COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Gorsuch confirmation hearings

about_average said:
:rolleyes:
Voting no on a nominee is not "Absolute" obstruction.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” an hour after a member of the supreme court dies then refusing to even allow a vote is "absolute" obstruction.

Now tell us about all the legal scholars who said Garland wasn't qualified.
Click to expand...

None. Democrats did not have the votes to get him confirmed. As Obama says, "elections have consequences, John."

And he wss right the electorate decided they did NOT want Democrats choosing Scalia's replacement.
 
Conager said:
None. Democrats did not have the votes to get him confirmed. As Obama says, "elections have consequences, John."

And he wss right the electorate decided they did NOT want Democrats choosing Scalia's replacement.
Click to expand...

That's a convenient way to read the vote, but utterly without evidence.
 
Conager said:
None. Democrats did not have the votes to get him confirmed. As Obama says, "elections have consequences, John."

And he wss right the electorate decided they did NOT want Democrats choosing Scalia's replacement.
Click to expand...
Yes, they did. The electorate decided that in 2012, when they re-elected Obama.

If you want to claim that Trump is the new absolute authority, you have to acknowledge that Obama was the absolute authority when Scalia died.
 
phrodeau said:
Yes, they did. The electorate decided that in 2012, when they re-elected Obama.

If you want to claim that Trump is the new absolute authority, you have to acknowledge that Obama was the absolute authority when Scalia died.
Click to expand...

Um, you do know Scalia was alive in 2012 and no was expecting him die. I doubt anyone voted for Obama thinking about that replacement.
 
Conager said:
None. Democrats did not have the votes to get him confirmed. As Obama says, "elections have consequences, John."

And he wss right the electorate decided they did NOT want Democrats choosing Scalia's replacement.
Click to expand...
Actually the electorate decided they wanted Obama choosing all SCOTUS replacements, for 8 years.

But the obstructionism, that you're now whining about, blocked the electorate's choice.
Well, to be accurate, actual obstructionism blocked their choice, not your fantasy obstructionism.
 
Christobal said:
Um, you do know Scalia was alive in 2012 and no was expecting him die. I doubt anyone voted for Obama thinking about that replacement.
Click to expand...


So the new standard is that if a justice dies while still on the bench, the next president gets to pick his or her replacement?
 
Christobal said:
Um, you do know Scalia was alive in 2012 and no was expecting him die. I doubt anyone voted for Obama thinking about that replacement.
Click to expand...

Huh?

No one may have been expecting him to die, but given the age of most of the justices it is hard to believe voters are blind to the possibility. I suspect MANY people voted both FOR and AGAINST Obama (and every Presidential candidate) with that possibility in mind.
 
Colonel Hogan said:
Huh?

No one may have been expecting him to die, but given the age of most of the justices it is hard to believe voters are blind to the possibility. I suspect MANY people voted both FOR and AGAINST Obama (and every Presidential candidate) with that possibility in mind.
Click to expand...

I agree but no one was thinking Scalia.
 
Christobal said:
Um did I say anything like that? Please quote me where I did.
Click to expand...


Presidents have replaced justices who died while still serving, including those who died suddenly, for the entirety of American history. So why bring up Scalia's sudden death at all?

Contrary to what was strongly implied during the Senate debate over the nomination, the "Scalia seat" does not actually belong to the Republican Party.



Colonel Hogan said:
I guess that sounds a lot better to you given the "thwarting" of the two Democratic Party candidates than saying ONLY twice within the past 31 Presidential elections and ONLY five times in our entire history, huh?

You're lame attempt at "spin" is this laughable. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Click to expand...




Calling it "spin" is different than calling it false, which I notice you didn't do.

But I'm not the one who claimed that Trump's election was the "will of the majority." Bottom line, it wasn't.
 
Adre said:
That's a convenient way to read the vote, but utterly without evidence.
Click to expand...

Really?

Exit polling and campaign speeches from both candidates making SCOTUS appointments an issue look like evidence to me.
 
about_average said:
Actually the electorate decided they wanted Obama choosing all SCOTUS replacements, for 8 years.

But the obstructionism, that you're now whining about, blocked the electorate's choice.
Well, to be accurate, actual obstructionism blocked their choice, not your fantasy obstructionism.
Click to expand...

No they didn't.

They started tossing Democrats out after only 2 years of single party rule. How did this electorate think Obama was going to get Supreme Court Justices approved if they did not provide him with at least 50 votes in the Senate?

You and Frodo are still stuck on the idea that the electorate getting squeamish about firing Obama meant support fot his agenda. Obama himself made the midterms about his policies, saying explicity they were on the ballot, and he was soundly repudiated.
 
Last edited:
Wrong Element said:
Calling it "spin" is different than calling it false, which I notice you didn't do.

But I'm not the one who claimed that Trump's election was the "will of the majority." Bottom line, it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Oh, no, it wasn't false. Just transparently and disingenuously out of (a more accurate) context.

And I don't believe I ever alleged that Trump's election represented the "will of the majority. But I will say that given the Constitutional stipulation as to how Presidents are to be elected, the comparative analogy of your self-serving quantitative spin to Trump's lack of a popular vote majority is about as transparently irrelevant as one could get.
 
Colonel Hogan said:
Oh, no, it wasn't false. Just transparently and disingenuously out of (a more accurate) context.

And I don't believe I ever alleged that Trump's election represented the "will of the majority. But I will say that given the Constitutional stipulation as to how Presidents are to be elected, the comparative analogy of your self-serving quantitative spin to Trump's lack of a popular vote majority is about as transparently irrelevant as one could get.
Click to expand...

let's just say it represented the will of the majority of state electors as the Constitution requires.:D
 
Rightguide said:
The term "loyal opposition" cannot be applied to the Democrat Party of today. They have spent every waking moment since the election denying, resisting, and undermining, the presidency of Donald Trump. Republicans need to communicate this fact far and wide to the American people. They need to be exposed as the totalitarian agents provocateurs they have become to our constitutional order.
Click to expand...

That is pretty funny as I have been calling the GOP the disloyal opposition ever since the pronouncement that Obama had to be a one term President at all costs, so I can certainly see your point. Well it worked for the GOP. 9 yrs ago out of power and today in control. So, the Dems will throw mud, say no and have the political benefit of not having to govern. The rest of you statement is just your paranoia talking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JenniZinc
The reality of happy ending massage parlours (from someone who's worked in one)
12 13 14
Replies
329
Views
38K
JenniZinc
JenniZinc
April602
Partners Past? What have you been told?
5 6 7
Replies
157
Views
16K
Jimmy_the_Saint1
Jimmy_the_Saint1
SugarDaddy1
Joe Biden’s history of division
Replies
0
Views
228
SugarDaddy1
SugarDaddy1
rae121452
notes from the rnc..
2
Replies
36
Views
998
Adre
Adre
Rightguide
More Fake News From CNN
Replies
6
Views
374
DeluxAuto
DeluxAuto
Back
Top