McConnell says Senate will vote on Supreme Court

[ripmeister]

I am not sure that I understand the second sentence, in this context.

I am not being cute; I just really do not understand what you are suggesting.

McConnels position on Garland was to let the voters decide in the upcoming election.

[zelmo1234]

I really cannot disagree with you.

But that points to the central problem, viz.: We have become a nation run by professional politicians, rather than by statesmen.

I wonder just what Washington, Jefferson, Adams (either one), Madison, Hamilton et al,. would think about this current bunch of Washingtonians...

I would guess they would have sent them a letter much like this one, if they were still around....

https://uscode.house.gov/download/an...006/decind.pdf

And they would be very disappointed that we had not take the measure ourselves.

[zelmo1234]

McConnels position on Garland was to let the voters decide in the upcoming election.

That was because Obama Nominated someone that was not on the list that was shared with him by the GOP lead Senate. There was a New President coming into office one way or another and he chose not to give consent to President Obama's Choice.

He could choose the same with President Trump, but it is highly likely that Trump's choice is someone that will be on McConnell's list and thus he may approve of that choice and give Consent.

Is it 100% political YES Should it be NO, Would the Democrats nominate someone that would not legislate from the bench. 100% NO they would not. So it is in the best interest of the Country that the GOP handle this appointment

[ripmeister]

That was because Obama Nominated someone that was not on the list that was shared with him by the GOP lead Senate. There was a New President coming into office one way or another and he chose not to give consent to President Obama's Choice.

He could choose the same with President Trump, but it is highly likely that Trump's choice is someone that will be on McConnell's list and thus he may approve of that choice and give Consent.

Is it 100% political YES Should it be NO, Would the Democrats nominate someone that would not legislate from the bench. 100% NO they would not. So it is in the best interest of the Country that the GOP handle this appointment

I don’t disagree. All I’ve been doing is pointing out McConnels inconsistency. People who want to try and argue this moment is somehow different would be better off just saying that McConnels just sending a big FU, that he’s in charge and he’s going to do what he wants to do. At least that would be honest.

[zelmo1234]

I don’t disagree. All I’ve been doing is pointing out McConnels inconsistency. People who want to try and argue this moment is somehow different would be better off just saying that McConnels just sending a big FU, that he’s in charge and he’s going to do what he wants to do. At least that would be honest.

Did you see my post were I admit to be Hypocrite number one on the subject. Because you are right you can't really justify why one is different.

However we know that Obama would not have waited if he had a Democrat held Senate as he appointed someone for the post.

So call us all what you wish as long as we get the justice on the court I am good with that

[ripmeister]

Did you see my post were I admit to be Hypocrite number one on the subject. Because you are right you can't really justify why one is different.

However we know that Obama would not have waited if he had a Democrat held Senate as he appointed someone for the post.

So call us all what you wish as long as we get the justice on the court I am good with that

Understood.

[Peter1469]

Originally Posted by zelmo1234
That was because Obama Nominated someone that was not on the list that was shared with him by the GOP lead Senate. There was a New President coming into office one way or another and he chose not to give consent to President Obama's Choice.

He could choose the same with President Trump, but it is highly likely that Trump's choice is someone that will be on McConnell's list and thus he may approve of that choice and give Consent.

Is it 100% political YES Should it be NO, Would the Democrats nominate someone that would not legislate from the bench. 100% NO they would not. So it is in the best interest of the Country that the GOP handle this appointment

I don’t disagree. All I’ve been doing is pointing out McConnels inconsistency. People who want to try and argue this moment is somehow different would be better off just saying that McConnels just sending a big FU, that he’s in charge and he’s going to do what he wants to do. At least that would be honest.

Ted Cruz told Anderson Cooper (I saw on FB video) that 29 times a Justice died and a replacement was nominated in an election year. Of those 29 times, 19 were when the senate was the same party as the president. 17 of those were confirmed. The other 10 times the senate was the other party. 2 of those were confirmed. Garland was one of the other 8.

Nothing is new under the sun.

[pjohns]

I don’t disagree. All I’ve been doing is pointing out McConnels inconsistency. People who want to try and argue this moment is somehow different would be better off just saying that McConnels just sending a big FU, that he’s in charge and he’s going to do what he wants to do. At least that would be honest.

This is a good point.

On one of the Sunday political shows that I regularly watch--it was either Fox News Sunday or MediaBuzz; I forget which--someone pointed out that this was simply a matter of power politics. And I cannot disagree.

Of course, the Democrats appear unseemly when they whine; no serious person can believe that they would not do exactly the same thing, if they were in power.

That does not justify it, of course. But it does indicate why the "outrage" shown by Democrats is of a faux nature.

[Chris]

Hell, Democrats talk about justice this and justice that, racial justice, climate justice, thisthatandtheotherthing justice. Baloney, it's about power. So who's to complain McConnell is about power.

[ripmeister]

This is a good point.

On one of the Sunday political shows that I regularly watch--it was either Fox News Sunday or MediaBuzz; I forget which--someone pointed out that this was simply a matter of power politics. And I cannot disagree.

Of course, the Democrats appear unseemly when they whine; no serious person can believe that they would not do exactly the same thing, if they were in power.

That does not justify it, of course. But it does indicate why the "outrage" shown by Democrats is of a faux nature.

Unfortunately that is the state of politics today. The D's have ended up regretting Reid's rule. This IMO is another be careful what you wish for.