Osodecentx said:

---

blackie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

Not sure how it is political suicidal to get it done before the election. You may know more than I do. Please explain. Why better after election than before ? If it could be done.

---

Independent voters would be outraged about such an unseemly nomination process .

Trump better lay off for his own good .

Which is not in his character .

---

---

These are not normal times .

Let the PEOPLE decide through the ballot box .

Win or lose .

To do otherwise would only damage Republicans across the country .

---

I'm with Canada on this one. You have to weigh whether or not a guaranteed conservative judge (as much as can be guaranteed because some have moved center after being placed on the court) versus making it more difficult to hold the Senate or the White House for that matter.

I can't see anything more motivating tor Democrats (liberal or moderate) than to get payback on Trump and the Senate for rushing this through. You might be awakening a sleeping giant such that the true liberals who might not vote because Bernie isn't the candidate no longer care....just get Trump out.

---

I think Biden is going to win, 75% chance

I think Dems will control the Senate, 50-50. Schumer is talking about changing the rules to do away with the filibuster. Then Schumer wants to make Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, our 2 newest states, thus giving Dems 4 new senators and thus control of the US Senate for a long, long time. Then he wants to pack the Supreme Court.

We're talking fundamental change here.

I don't think the confirmation of a conservative judge will cost Reps the WH and Senate. I think that's going to happen regardless

---

BornAgain said:

---

The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Guys, the Democrats didn't set the precedent here. The Republicans did.

Lindsey Graham gives a perfect explanation of the situation above. What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland in 2016 was wrong. Period. Full stop. There is no constitutional justification for Mitch McConnell's actions. None. To rush a conservative justice through now is the type bald faced hypocrisy any way you slice it. Own that.

---

Brett Kavanaugh. Period. Ram the new nominee through speedily with a red hot poker.

---

Brett Kavanaugh was treated unfairly. I agree. But he got a hearing and was confirmed. Merrick Garland never even got the chance, despite being eminently qualified and constitutionally nominated. That's the precedent that we're talking about here.

For the record, I hate that the Supreme Court has become so politicized. These nominations shouldn't be weaponized and hearings shouldn't be partisan dog and pony shows. But both parties do it and have no apparent desire to end the practice. And as long as that's the case, it will continue.

---

Obama made his nomination. Trump will make his nomination. The rest is up to the Senate.

---

This is such a punt, though. It requires you to make no self-reflection on your party's obvious hypocrisy on this issue. As long as partisans on both sides refuse to acknowledge their own tribe's shortcomings/inconsistencies, we'll continue on this same unsustainable path we're on.

I just want you guys to admit that this exposes Mitch McConnell as a giant ****ing hypocrite. You don't even have to care. But you can't keep pretending that's not the case.

---

Brett Kavanaugh. Never forget. I hope the Senate confirms Trump's pick in record time. And then I hope they get flagged for excessive celebration in the end zone for an outrageous touchdown dance. (The penalty to be assessed on the kickoff).

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?

---

The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?

---

The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.

---

lol wut

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

Amazing:

---

More evidence that none of these ****ers (read all politicians) have any principles. Their values depend on whatever's politically expedient.

But the saddest part is that partisan voters are no better/different, and this thread is proof. Y'all don't even deny the hypocrisy. You're just OK with it if/when your team is winning. It's gross.

---

---

And just for the record, had Garland had a hearing and been confirmed as he should have been as a perfectly qualified and reasonable judge, I would be arguing the opposite now and defending Trump's right to appoint a justice.

I would love for all branches of government to get back to fulfilling their constitutionally defined roles -- especially congress, which has been ceding its duties to the executive for way too long. So in theory, I support the president's constitutional right to fill whatever supreme court vacancies occur during their term -- regardless of when they come open. But Mitch McConnell shat on the constitution in 2015. And to reverse course five years later because it's politically advantageous to his party would expose he and many others for the frauds they are and further divide a country that's already on the verge of splitting.

---

So, in one sentence you say that since Obama didn't get his way with Garland, the Trump shouldn't get his way with whoever. (okay, you actually said that if Obama got his way, you'd argue for Trump to get his way) - same difference. And I just don't believe you would.

Then in the next sentence you say that government needs to get back to doing their constitutionally duties.

Okay.

By the way, the country isn't on the verge of splitting... it's been split for quite long term now.

In "theory" you support a president's right to nominate? Either you support the right for Trump to nominate or you don't... The constitution is pretty damn clear.

With regards to McConnell... I supported his right in 2016 to make the decision he made and today I support his right to make whatever decision he makes. It's well within the rules for the Senate Majority Leader to decided the Senate's schedule.

To try and justify your position by using hypocrisy against McConnell is laughable. Even if McConnell voted on Garland in 2016, you liberals would be saying the exact same thing today about waiting until after the election - don't fool yourself.

---

The constitution was clear in 2016 too. And your boys shat on it. Own the hypocrisy or don't. I couldn't care less. Either way McConnell and his brood are giant ****ing hypocrites.

And that's not to say the Democrats aren't. They suck, too. I have no tribal allegiance to either of these ****ty parties. I hope they both burn. My only desire is competent, functional government, and that will NEVER happen as long as two corrupt, ineffectual parties continue the tit for tat partisan bull**** that has made Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi household names.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Guys, the Democrats didn't set the precedent here. The Republicans did.

Lindsey Graham gives a perfect explanation of the situation above. What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland in 2016 was wrong. Period. Full stop. There is no constitutional justification for Mitch McConnell's actions. None. To rush a conservative justice through now is the type bald faced hypocrisy any way you slice it. Own that.

---

Brett Kavanaugh. Period. Ram the new nominee through speedily with a red hot poker.

---

Brett Kavanaugh was treated unfairly. I agree. But he got a hearing and was confirmed. Merrick Garland never even got the chance, despite being eminently qualified and constitutionally nominated. That's the precedent that we're talking about here.

For the record, I hate that the Supreme Court has become so politicized. These nominations shouldn't be weaponized and hearings shouldn't be partisan dog and pony shows. But both parties do it and have no apparent desire to end the practice. And as long as that's the case, it will continue.

---

Obama made his nomination. Trump will make his nomination. The rest is up to the Senate.

---

This is such a punt, though. It requires you to make no self-reflection on your party's obvious hypocrisy on this issue. As long as partisans on both sides refuse to acknowledge their own tribe's shortcomings/inconsistencies, we'll continue on this same unsustainable path we're on.

I just want you guys to admit that this exposes Mitch McConnell as a giant ****ing hypocrite. You don't even have to care. But you can't keep pretending that's not the case.

---

cinque said:

---

Frankly, I think president should be allowed to follow the dictates of the Constitution and make nominations to the SC and have those nominations considered by the Senate regardless of where the vacancy occurs in his tenure.
But, we stopped doing that in 2016, so we play with the hand we're dealt.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Guys, the Democrats didn't set the precedent here. The Republicans did.

Lindsey Graham gives a perfect explanation of the situation above. What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland in 2016 was wrong. Period. Full stop. There is no constitutional justification for Mitch McConnell's actions. None. To rush a conservative justice through now is bald-faced hypocrisy any way you slice it. Own that.

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Guys, the Democrats didn't set the precedent here. The Republicans did.

Lindsey Graham gives a perfect explanation of the situation above. What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland in 2016 was wrong. Period. Full stop. There is no constitutional justification for Mitch McConnell's actions. None. To rush a conservative justice through now is the type bald faced hypocrisy any way you slice it. Own that.

---

Brett Kavanaugh. Period. Ram the new nominee through speedily with a red hot poker.

---

Brett Kavanaugh was treated unfairly. I agree. But he got a hearing and was confirmed. Merrick Garland never even got the chance, despite being eminently qualified and constitutionally nominated. That's the precedent that we're talking about here.

For the record, I hate that the Supreme Court has become so politicized. These nominations shouldn't be weaponized and hearings shouldn't be partisan dog and pony shows. But both parties do it and have no apparent desire to end the practice. And as long as that's the case, it will continue.

---

Obama made his nomination. Trump will make his nomination. The rest is up to the Senate.

---

This is such a punt, though. It requires you to make no self-reflection on your party's obvious hypocrisy on this issue. As long as partisans on both sides refuse to acknowledge their own tribe's shortcomings/inconsistencies, we'll continue on this same unsustainable path we're on.

I just want you guys to admit that this exposes Mitch McConnell as a giant ****ing hypocrite. You don't even have to care. But you can't keep pretending that's not the case.

---

I'll admit that McConnell is a hypocrite if you admit that EVERY other politician is entitled to that label as well.

---

cinque said:

---

Frankly, I think president should be allowed to follow the dictates of the Constitution and make nominations to the SC and have those nominations considered by the Senate regardless of where the vacancy occurs in his tenure.
But, we stopped doing that in 2016, so we play with the hand we're dealt.

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Gruvin said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

I care, it bothered me then and failure to follow constitutional proceedure will bother me again. Merick should have had a selection hearing

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?

---

The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

Frankly, I think president should be allowed to follow the dictates of the Constitution and make nominations to the SC and have those nominations considered by the Senate regardless of where the vacancy occurs in his tenure.
But, we stopped doing that in 2016, so we play with the hand we're dealt.

---

You mean the hand that did not include the Senate.

---

riflebear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

Lets not forget it was Harry Reed who changed the 'rules' and flipped everything upside down. Mitch was only following what Harry Reed did. A

nd then lets not forget what The Dems did in 2015/2016 to Trump - they took the gloves off and did one of the worst most corrupt things in history. The Dems went along w/ it and not only didn't condemn it they doubled down and instead of investigating their own party, blamed Trump so a Mueller investigation could begin and then Kavanaugh & then Impeachment. The problem is this is snowballing into something that will end in a disaster because neither party will stop it. I don't like it at all. It was only 20+ years ago that some SCOTUS nominees didn't even show up to the hearings and were voted in unanimously. That will never happen again.

---

riflebear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

Lets not forget it was Harry Reed who changed the 'rules' and flipped everything upside down. Mitch was only following what Harry Reed did. A

nd then lets not forget what The Dems did in 2015/2016 to Trump - they took the gloves off and did one of the worst most corrupt things in history. The Dems went along w/ it and not only didn't condemn it they doubled down and instead of investigating their own party, blamed Trump so a Mueller investigation could begin and then Kavanaugh & then Impeachment. The problem is this is snowballing into something that will end in a disaster because neither party will stop it. I don't like it at all. It was only 20+ years ago that some SCOTUS nominees didn't even show up to the hearings and were voted in unanimously. That will never happen again.

---

HashTag said:

---

Since the democrats are already threatening it, I think when Trump wins the election, he should just go ahead pack and the court.... maybe 6 more justices?

Of course I'm being sarcastic (a little).... but I do think need there probably needs to be an amendment to the constituion establishing the exact number of Supreme Court Justices there are to be.

I mean, if one party packs the court and then another party reduces the number... then how would the Supreme Court Justices be free of political influence (as intended) if with each adminstration, those justices might be downsized out of a job?

---

bear2be2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

Lets not forget it was Harry Reed who changed the 'rules' and flipped everything upside down. Mitch was only following what Harry Reed did. A

nd then lets not forget what The Dems did in 2015/2016 to Trump - they took the gloves off and did one of the worst most corrupt things in history. The Dems went along w/ it and not only didn't condemn it they doubled down and instead of investigating their own party, blamed Trump so a Mueller investigation could begin and then Kavanaugh & then Impeachment. The problem is this is snowballing into something that will end in a disaster because neither party will stop it. I don't like it at all. It was only 20+ years ago that some SCOTUS nominees didn't even show up to the hearings and were voted in unanimously. That will never happen again.

---

And those things were wrong. Those types of congressional shortcuts are not only constitutionally questionable IMO, they're really short-sighted because anything you use against your opposition can and will eventually be used against you.

I'm just not one who believes two wrongs make a right. And if we're ever going to get to a point as a nation where our government functions as it was intended to by the founders, we're going to need one party or the other to end this eternal tit for tat.

---

HashTag said:

---

Since the democrats are already threatening it, I think when Trump wins the election, he should just go ahead pack and the court.... maybe 6 more justices?

Of course I'm being sarcastic (a little).... but I do think need there probably needs to be an amendment to the constituion establishing the exact number of Supreme Court Justices there are to be.

I mean, if one party packs the court and then another party reduces the number... then how would the Supreme Court Justices be free of political influence (as intended) if with each adminstration, those justices might be downsized out of a job?

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

Lets not forget it was Harry Reed who changed the 'rules' and flipped everything upside down. Mitch was only following what Harry Reed did. A

nd then lets not forget what The Dems did in 2015/2016 to Trump - they took the gloves off and did one of the worst most corrupt things in history. The Dems went along w/ it and not only didn't condemn it they doubled down and instead of investigating their own party, blamed Trump so a Mueller investigation could begin and then Kavanaugh & then Impeachment. The problem is this is snowballing into something that will end in a disaster because neither party will stop it. I don't like it at all. It was only 20+ years ago that some SCOTUS nominees didn't even show up to the hearings and were voted in unanimously. That will never happen again.

---

And those things were wrong. Those types of congressional shortcuts are not only constitutionally questionable IMO, they're really short-sighted because anything you use against your opposition can and will eventually be used against you.

I'm just not one who believes two wrongs make a right. And if we're ever going to get to a point as a nation where our government functions as it was intended to by the founders, we're going to need one party or the other to end this eternal tit for tat.

---

I nominate for the democrats to stopt he BS first.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

Lets not forget it was Harry Reed who changed the 'rules' and flipped everything upside down. Mitch was only following what Harry Reed did. A

nd then lets not forget what The Dems did in 2015/2016 to Trump - they took the gloves off and did one of the worst most corrupt things in history. The Dems went along w/ it and not only didn't condemn it they doubled down and instead of investigating their own party, blamed Trump so a Mueller investigation could begin and then Kavanaugh & then Impeachment. The problem is this is snowballing into something that will end in a disaster because neither party will stop it. I don't like it at all. It was only 20+ years ago that some SCOTUS nominees didn't even show up to the hearings and were voted in unanimously. That will never happen again.

---

And those things were wrong. Those types of congressional shortcuts are not only constitutionally questionable IMO, they're really short-sighted because anything you use against your opposition can and will eventually be used against you.

I'm just not one who believes two wrongs make a right. And if we're ever going to get to a point as a nation where our government functions as it was intended to by the founders, we're going to need one party or the other to end this eternal tit for tat.

---

I nominate for the democrats to stopt he BS first.

---

I honestly don't care who does it. I loathe both of these parties, neither of which has this country's best interest at heart. But don't pretend that Republicans are different or better when it's beyond obvious that they're other side of the same ****ty coin.

---