McConnell Vows To Fill Scotus Vacancy, Democrats Whine

[mudwhistle]

Sounds good.
Long as it's the American people. Not people from. Central America.

Good
So you agree McConnell should not fill a vacancy in 2020

I think he should fill anything that comes up.

But what about the American people?

They were so important in 2016

The American People aren't with you.
That's why Democrats are for open borders

The American people wanted a vacant SCOTUS seat?

Yah........


Sure.......


Right.......

Uh-huh.......

 

[HappyJoy]

Doesn’t really matter

Republicans have made filling a SCOTUS vacancy a purely political process.

Sitting Presidents will no longer be allowed to fill vacancies if the Senate is ruled by the other party

That started when Bork was not approved.

Bork got an up or down vote.

And didn't get approved because they needed 60 votes back then and the Republicans only held a 53-47, so it wouldn't go anywhere. Harry Reid changed that to a simple majority.

The irony is that Kennedy got the position and Bork died in 2012, had Bork gotten the position, Obama would have been able to nominate another Supreme Court Justice.

Bork lost the vote 58 - 42. There is no irony, you're simply mistaken.

I think the point was that Mr. Bork attained room temperature in 2012, and if he would have died on the SCOTUS, Obama would have had the nomination

I think the point was to muddy the waters about Bork getting a fair shake and Garland not. When Bork died is irrelevant, he may very well have retired years before dying, many of them do, so it's pointless to speculate.

 

[sartre play]

We have 2 not so bright persons sitting on the court, and that is a shame. pushing through people based only on there political view point is not good for our country.

 

[Polishprince]

That started when Bork was not approved.

Bork got an up or down vote.

And didn't get approved because they needed 60 votes back then and the Republicans only held a 53-47, so it wouldn't go anywhere. Harry Reid changed that to a simple majority.

The irony is that Kennedy got the position and Bork died in 2012, had Bork gotten the position, Obama would have been able to nominate another Supreme Court Justice.

Bork lost the vote 58 - 42. There is no irony, you're simply mistaken.

I think the point was that Mr. Bork attained room temperature in 2012, and if he would have died on the SCOTUS, Obama would have had the nomination

I think the point was to muddy the waters about Bork getting a fair shake and Garland not. When Bork died is irrelevant, he may very well have retired years before dying, many of them do, so it's pointless to speculate.

Garland did get a fair shake, however.

His name and reputation weren't dragged through the mud, even though he didn't have enough votes to get confirmed.

The Republicans weren't forced to sully his reputation, and didn't. We know nothing about alleged parties that Mr. Garland attended as teenagers, or anything about Garland's sexual history. And that, BTW, is good.

Had Mrs. Clinton won, he would have been put on the Court.

 

[HappyJoy]

Bork got an up or down vote.

And didn't get approved because they needed 60 votes back then and the Republicans only held a 53-47, so it wouldn't go anywhere. Harry Reid changed that to a simple majority.

The irony is that Kennedy got the position and Bork died in 2012, had Bork gotten the position, Obama would have been able to nominate another Supreme Court Justice.

Bork lost the vote 58 - 42. There is no irony, you're simply mistaken.

I think the point was that Mr. Bork attained room temperature in 2012, and if he would have died on the SCOTUS, Obama would have had the nomination

I think the point was to muddy the waters about Bork getting a fair shake and Garland not. When Bork died is irrelevant, he may very well have retired years before dying, many of them do, so it's pointless to speculate.

Garland did get a fair shake, however.

His name and reputation weren't dragged through the mud, even though he didn't have enough votes to get confirmed.

He didn't have enough votes? How do you know? And why would the Republicans have dragged his reputation through the mud? You basically just said "We treated Garland fairly by holding up his vote for over a year otherwise we would have trashed him".

The Republicans weren't forced to sully his reputation, and didn't. We know nothing about alleged parties that Mr. Garland attended as teenagers, or anything about Garland's sexual history. And that, BTW, is good.

There's no reason to suspect Garland is anything but an upstanding citizen who deserved to be on the Supreme Court.

Had Mrs. Clinton won, he would have been put on the Court.

Maybe, he should have been on the court over a year earlier.

 

[Polishprince]

And didn't get approved because they needed 60 votes back then and the Republicans only held a 53-47, so it wouldn't go anywhere. Harry Reid changed that to a simple majority.

The irony is that Kennedy got the position and Bork died in 2012, had Bork gotten the position, Obama would have been able to nominate another Supreme Court Justice.

Bork lost the vote 58 - 42. There is no irony, you're simply mistaken.

I think the point was that Mr. Bork attained room temperature in 2012, and if he would have died on the SCOTUS, Obama would have had the nomination

I think the point was to muddy the waters about Bork getting a fair shake and Garland not. When Bork died is irrelevant, he may very well have retired years before dying, many of them do, so it's pointless to speculate.

Garland did get a fair shake, however.

His name and reputation weren't dragged through the mud, even though he didn't have enough votes to get confirmed.

He didn't have enough votes? How do you know? And why would the Republicans have dragged his reputation through the mud? You basically just said "We treated Garland fairly by holding up his vote for over a year otherwise we would have trashed him".

The Republicans weren't forced to sully his reputation, and didn't. We know nothing about alleged parties that Mr. Garland attended as teenagers, or anything about Garland's sexual history. And that, BTW, is good.

There's no reason to suspect Garland is anything but an upstanding citizen who deserved to be on the Supreme Court.

Had Mrs. Clinton won, he would have been put on the Court.

Maybe, he should have been on the court over a year earlier.

The Republicans had a majority in the Senate in 2016.

There was no reason to think that Kavanaugh was anything but an upstanding citizen when he name was put forth either. You never know what Garland did until we look at his high school yearbooks and speak to all of his acquaintances.

 

[HappyJoy]

Bork lost the vote 58 - 42. There is no irony, you're simply mistaken.

I think the point was that Mr. Bork attained room temperature in 2012, and if he would have died on the SCOTUS, Obama would have had the nomination

I think the point was to muddy the waters about Bork getting a fair shake and Garland not. When Bork died is irrelevant, he may very well have retired years before dying, many of them do, so it's pointless to speculate.

Garland did get a fair shake, however.

His name and reputation weren't dragged through the mud, even though he didn't have enough votes to get confirmed.

He didn't have enough votes? How do you know? And why would the Republicans have dragged his reputation through the mud? You basically just said "We treated Garland fairly by holding up his vote for over a year otherwise we would have trashed him".

The Republicans weren't forced to sully his reputation, and didn't. We know nothing about alleged parties that Mr. Garland attended as teenagers, or anything about Garland's sexual history. And that, BTW, is good.

There's no reason to suspect Garland is anything but an upstanding citizen who deserved to be on the Supreme Court.

Had Mrs. Clinton won, he would have been put on the Court.

Maybe, he should have been on the court over a year earlier.

The Republicans had a majority in the Senate in 2016.

There was no reason to think that Kavanaugh was anything but an upstanding citizen when he name was put forth either. You never know what Garland did until we look at his high school yearbooks and speak to all of his acquaintances.

Republicans had a majority in the senate for Bork's vote too and he lost that pretty easily.

Once again, Garland never got his chance at getting a vote, which creates an imbalance in governance as the executive branch is the one given the ability to nominate judges to the judiciary by the Constitution.

 

[Polishprince]

I think the point was that Mr. Bork attained room temperature in 2012, and if he would have died on the SCOTUS, Obama would have had the nomination

I think the point was to muddy the waters about Bork getting a fair shake and Garland not. When Bork died is irrelevant, he may very well have retired years before dying, many of them do, so it's pointless to speculate.

Garland did get a fair shake, however.

His name and reputation weren't dragged through the mud, even though he didn't have enough votes to get confirmed.

He didn't have enough votes? How do you know? And why would the Republicans have dragged his reputation through the mud? You basically just said "We treated Garland fairly by holding up his vote for over a year otherwise we would have trashed him".

The Republicans weren't forced to sully his reputation, and didn't. We know nothing about alleged parties that Mr. Garland attended as teenagers, or anything about Garland's sexual history. And that, BTW, is good.

There's no reason to suspect Garland is anything but an upstanding citizen who deserved to be on the Supreme Court.

Had Mrs. Clinton won, he would have been put on the Court.

Maybe, he should have been on the court over a year earlier.

The Republicans had a majority in the Senate in 2016.

There was no reason to think that Kavanaugh was anything but an upstanding citizen when he name was put forth either. You never know what Garland did until we look at his high school yearbooks and speak to all of his acquaintances.

Republicans had a majority in the senate for Bork's vote too and he lost that pretty easily.

Once again, Garland never got his chance at getting a vote, which creates an imbalance in governance as the executive branch is the one given the ability to nominate judges to the judiciary by the Constitution.

Au contraire, in 1987 when the Borkster was nominated, the Democrats controlled the Senate

 

[HappyJoy]

I think the point was to muddy the waters about Bork getting a fair shake and Garland not. When Bork died is irrelevant, he may very well have retired years before dying, many of them do, so it's pointless to speculate.

Garland did get a fair shake, however.

His name and reputation weren't dragged through the mud, even though he didn't have enough votes to get confirmed.

He didn't have enough votes? How do you know? And why would the Republicans have dragged his reputation through the mud? You basically just said "We treated Garland fairly by holding up his vote for over a year otherwise we would have trashed him".

The Republicans weren't forced to sully his reputation, and didn't. We know nothing about alleged parties that Mr. Garland attended as teenagers, or anything about Garland's sexual history. And that, BTW, is good.

There's no reason to suspect Garland is anything but an upstanding citizen who deserved to be on the Supreme Court.

Had Mrs. Clinton won, he would have been put on the Court.

Maybe, he should have been on the court over a year earlier.

The Republicans had a majority in the Senate in 2016.

There was no reason to think that Kavanaugh was anything but an upstanding citizen when he name was put forth either. You never know what Garland did until we look at his high school yearbooks and speak to all of his acquaintances.

Republicans had a majority in the senate for Bork's vote too and he lost that pretty easily.

Once again, Garland never got his chance at getting a vote, which creates an imbalance in governance as the executive branch is the one given the ability to nominate judges to the judiciary by the Constitution.

Au contraire, in 1987 when the Borkster was nominated, the Democrats controlled the Senate

Oh, you're right however several Republicans voted against Bork. More often than not and especially for Supreme Court nominees judges usually make it through the senate regardless of which party is in control unles their vote is held up altogether.

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn’t really matter

Republicans have made filling a SCOTUS vacancy a purely political process.

Sitting Presidents will no longer be allowed to fill vacancies if the Senate is ruled by the other party

That started when Bork was not approved.

Bork got an up or down vote.

And didn't get approved because they needed 60 votes back then and the Republicans only held a 53-47, so it wouldn't go anywhere. Harry Reid changed that to a simple majority.

The irony is that Kennedy got the position and Bork died in 2012, had Bork gotten the position, Obama would have been able to nominate another Supreme Court Justice.

Bork lost the vote 58 - 42. There is no irony, you're simply mistaken.

I think the point was that Mr. Bork attained room temperature in 2012, and if he would have died on the SCOTUS, Obama would have had the nomination

What an odd point of view

 

[rightwinger]

Bork lost the vote 58 - 42. There is no irony, you're simply mistaken.

I think the point was that Mr. Bork attained room temperature in 2012, and if he would have died on the SCOTUS, Obama would have had the nomination

I think the point was to muddy the waters about Bork getting a fair shake and Garland not. When Bork died is irrelevant, he may very well have retired years before dying, many of them do, so it's pointless to speculate.

Garland did get a fair shake, however.

His name and reputation weren't dragged through the mud, even though he didn't have enough votes to get confirmed.

He didn't have enough votes? How do you know? And why would the Republicans have dragged his reputation through the mud? You basically just said "We treated Garland fairly by holding up his vote for over a year otherwise we would have trashed him".

The Republicans weren't forced to sully his reputation, and didn't. We know nothing about alleged parties that Mr. Garland attended as teenagers, or anything about Garland's sexual history. And that, BTW, is good.

There's no reason to suspect Garland is anything but an upstanding citizen who deserved to be on the Supreme Court.

Had Mrs. Clinton won, he would have been put on the Court.

Maybe, he should have been on the court over a year earlier.

The Republicans had a majority in the Senate in 2016.

There was no reason to think that Kavanaugh was anything but an upstanding citizen when he name was put forth either. You never know what Garland did until we look at his high school yearbooks and speak to all of his acquaintances.

Garland never even had that much of a chance

 

[HappyJoy]

I think the point was that Mr. Bork attained room temperature in 2012, and if he would have died on the SCOTUS, Obama would have had the nomination

I think the point was to muddy the waters about Bork getting a fair shake and Garland not. When Bork died is irrelevant, he may very well have retired years before dying, many of them do, so it's pointless to speculate.

Garland did get a fair shake, however.

His name and reputation weren't dragged through the mud, even though he didn't have enough votes to get confirmed.

He didn't have enough votes? How do you know? And why would the Republicans have dragged his reputation through the mud? You basically just said "We treated Garland fairly by holding up his vote for over a year otherwise we would have trashed him".

The Republicans weren't forced to sully his reputation, and didn't. We know nothing about alleged parties that Mr. Garland attended as teenagers, or anything about Garland's sexual history. And that, BTW, is good.

There's no reason to suspect Garland is anything but an upstanding citizen who deserved to be on the Supreme Court.

Had Mrs. Clinton won, he would have been put on the Court.

Maybe, he should have been on the court over a year earlier.

The Republicans had a majority in the Senate in 2016.

There was no reason to think that Kavanaugh was anything but an upstanding citizen when he name was put forth either. You never know what Garland did until we look at his high school yearbooks and speak to all of his acquaintances.

Garland never even had that much of a chance

Yes, but according to this wingnut the Republicans did him a favor by saving him from their own witch hunt.

 

[martybegan]

I think the point was that Mr. Bork attained room temperature in 2012, and if he would have died on the SCOTUS, Obama would have had the nomination

I think the point was to muddy the waters about Bork getting a fair shake and Garland not. When Bork died is irrelevant, he may very well have retired years before dying, many of them do, so it's pointless to speculate.

Garland did get a fair shake, however.

His name and reputation weren't dragged through the mud, even though he didn't have enough votes to get confirmed.

He didn't have enough votes? How do you know? And why would the Republicans have dragged his reputation through the mud? You basically just said "We treated Garland fairly by holding up his vote for over a year otherwise we would have trashed him".

The Republicans weren't forced to sully his reputation, and didn't. We know nothing about alleged parties that Mr. Garland attended as teenagers, or anything about Garland's sexual history. And that, BTW, is good.

There's no reason to suspect Garland is anything but an upstanding citizen who deserved to be on the Supreme Court.

Had Mrs. Clinton won, he would have been put on the Court.

Maybe, he should have been on the court over a year earlier.

The Republicans had a majority in the Senate in 2016.

There was no reason to think that Kavanaugh was anything but an upstanding citizen when he name was put forth either. You never know what Garland did until we look at his high school yearbooks and speak to all of his acquaintances.

Republicans had a majority in the senate for Bork's vote too and he lost that pretty easily.

Once again, Garland never got his chance at getting a vote, which creates an imbalance in governance as the executive branch is the one given the ability to nominate judges to the judiciary by the Constitution.

The Japanese concept is Mokusatu.

Considering there is no time limit on the Senate, their lack of consent was given by their ignoring the nomination.

All done by the rules.

 

[Papageorgio]

that only happens when the wrong party holds the White House.

Doesn’t really matter

Republicans have made filling a SCOTUS vacancy a purely political process.

Sitting Presidents will no longer be allowed to fill vacancies if the Senate is ruled by the other party

That started when Bork was not approved.

Bork got an up or down vote.

And didn't get approved because they needed 60 votes back then and the Republicans only held a 53-47, so it wouldn't go anywhere. Harry Reid changed that to a simple majority.

The irony is that Kennedy got the position and Bork died in 2012, had Bork gotten the position, Obama would have been able to nominate another Supreme Court Justice.

Bork lost the vote 58 - 42. There is no irony, you're simply mistaken.

The irony, is that Kennedy became the Justice instead of Bork, Bork passed away in 2012, had Bork been appointed, Obama would have been the President to replace the conservative Bork for a liberal judge and Harry Reid had done away with the 60 vote rule and they would have confirmed a liberal judge and changed the make up of the Supreme Court.

 

[HappyJoy]

Doesn’t really matter

Republicans have made filling a SCOTUS vacancy a purely political process.

Sitting Presidents will no longer be allowed to fill vacancies if the Senate is ruled by the other party

That started when Bork was not approved.

Bork got an up or down vote.

And didn't get approved because they needed 60 votes back then and the Republicans only held a 53-47, so it wouldn't go anywhere. Harry Reid changed that to a simple majority.

The irony is that Kennedy got the position and Bork died in 2012, had Bork gotten the position, Obama would have been able to nominate another Supreme Court Justice.

Bork lost the vote 58 - 42. There is no irony, you're simply mistaken.

The irony, is that Kennedy became the Justice instead of Bork, Bork passed away in 2012, had Bork been appointed, Obama would have been the President to replace the conservative Bork for a liberal judge and Harry Reid had done away with the 60 vote rule and they would have confirmed a liberal judge and changed the make up of the Supreme Court.

It's not irony if a justice appointed by a republican leaves the court when a democrat is now president. Plus, most justices don't die while sitting on the court, Bork very possibly would have retired years before.

I don't even know why this is relevant to anything.

 

[Papageorgio]

That started when Bork was not approved.

Bork got an up or down vote.

And didn't get approved because they needed 60 votes back then and the Republicans only held a 53-47, so it wouldn't go anywhere. Harry Reid changed that to a simple majority.

The irony is that Kennedy got the position and Bork died in 2012, had Bork gotten the position, Obama would have been able to nominate another Supreme Court Justice.

Bork lost the vote 58 - 42. There is no irony, you're simply mistaken.

The irony, is that Kennedy became the Justice instead of Bork, Bork passed away in 2012, had Bork been appointed, Obama would have been the President to replace the conservative Bork for a liberal judge and Harry Reid had done away with the 60 vote rule and they would have confirmed a liberal judge and changed the make up of the Supreme Court.

It's not irony if a justice appointed by a republican leaves the court when a democrat is now president. Plus, most justices don't die while sitting on the court, Bork very possibly would have retired years before.

I don't even know why this is relevant to anything.

Never said it was relevant, never said or injected anything, just found it interesting. In your opinion it isn't, as I tell my elementary school granddaughter, thanks for sharing.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

What is it about war that they do not understand?

McConnell vows to fill any Supreme Court vacancy in 2020, rankling Dems

Man, it sure does suck when people finally get a taste of their own medicine.

Payback is such a bitch.

.

Wait, what? McConnell was the one who insisted that filling a vacancy during an election year was a no-no. So how is him contradicting himself a case of someone getting a taste of their own medicine?

 

[Crepitus]

What is it about war that they do not understand?

McConnell vows to fill any Supreme Court vacancy in 2020, rankling Dems

Man, it sure does suck when people finally get a taste of their own medicine.

Payback is such a bitch.

.

Did the Dems ever refuse to vote on a SCOTUS nomination when they held the Senate?

who cares. It's done and it was rightly done. The march leftward of this country needs to be halted.

Any lying, cheating, stealing, or other criminal enterprise is just fine with you tRumpkin scumbags as long as it forwards your despicable "cause" of ruining the country.

The only ruined parts of America are democrat run cities..

Come to the Midwest kid. Kansas is a fuckin' disaster area.

 

[Crepitus]

What is it about war that they do not understand?

McConnell vows to fill any Supreme Court vacancy in 2020, rankling Dems

Man, it sure does suck when people finally get a taste of their own medicine.

Payback is such a bitch.

.

Wait, what? McConnell was the one who insisted that filling a vacancy during an election year was a no-no. So how is him contradicting himself a case of someone getting a taste of their own medicine?

It isn't.

It is a fine example of partisan hypocrisy though.

 

[Crepitus]

What has changed since McConnell

1. Senate is no longer under any obligation to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for an opposition President

2. Confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice now only requires a majority vote

and if you don't like the nomination, accuse them of rape from 35 years ago with zero evidence. don't forget the lefts favorite play.

There was a book written about it.