No. That's not what he said. That's patently untrue.
You're pretty quiet even after I heroically helped you. Is ignoring you way of acknowledging a misleading?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. That's not what he said. That's patently untrue.
WTF is that question?You're pretty quiet even after I heroically helped you. Is ignoring you way of acknowledging a misleading?
No. That's not what he said. That's patently untrue.
WTF is that question?
JFC - "You might interesting."mitch said what I claimed he did. You said I was patently false.
have you proved yet skipper? Don’t miss my transcripts. You might interesting.
JFC - "You might interesting."
You need to sleep it off. When you wake up, check out post #65.
And then think about the idiocy of demanding someone else prove a negative. Again, you're a hack.
Not yet. All I see is someone who is having trouble putting sentences together right now.So do you see I was correct and you were wrong?
1. My version is an accurate version.
2. There are only two exceptions to this, one was in the 19th century and the other was when the nomination was not in the election year but confirmed in one.
3. Garland was a different situation. Mitch explained it.
They did pretty well in 2018.Since losing the 2016 election, the Dems have been having a nonstop tantrum. Maybe they should quit crying and win some elections. That's the way it works.
Not yet. All I see is someone who is having trouble putting sentences together right now.
The Dems don't take losing well.
I haven't seen it.Lol, ambien had kicked in. But Mitch’s statement is there for you to see that he said what you claimed was patently false. Good morning by the way.
I haven't seen it.
Oh - I thought you were joking with that since it doesn't support your statement. Let's review.Post 66
What Mitch said was he would not allow an appointment on an election year when the Senate is controlled by the opposite party. People are forgetting there are two conditions there (1) election year (2) senate controlled by the opposite party.
Oh - I thought you were joking with that since it doesn't support your statement. Let's review.
Your link, in post #66, doesn't reflect that anywhere that I can see. Here it is for convenience.
Press Releases
The American People Should Have a Voice in the Selection of the Next Supreme Court Justice
February 22, 2016
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor today regarding the Supreme Court's vacancy:
“I recently joined my good friend from Iowa, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in writing an opinion piece.
“We expressed our joint view that the death of Justice Scalia represented a significant loss for our country and that, while finding the right person to take the seat he occupied will clearly be a monumental task, it's one we think the American people are more than equipped to tackle.
“Some disagree and would rather the Senate simply push through yet another lifetime appointment from a president who's on his way out the door.
“Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance — remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago — but we also know that Article II, Section II of the Constitution grants the Senate the right to withhold its consent, as it deems necessary.
“It’s clear that concern over confirming Supreme Court nominations made near the end of a presidential term is not new. Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I believe that it is today the American people who are best-positioned to help make this important decision — rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election.”
If you can point out where McConnell said he "would not allow an appointment on [sic] an election year" I'll gladly admit I was wrong.
This one?Apparently you cannot understand paragraph four.
This one?
“Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance — remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago — but we also know that Article II, Section II of the Constitution grants the Senate the right to withhold its consent, as it deems necessary.
Where does McConnell say "he would not allow an appointment on an election year when the Senate is controlled by the opposite party". I don't see that. I do see where he says the Senate has not filled such a vacancy and that the Senate can withhold consent, but nowhere do I see that McConnell said he would not allow an appointment as you have stated.
Again, if you can point out where he said what you attribute, I will happily admit that I was wrong.
Of course you don't. Turns out I'm not wrong.“-remember the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was a divided government since 1888...”
I dont need you to admit anything.
Of course you don't. Turns out I'm not wrong.
For future reference, "has not filled" /= "would not allow". I hope that helps you avoid future embarrassment.