Supreme Court Nominee

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-nominations/ Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Did you even read this, LittleLiberalEva? I think that's why you never post comments with your links. If you did, we'd all "no" you don't understand them. Guess what? We already know, oops, sorry, I mean "no" that.

Oh... You're against the 2nd Amendment?

NEXT!

But your double-standard seems backwards consider (sic) we are talking about the words of the democrats vs the actions of the republicans.

You are getting worked up by what some democrats have said hypocritically, while you have completely ignored what republicans actually have done hypocritically. Originally Posted by eatfibo

I'm not getting worked up – you are, fido. I am frankly astonished by your insistence that we shouldn't take anything Biden, Schumer and Reid say seriously. That is a damning admission that the leaders of your own party are utterly lacking in integrity.

Your whole argument boils down to this – Waaaah! I can't believe those awful Republicans actually have the courage of our convictions! That's not fair! Everyone knows we have no convictions! We were just kidding when we said what we said back then! Waaaah!

McConnell is a huge hypocrite.... 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.” Originally Posted by eatfibo

Was that statement made before or after Bork? If you Dimotards hadn't moved the goalposts, McConnell and the Republicans would still be playing by those rules! Originally Posted by lustylad

The democrats have never done this. Never rejected a qualified nominee due to ideology? Think again! That's what you don't seem to understand. They huffed and puffed, but have done nothing. You can claim that it is because they never had the opportunity, but the reality is that you don't know what they would have done. If they follow through, the republicans will be the ones moving the goal post. If they follow through with this, it will be McConnell not only talking, but acting hypocritically as well. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Stay on point! We're talking about the grounds for approving or rejecting SCOTUS nominees. You called McConnell a hypocrite for agreeing with the standard modus operandi of BOTH PARTIES prior to 1987. As you know, in 1987 you Dimotards MOVED THE GOALPOSTS. You rejected a highly qualified Supreme Court nominee by the name of Robert Bork, purely on the basis of ideology. You even turned the nominee's name into a verb, threatening to “Bork” any future Supreme Court nominees that didn't meet your lib-retarded ideological litmus tests. After the Bork precedent, how can anyone blame McConnell for throwing out the old playbook? You're being completely disingenuous when you call him a hypocrite on this issue - and you know it!

It still makes me laugh a bit when I realize that some people believe that, by compromising, Obama is acting childish because the people he offered up a compromise to originally said they would act like children and not consider anyone. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Straw man. Nobody said Obama is “acting childish” simply by nominating someone to replace Scalia. There are plenty of examples of Obama acting childish. No need for you to make one up.

Straw man. Nobody said Obama is “acting childish” simply by nominating someone to replace Scalia. There are plenty of examples of Obama acting childish. No need for you to make one up. Originally Posted by lustylad

I said Obama was acting childish by nominating a justice that he knows will never be confirmed. He's just playing games. Like a child.

I said Obama was acting childish by nominating a justice that he knows will never be confirmed. He's just playing games. Like a child. Originally Posted by bambino

So ... are you saying it wasn't childish game playing for the Senate Majority Leader to announce within a few hours of Scalia's death ... that the Senate would not grant a hearing for a possible replacement ... until after a new President takes office (almost a year later).

it seems to me ... the first to childishly draw a line in the sand ... (so to speak) ... was the Senate Majority Leader ... not Obama!

Just sayin'

Your rubber head is spasmodically shaking and vibrating and your battery is running down, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, keep babbling like the dildo you are. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Did you even read this, LittleLiberalEva? I think that's why you never post comments with your links. If you did, we'd all "no" you don't understand them. Guess what? We already know, oops, sorry, I mean "no" that. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Thought you never read them, asshole. LMAO

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

So, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, you're still trying to sell your latest rendition of your skin flute solo down by your glory hole. Keep babbling like the dildo you are, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

Who invited you back, IBIdiot? Can you promise to stay on topic, not hijack other people's threads and quit repeating every fucki g thing you say over and over and over and over like a



NAAAAAAH. The world has passed you by, my hate-filled DOTY. Meet the new dipshit. Same as the old dipshit.

So ... are you saying it wasn't childish game playing for the Senate Majority Leader to announce within a few hours of Scalia's death ... that the Senate would not grant a hearing for a possible replacement ... until after a new President takes office (almost a year later).

it seems to me ... the first to childishly draw a line in the sand ... (so to speak) ... was the Senate Majority Leader ... not Obama!

Just sayin' Originally Posted by bigtex

Of course you're wrong BT and I suspect you know it. It was Biden and Schumer that originally drew the line. And Obama, the petulant child filibustered Alito's nomination. But a mature adult sticks to his word. McConnell will stick to his guns and not give into a child. Obama knew this. His first pick withdrew his name. He didn't want to be a pawn in Obamas scheme. But wasn't it Obama who backed down from his red line in regards to Assad? Childish indeed.

Who invited you back, IBIdiot? Can you promise to stay on topic, not hijack other people's threads and quit repeating every fucki g thing you say over and over and over and over like a



NAAAAAAH. The world has passed you by, my hate-filled DOTY. Meet the new dipshit. Same as the old dipshit. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Your rubber head is spasmodically shaking and vibrating and your battery is running down, Asswipe, keep babbling like the dildo you are.

Who invited you back, IBIdiot? Can you promise to stay on topic, not hijack other people's threads and quit repeating every fucki g thing you say over and over and over and over like a



NAAAAAAH. The world has passed you by, my hate-filled DOTY. Meet the new dipshit. Same as the old dipshit. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Hasa Diga, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM. Enjoy your copy of Ekim the Inbred Chimp's one note solo on a skin flute by his glory hole, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

Of course you're wrong BT and I suspect you know it. It was Biden and Schumer that originally drew the line. And Obama, the petulant child filibustered Alito's nomination. But a mature adult sticks to his word. McConnell will stick to his guns and not give into a child. Obama knew this. His first pick withdrew his name. He didn't want to be a pawn in Obamas scheme. But wasn't it Obama who backed down from his red line in regards to Assad? Childish indeed. Originally Posted by bambino

Well, you know your football.

But there is room for growth with politics.

Keep at it! Perhaps one day you will get there.