Bitter Democrats still jealous and totally pissed off about the U.S. Senate's snubbing of an Obama Supreme Court nominee in 2016.
They are issuing "warnings" to Republicans to NOT confirm a 3rd Trump nominee (should a seat become available in 2020)!!
Oh are these Democrats snarling and drooling LOL.
They're so numbed, they are threatening to expand the Court and add more justices when they (Democrats) get the power again (if again).
If that ever happens it would take generations to get balance back in the Supreme Court !!
I think the power monger Democrats will do this anyway if they ever get power back regardless of what Trump does !!
Horrible Jealousy as mental case Democrats talk and threaten !!
![[Image: Deep-State-Hyper.gif]](https://i.ibb.co/3cfh2yw/Deep-State-Hyper.gif)
Quote:Democrats are warning Republicans not to fill a possible Supreme Court vacancy this year after denying President Barack Obama the chance in 2016, saying it would embolden a push on the left to add seats to the court whenever they regain power.
"We knew basically they were lying in 2016, when they said, 'Oh, we can't do this because it's an election year.' We knew they didn't want to do it because it was President Obama," Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in an interview.
Kaine, the party's last vice presidential nominee and a lawmaker with a reputation as an institutionalist, said confirming a nominee of President Donald Trump this year could compel Democrats to consider adding seats to the high court.
"If they show that they're unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can't feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that's fully constitutional in our availability," he said. "I don't want to do that. But if they act in such a way, they may push it to an inevitability. So they need to be careful about that."
LINK--> Democrats warn GOP: Don't fill a Supreme Court vacancy in 2020 or we'll retaliate
![[Image: triggered03.gif]](https://i.ibb.co/j49YZ34/triggered03.gif)
(08-03-2020, 11:40 PM)xuenchen Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:"If they show that they're unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history
well isn't that a whole lot of hypocritical horse shit, they didn't respect precedent, rules or history when they impeached trump now did they.
in fact made it up as they went along new rules and everything.
I would say the Republican Senate set Presedence when they obstructed Merrick Garland from becoming a member of the SCOTUS. What's good for the goose and all. Or as President Trump would spew....Quid Pro Quo.
(08-04-2020, 12:45 AM)xuenchen Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2020, 12:02 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: [ -> ]I would say the Republican Senate set Presedence when they obstructed Merrick Garland from becoming a member of the SCOTUS. What's good for the goose and all. Or as President Trump would spew....Quid Pro Quo.
I doubt Garland would have got enough votes to be confirmed anyway.
![[Image: zophie1-sm.gif]](https://i.ibb.co/m6yvx1H/zophie1-sm.gif)
I see....which of President Obama's Nominee's do you think might have been confirmed by the Senate?
So the reasoning of the GOP in '16 for not filling the seat is now "horrible dems and their wet dreams"? Just wanna make sure I'm clear on how hypocritical people are.
And furthermore, politicizing the Supreme Court is exactly the problem. Presidents nominate, Senate confirms, pretty fucking simple. If the GOP was all about "this should be for the next president" in 2016, they should either be the same now, or admit they are really just a bunch of partisan whores that only offer lip service to our republic, you know, exactly what I see the woke folks preaching about here (and other places) daily.
(08-04-2020, 01:05 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2020, 12:45 AM)xuenchen Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2020, 12:02 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: [ -> ]I would say the Republican Senate set Presedence when they obstructed Merrick Garland from becoming a member of the SCOTUS. What's good for the goose and all. Or as President Trump would spew....Quid Pro Quo.
I doubt Garland would have got enough votes to be confirmed anyway.
I see....which of President Obama's Nominee's do you think might have been confirmed by the Senate?
He did have the votes, that's exactly why McConnell acted like a petulant child and refused to take it up. If he didnt have the votes, why not let the dems embarrass themselves?
And having the votes or not isn't the point. Point is we'll never know because these cowardly partisan hacks hijacked our system and you people are all the happier because it was "your side" doing the damage.
And for the record, MG was the least controversial candidate imaginable. Obama was well within his rights to go FAR left and shake up this BS semblance of balance, but he didnt. He chose middle ground (honestly, probably another John Roberts) and still got shot down. I pray the left doesn't go for "payback" next time around as the high court is supposed to be above this crap. More so than most of you
(08-04-2020, 01:35 AM)xuenchen Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2020, 01:05 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2020, 12:45 AM)xuenchen Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2020, 12:02 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: [ -> ]I would say the Republican Senate set Presedence when they obstructed Merrick Garland from becoming a member of the SCOTUS. What's good for the goose and all. Or as President Trump would spew....Quid Pro Quo.
I doubt Garland would have got enough votes to be confirmed anyway.
I see....which of President Obama's Nominee's do you think might have been confirmed by the Senate?
I'll have to look up all the other "candidates" Obama had "at the time"
Rueben Castillo; Merrick B. Garland; Pamela Karlan; Harold Koh; Martha Minnow; Janet Napolitano; Deval Patrick; Leah Ward Sears; Cass Sunstein; Sidney Thomas; and Elizabeth Warren.
Some conspiracy theories have Garland's nomination being internally stopped by the Hillary Clinton Campaign.
She was afterall, the assumed next POTUS.
The Republican Neocons wanted Hillary over Trump anyway
(08-04-2020, 02:34 AM)xuenchen Wrote: [ -> ]Some conspiracy theories have Garland's nomination being internally stopped by the Hillary Clinton Campaign.
She was afterall, the assumed next POTUS.
The Republican Neocons wanted Hillary over Trump anyway
That's cute. Utterly bullshit, but cute
(08-04-2020, 02:34 AM)xuenchen Wrote: [ -> ]Some conspiracy theories have Garland's nomination being internally stopped by the Hillary Clinton Campaign.
She was afterall, the assumed next POTUS.
The Republican Neocons wanted Hillary over Trump anyway
And so to bed... I don't debate nonsense.
(08-04-2020, 02:41 AM)DuckforcoveR Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2020, 02:34 AM)xuenchen Wrote: [ -> ]Some conspiracy theories have Garland's nomination being internally stopped by the Hillary Clinton Campaign.
She was afterall, the assumed next POTUS.
The Republican Neocons wanted Hillary over Trump anyway
That's cute. Utterly bullshit, but cute
It's just a conspiracy
It's just a conspiracy
What are people afraid of ?
(08-04-2020, 01:41 AM)DuckforcoveR Wrote: [ -> ]admit they are really just a bunch of partisan whores that only offer lip service to our republic, you know, exactly what I see the woke folks preaching about here (and other places) daily.
If I somehow get elected POTUS ... I'm gonna round up all these motherfuckers ... throw them into the stocks ... and cane them all until they suffocate ... from screaming their lungs up into their throats.
Then, we'll take a lunch break. After that ... I'll see if any 'politician' dumb enough is left to volunteer for any office across the land.
DuckforcoveR can become their watchword. LOL
(08-04-2020, 02:34 AM)xuenchen Wrote: [ -> ]The Republican Neocons wanted Hillary over Trump anyway
After what he did to the entire Republican candidate list (am still laughing at President Trump's name calling and schoolyard-bully tactics) ...
President Trump was ALWAYS a 3d Party candidate. If you know election law ... there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it. Greta Van Susteren and Ann Coulter were the true driving force behind President Trump's ascension to candidacy.
(08-04-2020, 05:05 PM)Snarl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2020, 01:41 AM)DuckforcoveR Wrote: [ -> ]admit they are really just a bunch of partisan whores that only offer lip service to our republic, you know, exactly what I see the woke folks preaching about here (and other places) daily.
If I somehow get elected POTUS ... I'm gonna round up all these motherfuckers ... throw them into the stocks ... and cane them all until they suffocate ... from screaming their lungs up into their throats.
Then, we'll take a lunch break. After that ... I'll see if any 'politician' dumb enough is left to volunteer for any office across the land.
DuckforcoveR can become their watchword. LOL
I just want to know ONE THING!
What will you be having for lunch?
(I'm hungry, so I'm curious)
(08-04-2020, 12:02 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: [ -> ]I would say the Republican Senate set Presedence when they obstructed Merrick Garland from becoming a member of the SCOTUS. What's good for the goose and all. Or as President Trump would spew....Quid Pro Quo.
"Obstructed"? It is the Senate's role to address SCOTUS nominations. They did. Some people didn't like their method.
Contrast that, with how Justice Kavanaugh was treated.
Merrick Garland is a politician from a whole family of politicians. The country is better off not having him on that particular bench.
Would be better off if we just had a handful of Hanging Judges posted to the SCOTUS to begin with. If people have no fear of breaking the law ... what good is having law to begin with?
(08-04-2020, 05:24 PM)Snarl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2020, 12:02 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: [ -> ]I would say the Republican Senate set Presedence when they obstructed Merrick Garland from becoming a member of the SCOTUS. What's good for the goose and all. Or as President Trump would spew....Quid Pro Quo.
"Obstructed"? It is the Senate's role to address SCOTUS nominations. They did. Some people didn't like their method.
Contrast that, with how Justice Kavanaugh was treated.
Merrick Garland is a politician from a whole family of politicians. The country is better off not having him on that particular bench.
Would be better off if we just had a handful of Hanging Judges posted to the SCOTUS to begin with. If people have no fear of breaking the law ... what good is having law to begin with?
Conflate much?
O'Connel should have vetted another one of the candidates and dealt with one of that sitting Presidents choices as was his legal right. Dem or Pub...there's a set of rules that need to be played by or the whole facade falls to pieces. Time and time again these rules are flouted to meet the agenda of one Party or another. I am sick to death of the lot of them. They make me play by the rules they scrawl, they need to do the same.
(08-04-2020, 06:09 PM)Antisthenes Wrote: [ -> ]Conflate much?
Wasn't trying to.
(08-04-2020, 06:09 PM)Antisthenes Wrote: [ -> ]O'Connel should have vetted another one of the candidates and dealt with one of that sitting Presidents choices as was his legal right.
There are three co-equal branches of government. Why should one of the Houses of Congress utterly defer to the POTUS?
(08-04-2020, 06:09 PM)Antisthenes Wrote: [ -> ]Time and time again these rules are flouted to meet the agenda of one Party or another. I am sick to death of the lot of them. They make me play by the rules they scrawl, they need to do the same.
So, it seems you and I are on the same side coming to this stage of the conversation.