McConnell Walks It Back...Just in Case

[Chris]

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-m...t-nominations/

[Standing Wolf]

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]

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]

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.



https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b028e1fe3e6eab

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

[Chris]

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'

[countryboy]

They don't want civility.

Hillary Clinton: You 'cannot be civil' with Republicans, Democrats need to be 'tougher'

I know, that's why I said what I said.

[Captdon]

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]

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]

The Democrats are becoming the party of the street mobs. That's what they offer.

[Don29palms]

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.