When will Judge Merrick Garland receive a Senate hearing? He waited 293 days.

586bf2411500002c00916f15.jpeg


Merrick Garland waited 293 days.

His nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sat gathering dust in the Senate for that long, expired at noon Tuesday — just as the 115th Congress was sworn in on the first day of its legislative session.

More: Merrick Garland's Supreme Court Nomination Just Died With The Old Congress

History will record this poorly for Republican obstruction in fulfilling Constitutional obligations.

How about never? What would you have thought if the Republicans move had backfired and Hillary was elected instead?

You wouldn't have minded that so much.


Thats why no one cares or listens anymore to what they say.
 
Earth to Lakdopa: Trump Won. hiLIARY lost...BIGLY!

Duh, President Obama nominated Garland - and 293 days later the Senate had still not granted him a hearing.


Just remember that ol harry invoked the nuclear option on lower courts and I suspect you'll be screaming like a squaw left at the creek when the nuclear option is invoked for the high court.
 
Earth to Lakdopa: Trump Won. hiLIARY lost...BIGLY!

Duh, President Obama nominated Garland - and 293 days later the Senate had still not granted him a hearing.

Elections have consequences. I forget who said that now.......

Well, dumbass, Garland was nominated by President Obama about a year ago.

And the Republicans were elected for the leadership of the Senate a year earlier.

Elections have consequences.
 
Can Demcrats block Trump nominees for four years?

Why not?

They can try, but Trump is the kind of person to remind voters who did the blocking when 2018 comes around. A lot of Senators for reelection might want to think about that, especially those in states won by Trump.

2016 showed voters don't care if the Supreme Court has nine judges
 
Earth to Lakdopa: Trump Won. hiLIARY lost...BIGLY!

Duh, President Obama nominated Garland - and 293 days later the Senate had still not granted him a hearing.

And for the record, the moment Democrats start playing merry-go-filibuster on the Senate floor with the SCOTUS nominee, the confirmation process will go something like this:

nuclear_explosion_01.gif

Once that genie is out of the bottle it will never go back
 
586bf2411500002c00916f15.jpeg


Merrick Garland waited 293 days.

His nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sat gathering dust in the Senate for that long, expired at noon Tuesday — just as the 115th Congress was sworn in on the first day of its legislative session.

More: Merrick Garland's Supreme Court Nomination Just Died With The Old Congress

History will record this poorly for Republican obstruction in fulfilling Constitutional obligations.

History won't even remember his name...
Hold up a picture of him and ask our college snowflakes who he is...
uhh, Col. Sanders?
 
Earth to Lakdopa: Trump Won. hiLIARY lost...BIGLY!

Duh, President Obama nominated Garland - and 293 days later the Senate had still not granted him a hearing.

And for the record, the moment Democrats start playing merry-go-filibuster on the Senate floor with the SCOTUS nominee, the confirmation process will go something like this:

nuclear_explosion_01.gif

Once that genie is out of the bottle it will never go back


Harry Reid already let the genie out of the bottle, bub.
 
Earth to Lakdopa: Trump Won. hiLIARY lost...BIGLY!

Duh, President Obama nominated Garland - and 293 days later the Senate had still not granted him a hearing.

And for the record, the moment Democrats start playing merry-go-filibuster on the Senate floor with the SCOTUS nominee, the confirmation process will go something like this:

nuclear_explosion_01.gif

Once that genie is out of the bottle it will never go back


Harry Reid already let the genie out of the bottle, bub.

On lower courts

If Republicans want to go Full Monty......they can live with it for now on
 
Elections have consequences - right?

Obama won his election and got to nominate his Supreme Court judge. BUT Republicans, who had absolutely no reservations about the man's qualification to the job, simply REFUSED to do THEIR job and give this man a hearing.

Gloves are off on THEIR nominee, the shots were fired, this is war and you may as well go get your nukes now.
 
Elections have consequences - right?

Obama won his election and got to nominate his Supreme Court judge. BUT Republicans, who had absolutely no reservations about the man's qualification to the job, simply REFUSED to do THEIR job and give this man a hearing.

Gloves are off on THEIR nominee, the shots were fired. THIS IS WAR and you may as well go get your nukes now.

Bring it on baby......bring it on.....
 
Can Demcrats block Trump nominees for four years?

Why not?

They can try, but Trump is the kind of person to remind voters who did the blocking when 2018 comes around. A lot of Senators for reelection might want to think about that, especially those in states won by Trump.

2016 showed voters don't care if the Supreme Court has nine judges

Or that they do care about nine judges.......just who the judges are.
 
Earth to Lakdopa: Trump Won. hiLIARY lost...BIGLY!

Duh, President Obama nominated Garland - and 293 days later the Senate had still not granted him a hearing.

And for the record, the moment Democrats start playing merry-go-filibuster on the Senate floor with the SCOTUS nominee, the confirmation process will go something like this:

nuclear_explosion_01.gif

Once that genie is out of the bottle it will never go back


Harry Reid already let the genie out of the bottle, bub.

On lower courts

If Republicans want to go Full Monty......they can live with it for now on


Nope, ol harry set the bar low and with precedent.
 
The ghost of Judge Merrick Garland still hangs over the Supreme Court. Will Senate Democrats show some spine and force Senate NaziCons to use the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch? We shall see...
 
McConnell is using the "Biden Rule" that basically says that the last year of a presidency shouldn't have a USSC nomination
In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year
Its weird that there was no nominee at the time in 1992 (WTF Joe?), so it looks like the GOP fired the first shot in this case like the Dems used the "nuclear option" to approve lower court judges. Long term this may be a bad idea for both sides. So the Dems stay home and the government grinds to a halt? My bet is that the GOP will use the hooky playing dems to build their majority in 2018.
 
Duh, President Obama nominated Garland - and 293 days later the Senate had still not granted him a hearing.

And for the record, the moment Democrats start playing merry-go-filibuster on the Senate floor with the SCOTUS nominee, the confirmation process will go something like this:

nuclear_explosion_01.gif

Once that genie is out of the bottle it will never go back


Harry Reid already let the genie out of the bottle, bub.

On lower courts

If Republicans want to go Full Monty......they can live with it for now on


Nope, ol harry set the bar low and with precedent.

No he didn't. Supreme Court vote rules were not touched and Bush got to nominate everyone except Harriet Miers, who simply wasn't qualified.
 

Forum List

Back
Top