Obama was free to nominate someone the Senate would confirm. He never did. No one talks about how Obama is at fault for wasting a nomination in his last year in office.
Rules are completely different from precedents/mutual courtesies. Dems got rid of the fillibuster 'rule,' this is no different. And if you go back further than 2016, Dems argument completely falls apart.
They could have simply block voted, and Garland would not have been confirmed. Maybe they should have done that. The way they did it actually saved Garland some heartache and wasted time. But I guess no thanks will be given for that.
That's a great point I hadn't considered. I think you're right. I mean, Lindsey Graham voted for Kagen and the Wise Latina. And the sisters, Collins, Murkowski, Jeff Flake, and Romney would have probably voted for Garland as well.
This is the problem. R's will vote yes on someone if they are qualified. Dems will vote on someone only if they fit ideologically. In retrospect, Cocaine Mitch did what he had to to save conservatives from themselves.
Republicans “changes the rules” by never actually changing the rules, but by acting as they could using their legitimate authority. Harry Reed (D) changed the rules as to confirming federal judges. The leftists always destroy the system when they are losing within the established rules of the system.
Before Reed the Democrats were the ones who changed the rules to use the filibuster to block nominations. Then when Republicans did this Reed changed the rules to break the filibuster. Now Republicans use Reeds new rule to break the filibuster. Democrats are so short sighted, and they always believe they will be in power forever.
Exactly. The Merrick Garland situation was Senate Republicans utilizing their position of relative strength to lawfully block Garland's appointment. They didn't change anything, they just had the votes and the Constitutional authority to do what they want. Same with ACB.
Both cases were politically inconvenient for Democrats, so naturally they're trying to claim Republicans did something illegal or unethical. But it's all bullshit and they would do exactly the same if they were in that position.
Does anyone honestly believe Democrats would have honored Scalia's "dying wish" if he had made such a preposterous demand as RBG allegedly did? Come on, man.
This man is a Doctor who thinks ACB is racist for adopting a black child because hundreds of years ago "colonizers" sometimes did that. This is leftist 'academia'.
Listen fat I have never heard of this guy before. If you say he's a turn I'll take your word for it. Just check my username, I just get excited when someone mentions my favorite book "1984". All gun grabbers can eat shit and die as far as I am concerned.
What rule do they think Trump changed? Adding a justice in an election year? Obozo couldn't in 2016 because he didn't have the Senate.
Their argument is that the Senate changed the rule in 2016 to "we won't confirm a nominee in an election year."
In reality, the Senate changed the rule to "we don't have to confirm a nominee in an election year if we don't want to."
Obama was free to nominate someone the Senate would confirm. He never did. No one talks about how Obama is at fault for wasting a nomination in his last year in office.
Obama was quite lazy with his appointments so Trump inherited some. Thanks Obama!
Rules are completely different from precedents/mutual courtesies. Dems got rid of the fillibuster 'rule,' this is no different. And if you go back further than 2016, Dems argument completely falls apart.
You arent wrong.
They could have simply block voted, and Garland would not have been confirmed. Maybe they should have done that. The way they did it actually saved Garland some heartache and wasted time. But I guess no thanks will be given for that.
Could they have though? They had more RINOs.
That's a great point I hadn't considered. I think you're right. I mean, Lindsey Graham voted for Kagen and the Wise Latina. And the sisters, Collins, Murkowski, Jeff Flake, and Romney would have probably voted for Garland as well.
This is the problem. R's will vote yes on someone if they are qualified. Dems will vote on someone only if they fit ideologically. In retrospect, Cocaine Mitch did what he had to to save conservatives from themselves.
Fuck anti-2A crenshaw. He is another RINO hiding behind his military service like my local swamp creature brian mast.
OUT OUT OUT!
LION PARTY FTW!
I said military service which is an honorific expression.
I don't know why you are attacking that statement.
Fuck that red flag faggot. He claims corruption doesn't exist. He's either a complete fucking moron or a corrupt democrat in disguise.
Congressman "I'm pro Trump until it gets me elected" Crenshaw...
"Hell, yes, I will take your AR-15s" Crenshaw. lol
Republicans “changes the rules” by never actually changing the rules, but by acting as they could using their legitimate authority. Harry Reed (D) changed the rules as to confirming federal judges. The leftists always destroy the system when they are losing within the established rules of the system.
Before Reed the Democrats were the ones who changed the rules to use the filibuster to block nominations. Then when Republicans did this Reed changed the rules to break the filibuster. Now Republicans use Reeds new rule to break the filibuster. Democrats are so short sighted, and they always believe they will be in power forever.
Exactly. The Merrick Garland situation was Senate Republicans utilizing their position of relative strength to lawfully block Garland's appointment. They didn't change anything, they just had the votes and the Constitutional authority to do what they want. Same with ACB.
Both cases were politically inconvenient for Democrats, so naturally they're trying to claim Republicans did something illegal or unethical. But it's all bullshit and they would do exactly the same if they were in that position.
Does anyone honestly believe Democrats would have honored Scalia's "dying wish" if he had made such a preposterous demand as RBG allegedly did? Come on, man.
Fuck this guy! He'll sell us down the river as a "right wing" Biden the first chance he gets.
No thanks.
mccainwitheyepatch.jpg
Kek
This man is a Doctor who thinks ACB is racist for adopting a black child because hundreds of years ago "colonizers" sometimes did that. This is leftist 'academia'.
Ibram Kendi is worse than AOC. He wants to have you be Discriminated against and be called a racist if you so much as say you are aggrieved.
Where the fuck did terms like gaslighting and dog whistles spring up from? Can we stop using those terms unironically.
Fuck this fag. Both of them.
I guess it is technically "Congressman Porno Hitman".
What’s the Porno Hitman reference? This is new to me...
He was mocked on SNL for looking like a hitman from a porno movie. Guy who did it, some idiot, had to apologize on air with him as a guest.
To be brutally honest, they did Obama and Merrick Garland a favor by not holding hearings at all. They could have held them and voted no.
I don't know about you but I've never met an American named "Ibram X. Kendi".
Crenshaw's porn name should be Solid Snek
God, shut the fuck up you fucking faggots. Go get a job and stop pretending to have a valuable opinion on anything.
How absolutely dare you sir. Xendi, I'll have you know, is the director of REEEcism at Botswon University. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibram_X._Kendi
Based and Orwellpilled.
based? is that a joke? the guy is anti 2a and supported red flag laws and you say he's based? lmfao
Listen fat I have never heard of this guy before. If you say he's a turn I'll take your word for it. Just check my username, I just get excited when someone mentions my favorite book "1984". All gun grabbers can eat shit and die as far as I am concerned.