Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

How is it not hypocritical to push thorugh an SC nominee right before an election after block Obama?


Wildboer

Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member
2 hours ago, Wildboer said:

This is obviously the same situation as Scalia dying in the final stretch of Obama's term, so how is pushing through a justice less than 2 months before an election different now? What happened to letting the voters decide?

Its not different however pulling a bullshit impeachment during an election year took all cards off the table.

It was also beyond disgusting what the dems did to Kavanaugh.   Fuck them.

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
13 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Its not different however pulling a bullshit impeachment during an election year took all cards off the table.

It was also beyond disgusting what the dems did to Kavanaugh.   Fuck them.

Justification for hypocrisy noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ez ryder said:

Not really oboma also put a nomination forward . Congress just said fuck you . Remember midterms cuck told the countery to vote for the Supreme Court.  Well America did and the dems did not get the votes 

Right. Obama did his job and the senate didn't. 

Now Trump will nominate someone and the senate will fight about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Snake said:

All you have to do is refute it...

 

This is the constitutional process and the historical norm. There has been a Supreme Court vacancy arising in an election years 29 times in American history. In 10 of those cases the presidency was held by one party and the Senate was held by a different party. Nine of those 10 nominees were rejected by the Senate, just like Garland was rejected.

On the other hand, there have been 19 times when a Supreme Court seat became vacant in an election year where both the presidency and the Senate were controlled by the same party. Only one nominee, Abe Fortas, was rejected.

And Fortas was rejected on a bipartisan basis after an ethics scandal. All other nominees were confirmed in an election year when the Senate and the president were of the same party.

/thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
14 minutes ago, SSFB said:

The President should always put forward a nominee. It’s that simple. 

Absolutely but all those Republican Senators that said what they did previously should at least own up to their double standards but I know that will never happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
3 hours ago, Ez ryder said:

I am sucking on the tears of the likes of you sniveling because your people did not rise up at the midterms like chuck begged them to do because as he put it you are not just voting for congress but the next 20 yrs of the highest court in the land . Guess what the people did just that . 

But you go fuck your self it may relieve some of your frustrations about  life 

They only thing you’re sucking on is a crack pipe.

Edited by Jimmy Snacks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wildboer said:

This is obviously the same situation as Scalia dying in the final stretch of Obama's term, so how is pushing through a justice less than 2 months before an election different now? What happened to letting the voters decide?

Voters have nothing to do with a Supreme Court appointee.

The President makes the appointment, with the ADVICE and CONSENT of the Senate. 

That's the law. 

When Black Obama tried to appoint Merrick Garland, Mitch McConnell held it up. That was McConnell's call as Senate Majority Leader. 

That's the law. 

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chuck Schumer made an impassioned speech that, " it was the fervent wish of Bader Ginzberg, that no appointment be made, UNTIL the next president is elected." 

Who gives a fuck about her wishes. That's the brutality of politics. If not for laws, politicians would shoot each other.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Absolutely but all those Republican Senators that said what they did previously should at least own up to their double standards but I know that will never happen.

And look at the fucking carnage they brought on Kavanaugh.

Fuck your double standards. Maby it's time the dems learned there are repercussions for the shitty way they try to ruin someone's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Absolutely but all those Republican Senators that said what they did previously should at least own up to their double standards but I know that will never happen.

Ok, fine, but the crocodile tears from the left are as hypocritical. Trump bad....

Edited by J. Jackson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, F3600 said:

The Dems have tried from day one of the Trump presidency, to destroy or discredit anyone involved or selected by him.  To now expect some conciliatory move by him or the Republican Senate is just laughable. 

Trump owes the dems fucking zero.

And I love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, F3600 said:

The Dems have tried from day one of the Trump presidency, to destroy or discredit anyone involved or selected by him.  To now expect some conciliatory move by him or the Republican Senate is just laughable. 

Fact.

I really hope Pelosi and her band of idiots try impeachment again if Trump gets his SC pick in before the election, it will be a slaughterhouse win for Trump. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, F3600 said:

The Dems have tried from day one of the Trump presidency, to destroy or discredit anyone involved or selected by him.  To now expect some conciliatory move by him or the Republican Senate is just laughable. 

But to a low IQ idiot like smales this is all replublicans fault. the dems get zero fault for a fake Russia, a fake kavanau, a fake Ukraine and some how it's the replublicans that are off the rails?  Following the historical norms is way off base for democrat's and the idiots that follow there narrative.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
12 hours ago, Snake said:

All you have to do is refute it...

 

This is the constitutional process and the historical norm. There has been a Supreme Court vacancy arising in an election years 29 times in American history. In 10 of those cases the presidency was held by one party and the Senate was held by a different party. Nine of those 10 nominees were rejected by the Senate, just like Garland was rejected.

On the other hand, there have been 19 times when a Supreme Court seat became vacant in an election year where both the presidency and the Senate were controlled by the same party. Only one nominee, Abe Fortas, was rejected.

And Fortas was rejected on a bipartisan basis after an ethics scandal. All other nominees were confirmed in an election year when the Senate and the president were of the same party.

History doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, F3600 said:

The Dems have tried from day one of the Trump presidency, to destroy or discredit anyone involved or selected by him.  To now expect some conciliatory move by him or the Republican Senate is just laughable. 

Yeah but Jims verklempt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DriftBusta said:

Yeah but Jims verklempt

It's not only him that is a whiny little bitch about this.  And everyone of them know that if the position was switched, it would be fine and dandy to appoint a new judge.  RBG and the rest of the dems knew she messed up when trump won.  She should have retired way before that when Dems could have appointed a judge, but after a trump win, they all realized that she only had one option and that was to try and hang on until the results of the 2020 election were in. 

I guess they should have thought about it back in 2014

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-elections-2014-republicans-projected-seize-control-senate/story?id=26570135

Edited by racer254
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kivalo said:

Justification for hypocrisy noted.

Again no justification needed .

Oboma put forward a nominee but he did not have the votes.  Had he had the votes there would have been a other lob on the court guaranteed.  To pretend otherwise is pointless. 

Like stated above elections have consequences. Hence why at the midtetms chuck was pleading with America to go vote because the balance of the  ourt was at stake . Well people did just that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Anler said:

Right. Obama did his job and the senate didn't. 

Now Trump will nominate someone and the senate will fight about it. 

Sort of like when the house would not do there job ? You people act like this is something new and now trump sbould for zero reason rise above it all. LmfAo yeah like it would be any diff if tables were turned.  

I had to deal with it when the dems had the votes and I have been paying more every mo for far worse overage from that day forward.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
10 hours ago, Polaris 550 said:

Chuck Schumer made an impassioned speech that, " it was the fervent wish of Bader Ginzberg, that no appointment be made, UNTIL the next president is elected." 

Who gives a fuck about her wishes. That's the brutality of politics. If not for laws, politicians would shoot each other.  

1.  She never said that in public so there is no proof of it.

2. You are correct.   SC justices "wishes" on their death bed mean absolutely NOTHING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...