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

[easyt65]

Stupid Title. The OP asks when he is going to get a hearing...then answers his own question: NEVER!

"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"

Maybe he confused himself or didn't fully read what he copied and pasted....

 

[rightwinger]

There is a new set of rules in selecting Supreme Court Justices

Rule Number 1: You must have a Senate majority to name a Justice. Otherwise the seat will sit unoccupied until you do
Rule Number 2: No Senate filibusters are allowed

Republicans changed the game and they benefitted ....for now

They will now have to live by their own rules

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Ol Harry went nuclear and set the precedent. Now its time for him to pay up for his bad decisions.

 

[boedicca]

This:

View attachment 109982

Typical adolescent Trumpism. Grow the fuck up.

Here's a little story about that: No.

You Sore LoserXyrs are going to get frequent reminders that YOU LOST, Bigly.

I see good advice is lost on some.

You are sorely mistaken if you think that what you are offering is good advice.

"You Sore LoserXyrs" says otherwise.

Just applying your side's linguistic nonsense right backatcha.

My policy is hold the Left accountable to the same values that you have pushed at the rest of us for the past 8 years.

 

[Little-Acorn]

When will Judge Merrick Garland receive a Senate hearing?


Quick, somebody check Hell. If it's frozen, then we can expect Garland's hearing at any moment!

 

[westwall]

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.

Never. He isn't what the PEOPLE who elected the trumpster wanted.

Well then maybe they should have elected him in 2012.

President nominated and Republican congress failed to do their job to give this man even a hearing.

Take that up with obummer. I agree he would have been a far better choice than either of the two Supremes that obummer appointed.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

He won't. Deal with it.

 

[gipper]

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.

Yet Big Ears did almost nothing to get him a hearing. Why did he not fight for it?

That should tell you something, but it won't.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is a new set of rules in selecting Supreme Court Justices

Rule Number 1: You must have a Senate majority to name a Justice. Otherwise the seat will sit unoccupied until you do
Rule Number 2: No Senate filibusters are allowed

Republicans changed the game and they benefitted ....for now

They will now have to live by their own rules

Still trying to desperately ignore the fact that the dems are the one that opened this door up I see.

Not really a surprise there.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is a new set of rules in selecting Supreme Court Justices

Rule Number 1: You must have a Senate majority to name a Justice. Otherwise the seat will sit unoccupied until you do
Rule Number 2: No Senate filibusters are allowed

Republicans changed the game and they benefitted ....for now

They will now have to live by their own rules

It was Harry Weed that changed the rules.

 

[Edgetho]

Garland got his hearing --

On Nov 8th, 2016

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Thread summary:

All the Trump thugs are reiterating their support for the unconstituional actions of the Republican senate.

And they're butthurt because we keep pointing that out.

But then, they wouldn't be Trump-thugs if they weren't chronically butthurt, and if they didn't despise the US Constitution.

Nobody is butt hurt on the Republican side. It's a term used for your kind. Trump just nominated a great judge and there's nothing for us to be butt hurt about.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Face it


Most Americans have no idea how many judges there are supposed to be
They are perfectly fine with an 8 judge court....the 2016 election showed that

I fail to follow your logic. Whether Hil-Liar won or Trump won, there was going to be an appointment.

 

[rightwinger]

There is a new set of rules in selecting Supreme Court Justices

Rule Number 1: You must have a Senate majority to name a Justice. Otherwise the seat will sit unoccupied until you do
Rule Number 2: No Senate filibusters are allowed

Republicans changed the game and they benefitted ....for now

They will now have to live by their own rules

Still trying to desperately ignore the fact that the dems are the one that opened this door up I see.

Not really a surprise there.

You mean opened the door by electing Obama to a second term?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Face it


Most Americans have no idea how many judges there are supposed to be
They are perfectly fine with an 8 judge court....the 2016 election showed that

I fail to follow your logic. Whether Hil-Liar won or Trump won, there was going to be an appointment.

Who needs nine judges?

Republicans proved we can do perfectly well with eight

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Face it


Most Americans have no idea how many judges there are supposed to be
They are perfectly fine with an 8 judge court....the 2016 election showed that

I fail to follow your logic. Whether Hil-Liar won or Trump won, there was going to be an appointment.

Who needs nine judges?

Republicans proved we can do perfectly well with eight

Who needs nine? We all do. Not much gets done because it's evenly divided. 4-4 means nobody wins.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is a new set of rules in selecting Supreme Court Justices

Rule Number 1: You must have a Senate majority to name a Justice. Otherwise the seat will sit unoccupied until you do
Rule Number 2: No Senate filibusters are allowed

Republicans changed the game and they benefitted ....for now

They will now have to live by their own rules

Still trying to desperately ignore the fact that the dems are the one that opened this door up I see.

Not really a surprise there.

You mean opened the door by electing Obama to a second term?

By eliminating the filibuster on judicial appointments.

He tried to keep the SCOTUS out of it only because there was not one for them to appoint at the time. The precedent has been set and the republicans will use it if the dems want to try and stop a SCOTUS appointment. Instead, they started to eliminate the power of the minority party (with you cheering for it all the way). Now that they are the minority we will have one party rule and they have nothing but themselves to blame for how meaningless they may end up.

 

[easyt65]

News Update:
Garland still never to receive Hearing...as the OP answers his own question...

 

[tyroneweaver]

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.

To bad so sad but I guess he got Borked.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

He's not you dumb bitch.

History will record that he wasn't on the Supreme Court and your bitch Hillary didn't get to appoint anyone either. Suck it up.