Chris Matthews: Mitch McConnell has 'no right' to fill Kennedy's Supreme Court seat

[Docthehun]

Mr. Matthews conveniently ignores or purposely lies by omission the McConnell was specifically referring to a Presidential election year.Imagine that

Nice try. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[Cannons Front]

Nice try. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You do understand that the POTUS appoints justices right? The Senate only confirms, if they do not confirm the POTUS selection, he just selects another. So a year that you change POTUS is different than a year that you elect new Senators....
As I mentioned in another post, do you think we should only be able to appoint justices in odd numbered years? EVERY EVEN NUMBERED YEAR is a Senate election year.....

[hanger4]

Nice try. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Seriously ?? Do actually believe your statement applies ??

"Do as I say, not as I do."

McConnell was specifically referring to the Presidential elections

[Tahuyaman]

Chris Matthews: Mitch McConnell has 'no right' to fill Kennedy's Supreme Court seat

Matthews swerved into the truth. It's not McConnell's job to nominate a Supreme Court justice. It's the senate's job to provide advice and consent.

[Docthehun]

You do understand that the POTUS appoints justices right? The Senate only confirms, if they do not confirm the POTUS selection, he just selects another. So a year that you change POTUS is different than a year that you elect new Senators....
As I mentioned in another post, do you think we should only be able to appoint justices in odd numbered years? EVERY EVEN NUMBERED YEAR is a Senate election year.....

I believe anytime there is an opening, the POTUS, regardless of the election cycle should have the ability to nominate a replacement and the Senate has an obligation to give the nominee due consideration.

My point is that it's hypocritical for Mitch to take this stance after his conduct regarding Garland's nomination. "If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander." Clearly, Mitch's actions had nothing to do with the election cycle and everything to do with his personal desire not to consider anyone but a Conservative. No where in the Constitution does it stipulate the make-up of the Supreme Court.

[MisterVeritis]

I believe anytime there is an opening, the POTUS, regardless of the election cycle should have the ability to nominate a replacement and the Senate has an obligation to give the nominee due consideration.

My point is that it's hypocritical for Mitch to take this stance after his conduct regarding Garland's nomination. "If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander." Clearly, Mitch's actions had nothing to do with the election cycle and everything to do with his personal desire not to consider anyone but a Conservative. No where in the Constitution does it stipulate the make-up of the Supreme Court.

Barack Hussein O had the ability to nominate a replacement. The Senate has no obligation to advise and consent.

It worked perfectly.

[MrMike]

Does Chris Matthews think all Democrats are Anti-American socialist who can't make up their mind if they are male or female?

I don't.

Well...

(no comment)

[The Xl]

In Chris Matthews mind, the only person capable of filling that seat is one that can give him a thrill up his leg.

[Tahuyaman]

Barack Hussein O had the ability to nominate a replacement. The Senate has no obligation to advise and consent.

It worked perfectly.

He did nominate a replacement. The senate did provide advice and Obama ignored it, so they withheld their consent.

[MrMike]

This might help allay the fear of Liberals about SCOTUS picks?