Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Advice Senate democrats should follow. But will they?

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    11,390
    Thanks
    476
    Thanked 4,028 Times in 3,012 Posts
    Groans
    398
    Groaned 234 Times in 225 Posts

    Default Advice Senate democrats should follow. But will they?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-supreme-court


    If they were smart, they would take their licks and move on. They would accept that elections have consequences and that they lost in 2016 and 2018. Under the rules set forth by the US Constitution the President nominates to the Supreme Court and the Senate provides "advice and consent".

    What happened to Garland is irrelevant. So if it makes you feel better to cry hypocrisy then go ahead, but if you are honest with yourself you know good and damned well that if the roles were completely reversed the democrat party would be pushing through with the nominee. Period

    Now, will the democrats on the Senate Judiciary act with decorum and treat ACB fairly? Or will they succumb to their worst instincts and go after her based on her adoption and religion?

    For ACBs sake, I hope it is the former. From a purely political standpoint, I hope it is the latter. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see the Senate democrats shit their pants like Jerry Nadler did standing next to Pelosi

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to canceled.2021.3 For This Post:

    Darth Omar (09-27-2020)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    5,757
    Thanks
    3,941
    Thanked 3,338 Times in 2,286 Posts
    Groans
    827
    Groaned 633 Times in 549 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Maybe you Repubs should worry about following your own previous advice without backtracking before trying anything else.

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    11,390
    Thanks
    476
    Thanked 4,028 Times in 3,012 Posts
    Groans
    398
    Groaned 234 Times in 225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    Maybe you Repubs should worry about following your own previous advice without backtracking before trying anything else.
    is that the most substantive thing you can come up with?

    you take the time from having your nose in your mom's smelly pussy to just type that?

    what a worthless fuck you are

    You have now crossed into Deshtard land where you have to be thread banned at all times. You are that fucking worthless

    You really should think about killing yourself

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Hiden View Post
    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-supreme-court


    If they were smart, they would take their licks and move on. They would accept that elections have consequences and that they lost in 2016 and 2018. Under the rules set forth by the US Constitution the President nominates to the Supreme Court and the Senate provides "advice and consent".

    What happened to Garland is irrelevant. So if it makes you feel better to cry hypocrisy then go ahead, but if you are honest with yourself you know good and damned well that if the roles were completely reversed the democrat party would be pushing through with the nominee. Period

    Now, will the democrats on the Senate Judiciary act with decorum and treat ACB fairly? Or will they succumb to their worst instincts and go after her based on her adoption and religion?

    For ACBs sake, I hope it is the former. From a purely political standpoint, I hope it is the latter. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see the Senate democrats shit their pants like Jerry Nadler did standing next to Pelosi
    In a way, the roles were reversed in 2016 when Obama nominated Garland. In 1992, Joe Biden made it clear he didn't believe a Justice should be appointed during an election year. A Republican was President. When a Democrat was present, Biden supported the nomination in an election year.

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    Maybe you Repubs should worry about following your own previous advice without backtracking before trying anything else.
    You mean like Obama did when he nominated someone in an election year, something his own VP had said shouldn't happen in a previous situation?

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Hiden View Post
    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-supreme-court


    If they were smart, they would take their licks and move on. They would accept that elections have consequences and that they lost in 2016 and 2018. Under the rules set forth by the US Constitution the President nominates to the Supreme Court and the Senate provides "advice and consent".

    What happened to Garland is irrelevant. So if it makes you feel better to cry hypocrisy then go ahead, but if you are honest with yourself you know good and damned well that if the roles were completely reversed the democrat party would be pushing through with the nominee. Period

    Now, will the democrats on the Senate Judiciary act with decorum and treat ACB fairly? Or will they succumb to their worst instincts and go after her based on her adoption and religion?

    For ACBs sake, I hope it is the former. From a purely political standpoint, I hope it is the latter. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see the Senate democrats shit their pants like Jerry Nadler did standing next to Pelosi
    They won’t be able to help themselves. These are Democrats we’re talking about lol.

    I made a similar point the other day: The Turtle would do Democrats a favor by skipping the hearings and accepting written advisements—then take the vote. Totally constitutional.

    It’s nearly a given Democrats are going to insult Catholic voters at some point in the hearings.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    29,740
    Thanks
    2,748
    Thanked 10,875 Times in 8,272 Posts
    Groans
    41
    Groaned 594 Times in 590 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    Maybe you Repubs should worry about following your own previous advice without backtracking before trying anything else.
    This post answered your question. These fucking idiots will NEVET get it.

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    11,390
    Thanks
    476
    Thanked 4,028 Times in 3,012 Posts
    Groans
    398
    Groaned 234 Times in 225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    They won’t be able to help themselves. These are Democrats we’re talking about lol.

    I made a similar point the other day: The Turtle would do Democrats a favor by skipping the hearings and accepting written advisements—then take the vote. Totally constitutional.

    It’s nearly a given Democrats are going to insult Catholic voters at some point in the hearings.
    Agreed. We don't need her on the bench before the election. The rulings that will come up, even Roberts can't vote for. And if the republicans are smart they will take the cases to friendly courts to have them rule in their favor and if Roberts votes to tie (which I don't believe he will) then the lower court ruling stands.

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    They won’t be able to help themselves. These are Democrats we’re talking about lol.

    I made a similar point the other day: The Turtle would do Democrats a favor by skipping the hearings and accepting written advisements—then take the vote. Totally constitutional.

    It’s nearly a given Democrats are going to insult Catholic voters at some point in the hearings.
    The Constitution says " . . and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate . . " when it comes to appointing Justices. Nowhere does it say how it is to come about and be done.

    Perhaps, after Barrett is confirmed, Democrats can take their case to the Court and see what Barrett thinks of their complaint.

Similar Threads

  1. Follow The Money - DEMOCRATS ARE TERRORISTS
    By Terri4Trump in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-05-2020, 02:44 PM
  2. Democrats have won the VA Senate
    By reagansghost in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-06-2019, 08:24 AM
  3. Email advice for democrats
    By Darth Omar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-21-2016, 08:11 AM
  4. This is what happens when you follow Bidens advice.
    By patriot66 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-30-2013, 08:17 AM
  5. DEMOCRATS RETAIN THE SENATE!
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-03-2010, 08:03 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •