Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama has nominated a judge to the Supreme Court 4 months ago and still has not had the confirmation hearing. I know Republicans want to delay in hopes that Trump wins the election but that just seems silly. We have a person nominated by a sitting President. That nomination shouldn't go away just because there is a new President and that President should not be able to rescind a nomination made by the prior President. Let's say Trump wins...I would think at the very least, that Merrick Garland should get a hearing and a vote before Trump's nominee gets a turn. I don't even care if they vote him down...there just should be a vote.
The key to me is that the nomination happened under a sitting President. If he nominated someone on his last day in office, it's still a valid nomination and should be treated with due diligence
Obama has nominated a judge to the Supreme Court 4 months ago and still has not had the confirmation hearing. I know Republicans want to delay in hopes that Trump wins the election but that just seems silly. We have a person nominated by a sitting President. That nomination shouldn't go away just because there is a new President and that President should not be able to rescind a nomination made by the prior President. Let's say Trump wins...I would think at the very least, that Merrick Garland should get a hearing and a vote before Trump's nominee gets a turn. I don't even care if they vote him down...there just should be a vote.
The key to me is that the nomination happened under a sitting President. If he nominated someone on his last day in office, it's still a valid nomination and should be treated with due diligence
Obama has nominated a judge to the Supreme Court 4 months ago and still has not had the confirmation hearing. I know Republicans want to delay in hopes that Trump wins the election but that just seems silly. We have a person nominated by a sitting President. That nomination shouldn't go away just because there is a new President and that President should not be able to rescind a nomination made by the prior President. Let's say Trump wins...I would think at the very least, that Merrick Garland should get a hearing and a vote before Trump's nominee gets a turn. I don't even care if they vote him down...there just should be a vote.
The key to me is that the nomination happened under a sitting President. If he nominated someone on his last day in office, it's still a valid nomination and should be treated with due diligence
Why are you complaining when congress is actually doing their job?
You can bet if Killery wins, they will approve the nomination; if anything just to take one away from Killery. Cause I bet chubby, fat legged Lynch will be one and possibly, the failed, lying, POS Odumbo will be another!
Why are you complaining when congress is actually doing their job?
It is their job NOT to confirm anybody.
Doing nothing is not doing nothing is not doing you job they are petrified of having a vote who knows he might actually be approved. Better to have a dysfunctional supreme court for a year, desperate failure and in the end it may very well make their position worse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
