Dems falsely project their BS court-packing scam onto GOP to justify it ahead of time

[artichoke]

"YOUR POINT" yet no proof that it is valid save for YOUR OPINION. The McConnell "rule" has never been used in the history of the country.

blatant lie.jpeg

I posted a link in the OP, and also did an entire thread on this with links showing what the McConnell rule was from the beginning. But since you've decided to add "has not provided any proof" to your list of lies, here's a direct quote from McConnell back when Scalia died and Obama tried to ram through a nominee after the American people had just given the Senate to Republicans (thereby indicating they wanted a change in direction...notice Republicans are basing their policies on the will of the people, while the crybully demagogues ranting about 'our democracy' are the ones trying to make elections irrelevant through court-packing):

"You can read his speech, given ten days after Antonin Scalia’s death, here in the Congressional Record. The point he was making is clear: The Senate is not expected to confirm Supreme Court nominees during an election year, especially when the president is of the opposing party. While he certainly used some “let the people decide” rhetoric — and also quoted statements from Joe Biden taking a broader stance against election-year nominations — at no point did McConnell announce a general principle that the Senate should never confirm nominees in these times, even when the majority party wants to.

Just a few paragraphs into the speech, McConnell started making references to the importance of divided government to the situation (all the boldings in this post are mine):

One might say this is an almost unprecedented moment in the history of our country. It has been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy arose and was filled in a Presidential election year, and that was when the Senate majority and the President were from the same political party. It has been 80 years. Since we have divided government today, it means we have to look back almost 130 years to the last time a nominee was confirmed in similar circumstances.

McConnell repeated this particular point in a number of other appearances, as comments compiled by his staff show."

What Mitch McConnell Actually Said in 2016

Imagine that. CNN left that part out and set you up to humiliate yourself with bullshit misinformation again. Funny how that works, huh?

spoon.jpg

[Old Trapper]

[SIZE=3]

blatant lie.jpeg

I posted a link in the OP, and also did an entire thread on this with links showing what the McConnell rule was from the beginning. But since you've decided to add "has not provided any proof" to your list of lies, here's a direct quote from McConnell back when Scalia died and Obama tried to ram through a nominee after the American people had just given the Senate to Republicans (thereby indicating they wanted a change in direction...notice Republicans are basing their policies on the will of the people, while the crybully demagogues ranting about 'our democracy' are the ones trying to make elections irrelevant through court-packing):

[INDENT][I]"You can read his speech, given ten days after Antonin Scalia’s death, here in the Congressional Record. The point he was making is clear: The Senate is not expected to confirm Supreme Court nominees during an election year, especially when the president is of the opposing party. While he certainly used some “let the people decide” rhetoric — and also quoted statements from Joe Biden taking a broader stance against election-year nominations — at no point did McConnell announce a general principle that the Senate should never confirm nominees in these times, even when the majority party wants to.

Just a few paragraphs into the speech, McConnell started making references to the importance of divided government to the situation (all the boldings in this post are mine):

One might say this is an almost unprecedented moment in the history of our country. It has been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy arose and was filled in a Presidential election year, and that was when the Senate majority and the President were from the same political party. It has been 80 years. Since we have divided government today, it means we have to look back almost 130 years to the last time a nominee was confirmed in similar circumstances.

McConnell repeated this particular point in a number of other appearances, as comments compiled by his staff show."

Imagine that. CNN left that part out and set you up to humiliate yourself with bullshit misinformation again. Funny how that works, huh?

And yet not one word of a Constitutional authority authorizing the Senate to alter, modify, or suspend, the powers of the President.

Funny how that works. And then there is the hypocrisy.

[artichoke]

And yet not one word of a Constitutional authority authorizing the Senate to alter, modify, or suspend, the powers of the President.

No need. Most people are smarter than a 5th grader and don't need to be TOLD that the Senate has to advise and consent for judicial nominees. It's common knowledge, to everyone but you, apparently.

And no, the Senate not giving its consent in no way constitutes an alteration of the president's authority.

You're embarrassing yourself with these ignorant assertions.

[Nordberg]

No need. Most people are smarter than a 5th grader and don't need to be TOLD that the Senate has to advise and consent for judicial nominees. It's common knowledge, to everyone but you, apparently.

And no, the Senate not giving its consent in no way constitutes an alteration of the president's authority.

You're embarrassing yourself with these ignorant assertions.

It isn't advice and consent when you simply block the president's nominations. It is assuming the power given to the president. That is not what the Senate function is. It is what McConnell made it into. That is what it is now and forever.
Moscow Mitch stopped Garland and replaced him with a Federalist Society pick.
McConnell assumed a power he did not have and the Constitution did not give him.

[artichoke]

It isn't advice and consent when you simply block the president's nominations.

Sure it is. Consent is permission. They didn't permit it. Because of the McConnell rule you keep lying about. Deal with it, crybaby.

It is assuming the power given to the president.

That's idiotic. The Constitution expressly requires their consent. They did not give it. You're fraudulently playing the victim to justify cheating (stacking the SCOTUS), as always with Democrats.

It is what McConnell made it into.

Mitch McConnell was around 130 years ago? Because that's how long ago the last election-year SCOTUS appointee was approved when the Senate had been recently handed to the opposition party.

Man, he looks great for his age.

Moscow Mitch...

Um...no. Democrats colluding with Russia to doctor evidence, lie to a federal judge, and illegally spy to frame their opponent and steal an election...isn't Republicans being in bed with Russia, fucking moron.

McConnell assumed a power he did not have and the Constitution did not give him.

I refer you to the above debunking of this lie the first time you told it.

[Legion]

Poor Nerdberg.

[Old Trapper]

No need. Most people are smarter than a 5th grader and don't need to be TOLD that the Senate has to advise and consent for judicial nominees. It's common knowledge, to everyone but you, apparently.

Advise and CONSENT does not mean deprive him of the power to nominate. Even a 2 year old understands that, but not you, or any other right wing toady. Would appear that Ben Sasse has finally begun to see he light.

And no, the Senate not giving its consent in no way constitutes an alteration of the president's authority.

And just exactly how does that obey the Constitution? Problem is though, in this case the Senate (Moscow Mitch anyway) even refused to take up a vote on the issue, or hold hearings on Merrick Garland who was well qualified. And then useful idiots like you come along, distort what happened, and defend yet another erosion of the Constitution.

[Into the Night]

It isn't advice and consent when you simply block the president's nominations.

The Constitution of the United States has no such phrase in it.

It is assuming the power given to the president.

Conclusion based on denial of the Constitution of the United States.

That is not what the Senate function is.

The Senate is not appointing a judge on the supreme court. You are hallucinating. Put down the bong.

It is what McConnell made it into. That is what it is now and forever.

No. The Senate has not changed the Constitution, nor has Mitch McConnell. You are denying the Constitution of the United States.

Moscow Mitch stopped Garland and replaced him with a Federalist Society pick.

The Senate has the right to reject an nomination by the President for the supreme court. See the Constitution of the United States. Mitch McConnell did not nominate anyone else.

McConnell assumed a power he did not have and the Constitution did not give him.

Lie. Denial of the Constitution of the United States. See Articles I, II, and III of that document.

[Into the Night]

No need. Most people are smarter than a 5th grader and don't need to be TOLD that the Senate has to advise and consent for judicial nominees. It's common knowledge, to everyone but you, apparently.

And no, the Senate not giving its consent in no way constitutes an alteration of the president's authority.

You're embarrassing yourself with these ignorant assertions.

Nothing in the Constitution of the United States compels the senate to advise the President on a nominee. They do have the ability to do that, of course, but the President chooses the nominee.

[Into the Night]

It isn't advice and consent when you simply block the president's nominations. It is assuming the power given to the president. That is not what the Senate function is. It is what McConnell made it into. That is what it is now and forever.
Moscow Mitch stopped Garland and replaced him with a Federalist Society pick.
McConnell assumed a power he did not have and the Constitution did not give him.

Semantics fallacy. Denial of the Constitution of the United States. The word 'advise' does not mean 'nominate'. Consent is not compulsory.

[Into the Night]

Advise and CONSENT does not mean deprive him of the power to nominate. Even a 2 year old understands that, but not you, or any other right wing toady. Would appear that Ben Sasse has finally begun to see he light.



And just exactly how does that obey the Constitution? Problem is though, in this case the Senate (Moscow Mitch anyway) even refused to take up a vote on the issue, or hold hearings on Merrick Garland who was well qualified. And then useful idiots like you come along, distort what happened, and defend yet another erosion of the Constitution.

Nothing compels the Senate to act at all. Denial of the Constitution of the United States.

[Old Trapper]

Nothing compels the Senate to act at all. Denial of the Constitution of the United States.

But they did act. Their failure to have a vote, etc., is "act". Their passing of an unConstitutional rule is an "act".

[Into the Night]

But they did act. Their failure to have a vote, etc., is "act". Their passing of an unConstitutional rule is an "act".

Not voting is not acting. They did not violate the Constitution. I'm sorry, but if you can't discuss this in English, there is nothing to discuss. I do not speak Liberal and will not discuss anything in Liberal.

[Old Trapper]

Not voting is not acting. They did not violate the Constitution. I'm sorry, but if you can't discuss this in English, there is nothing to discuss. I do not speak Liberal and will not discuss anything in Liberal.

Nor can you discuss anything with intelligence. Look up the definition of "to act", and then explain how passing a rule is not taking action, or "to act". Failing to act is also an action in and of itself. But, as usual, you are yet again another great example of the low IQ qualities of the right wing.

[Into the Night]

Nor can you discuss anything with intelligence.

Bulverism fallacy.

Look up the definition of "to act", and then explain how passing a rule is not taking action, or "to act". Failing to act is also an action in and of itself.

Semantics fallacy. Non-English text.

But, as usual, you are yet again another great example of the low IQ qualities of the right wing.

Bigotry. Bulverism fallacy.

No argument presented. Bigotry. Foreign language. Bulverism.