It's Called the Biden Rule, Leftists

[Avatar4321]

the assholiness of your leader ,,,for starters

'Assholiness'?

Better come up with something else or it will be back-to-back-TO-BACK historical, record-setting losses.

I have a strong feeling people from wisc mich and penn will come to their senses Repubs didn't win by much there

Actually, they finally came to their senses this election.

far as I recall you won 3 dem states by 76K votes A little slim no,,to expect a repeat is on the way?

They aren't Democrat states anymore. Wisconsin has been trending Republican for years. As has mi to some degree. Pa has always been red with a couple blue cities

More to the point you don't own any of these states and if you don't start changing your ways, you wont have them for a generation

 

[Richard-H]

I know that conservatives tend to be extremely short sighted in their opinions. None have considered the long range consequences of the Senate not being obligated to hold hearings on Judicial nominations. I'm sure that if this issue were taken to the S.C. court they would rule that the Senate did have a Constitutional responsibility to consider nominations within a reasonable time, and that upcoming elections should not be an excuse to delay hearings.

The fact is that if the Senate does not have to hold hearings it means that the Senate has the power to obliterate the Supreme court. It potentially means the end of the separation of the powers of government into three branches - it gives the power of one branch of government to destroy the judicial branch.

Never before in the history of this government has the Senate failed to live up to this responsibility. This is a precedent.

I doubt the SCOTUS would allow it.

 

[kaz]

I know that conservatives tend to be extremely short sighted in their opinions. None have considered the long range consequences of the Senate not being obligated to hold hearings on Judicial nominations. I'm sure that if this issue were taken to the S.C. court they would rule that the Senate did have a Constitutional responsibility to consider nominations within a reasonable time, and that upcoming elections should not be an excuse to delay hearings.

The fact is that if the Senate does not have to hold hearings it means that the Senate has the power to obliterate the Supreme court. It potentially means the end of the separation of the powers of government into three branches - it gives the power of one branch of government to destroy the judicial branch.

Never before in the history of this government has the Senate failed to live up to this responsibility. This is a precedent.

I doubt the SCOTUS would allow it.

The Democrat party has gone nuclear on Senate rules twice (ACA and trial judges). The only reason you didn't on the SCOTUS was you didn't need it at the time. As soon as you do, that will be gone too. Stop being a partisan dumb ass.

 

[Richard-H]

I know that conservatives tend to be extremely short sighted in their opinions. None have considered the long range consequences of the Senate not being obligated to hold hearings on Judicial nominations. I'm sure that if this issue were taken to the S.C. court they would rule that the Senate did have a Constitutional responsibility to consider nominations within a reasonable time, and that upcoming elections should not be an excuse to delay hearings.

The fact is that if the Senate does not have to hold hearings it means that the Senate has the power to obliterate the Supreme court. It potentially means the end of the separation of the powers of government into three branches - it gives the power of one branch of government to destroy the judicial branch.

Never before in the history of this government has the Senate failed to live up to this responsibility. This is a precedent.

I doubt the SCOTUS would allow it.

The Democrat party has gone nuclear on Senate rules twice (ACA and trial judges). The only reason you didn't on the SCOTUS was you didn't need it at the time. As soon as you do, that will be gone too. Stop being a partisan dumb ass.

If you'd paid attention to this thread, it's a discussion of the supposed 'Biden Rule' i.e. McConnell's refusal to hold hearings on Pres. Obama's nominee.

It's not a discussion of whether the Senate should do the 'Nuclear Option' to force a vote on Pres. Trump's nominee.

Try paying attention.

 

[kaz]

I know that conservatives tend to be extremely short sighted in their opinions. None have considered the long range consequences of the Senate not being obligated to hold hearings on Judicial nominations. I'm sure that if this issue were taken to the S.C. court they would rule that the Senate did have a Constitutional responsibility to consider nominations within a reasonable time, and that upcoming elections should not be an excuse to delay hearings.

The fact is that if the Senate does not have to hold hearings it means that the Senate has the power to obliterate the Supreme court. It potentially means the end of the separation of the powers of government into three branches - it gives the power of one branch of government to destroy the judicial branch.

Never before in the history of this government has the Senate failed to live up to this responsibility. This is a precedent.

I doubt the SCOTUS would allow it.

The Democrat party has gone nuclear on Senate rules twice (ACA and trial judges). The only reason you didn't on the SCOTUS was you didn't need it at the time. As soon as you do, that will be gone too. Stop being a partisan dumb ass.

If you'd paid attention to this thread, it's a discussion of the supposed 'Biden Rule' i.e. McConnell's refusal to hold hearings on Pres. Obama's nominee.

It's not a discussion of whether the Senate should do the 'Nuclear Option' to force a vote on Pres. Trump's nominee.

Try paying attention.

You said Republicans are "short sighted in their opinions." I am explaining to you this issue. Democrats went nuclear, they obviously will again. It is why Republicans should go nuclear. YOU had the short sighted attentions if the ability to block Trump's nominee is concerned, you went nuclear and now the Republicans have no reason not to end this here and now and get their nominee. The only reason you didn't go nuclear for SCOTUS was there was no SCOTUS nominee, so you would just do it next time one came up.

Seriously, you still don't get that? You are losing this because DEMOCRATS are the short sighted party. Not only that, but Republicans didn't go nuclear for Bush BECAUSE they wanted to preserve the filibuster. The facts constantly contradict your partisan rhetoric

 

[BlindBoo]

Democrats went nuclear,

Republican did it on purpose and are not short sighted.

The last straw came when Republicans announced their intention to filibuster all of Obama's nominees to the DC circuit court simply because they didn't want a Democratic president to be able to fill any more vacancies.

Three charts explain why Democrats went nuclear on the filibuster

If the Democrats force a rule change over the first SC nominee of Trump, it would be lose, lose.

 

[Richard-H]

I know that conservatives tend to be extremely short sighted in their opinions. None have considered the long range consequences of the Senate not being obligated to hold hearings on Judicial nominations. I'm sure that if this issue were taken to the S.C. court they would rule that the Senate did have a Constitutional responsibility to consider nominations within a reasonable time, and that upcoming elections should not be an excuse to delay hearings.

The fact is that if the Senate does not have to hold hearings it means that the Senate has the power to obliterate the Supreme court. It potentially means the end of the separation of the powers of government into three branches - it gives the power of one branch of government to destroy the judicial branch.

Never before in the history of this government has the Senate failed to live up to this responsibility. This is a precedent.

I doubt the SCOTUS would allow it.

The Democrat party has gone nuclear on Senate rules twice (ACA and trial judges). The only reason you didn't on the SCOTUS was you didn't need it at the time. As soon as you do, that will be gone too. Stop being a partisan dumb ass.

If you'd paid attention to this thread, it's a discussion of the supposed 'Biden Rule' i.e. McConnell's refusal to hold hearings on Pres. Obama's nominee.

It's not a discussion of whether the Senate should do the 'Nuclear Option' to force a vote on Pres. Trump's nominee.

Try paying attention.

You said Republicans are "short sighted in their opinions." I am explaining to you this issue. Democrats went nuclear, they obviously will again. It is why Republicans should go nuclear. YOU had the short sighted attentions if the ability to block Trump's nominee is concerned, you went nuclear and now the Republicans have no reason not to end this here and now and get their nominee. The only reason you didn't go nuclear for SCOTUS was there was no SCOTUS nominee, so you would just do it next time one came up.

Seriously, you still don't get that? You are losing this because DEMOCRATS are the short sighted party. Not only that, but Republicans didn't go nuclear for Bush BECAUSE they wanted to preserve the filibuster. The facts constantly contradict your partisan rhetoric

If you actually read what I've posted, I have not said anything for or against either party going nuclear. My discussion was entirely about McConnells refusal to have any hearings on Pres. Obama's nominee.

Are you mixing me up with another poster? Or is just your partisan imagination gone wild?

 

[kaz]

I know that conservatives tend to be extremely short sighted in their opinions. None have considered the long range consequences of the Senate not being obligated to hold hearings on Judicial nominations. I'm sure that if this issue were taken to the S.C. court they would rule that the Senate did have a Constitutional responsibility to consider nominations within a reasonable time, and that upcoming elections should not be an excuse to delay hearings.

The fact is that if the Senate does not have to hold hearings it means that the Senate has the power to obliterate the Supreme court. It potentially means the end of the separation of the powers of government into three branches - it gives the power of one branch of government to destroy the judicial branch.

Never before in the history of this government has the Senate failed to live up to this responsibility. This is a precedent.

I doubt the SCOTUS would allow it.

The Democrat party has gone nuclear on Senate rules twice (ACA and trial judges). The only reason you didn't on the SCOTUS was you didn't need it at the time. As soon as you do, that will be gone too. Stop being a partisan dumb ass.

If you'd paid attention to this thread, it's a discussion of the supposed 'Biden Rule' i.e. McConnell's refusal to hold hearings on Pres. Obama's nominee.

It's not a discussion of whether the Senate should do the 'Nuclear Option' to force a vote on Pres. Trump's nominee.

Try paying attention.

You said Republicans are "short sighted in their opinions." I am explaining to you this issue. Democrats went nuclear, they obviously will again. It is why Republicans should go nuclear. YOU had the short sighted attentions if the ability to block Trump's nominee is concerned, you went nuclear and now the Republicans have no reason not to end this here and now and get their nominee. The only reason you didn't go nuclear for SCOTUS was there was no SCOTUS nominee, so you would just do it next time one came up.

Seriously, you still don't get that? You are losing this because DEMOCRATS are the short sighted party. Not only that, but Republicans didn't go nuclear for Bush BECAUSE they wanted to preserve the filibuster. The facts constantly contradict your partisan rhetoric

If you actually read what I've posted, I have not said anything for or against either party going nuclear. My discussion was entirely about McConnells refusal to have any hearings on Pres. Obama's nominee.

Are you mixing me up with another poster? Or is just your partisan imagination gone wild?

I guess you really don't understand the discussion. Fine, I'll let you off the hook since explaining it twice got us both nowhere

 

[Richard-H]

I know that conservatives tend to be extremely short sighted in their opinions. None have considered the long range consequences of the Senate not being obligated to hold hearings on Judicial nominations. I'm sure that if this issue were taken to the S.C. court they would rule that the Senate did have a Constitutional responsibility to consider nominations within a reasonable time, and that upcoming elections should not be an excuse to delay hearings.

The fact is that if the Senate does not have to hold hearings it means that the Senate has the power to obliterate the Supreme court. It potentially means the end of the separation of the powers of government into three branches - it gives the power of one branch of government to destroy the judicial branch.

Never before in the history of this government has the Senate failed to live up to this responsibility. This is a precedent.

I doubt the SCOTUS would allow it.

The Democrat party has gone nuclear on Senate rules twice (ACA and trial judges). The only reason you didn't on the SCOTUS was you didn't need it at the time. As soon as you do, that will be gone too. Stop being a partisan dumb ass.

If you'd paid attention to this thread, it's a discussion of the supposed 'Biden Rule' i.e. McConnell's refusal to hold hearings on Pres. Obama's nominee.

It's not a discussion of whether the Senate should do the 'Nuclear Option' to force a vote on Pres. Trump's nominee.

Try paying attention.

You said Republicans are "short sighted in their opinions." I am explaining to you this issue. Democrats went nuclear, they obviously will again. It is why Republicans should go nuclear. YOU had the short sighted attentions if the ability to block Trump's nominee is concerned, you went nuclear and now the Republicans have no reason not to end this here and now and get their nominee. The only reason you didn't go nuclear for SCOTUS was there was no SCOTUS nominee, so you would just do it next time one came up.

Seriously, you still don't get that? You are losing this because DEMOCRATS are the short sighted party. Not only that, but Republicans didn't go nuclear for Bush BECAUSE they wanted to preserve the filibuster. The facts constantly contradict your partisan rhetoric

If you actually read what I've posted, I have not said anything for or against either party going nuclear. My discussion was entirely about McConnells refusal to have any hearings on Pres. Obama's nominee.

Are you mixing me up with another poster? Or is just your partisan imagination gone wild?

I guess you really don't understand the discussion. Fine, I'll let you off the hook since explaining it twice got us both nowhere

Seriously? You're the one that doesn't know the difference between the (supposed) Biden Rule and the 'nuclear option'.....

 

[edward37]

The Democrat party has gone nuclear on Senate rules twice (ACA and trial judges). The only reason you didn't on the SCOTUS was you didn't need it at the time. As soon as you do, that will be gone too. Stop being a partisan dumb ass.

If you'd paid attention to this thread, it's a discussion of the supposed 'Biden Rule' i.e. McConnell's refusal to hold hearings on Pres. Obama's nominee.

It's not a discussion of whether the Senate should do the 'Nuclear Option' to force a vote on Pres. Trump's nominee.

Try paying attention.

You said Republicans are "short sighted in their opinions." I am explaining to you this issue. Democrats went nuclear, they obviously will again. It is why Republicans should go nuclear. YOU had the short sighted attentions if the ability to block Trump's nominee is concerned, you went nuclear and now the Republicans have no reason not to end this here and now and get their nominee. The only reason you didn't go nuclear for SCOTUS was there was no SCOTUS nominee, so you would just do it next time one came up.

Seriously, you still don't get that? You are losing this because DEMOCRATS are the short sighted party. Not only that, but Republicans didn't go nuclear for Bush BECAUSE they wanted to preserve the filibuster. The facts constantly contradict your partisan rhetoric

If you actually read what I've posted, I have not said anything for or against either party going nuclear. My discussion was entirely about McConnells refusal to have any hearings on Pres. Obama's nominee.

Are you mixing me up with another poster? Or is just your partisan imagination gone wild?

I guess you really don't understand the discussion. Fine, I'll let you off the hook since explaining it twice got us both nowhere

Seriously? You're the one that doesn't know the difference between the (supposed) Biden Rule and the 'nuclear option'.....

Rich They're on the bottom limbs of the IQ tree and revel in their stupidity jmho