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.
I have to call you out on this OP because you are misrepresenting not only what the article says but also what Democrats themselves have done with supreme court nominees in past presidents' last term. I kept reading the article trying to find what you wrote that it says, thinking this surely has to be a mistake--no one would make that serious of a misrepresentation, but I could not find it.
McConnell does NOT say he would hold up supreme court nominees for four years if Clinton won. Three senators suggested it, two of those three Senators won their election, but McConnell said the American people would not tolerate such a delay. MSNBC mocks that statement, but ultimately everyone agrees with it.
Schumer himself, when Bush had 19 months left in office, said he would not permit Bush to make any more nominations, and he didn't.
Biden himself designed the plans to "bork" an appointee, literally destroying a SCt nominee's career because a president nominated him to be a SCt justice.
Biden himself in 1992 said that because of the rancorous nomination process of Clarence Thomas (who was "borked" as designed by Biden), any nominees in an election year should be held off.
Even the article you post states that Democrats and Republicans alike will point fingers at each others' history on this very issue and that it will be tiresome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnOurWayHome
After what the GOP did with Garland's nomination, which was unprecedented, and what he threatened to do for FOUR YEARS with anyone Hilary nominated if she won, he has the nerve to say the American people won't stand for the Dems trying to hold anything up? What a hypocrite.
I have to call you out on this OP because you are misrepresenting not only what the article says but also what Democrats themselves have done with supreme court nominees in past presidents' last term. I kept reading the article trying to find what you wrote that it says, thinking this surely has to be a mistake--no one would make that serious of a misrepresentation, but I could not find it.
McConnell does NOT say he would hold up supreme court nominees for four years if Clinton won. Three senators suggested it, two of those three Senators won their election, but McConnell said the American people would not tolerate such a delay. MSNBC mocks that statement, but ultimately everyone agrees with it.
Schumer himself, when Bush had 19 months left in office, said he would not permit Bush to make any more nominations, and he didn't.
Biden himself designed the plans to "bork" an appointee, literally destroying a SCt nominee's career because a president nominated him to be a SCt justice.
Biden himself in 1992 said that because of the rancorous nomination process of Clarence Thomas (who was "borked" as designed by Biden), any nominees in an election year should be held off.
Even the article you post states that Democrats and Republicans alike will point fingers at each others' history on this very issue and that it will be tiresome.
No Democratic Senate has refused to hold hearing on a Republican Supreme Court nominee for a year before the next election, essentially taking a party's entitled Supreme Court nominee. It hasn't happened, so let's not pretend it has. Republicans have now set a precedent and they can expect it will come back on them and hopefully doubly so. That McConnell would even imply indignation is completely laughable and I could see Nancy openly laughing in his face.
Republicans wouldn't even hold hearings. Schumer said they would hold hearings but oppose those they had issue with. Scalia died in February and SCOTUS has been operating with only eight judges going on a year now. And McConnell said they would do the same for anyone Hillary nominated - wouldn't even look at them.
A quick search didn't yield a quote from McConnell on a four-year block, just from several of his brethren. He doesn't exactly dispute it, though. If I find the quote I'll post it.
Do you have that much faith in Trump based on his recent behavior, you really think that his statements and appointments bode well or success in 2018. When one party controls 3 branches of government it has never turned out well, look at the history, democrats or republicans.
I don't see where losing positions in the house and senate along with the popular vote give you any degree of confidence in 2018.
Using the same recalled crystal ball, eh?
What has changed, since "The Donald" announced he was going to run for the Prez...
He proved you wrong every step of the way to now... What has changed? LOL!!
No Democratic Senate has refused to hold hearing on a Republican Supreme Court nominee for a year before the next election, essentially taking a party's entitled Supreme Court nominee. It hasn't happened, so let's not pretend it has. Republicans have now set a precedent and they can expect it will come back on them and hopefully doubly so. That McConnell would even imply indignation is completely laughable and I could see Nancy openly laughing in his face.
But Nancy would be the first to see how funny it is. Schumer would be able to hold it in but Nancy would laugh out loud.
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.
