Mitt Romney backing of Supreme Court vote paves way for election-year confirmation

[Ikari]

I don't know why people don't understand that in 2015 it was their say whether they confirmed Obama's nominee and in 2020 it is their say whether they confirm Donald Trump's nominee.

The Senate makes the call. It's not hypocritical as constitutional.

It is the duty of the Senate to review nominees presented to them by the President. Unless, apparently, the President is of a different party than the majority in Senate and its an election year.

lol

 

[CLAX1911]

It is the duty of the Senate to review nominees presented to them by the President. Unless, apparently, the President is of a different party than the majority in Senate and its an election year.

lol

They get to make the call. I don't know why you're acting like this is so unfair. It's constitutional.

 

[prometeus]

They get to make the call. I don't know why you're acting like this is so unfair. It's constitutional.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the party in power can choose to do or not do its obligation?

 

[CLAX1911]

Where in the Constitution does it say that the party in power can choose to do or not do its obligation?

It's obligation is to confirm or not confirm they at the end of Obama's term did not confirm they fulfilled their obligation.

 

[99percenter]

It's obligation is to confirm or not confirm they at the end of Obama's term did not confirm they fulfilled their obligation.

Really. When was the hearing? When was the vote?

 

[CLAX1911]

Really. When was the hearing? When was the vote?

If they didn't need to have a hearing then why did they need to have one?

 

[iguanaman]

I don't know why people don't understand that in 2015 it was their say whether they confirmed Obama's nominee and in 2020 it is their say whether they confirm Donald Trump's nominee.

The Senate makes the call. It's not hypocritical as constitutional.

So you will have no problem if the Dems take the Senate and refuse to consider any SC nominee a Republican President makes at any time then? Is that the new normal?

 

[Ikari]

They get to make the call. I don't know why you're acting like this is so unfair. It's constitutional.

Umm...because it was partisan douchebaggery and is unfair. They may get to do it, but that doesn't mean it was just or right to do it as they did. They didn't reject Obama's pick because they reviewed him and found him unacceptable for the position. They didn't review at all, they refused to review in the first place because it was Obama's pick and Obama is a D and the Senate Majority an R. They reversed course this time because Trump is an R and the Senate Majority an R.

It's as simple as that. The thing is hypocrites and charlatans get by through skirting the letter of the law while shitting on the spirit of the law. Anyone who is honest can admit that's exactly what's going on here.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Forcing a women to bear a unwanted child is not the job of the State and like I said it will not stop women for getting abortions. It is purely a way to punish women because they are to be hated.

Protecting a child's right to life as guaranteed by the constitution is the most important job and duty of the State (one of the few jobs it actually has)

Anyone who murders the helpless and most defenseless of us should be hated. That's why the Nazis are not at the top of many lists of good people.

 

[AlphaOmega]

After his impeachment vote this is Mitt's opportunity to still be good with the GOP and get some lobbying gigs after he leaves the Senate.

will there be a second impeachment before the election? lol

 

[iguanaman]

Protecting a child's right to life as guaranteed by the constitution is the most important job and duty of the State (one of the few jobs it actually has)

Anyone who murders the helpless and most defenseless of us should be hated. That's why the Nazis are not at the top of many lists of good people.

There is no child to protect. A zygote is not a human being. It is ridiculous to call it that. Women have the right to determine when and if they have a child. They will never relinquish that right no matter what you try to do to take it from them. Do you hate your mother too?

Abortion rates fell as countries made it legal and OK'd birth control

Countries with stricter abortion laws have higher abortion rates

www.nbcnews.com

 

[CLAX1911]

So you will have no problem if the Dems take the Senate and refuse to consider any SC nominee a Republican President makes at any time then? Is that the new normal?

They did it during George Bush's term.

 

[CLAX1911]

Umm...because it was partisan douchebaggery and is unfair. They may get to do it, but that doesn't mean it was just or right to do it as they did. They didn't reject Obama's pick because they reviewed him and found him unacceptable for the position. They didn't review at all, they refused to review in the first place because it was Obama's pick and Obama is a D and the Senate Majority an R. They reversed course this time because Trump is an R and the Senate Majority an R.

It's as simple as that. The thing is hypocrites and charlatans get by through skirting the letter of the law while shitting on the spirit of the law. Anyone who is honest can admit that's exactly what's going on here.

Our entire political system is partisan douchebaggery. To have a problem with it only at this point is absurd.

 

[lurchadams]

Mitt Romney backing of Supreme Court vote paves way for election-year confirmation

GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah signaled on Tuesday that he is on board with the Senate's taking up a new Supreme Court nominee during the current election year, an announcement that all but ensures a nominee put forward by President Donald Trump will be confirmed barring any potential missteps by...

www.cnn.com

Looks like McConell has the votes for trumps SC nominee.

It's not surprising. Romney is a religious conservative. Filling the SCOTUS seat with a radical conservative is Romney's goal as well.

 

[99percenter]

If they didn't need to have a hearing then why did they need to have one?

So the senate did not do their job in 2016?

 

[lurchadams]

They did it during George Bush's term.

Which one? Both Bush's made SCOTUS appointments. What are you talking about?

 

[iguanaman]

They did it during George Bush's term.

Really? GW appointed 2 SC judges. Roberts and Alito.

 

[Mycroft]

It's standard Republocrat shenanigans. I don't think that Biden has any more integrity that Moscow Mitch.

The only difference between them is that McConnell has always been smarter and Biden can't remember what he had for breakfast this morning.

 

[Ikari]

Our entire political system is partisan douchebaggery. To have a problem with it only at this point is absurd.

I've had a problem with it for quite some time, one of the reasons I vote libertarian. Duh

McConnell is just being a partisan douchebag hypocrite by trying to push Trump's nominee through when he spent so long and fought so hard to prevent Obama from presenting his nominee to the Senate for review. It's their job to review the candidate, regardless if they will ultimately vote no or not. They didn't do their job then because they were stonewalling. They'll do their job now, not because it's the right thing to do, but only because it benefits their party. Party over Republic, that's the modern GOP.

It's unfortunate that there are so many lazy and dishonest enough to be OK with the behavior, but here we sit.

 

[Gondwanaland]

There is no child to protect. A zygote is not a human being. It is ridiculous to call it that. Women have the right to determine when and if they have a child. They will never relinquish that right no matter what you try to do to take it from them. Do you hate your mother too?

Abortion rates fell as countries made it legal and OK'd birth control

Countries with stricter abortion laws have higher abortion rates

www.nbcnews.com

You are flagrantly antiscience then. Any embryologist will tell you that the life of a human being begins at conception. It's literally in their textbooks. That you want to deny their being a himan being is something else entirely and smacks of those who considered blacks less than human, andthose who denied the personhood of Jews.

But I agree, women do have the right to decide when and if they have a child. There are numerous ways to do so including insisting on contraception, getting an IUD, getting tubes tied, or just simply closing their legs. They dont have, however, the right to murder another living being just because they were irresponsible and got knocked up.

 

[99percenter]

Really? GW appointed 2 SC judges. Roberts and Alito.

And republicans killed harriet miers

You are flagrantly antiscience then. Any embryologist will tell you that the life of a human being begins at conception. It's literally in their textbooks. That you want to deny their being a himan being is something else entirely and smacks of those who considered blacks less than human, andthose who denied the personhood of Jews.

But I agree, women do have the right to decide when and if they have a child. There are numerous ways to do so including insisting on contraception, getting an IUD, getting tubes tied, or just simply closing their legs. They dont have, however, the right to murder another living being just because they were irresponsible and got knocked up.

If abortion is murder, miscarriages are manslaughter, but most conservatives I know wouldn't mind charging women who have miscarriage's with manslaughter.

 

[99percenter]

I've had a problem with it for quite some time, one of the reasons I vote libertarian. Duh

McConnell is just being a partisan douchebag hypocrite by trying to push Trump's nominee through when he spent so long and fought so hard to prevent Obama from presenting his nominee to the Senate for review. It's their job to review the candidate, regardless if they will ultimately vote no or not. They didn't do their job then because they were stonewalling. They'll do their job now, not because it's the right thing to do, but only because it benefits their party. Party over Republic, that's the modern GOP.

It's unfortunate that there are so many lazy and dishonest enough to be OK with the behavior, but here we sit.

Of course. If garland had a fair hearing, they republicans might have avoided the hypocrisy allegations but they didn't even do that.

 

[iguanaman]

You are flagrantly antiscience then. Any embryologist will tell you that the life of a human being begins at conception. It's literally in their textbooks. That you want to deny their being a himan being is something else entirely and smacks of those who considered blacks less than human, andthose who denied the personhood of Jews.

But I agree, women do have the right to decide when and if they have a child. There are numerous ways to do so including insisting on contraception, getting an IUD, getting tubes tied, or just simply closing their legs. They dont have, however, the right to murder another living being just because they were irresponsible and got knocked up.

2/3rds of fertilized eggs do not end in a child. So that makes God the biggest abortionist in history. There is a huge difference between a zygote being "alive" and it being a human. It has no more human characteristics than a fingernail clipping. But I at least you admit you want to punish women and that is really what this is all about. You know your mother was a women don't you?

 

[Gondwanaland]

And republicans killed harriet miers

If abortion is murder, miscarriages are manslaughter, but most conservatives I know wouldn't mind charging women who have miscarriage's with manslaughter.

That doesnt even follow as the overwhelming amount of miscarriages are natural deaths. That's as retarded as saying someone dying in their house of a heart attack is manslaughter. Try thinking through your analogies a bit more there bud.

 

[Anagram]

I don't know why people don't understand that in 2015 it was their say whether they confirmed Obama's nominee and in 2020 it is their say whether they confirm Donald Trump's nominee.

The Senate makes the call. It's not hypocritical as constitutional.

I would say it is hypocritical and constitutional. There is little doubt the Senate has the authority to make the call. But I think there is also little doubt that the arguments the Republicans used to sell to the American People not filling the seat in 2016 are generally being ignored by them now. Some are making distinctions now about how it's different because there is no divided government or that it is not Trump's final term, but those distinctions were not made at the time. In fact, several Republicans specifically, Grassley and Graham being the most explicit, said that if this situation were to arise at the end of Trump's first term they would hold to the same standard as 2016 and not vote on the nominee. But all of their arguments about the American People needing a voice since the elections had already started and never having confirmed a SCOTUS justice in the last 80 years during an election year have fallen by the wayside.

I would have preferred if they had just said at the time "we have the power to stop a supreme court justice who's view on the law is different than ours from being confirmed and so we will not exercise that power." It would be so much better than basically lying to the American people about the reasoning behind their refusal to vote on Garland.

(I don't think the Democrats would have acted particularly differently if the roles were reversed. I also don't think that excuses straight up lying to the American people about the reasoning behind their decisions.)