It's also not true - Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1987...with a Democratic majority that year.
Republicans- does it bother you that your party lied to you about the SCOTUS pick in 2016?
- Thread starter BABiscuit
- Start date
It's also not true - Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1987...with a Democratic majority that year.
The Trumpian-GOP was pissed about his opinion in the ACA case when his reasoning fell right in line with the GOP platform, i.e., the courts should not overturn or create legislation from the bench. That role is for the legislative branch.
All I know for a fact is that you just watch and listen to what the Democrats say ought to happen, then you do the opposite. That works every time
You may have been elected as the 2nd grade hallway monitor in 1987, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't count.
Ballot harvesting is the problem, as is the wholesale sending of absentee ballots to anyone that is registered. In the past you had to apply for the ballot to be sent. It apparently is too much of a leap for you to realize the distinction between the two sets of rules.
Last edited:
It’s not a defense of the GOP. As I said, they should do the right thing but they won’t.
And if you don’t believe the Dems would push one through in this situation, you’re naive or lying to yourself
When they do I'll agree. Until then, no. It's a lazy cop out for people frustrated with politics which I get, but don't agree with. "Dems are just as bad." They really don't seem to be when you look at things. They're simply not as bad.
I’m not arguing with you. I agree.
I’m just saying the adults in the room realize the Dems would push a nominee through if they had control of the Oval Office and Senate under these circumstances
Give me an example of Democrats in the last 30 years doing something like this. The ACA was voted on. Republicans hated Obama so much that Harry Reid had to act to get anything to the floor. I guess that would be it?
I love the childish response - I'm just pointing out that Mitch was wrong in 2016 when he said that, and the GOP is wrong now when they're repeating it.
I'm still waiting for someone to point out another time when a SC nominee didn't even get a hearing. Not that the Senate simply voted No following confirmation hearings, but that they didn't even do POTUS the courtesy of holding hearings and then voting No.
To do that to Obama/Garland in '16 and to then push thru a SC nominee between now and January '21 is the height of hypocrisy to me.
No, you we're just pointing out that you're dumb enough to imagine there was a POTUS election in 1987.
And I was pointing out that I already knew how dumb you are.
Sigh, do some research.
"His hearings before the Senate judiciary committee began on December 14,[20][21] and lasted just three consecutive days.[22] When the Senate voted on Kennedy's nomination, he received bipartisan support. Maureen Hoch of PBS wrote that he "virtually sailed through the confirmation process and was widely viewed by conservatives and liberals alike as balanced and fair".[23] The U.S. Senate confirmed him on February 3, 1988, by a vote of 97 to 0."
His confirmation vote happened in '88. His hearings began less than a year before the next election.
But by all means, please continue to name-call. That really contributes to the discussion.
This. If the situation were reversed, the same thing would have happened.
The mouth breathing from the left on this has been amazing to see. They can cry about it all they want but this has been going on forever.
The left deserves this for they way they have behaved for this entire presidency.
Lol, the way THEY have behaved. Lol. Of course your referring to liberals whining about Trump but they haven't actually done anything to him that he didn't bring on himself.
What’s dishonest about it? They’re hypocrites and assholes but it’s not dishonest. Are they lying about something?
And remember, I’m on your side. They should wait until after the election, and if Biden wins, let him nominate RBG’s replacement when he takes office
of course you’re wrong, but that won’t prevent you from continuing to revert to Russian propaganda as you blindly follow crooks and assholes. Again, you’re a dumb SOB
The question wasn't about what you imagine the Democrats would do or how the left has treated Trump or what the hell ever. IT WAS ABOUT YOU. Your own personal values/morality/consistency.
This is the current Republican party mindset in a nutshell. Gangster morality. And yet they claim to also be the morals party, the values party. Just so comprehensively full of shit.
Lol - you're still bad at this. Your first response was a non-answer.
I'm very consistent in my position where you, and other republican supporters, bathe in the hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell. "Give the people a voice" except when it serves my purpose not to give them a voice. It's shameful.
Continue on with your glee over RBG's death and the opportunity to stick it to the Democrats. It will be another setback for the country, but will be overcome in the long run.
Flashback: In 2016, Ginsburg said Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year
Ginsburg remarked in 2016 that 'nothing in the Constitution' precludes 11th hour nomination.
But in 2016, when a lame-duck President Obama tabbed Merrick Garland to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, Democratic leaders had no problem with the move. And neither did Ginsburg.
Flashback: In 2016, Ginsburg said Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year
The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prompted key Washington figures to change their tune on whether a high-court vacancy should be filled so close to an election - and even the late jurist seems to have reversed herself on the issue.
Biden in 2016: President Has 'Constitutional Duty' to Nominate Supreme Court Justice, Even Months Before Election
Biden in 2016: President Has 'Constitutional Duty' to Nominate Justice
The current Democratic presidential nominee said in 2016 that he would push ahead with the nomination of a Supreme Court appointee "even a few months before a presidential election."
www.google.com
Yes - that in 2016 it was about giving the people a voice. That's complete bullshit. We knew it then but it didn't matter to republicans. And it's bullshit to ignore the standard they set to gain short term power on the courts. That's not honest. And it's not democracy.
Yeah, Russian propaganda, I guess Tulsi Gabbord has been programmed now as well?
Now go watch CNN.
Actually, it does list that as their responsibility. Ergo, it is a requirement.
I'm not a Republican.
I agree the Republicans are hypocrites (and have said so multiple times in this very thread, as well as elsewhere).
I understand the Democrats are also hypocrites.
You fail to understand the Democrats are also hypocrites.
Flashback: In 2016, Ginsburg said Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year
Ginsburg remarked in 2016 that 'nothing in the Constitution' precludes 11th hour nomination.
But in 2016, when a lame-duck President Obama tabbed Merrick Garland to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, Democratic leaders had no problem with the move. And neither did Ginsburg.
Flashback: In 2016, Ginsburg said Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year
The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prompted key Washington figures to change their tune on whether a high-court vacancy should be filled so close to an election - and even the late jurist seems to have reversed herself on the issue.www.google.com
Biden in 2016: President Has 'Constitutional Duty' to Nominate Supreme Court Justice, Even Months Before Election
Biden in 2016: President Has 'Constitutional Duty' to Nominate Justice
The current Democratic presidential nominee said in 2016 that he would push ahead with the nomination of a Supreme Court appointee "even a few months before a presidential election."
Okay, now answer my question and I'll answer yours.
Let’s not pretend like you give a flying f*** about morality and consistency. You guys were freaking out in 2016 when Obama’s nomination was blocked. And you’re freaking out about it not being blocked now. You don’t even realize that the Democrats are being just as inconsistent.
The only f***ing difference is that your party is not in power. You are exactly what you preach to hate. So do not pretend like you are anything different.
No, actually it does not.
The Constitution says that unless the Senate gives advice and consent a nomnee cannot be appointed, but it does not require the Senate to do anything in response to the nomination.
The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.
Other than that, you just about nailed it.
Last edited:
LOL, you just keep making my point for me. Gangster morality. Anything goes for you and you justify it by telling yourself your enemies/opposition are worse. Trump is the perfect representative of this version of the Republican party.
No morals, no values, just will to power. Yet still keeps this shell of pretending to be the Christian values party, superior to the Democrats. Just full of shit, comprehensively full of it.
You're a republican supporter as evidenced by your posts. All Republicans aren't hypocrites, Mitch McConnel is and those who support such decisions are as well.
The "well, they are too" defense is really lame.
The Constitution requires the president to submit nominations to the Senate for its advice and consent.
They are required to consent or deny nominations. That IS part of their Constitutional responsibility.
Mitch McConnell may disagree, but he abdicated his Constitutional responsibility.
Democrats are calling on republicans to play by the same rules they set down in 2016. That's reasonable. What's not reasonable is the hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell and the support it's getting.
Do these two arguments sound the same to you?
GOP 2016: We need to let the people decide and that's why we won't hold hearings 7 months before the election.
Dems 2016: Thats BS, the people had a say when they elected Obama for 8 years.
Dems 2020: Okay, if we needed to wait in 2016 for the people to decide when a justice dies in March, surely we need to wait when a justice dies in September.
GOP 2020: No we don't. We were lying about the people needing a say in this four years ago.
