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.
Ok, since you're too stupid to recognize the difference, I'll explain it to ya....Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.
Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN
--LOL
there is no difference
and furthermore it is constitutional
I'm not trying to force anything. The facts are the dems never carried through with what the gop is going to do. The gop is going to change what has been done in the past. But the reality is the gop was never going to give Obama a third Justice. I suppose had Justice Ginsberg passed they really should have, because we're now left with a 5-4 Court.Sure there is Jon. I can I'd like to kick you in the balls, and then I could kick you in the balls.Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.
Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN
--LOL
there is no difference
and furthermore it is constitutional
nonsense that is your best argument to try and force the senate to appoint an nominee
--LOL
Jon's quite adept and not facing reality.Ok, since you're too stupid to recognize the difference, I'll explain it to ya....Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.
Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN
--LOL
there is no difference
and furthermore it is constitutional
Biden never told Bush he couldn't pick a replacement justice; that the next president will get that honor. Even worse for your mental condition, there wasn't a vacancy anyway.
Obama could nominate Francis of Focking Assisi and the gop would still not confirm him to the scotus. That's been the gop position for 3Plus years.=====What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.========Obama doesn't know moderation.
If Republicans were in his position they WOULD nominate an Ultra - Conservative and you know it.
So why shouldn't Dems follow our ideology just as you would like to follow yours?
You talk about rigid ideology as though it is a bad thing but I bet you would let someone cut off your left nut before you would vote for a Democrat.
There are some democrats I would vote for if they were running against certain Republicans. Bob Casey, for example, comes to mind. Of course, his own party hates him, so that might have something to do with it.
"Compromise" is not compromise when done by only those on one side of an issue, it's capitulation, and Obama shows no desire to compromise. Now, should Obama send up a serious minded moderate thinker that understands and respects the actual Constitution instead of a wild-eyed radical whose main claim to fame is the many grievance group requirements checked off, they should confirm. He will not do that, however, because he does not want to compromise.You think refusing to compromise in Congress is a good thing and then you yell about someone else having " rigid ideology ".
The right is actually retarded enough to think telling Bush he would have to wait a few months until after the election to name a replacement SC justice should a seat open up (which none did) ... is the same as ... telling Obama, with almost a year left in his presidency, that he will not get to appoint a justice to fill an actual vacancy.Jon's quite adept and not facing reality.Ok, since you're too stupid to recognize the difference, I'll explain it to ya....Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.
Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN
--LOL
there is no difference
and furthermore it is constitutional
Biden never told Bush he couldn't pick a replacement justice; that the next president will get that honor. Even worse for your mental condition, there wasn't a vacancy anyway.
The right is actually retarded enough to think telling Bush he would have to wait a few months until after the election to name a replacement SC justice should a seat open up (which none did) ... is the same as ... telling Obama, with almost a year left in his presidency, that he will not get to appoint a justice to fill an actual vacancy.Jon's quite adept and not facing reality.Ok, since you're too stupid to recognize the difference, I'll explain it to ya....Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.
Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN
--LOL
there is no difference
and furthermore it is constitutional
Biden never told Bush he couldn't pick a replacement justice; that the next president will get that honor. Even worse for your mental condition, there wasn't a vacancy anyway.
Just goes to demonstrate how desperate the right is to try and defend the unbelievable suggestions by GOP leadership to shut the conformation process down for a year because they don't like Obama.
No, it was not the same. George Bush, unlike Obama, was never told he could not carry out his Constitutional obligation of appointing a replacement justice to the Supreme Court.The right is actually retarded enough to think telling Bush he would have to wait a few months until after the election to name a replacement SC justice should a seat open up (which none did) ... is the same as ... telling Obama, with almost a year left in his presidency, that he will not get to appoint a justice to fill an actual vacancy.Jon's quite adept and not facing reality.Ok, since you're too stupid to recognize the difference, I'll explain it to ya....Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.
--LOL
there is no difference
and furthermore it is constitutional
Biden never told Bush he couldn't pick a replacement justice; that the next president will get that honor. Even worse for your mental condition, there wasn't a vacancy anyway.
Just goes to demonstrate how desperate the right is to try and defend the unbelievable suggestions by GOP leadership to shut the conformation process down for a year because they don't like Obama.
Well in a sense they were the same thing. The gop had 3 potus terms in a row, which was pretty unheard of, and which probably wouldn't have happened except for Gary Hart and Duckass melting down. (I voted for HW in 80, 88 and 92 btw) HW did after all get his TWO Justices: Souter and Thomas. Souter of course didn't turn out to be a staunch conservative, and he was succeeded by Sontomayor.
BUT the dems didn't carry through. In criminal law there's a concept that you can think real hard about committing a crime, and even say dumb shite, but there's no crime until you take one concrete action to accomplish the crime, and then it's "an attempt."
But, since 1968 gop potuses have had 12 Justices confirmed, and the dems ..... 4. If you needed any kind of graphic to show that the Court has moved right since the Liberal hayday, that should do it. The next time some fool says "the dems have loading up the bench with a bunch of liberals," I might post this again.
List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?Imbecile, those seats were filled by Bush.I don't want to hear any more whining from Obama or his sheep.
"During his brief time in the Senate, President Obama himself played a key role in the Democratic filibuster campaign, helping lead the effort to block the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit. Then-Senator Obama also joined Democrat colleagues in voting to filibuster the judicial nominations of Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Samuel Alito."
Do you even know what the issue is? It appears not.
What issue has your tit in a wringer?
I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.
========The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?Imbecile, those seats were filled by Bush.
Do you even know what the issue is? It appears not.
What issue has your tit in a wringer?
I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.
Not exactly.
This is what Senator McConnell said:
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
And, this is what then Senator Biden said in 1992:
Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.
"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.
10 to 1 you didn't hold that against Biden and voted for the Obama/Biden ticket.
========The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?What issue has your tit in a wringer?
I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.
Not exactly.
This is what Senator McConnell said:
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
And, this is what then Senator Biden said in 1992:
Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.
"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.
10 to 1 you didn't hold that against Biden and voted for the Obama/Biden ticket.
They didn't listen to Biden and Bush < DID > nominate.
So there is NO PRECEDENT for violating the Constitution.
Just because someone says something wrong doesn't establish a precedent nor do two wrongs make a right so it doesn't justify the current actions of the Republicans.
Since Bush didn't obey Biden --- why the fuck should Obama obey Republicans?
No, it was not the same. George Bush, unlike Obama, was never told he could not carry out his Constitutional obligation of appointing a replacement justice to the Supreme Court.The right is actually retarded enough to think telling Bush he would have to wait a few months until after the election to name a replacement SC justice should a seat open up (which none did) ... is the same as ... telling Obama, with almost a year left in his presidency, that he will not get to appoint a justice to fill an actual vacancy.Jon's quite adept and not facing reality.Ok, since you're too stupid to recognize the difference, I'll explain it to ya....--LOL
there is no difference
and furthermore it is constitutional
Biden never told Bush he couldn't pick a replacement justice; that the next president will get that honor. Even worse for your mental condition, there wasn't a vacancy anyway.
Just goes to demonstrate how desperate the right is to try and defend the unbelievable suggestions by GOP leadership to shut the conformation process down for a year because they don't like Obama.
Well in a sense they were the same thing. The gop had 3 potus terms in a row, which was pretty unheard of, and which probably wouldn't have happened except for Gary Hart and Duckass melting down. (I voted for HW in 80, 88 and 92 btw) HW did after all get his TWO Justices: Souter and Thomas. Souter of course didn't turn out to be a staunch conservative, and he was succeeded by Sontomayor.
BUT the dems didn't carry through. In criminal law there's a concept that you can think real hard about committing a crime, and even say dumb shite, but there's no crime until you take one concrete action to accomplish the crime, and then it's "an attempt."
But, since 1968 gop potuses have had 12 Justices confirmed, and the dems ..... 4. If you needed any kind of graphic to show that the Court has moved right since the Liberal hayday, that should do it. The next time some fool says "the dems have loading up the bench with a bunch of liberals," I might post this again.
List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yrs, exactly. McConnell (and Criuz) have stated they will do what they can to prevent Obama from appointing a replacement.The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?Imbecile, those seats were filled by Bush.
Do you even know what the issue is? It appears not.
What issue has your tit in a wringer?
I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.
Not exactly.
This is what Senator McConnell said:
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
And, this is what then Senator Biden said in 1992:
Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.
"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.
10 to 1 you didn't hold that against Biden and voted for the Obama/Biden ticket.
Yrs, exactly. McConnell (and Criuz) have stated they will do what they can to prevent Obama from appointing a replacement.The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?What issue has your tit in a wringer?
I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.
Not exactly.
This is what Senator McConnell said:
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
And, this is what then Senator Biden said in 1992:
Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.
"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.
10 to 1 you didn't hold that against Biden and voted for the Obama/Biden ticket.
Biden never even suggested such nonsense of Bush. Biden said wait until the election, just a few months out and with no vacancy on the court, is over.
And frankly, like many, I never knew Biden even said that until yesterday.
Their history of dealing with Obama does not lend much credence to that idea. They've been giving Obama pretty much everything he wants for years now, especially in very public things, why would they start doing something different now? They're afraid the NYT's editorial staff will say something negative about them.Nah. The gop has no real choice but to filibuster it to death. McConnell is just trying to avoid it because it'll be a media nightmare and the gop has something like two dozen seats to defend, and Trump is not carrying swing states. McConnell may get away with just not scheduling any hearings.I disagree. The current Republican leadership is scared of their own shadow. Obama will put on his petulant face and they'll cave, like they do every time. Cruz will filibuster and they'll throw him under the bus. It's what they do.Obama could nominate Francis of Focking Assisi and the gop would still not confirm him to the scotus. That's been the gop position for 3Plus years.=====What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.
You talk about rigid ideology as though it is a bad thing but I bet you would let someone cut off your left nut before you would vote for a Democrat.
There are some democrats I would vote for if they were running against certain Republicans. Bob Casey, for example, comes to mind. Of course, his own party hates him, so that might have something to do with it.
"Compromise" is not compromise when done by only those on one side of an issue, it's capitulation, and Obama shows no desire to compromise. Now, should Obama send up a serious minded moderate thinker that understands and respects the actual Constitution instead of a wild-eyed radical whose main claim to fame is the many grievance group requirements checked off, they should confirm. He will not do that, however, because he does not want to compromise.You think refusing to compromise in Congress is a good thing and then you yell about someone else having " rigid ideology ".
========Yrs, exactly. McConnell (and Criuz) have stated they will do what they can to prevent Obama from appointing a replacement.The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?What issue has your tit in a wringer?
I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.
Not exactly.
This is what Senator McConnell said:
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
And, this is what then Senator Biden said in 1992:
Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.
"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.
10 to 1 you didn't hold that against Biden and voted for the Obama/Biden ticket.
Biden never even suggested such nonsense of Bush. Biden said wait until the election, just a few months out and with no vacancy on the court, is over.
And frankly, like many, I never knew Biden even said that until yesterday.
And if they are not approved, he shouldn't hold his breath until he turns blue, stomp his feet and throw things. But I'm not holding out much hope.========The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?
I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.
Not exactly.
This is what Senator McConnell said:
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
And, this is what then Senator Biden said in 1992:
Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.
"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.
10 to 1 you didn't hold that against Biden and voted for the Obama/Biden ticket.
They didn't listen to Biden and Bush < DID > nominate.
So there is NO PRECEDENT for violating the Constitution.
Just because someone says something wrong doesn't establish a precedent nor do two wrongs make a right so it doesn't justify the current actions of the Republicans.
Since Bush didn't obey Biden --- why the fuck should Obama obey Republicans?
Obama shouldn't 'obey' the Republicans. He should nominate anyone he wants too and see if they get approved by the Senate.
The right is actually retarded enough to think telling Bush he would have to wait a few months until after the election to name a replacement SC justice should a seat open up (which none did) ... is the same as ... telling Obama, with almost a year left in his presidency, that he will not get to appoint a justice to fill an actual vacancy.Jon's quite adept and not facing reality.Ok, since you're too stupid to recognize the difference, I'll explain it to ya....Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.
--LOL
there is no difference
and furthermore it is constitutional
Biden never told Bush he couldn't pick a replacement justice; that the next president will get that honor. Even worse for your mental condition, there wasn't a vacancy anyway.
Just goes to demonstrate how desperate the right is to try and defend the unbelievable suggestions by GOP leadership to shut the conformation process down for a year because they don't like Obama.
Well in a sense they were the same thing. The gop had 3 potus terms in a row, which was pretty unheard of, and which probably wouldn't have happened except for Gary Hart and Duckass melting down. (I voted for HW in 80, 88 and 92 btw) HW did after all get his TWO Justices: Souter and Thomas. Souter of course didn't turn out to be a staunch conservative, and he was succeeded by Sontomayor.
BUT the dems didn't carry through. In criminal law there's a concept that you can think real hard about committing a crime, and even say dumb shite, but there's no crime until you take one concrete action to accomplish the crime, and then it's "an attempt."
But, since 1968 gop potuses have had 12 Justices confirmed, and the dems ..... 4. If you needed any kind of graphic to show that the Court has moved right since the Liberal hayday, that should do it. The next time some fool says "the dems have loading up the bench with a bunch of liberals," I might post this again.
List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actually, there was no vacancy at the time Biden made that statement, and none for Bush to name.========Yrs, exactly. McConnell (and Criuz) have stated they will do what they can to prevent Obama from appointing a replacement.The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?
I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.
Not exactly.
This is what Senator McConnell said:
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
And, this is what then Senator Biden said in 1992:
Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.
"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.
10 to 1 you didn't hold that against Biden and voted for the Obama/Biden ticket.
Biden never even suggested such nonsense of Bush. Biden said wait until the election, just a few months out and with no vacancy on the court, is over.
And frankly, like many, I never knew Biden even said that until yesterday.
And Bush DID NOT listen to Biden and Bush < DID > make his nomination(s).
So why should Obama listen to Republicans?
Oh, they'll probably make a show out of the whole thing, but ultimately give Obama what he wants. He will nominate some far-left wacko that the Republicans will reject, he'll come back with a slightly less far-left wacko and they'll confirm.I disagree. The current Republican leadership is scared of their own shadow.
Actually, most republican senators are more afraid of their pimps (big donors)...and being the whores that they are they'll throw under the bus those republican senators up for reelection in purple states....Bear in mind that the GOP senators who sit on the judicial committee are virtually all from deep red states...so that they're safe.
The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?Imbecile, those seats were filled by Bush.
Do you even know what the issue is? It appears not.
What issue has your tit in a wringer?
I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.
Not exactly.
This is what Senator McConnell said:
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
And, this is what then Senator Biden said in 1992:
Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.
"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.
10 to 1 you didn't hold that against Biden and voted for the Obama/Biden ticket.
