Watching the hearings And . . .

[Bugsy McGurk]

No Content
Threadjacking

Topic is Amy

Nope. The topic was precedent.

Pay attention.

 

[PhilFish]

From

From the 20-30 minutes I wasted, as you say, Democrats made no mention of her qualifications, instead preached fear to the masses.

about right.

 

[PhilFish]

Nope. The topic was precedent.

Pay attention.

29

 

[PhilFish]

The Merrick Garland outrage never happened.

it didnt? i'm pretty sure it did.

or did i miss somethign...?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

it didnt? i'm pretty sure it did.

or did i miss somethign...?

Of course it did. That’s the precedent. The GOP Senate told Obama they would not consider his SCOTUS nominees in an election year, and there they are trying to ram through Trump’s SCOTUS nominee when the election has actually started.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

She believes deeply in the rule of law, and the role of the Supreme Court in our nation..

HOW DARE SHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PhilFish]

Of course it did. That’s the precedent. The GOP Senate told Obama they would not consider his SCOTUS nominees in an election year, and there they are trying to ram through Trump’s SCOTUS nominee when the election has actually started.

you ignore some 29 other instances of nomination in an election year. why?

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

you ignore some 29 other instances of nomination in an election year. why?

different...Different...DIFFERENT!!!!!!! (stomps foot repeatedly)

 

[PhilFish]

different...Different...DIFFERENT!!!!!!! (stomps foot repeatedly)

waaaaaaaa

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., called the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett a "sham" while using most of her opening statement at the hearing to blast her Republican colleagues and President Trump.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

you ignore some 29 other instances of nomination in an election year. why?

Because this same GOP Senate, led by the very same Moscow Mitch, established the actual precedent as to SCOTUS nominees in 2016 when telling Obama they would not consider SCOTUS nominees in an election year.

Let the people decide, said Moscow Mitch. Then.

 

[PhilFish]

Because this same GOP Senate, led by the very same Moscow Mitch, established the actual precedent as to SCOTUS nominees in 2016 when telling Obama they would not consider SCOTUS nominees in an election year.

Let the people decide, said Moscow Mitch. Then.

ok, 28 to go...

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

ok, 28 to go...

I gave you the precedent. Maybe Lindsey Graham can explain it better than me...

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Because this same GOP Senate, led by the very same Moscow Mitch, established the actual precedent as to SCOTUS nominees in 2016 when telling Obama they would not consider SCOTUS nominees in an election year.

Let the people decide, said Moscow Mitch. Then.

Current sitting president is Trump...Constitution says HE gets to make the nomination if he so chooses

Current sitting Senate can, by the Constitution, advise and consent to the nomination...it is not REQUIRED to do so.

Brush up on the Constitution.......

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Current sitting president is Trump...Constitution says HE gets to make the nomination if he so chooses

Current sitting Senate can, by the Constitution, advise and consent to the nomination...it is not REQUIRED to do so.

Brush up on the Constitution.......

We have already established that wingers apply different rules depending on the party of the president. The Constitution does not.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

Her resume is VERY thin for a SCOTUS justice - mostly just teaching law with a very short stint on the appellate court.

LOL Then you must want Kagan off. She was never a Judge before she was nominated for SCOTUS

Think before you post.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

We have already established that wingers apply different rules depending on the party of the president. The Constitution does not.

Elections have Consequences. Losing the senate has consequences.

Had Harry Reid not changed the Super Majority rules- because Oblammo kept nominating nutjobs- Then you wouldn't have this problem.

Suck it up- buttercup

 

[RickWA]

LOL Then you must want Kagan off. She was never a Judge before she was nominated for SCOTUS

Think before you post.

He’s paid not to think.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Her resume is VERY thin for a SCOTUS justice - mostly just teaching law with a very short stint on the appellate court.

Her resume is thicker than Obummer's community organizing and 2 years as a STATE senator...... so, yueah.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

We have already established that wingers apply different rules depending on the party of the president. The Constitution does not.

You're really acting a little thick...you claim the Constitution sets the rules for nominating a SC justice...the current administration is FOLLOWING those rules to the letter...yet you claim they are acting unconstitutionally.

Deplorable.