Schumer Demands Congress Wait Until After Midterm Elections to Confirm Kennedy Replacement

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
This is a prime example of where a door, that should never have been opened, was opened and the other side is going to exploit it.

While, yes in 2016, it was a presidential election going on. However, this is very similar in nature, the majority of congress, both the House and the Senate is up for re-election. And the democrats are correct, as the standard was set by McConnell, who exploited, the prior time that this happened.

So now it comes full circle, and all it is going to take is 3 Republican senators to agree and the confirmation will wait until Jan.

Potus election is different than midterms
If you think 3 GOP will break with GOP potus before midterms I have some land you may be interested in
This is nba allstar slam dunk
Easiest SCOTUS confirmation ever

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Are you really that ignorant? When it's a presidential election year there's a good chance that a different president especially in that case when the outgoing president was at his term limit will switch to an alternate president and therefore the choice will change. The choice isn't going to change after the midterm elections this time. Choice is still going to be the same. If you're too ignorant to understand the difference you need to look no further to see why your side is losing.


Jaden

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
This is a prime example of where a door, that should never have been opened, was opened and the other side is going to exploit it.

While, yes in 2016, it was a presidential election going on. However, this is very similar in nature, the majority of congress, both the House and the Senate is up for re-election. And the democrats are correct, as the standard was set by McConnell, who exploited, the prior time that this happened.

So now it comes full circle, and all it is going to take is 3 Republican senators to agree and the confirmation will wait until Jan.

Jan ... when a Republican president will nominate a conservative judge?

And be shut down by a senate not controlled by the GOP. Hence McConnell already talking about rushing this thing through.

For 3 years? We won't have a functioning supreme court for 3 years? That's the plan?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Imagine if Hillary had been a better candidate...she'd have been the one to be able to appoint at least two (three? four?) more SC Justices.

I think Hillary would have appointed Justices so Left Wing that they would end up declaring the whole U.S. Constitution unConstitutional.

💥🎃💥

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
This is a prime example of where a door, that should never have been opened, was opened and the other side is going to exploit it.

While, yes in 2016, it was a presidential election going on. However, this is very similar in nature, the majority of congress, both the House and the Senate is up for re-election. And the democrats are correct, as the standard was set by McConnell, who exploited, the prior time that this happened.

So now it comes full circle, and all it is going to take is 3 Republican senators to agree and the confirmation will wait until Jan.

Jan ... when a Republican president will nominate a conservative judge?

And be shut down by a senate not controlled by the GOP. Hence McConnell already talking about rushing this thing through.

For 3 years? We won't have a functioning supreme court for 3 years? That's the plan?

Of course not.

a reply to: xuenchen

The president does not appoint Justices.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: xuenchen

The president does not appoint Justices.

Gee Clyde, I knew that one.

But Hillary might not.

Get it Get it

💥Sun💥Burn💥

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Imagine if Hillary had been a better candidate...she'd have been the one to be able to appoint at least two (three? four?) more SC Justices.

This is part of the reason they are so f'ing mad. A chance like this only comes around once in a long while.......they blew it all because it was "her turn"

She really F'd over her party.
Thank God.

If it were up to Maxine, yesterday would not be soon enough to impeach Trump. I suppose Schumer hopes the Blue wave will cleans the Congress and Senate of Republicans this November, clearing the way for the Democrats to file impeachment articles. And of course, that vote would push Senate conformation hearings on a new Justice, on hold, till a new president was elected, or, appointed. That was my point.

Phage, really? Really??

a reply to: Phage

Actually... the President does get to make direct temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess... not sure if that would cover a Justice? If the Senate refuses to approve anyone?

I'm actually not sure, this is more of a question than a statement.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: fiverx313
excuse me, didn't y'all cheer when they, with no legal basis, decided obama didn't get to nominate a justice even tho he had a year left in his term?

at least have the sack to own your hypocrisy.

TheLeft asked for it and now they are going to get it. No more Mr can’t we all just get along. It’s full war and President Trump is leading the way so lead, follow or get out of the way.

Want some cheese with that whine lefty?

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye


If it were up to Maxine, yesterday would not be soon enough to impeach Trump. I suppose Schumer hopes the Blue wave will cleans the Congress and Senate of Republicans this November, clearing the way for the Democrats to file impeachment articles. And of course, that vote would push Senate conformation hearings on a new Justice, on hold, till a new president was elected, or, appointed. That was my point.

Phage, really? Really??

A new president would not be elected, or appointed if Trump is impeached and removed from office. Mike Pence would serve out the rest of Trumps term as president. Trump being impeached and removed doesnt bring about a presidential do over. We get a man who is more conservative than Trump as the next president. He will nominate a conservative judge. A slitly liberal leaning Senate will have to confirm a conservative judge because they couldn't hold out for three years in the hopes of a liberal president in 2020.

This can really only go one way and for the sake of the country Democrats should let the inevitable happen. Hem and Haw if it makes them feel better but let it be done just the same.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

For 3 years? We won't have a functioning supreme court for 3 years? That's the plan?

It won't be socially functional for the people ever again...what's three years?

originally posted by: MemoryShock

originally posted by: DanDanDat

For 3 years? We won't have a functioning supreme court for 3 years? That's the plan?

It won't be socially functional for the people ever again...what's three years?

"Ever again"?

a reply to: DanDanDat

This is true, except... should Trump be impeached, and Pence have some sort of 'accident' before he could appoint a VP, the next in line would be Speaker of the House. Since al this is predicated on the Democrats taking control of the House, can you say "President Pelosi"?

I tried, but I threw up a little...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
OK, fair is fair. I don't have a problem with them waiting until after the midterm.

TheRedneck

This is different, it's not a Presidential election. It's the mid-terms. The Democrats already set the precedent when they confirmed Kagan in 2010 before the mid-terms.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

Actually... the President does get to make direct temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess... not sure if that would cover a Justice? If the Senate refuses to approve anyone?

I'm actually not sure, this is more of a question than a statement.

TheRedneck

The POTUS can make recess appointments to departments, agencies, boards, commissions, etc.

He/She can't sneak in judges and justices.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

OK, thanks... wasn't sure.

As for the delay, I don't see it making any difference. But it might be a good way to make the armadillos look more useless than they already do.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
This is a prime example of where a door, that should never have been opened, was opened and the other side is going to exploit it.

While, yes in 2016, it was a presidential election going on. However, this is very similar in nature, the majority of congress, both the House and the Senate is up for re-election. And the democrats are correct, as the standard was set by McConnell, who exploited, the prior time that this happened.

So now it comes full circle, and all it is going to take is 3 Republican senators to agree and the confirmation will wait until Jan.

Jan ... when a Republican president will nominate a conservative judge?

And be shut down by a senate not controlled by the GOP. Hence McConnell already talking about rushing this thing through.

For 3 years? We won't have a functioning supreme court for 3 years? That's the plan?

No, DEMs likely will hold votes and vote them down, unlike a certain turtle claiming to be human Mitch McConnell. Then it would be up to Trump to appoint someone that could get through the senate.

a reply to: xuenchen

Gee Clyde, I knew that one.

I know that you know it.


Who is Clyde?