The Dems may not like what the GOP Senators consider "disqualifying" going forward

[Hutch Starskey]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

He was?

Don't remember reading anything about him being 'disqualified'.

That's right. No advise or consent. Nothing.

The Senate didn't give consent.............and they didn't accuse him of being a rapist either.

Yet still disqualified. Disqualified, disregarded and disavowed. Dissed in every way.

Far cry from a political hatchet job accusing the nominee of being a rapist.......with no evidence to back it up.

There is evidence, fool.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

Elections have consequences.

Obama was elected, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

time for the filibuster on lifetime SC nominees to be put back in place... it forces them to be the deliberative side of our Congress and come to compromise, as long as it isn't abused by the minority... it's better than this heels dug in at all costs crapola!

Exactly, thank you.

Kavanaugh would have been gone a long time ago as there is no way he'd get close to 60 votes. He'll be lucky to get 50.

 

[Hiryuu]

Elections have consequences.

Obama was elected, dope.

President Obama getting elected obviously didn't help him get Merrick Garland confirmed, so it probably had to do with someone else getting elected.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

He was?

Don't remember reading anything about him being 'disqualified'.

That's right. No advise or consent. Nothing.

The Senate didn't give consent.............and they didn't accuse him of being a rapist either.

Yet still disqualified. Disqualified, disregarded and disavowed. Dissed in every way.

How does it feel to be...
BORKED!

Got feelz?

Getting "Borked" requires at least a hearing.
Obviously that did not happen.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Elections have consequences.

Obama was elected, dope.

President Obama getting elected obviously didn't help him get Merrick Garland confirmed, so it probably had to do with someone else getting elected.

Who would that be, professor?

 

[Hiryuu]

Who would that be, professor?

The elected representatives in Congress necessary to stop the vote.

 

[hadit]

After the dems put up such a circus against Kavanaugh, one of the most qualified candidates in history, what repercussions can the dems expect from the GOP going forward. IMHO any "sexual misconduct" (including bringing the big dog out) is one, any "juvenile transgression" (theft, underage drinking, etc.), any drug use, including marijuana, any DUI, any PFA, any felony, etc.

I'm sure the FBI or Senate investigators could find something disqualifying on any and all democrat nominees going forward. If they can even find anyone to run that gauntlet.

Whether it's right to do or not, it will happen. Any nominee can expect such allegations. The difference is, the democrats will ignore them.

 

[hadit]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

Oh, yes, the feeble Garland defense. What was he accused of again?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Who would that be, professor?

The elected representatives in Congress necessary to stop the vote.

Great.
By your logic then, no appointment should be made until the American people have decided which party will control congress in five weeks.

 

[iceberg]

time for the filibuster on lifetime SC nominees to be put back in place... it forces them to be the deliberative side of our Congress and come to compromise, as long as it isn't abused by the minority... it's better than this heels dug in at all costs crapola!

Pandora's Box was opened, and using parliamentarian procedures to bypass restrictions is something both sides were willing to do. When you play with nukes, assured mutual destruction is what you get.

Too little too late, you don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

they don't seem to understand this however. in each case, the reason they went to "bullshitland" was different. they never understand there's a lot of reasons to do something wrong, but it's still wrong.

the left doesn't want a compromise. they want it all.

 

[Faun]

How does it feel to be...
BORKED!

Ask Kavanaugh.

 

[iceberg]

Who would that be, professor?

The elected representatives in Congress necessary to stop the vote.

Great.
By your logic then, no appointment should be made until the American people have decided which party will control congress in five weeks.

biden said it should be up to the voters, not a lame duck president.

PRESIDENT was the key here. now i see the left is willing to swap that around to say the house/senate is enough, let's wait on that.

the ONLY thing you just did was validate ALL OF THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT is a stall tactic.

 

[blastoff]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

Garland wasn't "disqualified" for personal behavior, McConnell simply used the "Biden Rule" not to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year. Trump won and picked Gorsuch. If Hillary had won she could have re-named Garland or pick someone else. Who do you think she would have nominated? Probably not Garland.

No! Garland was disqualified for being nominated by President Obama!

He was disqualified for not being nominated by a conservative

LOL...just keep digging.

 

[Faun]

There is now a McConnell Rule that says a Senate controlled by an opposition party is under no obligation to consider his Supreme Court picks

Odd, that sounds JUST like the Biden Rule, which he created, while he was Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

It does? Then it should be no problem for you to quote Biden saying no nominee Bush names will get a confirmation hearing for the remainder of his presidency...

 

[Faun]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

Oh, yes, the feeble Garland defense. What was he accused of again?

Being an Obama nominee.

 

[rightwinger]

There is now a McConnell Rule that says a Senate controlled by an opposition party is under no obligation to consider his Supreme Court picks

Odd, that sounds JUST like the Biden Rule, which he created, while he was Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

No such thing as a Biden Rule. Never happened

There is a McConnell rule that allows confirmation with just 50 percent of the vote and allows a Senate Majority Leader of the other party to prevent a sitting President from naming a Supreme Court Justice

 

[iceberg]

There is now a McConnell Rule that says a Senate controlled by an opposition party is under no obligation to consider his Supreme Court picks

Odd, that sounds JUST like the Biden Rule, which he created, while he was Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

It does? Then it should be no problem for you to quote Biden saying no nominee Bush names will get a confirmation hearing for the remainder of his presidency...

that's it - make people look for a specific quote and try to lie about what the intent was.

there needs to be a law/rule in place clear as day around this and the games around these nominations on both sides needs to end. this escalation of bullshit needs to stop.

 

[Pop23]

time for the filibuster on lifetime SC nominees to be put back in place... it forces them to be the deliberative side of our Congress and come to compromise, as long as it isn't abused by the minority... it's better than this heels dug in at all costs crapola!

WTF?? They can't even get 51 votes. IMHO the filibuster is dead and not coming back. The USSC would all die off before anyone could get approved. Hyper-partisanship killed the filibuster. Look at the votes RBG, Kagen, and Sotomayor got compared to Gorsuch and Alito, and now Kavanaugh. QED. (Its not just qualifications anymore)

The Dems love of majority rule always dies when they aren’t the majority.

 

[Hiryuu]

Great.
By your logic then, no appointment should be made until the American people have decided which party will control congress in five weeks.

The fact the Senate Majority Leader has the ability to block a vote, because enough Americans have elected Senators in his party, or that caucus with his party, is a fact. It doesn't matter when the election occurs, the Senate Majority Leader can decide what gets voted on , at any time during their term, because they are the Senate Majority Leader.

If the Democrats, or other Senators that caucus with the Democrats, win enough seats in Congress during the Fall Elections, they could then be the Majority. At that point, If they win the Majority, they can decide on a Senate Majority Leader, who will then have the power to determine what's brought to the Senate floor for a vote.

We aren't talking about if's, could's and should's. We are talking about who actually has the power to do something based on how many Americans have voted one way or another, and it's a fact, no matter what your logic is.