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

[Maryland Patriot]

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?

Tissue?

You keep giving away your tissues and you wont have any left for yourself when President Trump takes office. And don't forget, the free stuff is going to stop flowing so you might actually have to get a job to get money to buy your own tissues.
Im only pointing this out because I care.

I've been running a remodeling business for damn near 30 years you stupid fucktard. I AM the engine that drives this country & provides the free shit the government gives away.

Of course you are.
I don't believe you.

 

[Fang]

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?

The GOP is following the Biden Rule. Go look it up.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

Tissue?

You keep giving away your tissues and you wont have any left for yourself when President Trump takes office. And don't forget, the free stuff is going to stop flowing so you might actually have to get a job to get money to buy your own tissues.
Im only pointing this out because I care.

I've been running a remodeling business for damn near 30 years you stupid fucktard. I AM the engine that drives this country & provides the free shit the government gives away.

Of course you are.
I don't believe you.

I don't care what you believe. If I had any concern for your thoughts or beliefs I wouldn't have called you a fucktard.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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?

Tissue?

You keep giving away your tissues and you wont have any left for yourself when President Trump takes office. And don't forget, the free stuff is going to stop flowing so you might actually have to get a job to get money to buy your own tissues.
Im only pointing this out because I care.

I've been running a remodeling business for damn near 30 years you stupid fucktard. I AM the engine that drives this country & provides the free shit the government gives away.

Of course you are.
I don't believe you.

I don't care what you believe. If I had any concern for your thoughts or beliefs I wouldn't have called you a fucktard.

if you didn't have concern you never would have replied. But you did, so you do. And your not.
See how that can be done without calling names? Learn that and practice it and you will be on your way to becoming a real American that votes Conservative.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Tissue?

You keep giving away your tissues and you wont have any left for yourself when President Trump takes office. And don't forget, the free stuff is going to stop flowing so you might actually have to get a job to get money to buy your own tissues.
Im only pointing this out because I care.

I've been running a remodeling business for damn near 30 years you stupid fucktard. I AM the engine that drives this country & provides the free shit the government gives away.

Of course you are.
I don't believe you.

I don't care what you believe. If I had any concern for your thoughts or beliefs I wouldn't have called you a fucktard.

if you didn't have concern you never would have replied. But you did, so you do. And your not.
See how that can be done without calling names? Learn that and practice it and you will be on your way to becoming a real American that votes Conservative.

I care just enough to put you on ignore with the other morons like candycorn & fakejake.

Buhbye loser

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Guess some people really cant handle the truth.

 

[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.



>>>>

No, he said in an "election year" What is wrong with you people? Listen to the speech

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Yet you know that's specifically what he was referring to when he just said there shouldn't be any nominee, got it. You'll make up whatever shit you can for the Democrats.

BTW, HW would have won easily if Perot hadn't run, so that's ridiculous that he knew Democrats would win.

You got any more shit you want to make up?

I didn't make anything up. Smelling defeat was opinion, but regardless, They wanted to hedge their bets. The situation was regarding retiring a justice to replace that justice... This is an opening due to death. Why are you defending the hold out and how do you justify it? Why not just vote?

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

Sorry, so what's your rationale for the hold out again? Besides, Biden said so?

I don't want another Marxist on the Supreme court. If we wait until after the election, we'll probably get one, but if we do it now, we definitely will.

Republicans over and over fall for Lucy pulling the ball out from under them. They should do it because they can and the Democrats would and in the future the Democrats will regardless of what they do now

Then vote NO... Not even considering is partisan bullshit and it sounds like you know it

Im sorry, but I almost have to laugh when I hear all the cries from Democrats saying nominees need to have a "fair" up or down vote.

It wasn't that long ago, or did we all forget the liberals take on Constitutional duty?
Democrats were the ones who came up with the filibuster of judicial nominees in 2003, when the previous congress was in session, in order to defeat many of President Bush’s conservative nominees to the federal circuit courts. The filibuster strategy developed out of the Democrats’ concern for the fact that Republicans commanded a majority in the Senate and were in a position to approve all the president’s appellate-level judicial nominees. As a result of the new filibuster tactic employed by the Democrats, President Bush has had the lowest confirmation rate for such appointments.

However, do go on and tell us it's their Constitutional duty simply because we have a president with an D as opposed to an R associated with his name. The truth is, that's why we even have all this concern among liberal democrats.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Another brainless bot OP that ignores history and the law.

One, leading Democrats have called for doing the exact same thing that the Republicans are doing now.

Two, the Constitution does not require the Senate to even hold hearings on the nomination. Its "advice and consent" can be to decide not to even consider the nomination.

Three, no one with two working brain cells would dispute the fact that if this were the second term of President McCain and a vacancy opened up and the Dems controlled the Senate, there is no way on this earth that the Dems would confirm the nominee (unless he were a liberal).

What goes around comes around. You guys smeared and blocked Bork and then blocked numerous highly qualified appellate court nominees (some of whom were black or Hispanic). And now you whine because the Republicans won't confirm the nominee of a guy who has already put two liberal robots on the court?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Another brainless bot OP that ignores history and the law.

One, leading Democrats have called for doing the exact same thing that the Republicans are doing now.

Two, the Constitution does not require the Senate to even hold hearings on the nomination. Its "advice and consent" can be to decide not to even consider the nomination.

Three, no one with two working brain cells would dispute the fact that if this were the second term of President McCain and a vacancy opened up and the Dems controlled the Senate, there is no way on this earth that the Dems would confirm the nominee (unless he were a liberal).

What goes around comes around. You guys smeared and blocked Bork and then blocked numerous highly qualified appellate court nominees (some of whom were black or Hispanic). And now you whine because the Republicans won't confirm the nominee of a guy who has already put two liberal robots on the court?

I say fine, let the Republicans have it their way. The Democrats should never even consider another Republican nominee ever. Done and done. You get your wish.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

I think they've decided on a date for a hearing, Jan 19th. But it may be postponed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, he said in an "election year" What is wrong with you people? Listen to the speech

As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.​

The campaign season ends when the election in November occurs.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

If Senate republicans were smart, that's what they'd do.

But Senate republicans aren't smart.

 

[kaz]

No, he said in an "election year" What is wrong with you people? Listen to the speech

As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.​

The campaign season ends when the election in November occurs.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees


>>>>

So you're arguing that if HW had named a nominee and the Democrats won the election, they'd hold hearings in November?



Yeah ...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Another brainless bot OP that ignores history and the law.

One, leading Democrats have called for doing the exact same thing that the Republicans are doing now.

Two, the Constitution does not require the Senate to even hold hearings on the nomination. Its "advice and consent" can be to decide not to even consider the nomination.

Three, no one with two working brain cells would dispute the fact that if this were the second term of President McCain and a vacancy opened up and the Dems controlled the Senate, there is no way on this earth that the Dems would confirm the nominee (unless he were a liberal).

What goes around comes around. You guys smeared and blocked Bork and then blocked numerous highly qualified appellate court nominees (some of whom were black or Hispanic). And now you whine because the Republicans won't confirm the nominee of a guy who has already put two liberal robots on the court?

I say fine, let the Republicans have it their way. The Democrats should never even consider another Republican nominee ever. Done and done. You get your wish.

The Democrats already played that game. Yet you're acting as if we should be at all surprised by their efforts to block nominations?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

That's the snag: if they held the vote they couldn't vote 'no' – because Garland is eminently qualified, where a 'no' vote wouldn't be warranted or justified.

And the nonsense that the next president should make the nomination is just that: nonsense.

A majority of the American people voted to re-elect the president – the will of the majority of the people is being ignored by Senate republicans, where the president reflects the will of the majority of the American people until January 20, 2017 – including appointments to the Supreme Court.

It's also reckless and irresponsible on the part of Senate republicans to keep a Supreme Court vacancy until the start of the October 2017 term – that would be the remainder of the October 2015 term and all of the October 2016 term.

The reprehensible right, indeed.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Another brainless bot OP that ignores history and the law.

One, leading Democrats have called for doing the exact same thing that the Republicans are doing now.

Two, the Constitution does not require the Senate to even hold hearings on the nomination. Its "advice and consent" can be to decide not to even consider the nomination.

Three, no one with two working brain cells would dispute the fact that if this were the second term of President McCain and a vacancy opened up and the Dems controlled the Senate, there is no way on this earth that the Dems would confirm the nominee (unless he were a liberal).

What goes around comes around. You guys smeared and blocked Bork and then blocked numerous highly qualified appellate court nominees (some of whom were black or Hispanic). And now you whine because the Republicans won't confirm the nominee of a guy who has already put two liberal robots on the court?

I say fine, let the Republicans have it their way. The Democrats should never even consider another Republican nominee ever. Done and done. You get your wish.

The Democrats already played that game. Yet you're acting as if we should be at all surprised by their actions to block nominations?

Whine all you want. Its time the Democrats play the Republican game. Any Republican that is elected president the Democrats should immediately say "we want this non-president to be a 4 year loser so we will oppose and not allow him to do anything". "We will not even consider any nominee for any court position put forth by any Republican."

Wish granted. This policy should start immediately. This is how you call a child's bluff. You give them just what they want.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, he said in an "election year" What is wrong with you people? Listen to the speech

As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.​

The campaign season ends when the election in November occurs.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees


>>>>

So you're arguing that if HW had named a nominee and the Democrats won the election, they'd hold hearings in November?



Yeah ...

I'm just pointing out that what you said he said, isn't what he said. You were wrong.

Since there were no vacancies, we'll never know.

But I do agree with the Current Senate Majority Leader when he said:

"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate."​

>>>>

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Another brainless bot OP that ignores history and the law.

One, leading Democrats have called for doing the exact same thing that the Republicans are doing now.

Two, the Constitution does not require the Senate to even hold hearings on the nomination. Its "advice and consent" can be to decide not to even consider the nomination.

Three, no one with two working brain cells would dispute the fact that if this were the second term of President McCain and a vacancy opened up and the Dems controlled the Senate, there is no way on this earth that the Dems would confirm the nominee (unless he were a liberal).

What goes around comes around. You guys smeared and blocked Bork and then blocked numerous highly qualified appellate court nominees (some of whom were black or Hispanic). And now you whine because the Republicans won't confirm the nominee of a guy who has already put two liberal robots on the court?

I say fine, let the Republicans have it their way. The Democrats should never even consider another Republican nominee ever. Done and done. You get your wish.

The Democrats already played that game. Yet you're acting as if we should be at all surprised by their actions to block nominations?

Whine all you want. Its time the Democrats play the Republican game. Any Republican that is elected president the Democrats should immediately say "we want this non-president to be a 4 year loser so we will oppose and not allow him to do anything". "We will not even consider any nominee for any court position put forth by any Republican."

Wish granted. This policy should start immediately. This is how you call a child's bluff. You give them just what they want.

Wake up!!! The Denocrats established a filibuster tactic of judicial nominees back in 2003 when the senate was under a republican majority and nominees were in need of an up or down vote. Where was Senator Harry Reed's constitutional duty? So instead you want to cry fowl simply because we have changed parties in the White House? Even when you compared presidencies Obama was able to get 129 nominees through, compatible to 120 that the Bush Admibstration received by the end of his administration. Republicans aren't the consistent judicial obstructionists that Democrats have showed themselves to be.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

The GOP is following the Biden Rule. Go look it up.

Thats funny, please site this "rule"... is it in the constitution? Supreme court election committee rulebook? Where is this rule and what does it say? After you find nothing but a half story segment of a video maybe you can dig deeper, beyond the BS rhetoric that McConnell and clan are spouting and actually see the situation for what it is... Political partisan games.