PDA

View Full Version : McConnell Walks It Back...Just in Case



Standing Wolf
10-09-2018, 03:32 PM
Mitch McConnell Refuses To Rule Out Senate Confirming A Supreme Court Pick In 2020

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been peddling a new story about his decision to block President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

McConnell declined to allow any hearings on Garland after Obama chose him in March 2016 as his pick for the high court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Senate leader claimed the vacancy shouldn’t be filled in the months leading up to a presidential election, citing historical precedent.


But on Sunday, McConnell offered a revised version of his reasoning and refused to say he wouldn’t push for confirmation of a potential Supreme Court nominee from President Donald Trump in 2020.

Discussing Brett Kavanaugh’s Saturday confirmation to the court, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked McConnell to respond to a clip of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) slamming the Kentucky lawmaker’s handling of the Garland nomination.

“We didn’t attack Merrick Garland’s background and try to destroy him,” McConnell responded on “Fox News Sunday.” “We simply followed the tradition in America, which is that if you have... a Senate of a different party than the president you don’t fill a vacancy created in a presidential year. That went all the way back to 1888.”


Wallace, picking up on McConnell’s revised version of his rationale for blocking Garland, pressed him on his mention of party difference.


“When you blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination from President Obama, you basically said that we don’t do this in a presidential election year, and that we wait until the election and then whoever the people choose (for the White House), they get to pick the Supreme Court nominee,” Wallace said. “But what you just said now was it’s a question of whether or not the party in control of the Senate is different than the president.”

“If Donald Trump were to name somebody in the final year of his first term in 2020, are you saying that you would go ahead with that nomination?” he asked McConnell.

McConnell danced around the inquiry, pointing again to the Senate’s voting record in the 1880s. When Wallace tried to ask the question again, McConnell interrupted him: “The answer to your question is we’ll see whether there’s a vacancy in 2020.”


Later Sunday, CBS News’ John Dickerson continued to grill McConnell about his reason for blocking Garland’s nomination.


“Your decision to block Merrick Garland is something [Democrats] see as having kicked off a new stage in the partisanship associated with Supreme Court nominees,” Dickerson said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.”


McConnell claimed again that he had been merely following historical precedent, but Dickerson challenged him on the facts.

“John you are not listening to me,” McConnell said. “The history is exactly as I told you.” Dickerson responded that they “have a disagreement about the history.”

The Republican senator’s remarks on Sunday echoed his response to reporters a day earlier when asked a similar question about a potential 2020 Supreme Court nominee.

“We’ll see what it looks like in 2020,” McConnell said.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/09/Mitch-McConnell-640x480-June-2017-Getty-640x480.jpg

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-2020-supreme-court_us_5bba22fce4b028e1fe3e6eab

Peter1469
10-09-2018, 03:55 PM
Mitch McConnell Refuses To Rule Out Senate Confirming A Supreme Court Pick In 2020

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been peddling a new story about his decision to block President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

McConnell declined to allow any hearings on Garland after Obama chose him in March 2016 as his pick for the high court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Senate leader claimed the vacancy shouldn’t be filled in the months leading up to a presidential election, citing historical precedent.


But on Sunday, McConnell offered a revised version of his reasoning and refused to say he wouldn’t push for confirmation of a potential Supreme Court nominee from President Donald Trump in 2020.

Discussing Brett Kavanaugh’s Saturday confirmation to the court, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked McConnell to respond to a clip of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) slamming the Kentucky lawmaker’s handling of the Garland nomination.

“We didn’t attack Merrick Garland’s background and try to destroy him,” McConnell responded on “Fox News Sunday.” “We simply followed the tradition in America, which is that if you have... a Senate of a different party than the president you don’t fill a vacancy created in a presidential year. That went all the way back to 1888.”


Wallace, picking up on McConnell’s revised version of his rationale for blocking Garland, pressed him on his mention of party difference.


“When you blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination from President Obama, you basically said that we don’t do this in a presidential election year, and that we wait until the election and then whoever the people choose (for the White House), they get to pick the Supreme Court nominee,” Wallace said. “But what you just said now was it’s a question of whether or not the party in control of the Senate is different than the president.”

“If Donald Trump were to name somebody in the final year of his first term in 2020, are you saying that you would go ahead with that nomination?” he asked McConnell.

McConnell danced around the inquiry, pointing again to the Senate’s voting record in the 1880s. When Wallace tried to ask the question again, McConnell interrupted him: “The answer to your question is we’ll see whether there’s a vacancy in 2020.”


Later Sunday, CBS News’ John Dickerson continued to grill McConnell about his reason for blocking Garland’s nomination.


“Your decision to block Merrick Garland is something [Democrats] see as having kicked off a new stage in the partisanship associated with Supreme Court nominees,” Dickerson said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.”


McConnell claimed again that he had been merely following historical precedent, but Dickerson challenged him on the facts.

“John you are not listening to me,” McConnell said. “The history is exactly as I told you.” Dickerson responded that they “have a disagreement about the history.”

The Republican senator’s remarks on Sunday echoed his response to reporters a day earlier when asked a similar question about a potential 2020 Supreme Court nominee.

“We’ll see what it looks like in 2020,” McConnell said.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/09/Mitch-McConnell-640x480-June-2017-Getty-640x480.jpg

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-2020-supreme-court_us_5bba22fce4b028e1fe3e6eab





We should stick with historical precedent- no SCOTUS nominations leading up to a presidential election.

Standing Wolf
10-09-2018, 04:15 PM
We should stick with historical precedent- no SCOTUS nominations leading up to a presidential election.

I might agree with that sentiment if there existed a universally accepted meaning for the phrase "leading up to".

Antonin Scalia died on February 13th, with roughly nine months to go before the general election, and a little more than eleven months until a new President would take office. Are we going to say that a President shouldn't be permitted to nominate a Supreme Court justice during the year leading up to the election - or perhaps during the year leading up to his successor's inauguration?

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that as long as the Senate is in the hands of the President's Party, such a rule - unless it is somehow codified into law - would be blithely ignored, or that some justification for ignoring it would certainly be trotted out. McConnell is as much as saying that now.

ripmeister
10-09-2018, 04:20 PM
Mitch will do whatever it takes to cement a conservative majority in the SCOTUS. They've been building for this for 50 years. He'll come up with some rationale for a last minute nomination were it to come to that.

Peter1469
10-09-2018, 04:36 PM
I might agree with that sentiment if there existed a universally accepted meaning for the phrase "leading up to".

Antonin Scalia died on February 13th, with roughly nine months to go before the general election, and a little more than eleven months until a new President would take office. Are we going to say that a President shouldn't be permitted to nominate a Supreme Court justice during the year leading up to the election - or perhaps during the year leading up to his successor's inauguration?

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that as long as the Senate is in the hands of the President's Party, such a rule - unless it is somehow codified into law - would be blithely ignored, or that some justification for ignoring it would certainly be trotted out. McConnell is as much as saying that now.

It is not law but historical precedent. I have not researched the typical time period covered. Shumer (SP) wanted it extended to 19 month for Bush Jr. That was ridiculous.

ripmeister
10-09-2018, 04:47 PM
I've always been surprised that the strict Constitutionalists would be for anything than what the Constitution says and that is the sitting POTUS should nominate and the Senate should consider it.

Chris
10-09-2018, 05:26 PM
What I understand is McConnell invoked the Biden Rule on nominations.

Captdon
10-09-2018, 05:31 PM
Mitch will do whatever it takes to cement a conservative majority in the SCOTUS. They've been building for this for 50 years. He'll come up with some rationale for a last minute nomination were it to come to that.

Winning an election gives you the power to make the rules. Harry Reid did it and that's the way it is.

The conservative majority is cemented.

Captdon
10-09-2018, 05:36 PM
I've always been surprised that the strict Constitutionalists would be for anything than what the Constitution says and that is the sitting POTUS should nominate and the Senate should consider it.

It doesn't say that at all. The President shall appoint with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's what it says.

The Republicans put off the advice and consent as they are allowed to do. Politics is what it is.

Crepitus
10-09-2018, 09:00 PM
What I understand is McConnell invoked the Biden Rule on nominations.

There is no such thing as "the Biden rule". Lying does no one any good. I would have thought you'd figured that out by now.

Chris
10-09-2018, 09:15 PM
There is no such thing as "the Biden rule". Lying does no one any good. I would have thought you'd figured that out by now.

What's your problem?

"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Standing Wolf
10-09-2018, 09:44 PM
I will simply make the following prediction. Assuming that Trump is still the President in 2020, should he then be given the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court justice and the Democrats hold the Senate, there isn't one chance in a thousand that his candidate will be so much as acknowledged. Should the Republicans still have a Senate majority in that situation and they attempt to push an appointee through, what happens next will make the Kavanaugh hearings seem like a rerun of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.

Chris
10-09-2018, 09:50 PM
I will simply make the following prediction. Assuming that Trump is still the President in 2020, should he then be given the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court justice and the Democrats hold the Senate, there isn't one chance in a thousand that his candidate will be so much as acknowledged. Should the Republicans still have a Senate majority in that situation and they attempt to push an appointee through, what happens next will make the Kavanaugh hearings seem like a rerun of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.


And if the one to step down is RBG? If your prediction holds, then the court will be even more conservative without her.

I read in several places that next in line is a woman. Are Democrats going to the same to her?

countryboy
10-09-2018, 09:54 PM
Mitch McConnell Refuses To Rule Out Senate Confirming A Supreme Court Pick In 2020

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been peddling a new story about his decision to block President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

McConnell declined to allow any hearings on Garland after Obama chose him in March 2016 as his pick for the high court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Senate leader claimed the vacancy shouldn’t be filled in the months leading up to a presidential election, citing historical precedent.


But on Sunday, McConnell offered a revised version of his reasoning and refused to say he wouldn’t push for confirmation of a potential Supreme Court nominee from President Donald Trump in 2020.

Discussing Brett Kavanaugh’s Saturday confirmation to the court, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked McConnell to respond to a clip of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) slamming the Kentucky lawmaker’s handling of the Garland nomination.

“We didn’t attack Merrick Garland’s background and try to destroy him,” McConnell responded on “Fox News Sunday.” “We simply followed the tradition in America, which is that if you have... a Senate of a different party than the president you don’t fill a vacancy created in a presidential year. That went all the way back to 1888.”


Wallace, picking up on McConnell’s revised version of his rationale for blocking Garland, pressed him on his mention of party difference.


“When you blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination from President Obama, you basically said that we don’t do this in a presidential election year, and that we wait until the election and then whoever the people choose (for the White House), they get to pick the Supreme Court nominee,” Wallace said. “But what you just said now was it’s a question of whether or not the party in control of the Senate is different than the president.”

“If Donald Trump were to name somebody in the final year of his first term in 2020, are you saying that you would go ahead with that nomination?” he asked McConnell.

McConnell danced around the inquiry, pointing again to the Senate’s voting record in the 1880s. When Wallace tried to ask the question again, McConnell interrupted him: “The answer to your question is we’ll see whether there’s a vacancy in 2020.”


Later Sunday, CBS News’ John Dickerson continued to grill McConnell about his reason for blocking Garland’s nomination.


“Your decision to block Merrick Garland is something [Democrats] see as having kicked off a new stage in the partisanship associated with Supreme Court nominees,” Dickerson said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.”


McConnell claimed again that he had been merely following historical precedent, but Dickerson challenged him on the facts.

“John you are not listening to me,” McConnell said. “The history is exactly as I told you.” Dickerson responded that they “have a disagreement about the history.”

The Republican senator’s remarks on Sunday echoed his response to reporters a day earlier when asked a similar question about a potential 2020 Supreme Court nominee.

“We’ll see what it looks like in 2020,” McConnell said.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/09/Mitch-McConnell-640x480-June-2017-Getty-640x480.jpg

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-2020-supreme-court_us_5bba22fce4b028e1fe3e6eab





Good. When you guys want a return to civility, you let us know. Until then, the new rules apply.

Chris
10-09-2018, 09:58 PM
Good. When you guys want a return to civility, you let us know. Until then, the new rules apply.

They don't want civility.

Hillary Clinton: You 'cannot be civil' with Republicans, Democrats need to be 'tougher' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/10/09/hillary-clinton-cnn-interview/1578636002/)

countryboy
10-09-2018, 10:00 PM
They don't want civility.

Hillary Clinton: You 'cannot be civil' with Republicans, Democrats need to be 'tougher' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/10/09/hillary-clinton-cnn-interview/1578636002/)
I know, that's why I said what I said.

Captdon
10-10-2018, 08:36 AM
There is no such thing as "the Biden rule". Lying does no one any good. I would have thought you'd figured that out by now.

There used to be. You need to pay attention.

Captdon
10-10-2018, 08:42 AM
I will simply make the following prediction. Assuming that Trump is still the President in 2020, should he then be given the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court justice and the Democrats hold the Senate, there isn't one chance in a thousand that his candidate will be so much as acknowledged. Should the Republicans still have a Senate majority in that situation and they attempt to push an appointee through, what happens next will make the Kavanaugh hearings seem like a rerun of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.

Sure. There is no chance of the Democrats winning the senate. If they should do so then the Republican majority can do whatever they choose to do.

Who's going to stop them? What we just witnessed was an attempted lynching. The Republicans couldn't stop that. It's the way it is. Don't try any morality crap after what we just watched.

Captdon
10-10-2018, 08:45 AM
The Democrats are becoming the party of the street mobs. That's what they offer.

Don29palms
10-10-2018, 09:19 AM
The Democrats are becoming the party of the street mobs. That's what they offer.

It takes a mob of demonrats combined to get into single digit IQ level.

ripmeister
10-10-2018, 09:33 AM
It takes a mob of demonrats combined to get into single digit IQ level.

LOL! Actually if you think about it it only takes one. Mathematics review is in order.

Hoosier8
10-10-2018, 10:46 AM
Mitch McConnell Refuses To Rule Out Senate Confirming A Supreme Court Pick In 2020

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been peddling a new story about his decision to block President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

McConnell declined to allow any hearings on Garland after Obama chose him in March 2016 as his pick for the high court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Senate leader claimed the vacancy shouldn’t be filled in the months leading up to a presidential election, citing historical precedent.


But on Sunday, McConnell offered a revised version of his reasoning and refused to say he wouldn’t push for confirmation of a potential Supreme Court nominee from President Donald Trump in 2020.

Discussing Brett Kavanaugh’s Saturday confirmation to the court, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked McConnell to respond to a clip of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) slamming the Kentucky lawmaker’s handling of the Garland nomination.

“We didn’t attack Merrick Garland’s background and try to destroy him,” McConnell responded on “Fox News Sunday.” “We simply followed the tradition in America, which is that if you have... a Senate of a different party than the president you don’t fill a vacancy created in a presidential year. That went all the way back to 1888.”


Wallace, picking up on McConnell’s revised version of his rationale for blocking Garland, pressed him on his mention of party difference.


“When you blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination from President Obama, you basically said that we don’t do this in a presidential election year, and that we wait until the election and then whoever the people choose (for the White House), they get to pick the Supreme Court nominee,” Wallace said. “But what you just said now was it’s a question of whether or not the party in control of the Senate is different than the president.”

“If Donald Trump were to name somebody in the final year of his first term in 2020, are you saying that you would go ahead with that nomination?” he asked McConnell.

McConnell danced around the inquiry, pointing again to the Senate’s voting record in the 1880s. When Wallace tried to ask the question again, McConnell interrupted him: “The answer to your question is we’ll see whether there’s a vacancy in 2020.”


Later Sunday, CBS News’ John Dickerson continued to grill McConnell about his reason for blocking Garland’s nomination.


“Your decision to block Merrick Garland is something [Democrats] see as having kicked off a new stage in the partisanship associated with Supreme Court nominees,” Dickerson said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.”


McConnell claimed again that he had been merely following historical precedent, but Dickerson challenged him on the facts.

“John you are not listening to me,” McConnell said. “The history is exactly as I told you.” Dickerson responded that they “have a disagreement about the history.”

The Republican senator’s remarks on Sunday echoed his response to reporters a day earlier when asked a similar question about a potential 2020 Supreme Court nominee.

“We’ll see what it looks like in 2020,” McConnell said.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/09/Mitch-McConnell-640x480-June-2017-Getty-640x480.jpg

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-2020-supreme-court_us_5bba22fce4b028e1fe3e6eab






That was on the 7th. Here is what he said on the 9th.

“If I’m chairman, they won’t take it up, no. Because I pledged that in 2016.”

Standing Wolf
10-10-2018, 11:12 AM
That was on the 7th. Here is what he said on the 9th.

“If I’m chairman, they won’t take it up, no. Because I pledged that in 2016.”

Faced with the prospect of a temper tantrum from Cheeto Jesus? I think The Turtle would probably crack in no time, pledges notwithstanding.

AZ Jim
10-10-2018, 11:21 AM
It takes a mob of demonrats combined to get into single digit IQ level.Oh goodie, another newbie putz.

Don29palms
10-10-2018, 11:51 AM
Oh goodie, another newbie putz.

Truth hurts sometimes. Are you a braindead demonrat sheeple?

Tahuyaman
10-10-2018, 12:12 PM
Mitch will do whatever it takes to cement a conservative majority in the SCOTUS. They've been building for this for 50 years. He'll come up with some rationale for a last minute nomination were it to come to that.

It would be nice to have a Supreme Court which ensures our law makers do not exceed their constitutional authority.

Tahuyaman
10-10-2018, 12:37 PM
Oh goodie, another newbie putz.


I guess age doesn't necessarily cause one to gain wisdom.

Tahuyaman
10-10-2018, 12:38 PM
Truth hurts sometimes. Are you a braindead demonrat sheeple?

It shouldn't have taken very long to figure that out.

Ransom
10-10-2018, 05:29 PM
Mitch will do whatever it takes to cement a conservative majority in the SCOTUS. They've been building for this for 50 years. He'll come up with some rationale for a last minute nomination were it to come to that.
We elected him to do just that. And I think the Democrats need to stop the whining. McConnel will go down in history as will Susan Collins for finally stepping to the plate....and sending Lefty curve balls into the right field bleachers.

No one at all discussed during this entire process why Republicans could seat Kavanaugh with a 50-48 vote with Pence right there in case of a tie. No one.

The Democrats would have had every reason to filibuster this nominee and that might have worked, the problem.....the filibuster arrow was taken from their quiver. By Harry Reid and Chuck U Schumer. The Democrats filibustered Gorsuch! Playing the wrong hand and Republicans came right back with what is called the nuclear option and torched their filibuster putting Neil Gorsuch on the court. For this Kavanaugh fight.....as will be the case for any possible Clarence Thomas or RBG fight.....Republicans will need but 51 votes.

Y'all fcked yourselves.....and now whine endlessly in defeat.

Ransom
10-10-2018, 05:32 PM
Oh goodie, another newbie putz.
I'll have to show him the October 2016 posts from users Crepitus and AZ Jim to get him caught up. Give him some foundation. After all, Crepitus and Jim should go back on their own volition and read their pre-election contributions....just for sheer amusement.

Crepitus
10-10-2018, 10:10 PM
There used to be. You need to pay attention.

There never was. Conservatives lie when it suits them.

Chris
10-11-2018, 08:08 AM
There never was. Conservatives lie when it suits them.

Criminy, crepitus, in response to your earlier outburst, I quoted Biden's speech on court nominations with an election coming up. That, Biden, is the source of what's called the Biden Rule.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDJFQvXN9W8

More: Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html), Joe Biden explains why Senate Republicans citing the 'Biden rule' is 'ridiculous' (https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-merrick-garland-supreme-court-2016-3), Schumer Demands Congress Use 'Biden Rule' in Choosing Kennedy Replacement (http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/27/anthony-kennedy-retires-schumer-rips-trump-republicans-not-choose-pick-biden-rule).

Tahuyaman
10-11-2018, 01:56 PM
I've always been surprised that the strict Constitutionalists would be for anything than what the Constitution says and that is the sitting POTUS should nominate and the Senate should consider it.

Advise and consent is more than just consideration.

ripmeister
10-11-2018, 02:11 PM
Advise and consent is more than just consideration.

True but doing nothing but stonewalling I don't think is what they had in mind.
m

Robo
10-14-2018, 04:18 PM
Mitch McConnell Refuses To Rule Out Senate Confirming A Supreme Court Pick In 2020

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been peddling a new story about his decision to block President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

McConnell declined to allow any hearings on Garland after Obama chose him in March 2016 as his pick for the high court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Senate leader claimed the vacancy shouldn’t be filled in the months leading up to a presidential election, citing historical precedent.


But on Sunday, McConnell offered a revised version of his reasoning and refused to say he wouldn’t push for confirmation of a potential Supreme Court nominee from President Donald Trump in 2020.

Discussing Brett Kavanaugh’s Saturday confirmation to the court, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked McConnell to respond to a clip of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) slamming the Kentucky lawmaker’s handling of the Garland nomination.

“We didn’t attack Merrick Garland’s background and try to destroy him,” McConnell responded on “Fox News Sunday.” “We simply followed the tradition in America, which is that if you have... a Senate of a different party than the president you don’t fill a vacancy created in a presidential year. That went all the way back to 1888.”


Wallace, picking up on McConnell’s revised version of his rationale for blocking Garland, pressed him on his mention of party difference.


“When you blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination from President Obama, you basically said that we don’t do this in a presidential election year, and that we wait until the election and then whoever the people choose (for the White House), they get to pick the Supreme Court nominee,” Wallace said. “But what you just said now was it’s a question of whether or not the party in control of the Senate is different than the president.”

“If Donald Trump were to name somebody in the final year of his first term in 2020, are you saying that you would go ahead with that nomination?” he asked McConnell.

McConnell danced around the inquiry, pointing again to the Senate’s voting record in the 1880s. When Wallace tried to ask the question again, McConnell interrupted him: “The answer to your question is we’ll see whether there’s a vacancy in 2020.”


Later Sunday, CBS News’ John Dickerson continued to grill McConnell about his reason for blocking Garland’s nomination.


“Your decision to block Merrick Garland is something [Democrats] see as having kicked off a new stage in the partisanship associated with Supreme Court nominees,” Dickerson said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.”


McConnell claimed again that he had been merely following historical precedent, but Dickerson challenged him on the facts.

“John you are not listening to me,” McConnell said. “The history is exactly as I told you.” Dickerson responded that they “have a disagreement about the history.”

The Republican senator’s remarks on Sunday echoed his response to reporters a day earlier when asked a similar question about a potential 2020 Supreme Court nominee.

“We’ll see what it looks like in 2020,” McConnell said.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/09/Mitch-McConnell-640x480-June-2017-Getty-640x480.jpg

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-2020-supreme-court_us_5bba22fce4b028e1fe3e6eab






And we just know that if the parties were or are ever switched the Democrats will act totally different, right? IF Dems hold the Senate in 2020 and Trump picks a candidate to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, the Senate Dems will interview him/her, hold the hearings and take the vote, correct? They'd only do that if they were absolutely positive they had the NO vote in the bag. otherwise they'd do exactly what Mc'Connell did. You know it and I know it. As a matter of fact Joe Biden as chair of the Judicial Committee a decade or so ago recommended the same thing Mc'Connell did. The situation just never came to fact.

Robo
10-14-2018, 04:28 PM
I've always been surprised that the strict Constitutionalists would be for anything than what the Constitution says and that is the sitting POTUS should nominate and the Senate should consider it.

The Constitution doesn't say WHEN it should be considered. I'd be willing to bet that if the Democrats take the Senate in this midterm, and hold it through however long Trump is President, they'll never confirm another Trump candidate as long as he's President. You wantta see some low-life Senate back stabbing and payback, just watch the Democrats act if they ever get the chance. They have no stoop too low to shove it up anybody's ass. They proved that with Kavanaugh.

Robo
10-14-2018, 04:31 PM
There is no such thing as "the Biden rule". Lying does no one any good. I would have thought you'd figured that out by now.

Go to Youtube and type in "The Biden Rule" and see what comes up. I've seen the video evidence of the Biden Rule.

Robo
10-14-2018, 04:35 PM
I will simply make the following prediction. Assuming that Trump is still the President in 2020, should he then be given the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court justice and the Democrats hold the Senate, there isn't one chance in a thousand that his candidate will be so much as acknowledged. Should the Republicans still have a Senate majority in that situation and they attempt to push an appointee through, what happens next will make the Kavanaugh hearings seem like a rerun of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.

It only takes about 3 seconds to come up with that opinion. It's an automatic no-brainer. It's called "Swamp Politics."

Robo
10-14-2018, 04:40 PM
It would be nice to have a Supreme Court which ensures our law makers do not exceed their constitutional authority.

They already have countless times!

Tahuyaman
10-14-2018, 04:43 PM
They already have countless times!
They need to continue that.

Captain Obvious
10-14-2018, 10:04 PM
McConnell did this nation a huge service blocking that nomination.

Huge, the radical left agenda could not have furthered it's agenda. 8 years of that garbage did enough damage to this nation, racially, culturally, politically. It needed reversed and that Trump is in there, dirtbag as he is, it's a godsend and to have two conservatives locking up SCOTUS for generations...

We cannot have a militant, radical left running this nation. It just can't happen, a radical left agenda has never succeeded anywhere.