The fact of the matter remains that if they hold up a vote on a nomination for 8 months, they will have done something that has definitely not been done in the last 100 years.And you can pretend all you want that Biden, Schumer and Reid didn't invent and publicly endorse the idea, fido, but you'd only be deceiving yourself.
You can pretend all you want that others currently serving have done this, but it just isn't true. Originally Posted by eatfibo
It's a simple question, IB. What arbitrary number of months is okay to to hold up a vote on a nomination? And how did you come to that completely arbitrary number? Why couldn't one also use that arbitrary definition to require all SCOTUS vacancies to remain open until the next election?It's your ilk that's making a completely arbitrary issue out of 8 months, eatbibeau. Schumer was just fine with not making an appointment for 18 months, eatbibeau, but now your ilk wants to hypocritically whine and bitch about 8 months.
The fact of the matter remains that if they hold up a vote on a nomination for 8 months, they will have done something that has definitely not been done in the last 100 years.
You can pretend all you want that others currently serving have done this, but it just isn't true. Originally Posted by eatfibo
Other than your ridiculous meltdown you have no answers chicken dick. Originally Posted by i'va biggenYour dribble was given more attention than it deserved, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.
And you can pretend all you want that Biden, Schumer and Reid didn't invent and publicly endorse the idea, fido, but you'd only be deceiving yourself.+1
Like elections, words have consequences. Originally Posted by lustylad
The ACA was voted on by the legislature, and passed, signed by the president and upheld by courts. To claim that this was some kind of partisanship bypassing the republicans doesn't make any sense. Especially considering that Obama started with a moderate position on the ACA, instead of starting from single payer. The vague reference to "immigration" can't really be addressed properly.Hey Fido, your interpretation of how the ACA was passed into law by congress is laughable. Not one single Republican vote. Do you remember that Kennedy died and Scott Brown took his place reducing the Senate Dems to 59. You need 60 votes to pass the law. That's until Dirty Harry took over and used Reconciliation to pass the ACA. That move was to be used for budgetary matters only. But Reid changed the rules. If he didn't, the ACA would not be law. Biggest screw job ever. I wouldn't call Reid's behavior childish, but criminal.
This is the problem. You think of filling open seats in the court as doing "Obama a favor" when, in reality, it is doing our country a favor. The problem with 8 justices is that it has the possibility of leading to "hung" decisions that set no precedent and simply uphold the lower court's ruling. This leaves questions unnecessarily open for a longer time.
You're right, they absolutely do.
Yes, Alito was a very good candidate who was easily and rightfully confirmed.
Not true. Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, Reagan's last year of presidency, by a democratically controlled Senate, with a vote of 97-0. He wasn't nominated in the last year, but he absolutely was confirmed in the last year. Winning the overwhelming majority of democratic votes.
But it is a silly point never-the-less because there were no cases since 1900 of seat being left unfilled until after the election because it was an election year.
On that note, you would have to go back before 1900 to find anything close to a case where a nomination was held up for 8 months.
No. I think they should follow the precedence of the last 100+ years and give him his hearing, and then an up or down vote. If someone wants to filibuster it, they can go ahead because the democrats have done that recently and thus there is (bad) precedence for that.
Obama is still president. It is still the president's pick. The electorate already decided who they want to be in charge of such choices when they elected Obama. The Republicans are taking that out of the electorate's hand because Obama cannot serve as president again, so no one could vote for him if they wanted him to pick it. Originally Posted by eatfibo
Hey Fido, your interpretation of how the ACA was passed into law by congress is laughable. Not one single Republican vote. Do you remember that Kennedy died and Scott Brown took his place reducing the Senate Dems to 59. You need 60 votes to pass the law. That's until Dirty Harry took over and used Reconciliation to pass the ACA. That move was to be used for budgetary matters only. But Reid changed the rules. If he didn't, the ACA would not be law. Biggest screw job ever. I wouldn't call Reid's behavior childish, but criminal. Originally Posted by bambino+1
Lol! Sounds like Prolapse is a closet il Duce sympathizer. No love for the political class.Nah...not a sympathizer, Bustylass...a realist who understands Trumpolini's agenda...it's all about HIM.
The Hildabeast set a record for miles logged on the taxpayers' dime as SOS. Did she do any real work? Oh yeah, she protected our people in Libya! Originally Posted by lustylad
The reality of the situation is that no one in congress now, or in recent history, has stalled a nomination for anywhere near 8 months. If the republicans follow through on this, they will be the first.Fido, it is you that's lost in space. It took you 10 pages of citations and immunity for a Clinton aide to admit she's under a criminal investigation. But your missing the point of Obamas faux nomination. BO has no intentions of getting a moderate confirmed as the swing vote in the SC. He would go for a stone leftist. And he knows a Republican controlled Senate would never confirm his choice in his last few months of his presidency. He fucking knows this. This is merely a plot to regain the senate. Painting them as obstructionis. This is obvious. Except for you and his media accomplices. It's Obama who is acting childish here. Serving up Garland as a sacrificial lamb to try to accomplish a different goal. BO should just play some golf and saunter into the sunset. He has made too many enemies, including Democrats to accomplish anything now.
Y'all can point to whatever anyone else has said all you want, but that's your reality right there. They would be the one's setting a precedence, not anyone else. But some of you seem pretty good at convincing yourselves of some alternate reality. Originally Posted by eatfibo
It's a simple question, IB. What arbitrary number of months is okay to to hold up a vote on a nomination? And how did you come to that completely arbitrary number? Why couldn't one also use that arbitrary definition to require all SCOTUS vacancies to remain open until the next election?The point is they were willing to hold it up for twice as long when they had the power, so they shouldn't complain now.
The fact of the matter remains that if they hold up a vote on a nomination for 8 months, they will have done something that has definitely not been done in the last 100 years.
You can pretend all you want that others currently serving have done this, but it just isn't true. Originally Posted by eatfibo
The reality of the situation is that no one in congress now, or in recent history, has stalled a nomination for anywhere near 8 months. If the republicans follow through on this, they will be the first.Wow.
Y'all can point to whatever anyone else has said all you want, but that's your reality right there. They would be the one's setting a precedence, not anyone else. But some of you seem pretty good at convincing yourselves of some alternate reality. Originally Posted by eatfibo
It took you 10 pages of citations and immunity for a Clinton aide to admit she's under a criminal investigation. Originally Posted by bambinoDon't put words in my mouth. The only thing that has been adequately proven is that there exists a criminal investigation, you still have no idea that it's Cltinon.
It's Obama who is acting childish here.I'm absolutely speechless. Republicans claim that they won't hear any nominee. Obama offers up a compromise candidate, someone in between him and the republicans. . .and the people refusing to hear him (presumably) will continue to do so.
The point is they were willing to hold it up for twice as long when they had the power, so they shouldn't complain now. Originally Posted by DSKNo, we have a few people saying they could constitutionally do so and that they should consider doing so. None of them actually did so.
However, I say hold the hearings and vote, and take away the issue.Agreed.
Wow.If a politician says something and does another, that would hardly be unusual for the past 100 years. If the republicans block even hearing a nomination for 8 month, it would be a first.
It's like Biden, Schumer and Reid never opined on this matter. I'll say it again - it never fails to amaze me how libtards can just shrug it off and act like they shouldn't be held to their word. Winning and gaining political advantage matter far more to them than quaint old notions like being a man of your word. Originally Posted by lustylad
I guess I'm just too old-fashioned to be a libtard. And the funny part is - if Biden, Schumer and Reid hadn't laid down their rule, I would oppose blocking this nomination too! But all that is lost on people like fido. Winning is everything. Lying, flip-flopping and being a world-class hypocrite are a small price to pay.What world do you live in where republicans aren't also hypocrites? They're all politicians. FFS, on this very issue, McConnell is a huge hypocrite. He voted to confirm a nominee in the final year of presidency in 1988, and now says that the electorate should have a say in the matter and it should wait till the next president. He also wrote early in his career (quoting someone else) "“ideology of the nominee is the responsibility of the president. The Senate’s judgment should be made, therefore, solely upon the grounds of qualifications.”"
Nah...not a sympathizer, Bustylass...a realist who understands Trumpolini's agenda...it's all about HIM.I'm starting to like you, Prolapse - you let it all hang out... all politicians are narcissists but the Trumpster is Narcissus on steroids. My "beautiful hands" become engorged at the thought of a Trump-Hillary debate! I'm not usually a fan of gutter politics but in this case I'll make an exception! Bring it!
Just wait til he gets Shillary on the debate stage and grinds away about Bill, Benghazi, and any other shit he can drum up. She'll run screaming from the stage, haaaaaa ha ha!
Time for some chilled green pussy and hot pink beer... Originally Posted by Prolongus
Don't put words in my mouth. The only thing that has been adequately proven is that there exists a criminal investigation, you still have no idea that it's Cltinon.God your niave, and stupid.
I'm absolutely speechless. Republicans claim that they won't hear any nominee. Obama offers up a compromise candidate, someone in between him and the republicans. . .and the people refusing to hear him (presumably) will continue to do so.
Read that again, Obama compromised, the republicans are refusing to even give the nomination a hearing. And you think that Obama is the childish one?
I get your tap dance and can see how you could possibly convince yourself of this. But drop your partisanship and look at the facts for a second. Obama put up a compromise candidate and the republicans are refusing to do anything about it. Seriously, what's wrong with this candidate? What makes him unqualified?
No, we have a few people saying they could constitutionally do so and that they should consider doing so. None of them actually did so.
Agreed.
If a politician says something and does another, that would hardly be unusual for the past 100 years. If the republicans block even hearing a nomination for 8 month, it would be a first.
What world do you live in where republicans aren't also hypocrites? They're all politicians. FFS, on this very issue, McConnell is a huge hypocrite. He voted to confirm a nominee in the final year of presidency in 1988, and now says that the electorate should have a say in the matter and it should wait till the next president. He also wrote early in his career (quoting someone else) "“ideology of the nominee is the responsibility of the president. The Senate’s judgment should be made, therefore, solely upon the grounds of qualifications.”"
There is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. Originally Posted by eatfibo
It's your ilk that's making a completely arbitrary issue out of 8 months, eatbibeau. Schumer was just fine with not making an appointment for 18 months, eatbibeau, but now your ilk wants to hypocritically whine and bitch about 8 months.These people understood the question better than you did, chicken dick the retarded chimp.
Your dribble was given more attention than it deserved, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.
+1 Originally Posted by I B Hankering
If a politician says something and does another, that would hardly be unusual... What world do you live in where republicans aren't also hypocrites? They're all politicians... There is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. Originally Posted by eatfiboYeah, yeah, everybody does it so it's no biggie, right? The difference is when you point out an inconsistency on the right, it bothers them and they try to fix it. But on the left, it's like water rolling off a duck's back! They look at you funny, like - huh? You mean you were stupid enough to believe what I said earlier? Really? Were you fucking born yesterday?