Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for thatI'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.
Thomas better be looking behind his back too or change his waysGOD'S WILL!I'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.
You have a problem with vetting?sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for thatI'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.
LOL. Vetting requires vetting, McConnell has not and will not allow it. The President followed through and appointed a nominee in accordance with the COTUS; McConnell has not and that is at best shameful, but not unexpected. The Republican leader cares only about one thing, getting his party back in control of the Supreme Court and the White House., as well as keeping his job.
McConnell and others in his party will burn COTUS in order to do so, and that is much worse than shameful, it is seditious.
so my question to you is are you ready to keep only 8 seated for 8 more years if hillary becomes president?sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for thatI'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.
So Obama should nominate someone who is a centrist. What good would it do to confirm a leftist, then all the decisions would go to the left.
And please, don't try and make us feel badly for how overworked is the SCOTUS. None of them have really worked a day in their lives.
The Gist: The signs that the Supreme Court is grappling with a depleted bench are starting to show. But what has been a trickle of tie-votes, bizarre orders and slowed activity could turn into a series of orders with contradictory effects as the court is confronted with an onslaught of election-related litigation in the lead-up to Nov. 8...........hows it feel repubs to get what you wished for?
That is because of rulings that have come down the last 7 years that they don't like..The Gist: The signs that the Supreme Court is grappling with a depleted bench are starting to show. But what has been a trickle of tie-votes, bizarre orders and slowed activity could turn into a series of orders with contradictory effects as the court is confronted with an onslaught of election-related litigation in the lead-up to Nov. 8...........hows it feel repubs to get what you wished for?
Republicans are trying to show that the Supreme Court in nonessential and that there is no reason to push through an appointment
I would say that's pretty nasty considering all that the SC did for republicans What are friends for? lolThe Gist: The signs that the Supreme Court is grappling with a depleted bench are starting to show. But what has been a trickle of tie-votes, bizarre orders and slowed activity could turn into a series of orders with contradictory effects as the court is confronted with an onslaught of election-related litigation in the lead-up to Nov. 8...........hows it feel repubs to get what you wished for?
Republicans are trying to show that the Supreme Court in nonessential and that there is no reason to push through an appointment
The Gist: The signs that the Supreme Court is grappling with a depleted bench are starting to show. But what has been a trickle of tie-votes, bizarre orders and slowed activity could turn into a series of orders with contradictory effects as the court is confronted with an onslaught of election-related litigation in the lead-up to Nov. 8...........hows it feel repubs to get what you wished for?
Exactly like the dems did/wanted to do to the GOP in the recent past. And they must bear the blame for that as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander..sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for thatI'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.
WTF?The Gist: The signs that the Supreme Court is grappling with a depleted bench are starting to show. But what has been a trickle of tie-votes, bizarre orders and slowed activity could turn into a series of orders with contradictory effects as the court is confronted with an onslaught of election-related litigation in the lead-up to Nov. 8...........hows it feel repubs to get what you wished for?
what's good for the goose?? You sure you want to play that card??? Your pub friends are owed a great deal and soon it's going to be pay them back timeExactly like the dems did/wanted to do to the GOP in the recent past. And they must bear the blame for that as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander..sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for thatI'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.
You have a problem with vetting?sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for thatI'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.
LOL. Vetting requires vetting, McConnell has not and will not allow it. The President followed through and appointed a nominee in accordance with the COTUS; McConnell has not and that is at best shameful, but not unexpected. The Republican leader cares only about one thing, getting his party back in control of the Supreme Court and the White House., as well as keeping his job.
McConnell and others in his party will burn COTUS in order to do so, and that is much worse than shameful, it is seditious.
McConnell, as useless as he is, is just following the Biden rule.
The Gist: The signs that the Supreme Court is grappling with a depleted bench are starting to show. But what has been a trickle of tie-votes, bizarre orders and slowed activity could turn into a series of orders with contradictory effects as the court is confronted with an onslaught of election-related litigation in the lead-up to Nov. 8...........hows it feel repubs to get what you wished for?
sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for thatI'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.
How is it outrageous that the republicans don't want to approve an anti second amendment jurist to SCOTUS?
What evidence do you have that the nominee is anti second amendment?
His record on the bench. Look it up.
Why should the senate waste time with hearings on a guy who has zero chance of being confirmed?
Sure, its politics, and if the roles were reversed the dems would be doing exactly the same things. Schumer and Biden are on record confirming that.
You have a problem with vetting?sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for thatI'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.
LOL. Vetting requires vetting, McConnell has not and will not allow it. The President followed through and appointed a nominee in accordance with the COTUS; McConnell has not and that is at best shameful, but not unexpected. The Republican leader cares only about one thing, getting his party back in control of the Supreme Court and the White House., as well as keeping his job.
McConnell and others in his party will burn COTUS in order to do so, and that is much worse than shameful, it is seditious.
McConnell, as useless as he is, is just following the Biden rule.
There is no "Biden rule", Biden made the comment nearly 25 years ago in a speech on the Senate Floor,
see: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...elaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0
at worst is was a partisan remark and any concern that an election year should impact the duty imposed by COTUS is pure partisan puff.
You have a problem with vetting?sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for thatI'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.
LOL. Vetting requires vetting, McConnell has not and will not allow it. The President followed through and appointed a nominee in accordance with the COTUS; McConnell has not and that is at best shameful, but not unexpected. The Republican leader cares only about one thing, getting his party back in control of the Supreme Court and the White House., as well as keeping his job.
McConnell and others in his party will burn COTUS in order to do so, and that is much worse than shameful, it is seditious.
McConnell, as useless as he is, is just following the Biden rule.
There is no "Biden rule", Biden made the comment nearly 25 years ago in a speech on the Senate Floor,
see: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...elaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0
at worst is was a partisan remark and any concern that an election year should impact the duty imposed by COTUS is pure partisan puff.
sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for thatI'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.
How is it outrageous that the republicans don't want to approve an anti second amendment jurist to SCOTUS?
What evidence do you have that the nominee is anti second amendment?
His record on the bench. Look it up.
Why should the senate waste time with hearings on a guy who has zero chance of being confirmed?
Sure, its politics, and if the roles were reversed the dems would be doing exactly the same things. Schumer and Biden are on record confirming that.
The Democrats did not do the same thing when the roles were reversed
All Republican nominees received a hearing in the Senate. That is their job
A few were rejected but overall, Democrats have supported conservative nominees like Thomas and Alito
Republicans are entering new territory
You have a problem with vetting?sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for that
LOL. Vetting requires vetting, McConnell has not and will not allow it. The President followed through and appointed a nominee in accordance with the COTUS; McConnell has not and that is at best shameful, but not unexpected. The Republican leader cares only about one thing, getting his party back in control of the Supreme Court and the White House., as well as keeping his job.
McConnell and others in his party will burn COTUS in order to do so, and that is much worse than shameful, it is seditious.
McConnell, as useless as he is, is just following the Biden rule.
There is no "Biden rule", Biden made the comment nearly 25 years ago in a speech on the Senate Floor,
see: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...elaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0
at worst is was a partisan remark and any concern that an election year should impact the duty imposed by COTUS is pure partisan puff.
OK, Biden was lying when he made that statement or more likely just spewing idiocy.
Can you name where in the COTUS it states a time limit?
You have a problem with vetting?sure you're right but they did hold up a new judge until a new president is installed and they must bare the blame for thatI'm pretty sure republicans didn't wish for Antonin Scalia to die.
LOL. Vetting requires vetting, McConnell has not and will not allow it. The President followed through and appointed a nominee in accordance with the COTUS; McConnell has not and that is at best shameful, but not unexpected. The Republican leader cares only about one thing, getting his party back in control of the Supreme Court and the White House., as well as keeping his job.
McConnell and others in his party will burn COTUS in order to do so, and that is much worse than shameful, it is seditious.
McConnell, as useless as he is, is just following the Biden rule.
There is no "Biden rule", Biden made the comment nearly 25 years ago in a speech on the Senate Floor,
see: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...elaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0
at worst is was a partisan remark and any concern that an election year should impact the duty imposed by COTUS is pure partisan puff.
