What's wrong with the GOP? Vote on Supreme Court Justice

[MarcATL]

Obama will be denied the opportunity to put another justice on the SCOTUS, he could nominate God and it will be request denied, out of spite!

But Obama didn't nominate god, he nominated Merrick Garland, a radical left activist with utter contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Prove it.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Papageorgio]

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

That's fine. File a lawsuit, and prove it to everyone in the court system. If you can actually make the case, and take it to court, do so. Otherwise, it's just opinion.

And maybe you are right. Was the destruction of Robert Bork right? Was the attempted disembowment of Clarence Thomas right?

Who said this..... "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?" - Florynce Kennedy, a left wing feminist.

As far as I can tell, the left wing is who turned judge appointment into a political ram rod. Was it not FDR who threatened to pack the court to get whatever he wanted, and magically the court suddenly started agreeing with whatever was passed?

You people haven't cared what the constitution says anyway. Where is social security, and medicare, given as a power of the Federal Government? Not there. Does not exist. So lets end those first, and then we'll deal with whether the Senate must agree to an Obama appointment.

Bork and Thomas were vetted, all the democrats are asking is that any nominee named by Obama be vetted as provided by the Advise and Consent Decree of the Constitution .Ignoring the Constitution is not an option and I expect this might end up in court.

Again, what are the time constraints that are put on the Senate in the
Constitution?

I haven't seen any time constraints mentioned in the Constitution but action before November might be advisable. But that doesn't mean the Democrat Senators cant use some pressure of their own within the Senate to delay passage of Bills or legislation pushed by the Republicans. The republicans have 54 votes in the Senate and sometimes 60 votes are needed to pass certain legislation. The Democrats can still make life hard for republicans in the Senate with that 6 vote margin. I expect that strategy will be used to full effect if the Democrats stick together.

Correct you play politics. Nothing "Unconstitutional" about what the Republicans in the Senate are doing. You just don't like it. They are doing their job, even though you claim otherwise. It is you just don't like it.

Republicans like Democrats posture and project. You not liking it is irrelevant.

 

[Redfish]

Its working perfectly and exactly as the founders intended it to. There's a reason we don't have a king making all the decisions with a wave if their hand. Its supposed to be difficult for congress to get anything done. Its supposed to be difficult for the President to get things passed in congress. There is a reason there is a Constitution that limits their power and a SCOTUS to defend the Constitution. This is by design, the founders who lived under the tyranny of a king predicted a tyrannical corrupt government and took measures to protect us from that.

No, it is NOT working perfectly. Sabotaging the vetting process is NOT what the founders intended, No one is asking the Senate to accept the candidate,they are simply being asked to evaluate the nominee as prescribed in the Constitution. They can either reject or confirm him but ignoring the entire process is not provided for in the Constitution

I sent my elected representatives to Washington with instructions to tell Obama and Democrats to go to hell and vote no on anything they ask for. I love it when a plan comes together. (lights a Hannibal Smith cigar, A-Team theme song starts playing)

I don't care what your Senators do s long as they don't interfere with the Constitutional process of vetting a USSC nominee. They are refusing to do that and I expect Obama fie a lawsuit. This is not a filibuster which is legal BTW and has been used before, this is an unprecedented breech of Constitutional doctrine that cannot be tolerated as it would set a precedent that could have ramifications on both sides of the isle for every future nomination.

you are so FOS. The dems did exactly that same thing when the parties were reversed. You libs are sick.

I can't hep that you don't know the difference between vetting and not doing a damn thing. The democrats have always vetted nominees.
That is the dynamic involved in Advise and Consent wherein acceptance or rejection are ensconced as the two Constitutional options. To do nothing is NOT an option.

bullshit, listen to what Biden and Schumer said that last time the parties were reversed and this happened.

Not acting on a SC nomination is totally within the constitutional powers of the senate----------------and the really sick thing is that you dem/libs would be making that same argument if the parties were reversed. You are hypocrites.

 

[Redfish]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

wake up. a hearing where the outcome is already known would be a waste of time and a distraction from the election. That's why obozo is pushing this, to take the media attention off of Hillary and her FBI investigation and possible indictment.

this whole thing is politics, nothing more.

Yeah, Obama orchestrated the whole thing,even Scalia's death, just to save Hillary. I suppose most of the working class republicans WOULD fall for that kind of logic.

not what I said, dipshit. I said that nominating a SC replacement in the middle of the FBI investigation of HRC was clearly done to take the media attention away from HRC and her felonious term as SecState.

 

[Geaux4it]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

Can't let Obama add influence any further

-Geaux

 

[Redfish]

This is HARD for the leftist scum to understand.....

Buncha pussys

Yes,saying FUCK YOU Obomanation, is always in play! About time they found a few sets of BALLS!

It doesn't take balls to be a pussy, quite the opposite. If they had real balls they stand up for themselves

what exactly do you think would be accomplished by wasting many hours on hearings and votes when everyone already knows what the outcome would be?

 

[kaz]

You're making up all this shit that Biden didn't say. He put no conditions on it, he said no Republican should be submitted and if one is the Democrats wouldn't vote on it

What he said in June of 1992 was to hold hearings and a vote after the November election.

What we have now is the Senate Leadership saying take NO ACTION until a new President is elected.




They are not the exact same thing.

In November if he LOST.

>>>>

You think we're idiots to believe that Biden would allow Bush's nominee an interview after November elections if he LOST? Ha ha ha ha. No dumbass, we are interpreting Biden correctly. Obama picked his last lesbian/communist for the Court.

It's unbelievable the shit liberals make up, isn't it?

 

[kaz]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

Maybe Joe Biden could explain it to you, Obama and the leftist media then:

Biden in 1992, if there was an opening on the Supreme Court, HW should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Thank you for demonstrating their hypocrisy AGAIN!!!!! We had a gazillion threads already about this. They've been whining about this since Scalia's passing... WTF?????

I'm not whining about anything you stupid bitch. I agree with Biden in 1992 and I agree with the Republicans now. The Supreme Court doesn't give a shit about the law, they have a lifetime political appointment. Our country is too divided to be filling Supreme Court seats in the environment.

You're the whining hypocrite. Where do you think Biden was wrong exactly?

When will the country not be divided in the future? Who's going to bring them together?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Don't know, but it's getting worse on both sides, not better. What does that have to do with the discussion?

 

[kaz]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

Maybe Joe Biden could explain it to you, Obama and the leftist media then:

Biden in 1992, if there was an opening on the Supreme Court, HW should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Thank you for demonstrating their hypocrisy AGAIN!!!!! We had a gazillion threads already about this. They've been whining about this since Scalia's passing... WTF?????

I'm not whining about anything you stupid bitch. I agree with Biden in 1992 and I agree with the Republicans now. The Supreme Court doesn't give a shit about the law, they have a lifetime political appointment. Our country is too divided to be filling Supreme Court seats in the environment.

You're the whining hypocrite. Where do you think Biden was wrong exactly?

So ignore the constitution and ignore we already voted on who should select the next justice. Obama won, stop crying.

The neoconservative Republican party has been crying, wailing and moaning about Obama winning since 2008. They won't stop now.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The Republicans are indeed neocons, but so are the Democrats. You don't know what a neocon is, do you?

Think

 

[BluesLegend]

No, it is NOT working perfectly. Sabotaging the vetting process is NOT what the founders intended, No one is asking the Senate to accept the candidate,they are simply being asked to evaluate the nominee as prescribed in the Constitution. They can either reject or confirm him but ignoring the entire process is not provided for in the Constitution

I sent my elected representatives to Washington with instructions to tell Obama and Democrats to go to hell and vote no on anything they ask for. I love it when a plan comes together. (lights a Hannibal Smith cigar, A-Team theme song starts playing)

I don't care what your Senators do s long as they don't interfere with the Constitutional process of vetting a USSC nominee. They are refusing to do that and I expect Obama fie a lawsuit. This is not a filibuster which is legal BTW and has been used before, this is an unprecedented breech of Constitutional doctrine that cannot be tolerated as it would set a precedent that could have ramifications on both sides of the isle for every future nomination.

you are so FOS. The dems did exactly that same thing when the parties were reversed. You libs are sick.

I can't hep that you don't know the difference between vetting and not doing a damn thing. The democrats have always vetted nominees.
That is the dynamic involved in Advise and Consent wherein acceptance or rejection are ensconced as the two Constitutional options. To do nothing is NOT an option.

bullshit, listen to what Biden and Schumer said that last time the parties were reversed and this happened.

Not acting on a SC nomination is totally within the constitutional powers of the senate----------------and the really sick thing is that you dem/libs would be making that same argument if the parties were reversed. You are hypocrites.

It's Different when a Dem obstructs. Hypocrite Dem's steal a cookie, stand there with cookie crumbs all down their shirt, cheeks filled with cookie and claim they didn't steal a cookie that's how blatant their lying and hypocrisy is.

 

[SixFoot]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

Agreed, just vote "NO" on any nomination until that moron is out. Then we can worry about the next moron for a while.

 

[Slade3200]

Democrats
- Are physically trying to deny freedom of speech
- Are physically trying to deny freedom to assemble
- Are physically trying to silence Trump, silence his message, deny people the right to hear that message, and to attend his rallies
- They are usung Fascist tactics to try to impose their minority will on the majority
- They break the law
- They have enbraced the intolerance of ISIS
- They have embraced and joined with a racist terrorist group that has called for the murder of all whites and policemen
- They are running an admitted Socialist as a candidate
- Their members show up at GOP rallies wearing kkk hoods and try to disrupt the events
- Their President just set the record for least FOIA Requests fulfilled
- Their President refuses to enforce US law, protects criminal illegals, protects cities that violate US federal law to provide violent criminal illegals a safe haven, and puts illegals as a higher priority than Americans
- Their President has aided and abbetted Mexican drug cartels, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeida, and ISIS
- New evidence/testimony reveals Obama ordered military troops on the way to Benghazi - that could have gotten there in time to save 2 Americans - to turn around / abort the mission, leaving Americans to die

...and liberals still ask what's wrong with the GOP?! SERIOUSLY?!

Wow, that's quite the list... It's amazing how so many people can be so wrong. I guess either the majority of our country are problem causing obstructionists OR maybe you're looking at the situation through bias lenses. Paint the picture however you want... There are two sides to every story and if you are only going to present lopsided arguments then that puts you on the extreme. Nobody listens to or takes the extremist seriously.

 

[Papageorgio]

Democrats
- Are physically trying to deny freedom of speech
- Are physically trying to deny freedom to assemble
- Are physically trying to silence Trump, silence his message, deny people the right to hear that message, and to attend his rallies
- They are usung Fascist tactics to try to impose their minority will on the majority
- They break the law
- They have enbraced the intolerance of ISIS
- They have embraced and joined with a racist terrorist group that has called for the murder of all whites and policemen
- They are running an admitted Socialist as a candidate
- Their members show up at GOP rallies wearing kkk hoods and try to disrupt the events
- Their President just set the record for least FOIA Requests fulfilled
- Their President refuses to enforce US law, protects criminal illegals, protects cities that violate US federal law to provide violent criminal illegals a safe haven, and puts illegals as a higher priority than Americans
- Their President has aided and abbetted Mexican drug cartels, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeida, and ISIS
- New evidence/testimony reveals Obama ordered military troops on the way to Benghazi - that could have gotten there in time to save 2 Americans - to turn around / abort the mission, leaving Americans to die

...and liberals still ask what's wrong with the GOP?! SERIOUSLY?!

Wow, that's quite the list... It's amazing how so many people can be so wrong. I guess either the majority of our country are problem causing obstructionists OR maybe you're looking at the situation through bias lenses. Paint the picture however you want... There are two sides to every story and if you are only going to present lopsided arguments then that puts you on the extreme. Nobody listens to or takes the extremist seriously.

No bias on your part is there?

 

[Slade3200]

Democrats
- Are physically trying to deny freedom of speech
- Are physically trying to deny freedom to assemble
- Are physically trying to silence Trump, silence his message, deny people the right to hear that message, and to attend his rallies
- They are usung Fascist tactics to try to impose their minority will on the majority
- They break the law
- They have enbraced the intolerance of ISIS
- They have embraced and joined with a racist terrorist group that has called for the murder of all whites and policemen
- They are running an admitted Socialist as a candidate
- Their members show up at GOP rallies wearing kkk hoods and try to disrupt the events
- Their President just set the record for least FOIA Requests fulfilled
- Their President refuses to enforce US law, protects criminal illegals, protects cities that violate US federal law to provide violent criminal illegals a safe haven, and puts illegals as a higher priority than Americans
- Their President has aided and abbetted Mexican drug cartels, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeida, and ISIS
- New evidence/testimony reveals Obama ordered military troops on the way to Benghazi - that could have gotten there in time to save 2 Americans - to turn around / abort the mission, leaving Americans to die

...and liberals still ask what's wrong with the GOP?! SERIOUSLY?!

Wow, that's quite the list... It's amazing how so many people can be so wrong. I guess either the majority of our country are problem causing obstructionists OR maybe you're looking at the situation through bias lenses. Paint the picture however you want... There are two sides to every story and if you are only going to present lopsided arguments then that puts you on the extreme. Nobody listens to or takes the extremist seriously.

No bias on your part is there?

Personally, I try not to be and don't think I have been bias in this discussion. I take issues at face value and sometimes my opinion falls left and sometimes right. I'm not a loyal party diehard, I think that is damaging to our process. Like with this discussion, you have all these right wingers backing up weak inaction from their party. If the dems did it they would be throwing a fit. It's hypocrisy at its finest. It goes both ways for both parties.

 

[Tom Horn]

Give it a freaking chance. Hussein only nominated him the day before yesterday. On the surface it seems that the judge might be a moderate but rumors persist that he holds unconstitutional personal bias against the 2nd Amendment. Let it play out.

Moron.org is enthusiastic about this joker....talk about a red flag.

 

[Papageorgio]

Democrats
- Are physically trying to deny freedom of speech
- Are physically trying to deny freedom to assemble
- Are physically trying to silence Trump, silence his message, deny people the right to hear that message, and to attend his rallies
- They are usung Fascist tactics to try to impose their minority will on the majority
- They break the law
- They have enbraced the intolerance of ISIS
- They have embraced and joined with a racist terrorist group that has called for the murder of all whites and policemen
- They are running an admitted Socialist as a candidate
- Their members show up at GOP rallies wearing kkk hoods and try to disrupt the events
- Their President just set the record for least FOIA Requests fulfilled
- Their President refuses to enforce US law, protects criminal illegals, protects cities that violate US federal law to provide violent criminal illegals a safe haven, and puts illegals as a higher priority than Americans
- Their President has aided and abbetted Mexican drug cartels, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeida, and ISIS
- New evidence/testimony reveals Obama ordered military troops on the way to Benghazi - that could have gotten there in time to save 2 Americans - to turn around / abort the mission, leaving Americans to die

...and liberals still ask what's wrong with the GOP?! SERIOUSLY?!

Wow, that's quite the list... It's amazing how so many people can be so wrong. I guess either the majority of our country are problem causing obstructionists OR maybe you're looking at the situation through bias lenses. Paint the picture however you want... There are two sides to every story and if you are only going to present lopsided arguments then that puts you on the extreme. Nobody listens to or takes the extremist seriously.

No bias on your part is there?

Personally, I try not to be and don't think I have been bias in this discussion. I take issues at face value and sometimes my opinion falls left and sometimes right. I'm not a loyal party diehard, I think that is damaging to our process. Like with this discussion, you have all these right wingers backing up weak inaction from their party. If the dems did it they would be throwing a fit. It's hypocrisy at its finest. It goes both ways for both parties.

So you admit having an opinion. That is a bias, we all have a bias on what we think on a issue. It comes from our environment and our views of the world.

I lean conservative but I am not a Republican, I dislike both parties, hypocrisy is deep in both of them. It this whole situation was reversed, the opinions of Democrats and Republicans would be reversed.

Me, my opinion stays the same. The Senate is under no obligation to act in a time frame. I think they are wrong because if they had hearings and reject him, Obama would need to find a more moderate or risk not being able to appoint one at all.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Nobody believes you.

Give it a freaking chance. Hussein only nominated him the day before yesterday. On the surface it seems that the judge might be a moderate but rumors persist that he holds unconstitutional personal bias against the 2nd Amendment. Let it play out.

Sure, give them a little time so they can check out his birth certificate, or investigate whether he caused the Benghazi tragedy. They are right wingers. They'll make up some silly thing to accuse him of. They always have before.

What have they accused him of before?

They make up accusations. That's what they do. He hasn't been in their sights before, but made up accusations are SOP for the right.

Didn't you already see a USMB rightwinger post one of their latest made-up lies about the nominee? That he's somehow anti-second amendment. No proof whatsoever to back it up, but somehow they just know he is. Somehow.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Nobody believes you.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Nobody believes you.

Give it a freaking chance. Hussein only nominated him the day before yesterday. On the surface it seems that the judge might be a moderate but rumors persist that he holds unconstitutional personal bias against the 2nd Amendment. Let it play out.

Sure, give them a little time so they can check out his birth certificate, or investigate whether he caused the Benghazi tragedy. They are right wingers. They'll make up some silly thing to accuse him of. They always have before.

What have they accused him of before?

They make up accusations. That's what they do. He hasn't been in their sights before, but made up accusations are SOP for the right.

Didn't you already see a USMB rightwinger post one of their latest made-up lies about the nominee? That he's somehow anti-second amendment. No proof whatsoever to back it up, but somehow they just know he is. Somehow.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Nobody believes you.

 

[JQPublic1]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

wake up. a hearing where the outcome is already known would be a waste of time and a distraction from the election. That's why obozo is pushing this, to take the media attention off of Hillary and her FBI investigation and possible indictment.

this whole thing is politics, nothing more.

Yeah, Obama orchestrated the whole thing,even Scalia's death, just to save Hillary. I suppose most of the working class republicans WOULD fall for that kind of logic.

not what I said, dipshit. I said that nominating a SC replacement in the middle of the FBI investigation of HRC was clearly done to take the media attention away from HRC and her felonious term as SecState.

Your premise is just another wild ass hunch triggered by the circumstances of fate. The investigation of HRC won't be hampered by "media attention or the lack thereof. Trump and the republicans won't miss a beat in scrutinizing the entire process.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Personally, I try not to be and don't think I have been bias in this discussion. I take issues at face value and sometimes my opinion falls left and sometimes right. I'm not a loyal party diehard, I think that is damaging to our process. Like with this discussion, you have all these right wingers backing up weak inaction from their party. If the dems did it they would be throwing a fit. It's hypocrisy at its finest. It goes both ways for both parties.

We spent 6 years fretting over Senate inaction on important GOP legislation that was blocked by Harry Reid. I don't recall you or any other Liberal in here calling for votes for or against our House Bills.

Hypocrite much?