavanaugh only received one Democrat vote, and the only reason for that is because we already had enough votes to confirm.

Garland is a moderate with a sterling record. If Republicans refused to seat him on party line vote...they would have looked really bad. He likely would have been confirmed...but we'll never know because McConnell refused to even consider giving him even a hearing

And the Democrats don't look bad by voting party line on Kavanaugh as well?

Did they?

 

[Coyote]

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

So is the Kavanaugh debacle..,yes? Checks and balances dude if that is how you look at it. Nothing illegal.


Yep.....because the Republicans won the Senate and had the power to do it.....it is called Checks and Balances....and luckily for us, it worked...