• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chuck Schumer's words are PERFECT (regarding waiting to replace RBG's SC Seat)...

Pelosi and Schumer can go pound sand, or each other for that matter; especially after their four year obstruction of everything and manufacturing of fake news.
That's their job and why they are there according to loser righties.
 
So mindlessly clueless but self-absorbed politically. Do they really expect the Republicans to play ball after the shit their team pulled on Trump and his administration? Excuse my French, but ygbfsm.
Yeah how dare they call him out for being the incompetent loser he is.
 
Yeah how dare they call him out for being the incompetent loser he is.
Not everyone shares the chronic bellyaching over a duly elected president.
 
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."


Perfect, no?

No it is not "perfect," just today's ideological take on a matter Schumer would not agree with if he was Senate Majority Leader and the President was a Democrat.

But this is all secondary to the Constitution, that in no way says the President nominates a Justice for the Senate to confirm... except in the last few months before the end of the President's term with an election around the corner.

The qualifier is not there.

Like it or not President OrangeGlow is still President, and he has a complicit Congress to rubber stamp whoever he nominates.
 
nah, they just stonewalled for 9 months because they hated him. that's all it was.

and, now, their own words come back to haunt them (well, not really. they have no integrity).
So excuse me Mr Integrity, but are you saying you now agree with McConnell?
 
That's their job and why they are there according to loser righties.
Speaking of jobs, it is also the CONSTITUTIONAL duty of a sitting president to nominate, and the senate's duty to vote for or against confirmation. Always glad to help those who attempt to muddy the waters with emotional fallacy. :)
 
No it is not "perfect," just today's ideological take on a matter Schumer would not agree with if he was Senate Majority Leader and the President was a Democrat.

But this is all secondary to the Constitution, that in no way says the President nominates a Justice for the Senate to confirm... except in the last few months before the end of the President's term with an election around the corner.

The qualifier is not there.

Like it or not President OrangeGlow is still President, and he has a complicit Congress to rubber stamp whoever he nominates.
Yup, thats how it works. If Trump nominates someone who cant get 51 Senate votes, he wont be able to fill the seat.
 
Like it or not President OrangeGlow is still President, and he has a complicit Congress to rubber stamp whoever he nominates.

This would be fine if these Senators hadn't prevented Obama from doing the same thing with 8 months before the election.

Today, people have already started voting.

Again, if Republicans want to play dirty then Dems have the right to do whatever is constitutionally allowed.

Why not let the people decide? Are you afraid the people are voting Trump out? If that's the case, then why not just accept the will of the people instead of desperately trying to push a nominee through like thieves in the night?
 
There may not be a new president in 40 days.

Yes and by McConnell’s logic the uncertainty is worth waiting until after the election though in truth there is no way there’ll be a confirmation vote before Election Day.
 
no, just doing the job they were elected to do. Oppose Obama and the Democrats at all costs, as they should.
And therein lies the BIGGEST problem with our current 2-party Partisan government, and those who vote to perpetuate this self destructive 'war' instead of legislators focused on the needs and success of the citizens and the country et-al. Republicans and democrats would be happy if we elected teams, took the American public out of the picture, and started calling the elections the 'playoffs,' which is basically what they've become anyway.
 
You don't know that. The next president could be four more years.

We wouldn't have to wait until the president that comes after Donald Trump. But we should wait until after the November election, if Republican-established precedent means anything. Whether Trump wins or loses, the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled after voters have had a chance to weigh in.
 
Yes and by McConnell’s logic the uncertainty is worth waiting until after the election though in truth there is no way there’ll be a confirmation vote before Election Day.
Nothing really matters except what you can do and what you can't. In 1987 Democrats shot down Reagan's nominee, Robert Bork. In 2016 Republicans didn't vote for confirm Obama's pick. Here in 2020 Republicans own the presidency and the Senate, allowing them to vote and confirm a nominee to the Court, with many thanks to Harry Reid for showing us the way. These things can happen because they can happen.
 
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."


Perfect, no?
not really typical political hackery from schumer that we expect from leftist democrats when they can't get their way.
next.

He wasn't saying this when obama was president.
so why now is he being a hypocrite?
 
We wouldn't have to wait until the president that comes after Donald Trump. But we should wait until after the November election, if Republican-established precedent means anything. Whether Trump wins or loses, the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled after voters have had a chance to weigh in.
Voters have 0 say in the SCOTUS nominations. that is only between the president and congress.
 
Damn right I do, and your opinion about who I support or don't support means nothing to me.

i love that current Republicans support a dude who cheats his own charity, scams his own customers, cheats on his own multiple wives and let 10s of thousands of extra republicans die during a pandemic.


i've been describing what you guys are really like (not what you say you're like) for almost 60 years. and in one three year period a New York City crook made almost all you guys out yourselves. it was the best lesson all of our kids could ever learn.
 
Voters have 0 say in the SCOTUS nominations. that is only between the president and congress.

Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham said they should in 2016. Now they are changing their tune. That is hypocrisy, and they are throwing out their own precedent, yes? Do you think that's a good idea?
 
Another Bidenite is on a tantrum again.


Exaclty. They support a groping zombie, yet they seem to think theyre somehow better LOL

if tantrum means "laughing" because you guys couldn't pick out ole Mitch's words, then, yeah. tantrum.


but i get it. you guys can't be embarrassed anymore. Rush/Sean/Trump have trained you never to back down and always attack. there is no integrity but it works politically.
 
There was a sitting president in 2016 for nine months. This time there is a sitting president that could be for four more years. There is a big difference between 9 months and four years.

you guessing about the next election has nothing to do with it.


we had a sitting President before for NINE months. the current sitting president has 3 or 4.
 
Nothing really matters except what you can do and what you can't. In 1987 Democrats shot down Reagan's nominee, Robert Bork. In 2016 Republicans didn't vote for confirm Obama's pick. Here in 2020 Republicans own the presidency and the Senate, allowing them to vote and confirm a nominee to the Court, with many thanks to Harry Reid for showing us the way. These things can happen because they can happen.

Not really the way you’re supposed to run things.

Bork got his vote. The senate fulfilled their constitutional role

Garland didn’t get a vote. The senate fell down on the job.

Since McConnell’s is made up bullshit Garland should have gotten a vote - and if his confirmation was shotdown so be it. Trump’s nominee if he puts one forth should get a vote though should Trump lose the election and his nominee get confirmed it will certainly make Republicans look more shitty than they already do with the games they’re playing.
 
Last edited:
No it is not "perfect," just today's ideological take on a matter Schumer would not agree with if he was Senate Majority Leader and the President was a Democrat.

But this is all secondary to the Constitution, that in no way says the President nominates a Justice for the Senate to confirm... except in the last few months before the end of the President's term with an election around the corner.

The qualifier is not there.

Like it or not President OrangeGlow is still President, and he has a complicit Congress to rubber stamp whoever he nominates.

well, it's not perfect because they are Mitch's words. ole Church just tweeted them.
 
not really typical political hackery from schumer that we expect from leftist democrats when they can't get their way.
next.

He wasn't saying this when obama was president.
so why now is he being a hypocrite?

^ yet another Republican fell for it.
 
Speaking of jobs, it is also the CONSTITUTIONAL duty of a sitting president to nominate, and the senate's duty to vote for or against confirmation. Always glad to help those who attempt to muddy the waters with emotional fallacy. :)

So why didn't this happen in 2016? What's interesting about that go around is the GOP had control of the Senate, so there's a good chance Garland's nomination wasn't going to go through if they stuck to their guns rather than introducing this daft precedent which now suddenly doesn't apply. This is like playing a game where one player changes the rules when they suddenly have to comply to them.
 
Back
Top Bottom