(10-11-2020 09:09 AM)green Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/2112_BA_/status/1315286156318212097

[/b]ARE YOU LOST BABY GIRL

My wife made me watch that movie. Sad that I know the reference lol.

How pathetic is it when someone can't answer a dang question and just keeps parroting your robotic talking points.

Does she really think she's convincing anyone ... or is she thinking the 2+2=5, just keep saying lies until they become the truth thing works.

(10-11-2020 02:41 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 01:42 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Soon MSNBC will say Tapper was on CNN mansplaining to her.

So, is Tapper the Chris Wallace of CNN? Should they change places?

Nah, he was probably just suffering from a brief moment of clarity.

It just goes to show you, the right pays its flies better than the left.

Tapper destroyed her arguments yet she just plowed ahead with her talking points. Yes...When you lose CNN...you lost for sure.

He should add 2 judges.. and move on.
Mitch McConnell has politicized the Court and the selection process to where it is not representative of the people it serves. I have no issue with ACB, but the 8 month refusal to seat Merrick Garland has thrown off the balance.

(10-11-2020 07:16 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  He should add 2 judges.. and move on.
Mitch McConnell has politicized the Court and the selection process to where it is not representative of the people it serves. I have no issue with ACB, but the 8 month refusal to seat Merrick Garland has thrown off the balance.

Mitch didn't start the politicizing of the Court.
The $hitshows that were the Bork and Thomas hearings politicized the Court.
Kavanaugh's hearing was just a continuation of the same.

For those still whining about Garland...
Garland was NEVER going to be confirmed hearings or not...

The Senate is under no obligation to approve a nominee (in this case Garland) put forth by the President. Repeat no obligation to confirm. The Senate has failed to confirm a President's nominee 37 times in the past. It's not like a nominee is rubber-stamped through.

Hearing or no hearings. A Republican majority would never approved Garland. Period. Holding hearings would have been for the optics only.

(10-11-2020 08:10 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 07:16 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  He should add 2 judges.. and move on.
Mitch McConnell has politicized the Court and the selection process to where it is not representative of the people it serves. I have no issue with ACB, but the 8 month refusal to seat Merrick Garland has thrown off the balance.

Mitch didn't start the politicizing of the Court.
The $hitshows that were the Bork and Thomas hearings politicized the Court.
Kavanaugh's hearing was just a continuation of the same.

For those still whining about Garland...
Garland was NEVER going to be confirmed hearings or not...

The Senate is under no obligation to approve a nominee (in this case Garland) put forth by the President. Repeat no obligation to confirm. The Senate has failed to confirm a President's nominee 37 times in the past. It's not like a nominee is rubber-stamped through.

Hearing or no hearings. A Republican majority would never approved Garland. Period. Holding hearings would have been for the optics only.

is the senate obliged to hold a vote ...

YEA OR NAY

(10-11-2020 08:24 PM)green Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 08:10 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 07:16 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  He should add 2 judges.. and move on.
Mitch McConnell has politicized the Court and the selection process to where it is not representative of the people it serves. I have no issue with ACB, but the 8 month refusal to seat Merrick Garland has thrown off the balance.

Mitch didn't start the politicizing of the Court.
The $hitshows that were the Bork and Thomas hearings politicized the Court.
Kavanaugh's hearing was just a continuation of the same.

For those still whining about Garland...
Garland was NEVER going to be confirmed hearings or not...

The Senate is under no obligation to approve a nominee (in this case Garland) put forth by the President. Repeat no obligation to confirm. The Senate has failed to confirm a President's nominee 37 times in the past. It's not like a nominee is rubber-stamped through.

Hearing or no hearings. A Republican majority would never approved Garland. Period. Holding hearings would have been for the optics only.

is the senate obliged to hold a vote ...

YEA OR NAY

I’d like to know that answer as well out of curiosity

Even though it doesn’t matter cause there was 0% chance Garland would be conformed.

"Though the examples are few, they tend to support the right of Republicans to handle — or not handle —this nomination as they wish."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact...omination/

"The Constitution says that unless the Senate gives advice and consent Garland cannot be appointed, but it does not require the Senate to do anything in response to the nomination."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ee/482733/

(10-11-2020 08:24 PM)green Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 08:10 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 07:16 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  He should add 2 judges.. and move on.
Mitch McConnell has politicized the Court and the selection process to where it is not representative of the people it serves. I have no issue with ACB, but the 8 month refusal to seat Merrick Garland has thrown off the balance.

Mitch didn't start the politicizing of the Court.
The $hitshows that were the Bork and Thomas hearings politicized the Court.
Kavanaugh's hearing was just a continuation of the same.

For those still whining about Garland...
Garland was NEVER going to be confirmed hearings or not...

The Senate is under no obligation to approve a nominee (in this case Garland) put forth by the President. Repeat no obligation to confirm. The Senate has failed to confirm a President's nominee 37 times in the past. It's not like a nominee is rubber-stamped through.

Hearing or no hearings. A Republican majority would never approved Garland. Period. Holding hearings would have been for the optics only.

is the senate obliged to hold a vote ...

YEA OR NAY

No.

(10-11-2020 08:37 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  "Though the examples are few, they tend to support the right of Republicans to handle — or not handle —this nomination as they wish."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact...omination/

"The Constitution says that unless the Senate gives advice and consent Garland cannot be appointed, but it does not require the Senate to do anything in response to the nomination."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ee/482733/

define advice ...
respect nevertheless ...

THAT’S HIGH PRAISE

Claiming that McConnell has politicized the court is to ignore the entire record of the Democrats in the Senate from Bork forward. The Senate should have rejected Merrick in 2016 and would have if it had been put to a vote. That is behind us and the Senate should do its duty and vote on ACB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(10-11-2020 11:24 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  David kind of reminds me of Baghdad Bob.

I guess they teach constitutional law at Arkansas Technical school. Must teach it in between how to unclog a toilet and how not to clog one up.

(10-11-2020 07:16 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  He should add 2 judges.. and move on.
Mitch McConnell has politicized the Court and the selection process to where it is not representative of the people it serves. I have no issue with ACB, but the 8 month refusal to seat Merrick Garland has thrown off the balance.

Apples and oranges.

Obama lost his senate majority because people wanted to keep him in check.

Elections have consequences.




Trump kept his senate majority.

Elections have consequences.

(10-11-2020 10:00 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Biden said before that he do not believe in doing this. He is not like Trump and the Republicans filling the benches of way far-right judges who do not follow the Constitutional 100%. These activist judges on the right are attacking the Constitution especially the 14th Amendent to a point shutting them out from voting with the Republicans' voting laws that disenfranchise a lot of people.

And I had such high hopes for you. Thanks for dashing them. While not happy about it I can't say I'm surprised. Once a leftist loon most always a leftist loon.

(10-11-2020 08:10 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 07:16 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  He should add 2 judges.. and move on.
Mitch McConnell has politicized the Court and the selection process to where it is not representative of the people it serves. I have no issue with ACB, but the 8 month refusal to seat Merrick Garland has thrown off the balance.

Mitch didn't start the politicizing of the Court.
The $hitshows that were the Bork and Thomas hearings politicized the Court.
Kavanaugh's hearing was just a continuation of the same.

For those still whining about Garland...
Garland was NEVER going to be confirmed hearings or not...

The Senate is under no obligation to approve a nominee (in this case Garland) put forth by the President. Repeat no obligation to confirm. The Senate has failed to confirm a President's nominee 37 times in the past. It's not like a nominee is rubber-stamped through.

Hearing or no hearings. A Republican majority would never approved Garland. Period. Holding hearings would have been for the optics only.

muh facts. Please stop, for menses sake, you know he doesn't deal in fact well.

(10-11-2020 11:06 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 07:16 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  He should add 2 judges.. and move on.
Mitch McConnell has politicized the Court and the selection process to where it is not representative of the people it serves. I have no issue with ACB, but the 8 month refusal to seat Merrick Garland has thrown off the balance.

Apples and oranges.

Obama lost his senate majority because people wanted to keep him in check.

Elections have consequences.




Trump kept his senate majority.

Elections have consequences.

What you have described is the very definition of politicizing the Court.

Someone more familiar w/ this will have to respond

Has the court had more conservative judges or liberal judges, say, the past 20-30 years? (i.e. if it was a liberal majority, I don't recall the conservatives once wanting to pack the court to get a majority)
In election years, is there a precedent to not nominate when the Senate & president different parties? (i.e. did Mitch McConnell politicize the court, or is that historically how it works & it's not just the evil Republicans?)

(10-12-2020 07:23 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 11:06 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 07:16 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  He should add 2 judges.. and move on.
Mitch McConnell has politicized the Court and the selection process to where it is not representative of the people it serves. I have no issue with ACB, but the 8 month refusal to seat Merrick Garland has thrown off the balance.

Apples and oranges.

Obama lost his senate majority because people wanted to keep him in check.

Elections have consequences.




Trump kept his senate majority.

Elections have consequences.

What you have described is the very definition of politicizing the Court.

Please explain how.