McConnell Says Nominee Will Get Voted On

Gonolz

HR Legend
Aug 6, 2002
20,605
9,001
113
Wait. This is nothing like the Merrick Garland situation. There were only 8 months until the election then. Clearly you can't consider a Supreme Court justice within 8 months of an election ... unless you control the Presidency and the Senate. Politics is fun ... almost no one in D.C. gives a crap about integrity. It is all party politics and whatever it takes to get the power. Trump didn't go to drain the swamp, he went to jump in and bathe in all the sewage in his own glory.
 

St. Louis Hawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
21,346
30,665
113
According to McConnell, you would have to go back to the 1880's to find where a party with the majority in the Senate that was different than the President's party confirmed a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. This was the case in 2016 - but is not the case now.
In February of 88, the democratic Senate approved Justice Kennedy (Reagan).

Mitch lies. Of course.

And to show you how much has changed, the vote was 97-0.
 

MWardT

HR All-American
Jul 29, 2005
3,065
1,834
113
In February of 88, the democratic Senate approved Justice Kennedy (Reagan).

Mitch lies. Of course.

And to show you how much has changed, the vote was 97-0.
He was nominated a year before the election - and that was after two nominations were previously rejected by the Dems over a year before the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 86Hawkeye

St. Louis Hawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
21,346
30,665
113
He was nominated a year before the election - and that was after two nominations were previously rejected by the Dems over a year before the election.
The statement was confirmed in an election year. Which he was.
 

St. Louis Hawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
21,346
30,665
113
He was nominated a year before the election - and that was after two nominations were previously rejected by the Dems over a year before the election.
This is wrong too. Ginsburg withdrew his name. He wasn’t rejected by Democrats.
 

mnole03

HR Legend
Mar 20, 2005
11,734
26,984
113
He was nominated a year before the election - and that was after two nominations were previously rejected by the Dems over a year before the election.
Ginsburg withdrew because he smoked pot with students. That was more a vetting problem for President “Just Say No”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa

Tom Paris

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
32,595
26,607
113
The Dems would do the exact same thing. You know it, I know it, we all know it.
NO they would not have. But your scumbag Mitch is setting the rules...which is there are no rules. Payback will be a bitch so just remember your gloating about this. Pick the rules and play by them. McConnell plays both sides. Just remember this...because the Democrats will eventually be able to do what they want. When they do...shut your damn mouth.
 
Last edited:

hawkland14

HR All-American
Gold Member
Feb 26, 2013
4,923
3,962
113
NO they would not have. But you're scumbag Mitch is setting the rules...which is there are no rules. Payback will be a bitch so just remember your gloating about this. Pick the rules and play by them. McConnell plays both sides. Just remember this...because the Democrats eventually be able to do what they want. When they do...shut your damn mouth.
Yes, yes they would. It’s called politics.
 

naturalmwa

HR King
Feb 4, 2004
101,897
81,738
113
NO they would not have. But you're scumbag Mitch is setting the rules...which is there are no rules. Payback will be a bitch so just remember your gloating about this. Pick the rules and play by them. McConnell plays both sides. Just remember this...because the Democrats eventually be able to do what they want. When they do...shut your damn mouth.
The upside is, once abortion is off the table, the GOP will never rule again. That single issue is responsible for a significant amount of their votes.

Trump will be the last Republican President. There’s a silver lining to dream about.
 

MeetTheFerentz

HR Heisman
Nov 20, 2006
5,514
8,254
113
If the Republicans confirm a justice, the Dems should absolutely court pack.
This.

Cons have a choice to make: 1) Play dirty and squeeze through a nominee completely against a precedent they set themselves just 4 years ago, when they have a load of senators fighting for their lives in less than 2 months; or 2) Leave this alone until after the election. #2 sure seems like a good choice to me - If Trump wins reelection, then no harm no foul, and if Biden wins, chances are the Dems will make their choice and leave the Court alone at 9 justices. But if they choose #1 and Biden wins as expected, I assure you there will be at least 13 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court before the end of Biden's first term.

Make your move, Cons. You feel lucky?
 

Tom Paris

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
32,595
26,607
113
Yes, yes they would. It’s called politics.
No they wouldn't have...not until Moscow Mitch changed the rules. He is telling us all there are no rules in the Republican party other than do whatever the eff we want to push our agenda.

So game on, when the Democrats have their opportunity...and like I told another poster...when it happens, shut your damn mouth. Republicans will reap what they sow.
 

naturalmwa

HR King
Feb 4, 2004
101,897
81,738
113
This.

Cons have a choice to make: 1) Play dirty and squeeze through a nominee completely against a precedent they set themselves just 4 years ago, when they have a load of senators fighting for their lives in less than 2 months; or 2) Leave this alone until after the election. #2 sure seems like a good choice to me - If Trump wins reelection, then no harm no foul, and if Biden wins, chances are the Dems will make their choice and leave the Court alone at 9 justices. But if they choose #1 and Biden wins as expected, I assure you there will be at least 13 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court before the end of Biden's first term.

Make your move, Cons. You feel lucky?
They can have their cake and eat it too. Just pass the nominee in the lame duck session.
 

z_ape

HR MVP
Gold Member
Mar 8, 2010
2,077
995
113
He was nominated a year before the election - and that was after two nominations were previously rejected by the Dems over a year before the election.
It doesn't matter. McConnell arbitrarily pulled a justification out of his ass because he could. There was no precedence.
 

sober_teacher

HR Heisman
Mar 26, 2007
6,730
6,412
113
According to McConnell, you would have to go back to the 1880's to find where a party with the majority in the Senate that was different than the President's party confirmed a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. This was the case in 2016 - but is not the case now.
Of course, that’s not the reason he stated in 2016. Then, he said...in February that the voters should have their say. Now, less than 50 days before the election, all of a sudden that doesn’t matter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992