Give Sen. McConnell his walking papers!
 

Call me crazy, but the last time anyone refused to do their job, they were FIRED! McConnell is NOT doing what the taxpayers of Kentucky voted him to do. First Rate even by low Republican standards, Merrick Garland, should, at the very least, be considered for appointment to the Supreme Court. Another example why the citizens of this great country are frustrated with a "do-nothing" congress. Get rid of all of them!. Even Rubio got caught with his knickers down. Is there anyone in congress that we can trust???

I think you mean Bill Clinton. :D

Why is it obstrucrion and do nothing when the congress does not agree with Obama?

And why is not obstruction and do nothing when the democrats do not agree with anything they have not proposed?

The congress, like it or not is acting within the rights of the rules and law on the supreme court nominees.

History has set a precedent on not supporting lame duck presidents nominations to the SC.

And we all know that if it were not for certain rules and laws that Obama cannot get around....he cannot do the usual end run around the system....thank GOD!

So all he and his supporters will do from now until the election is boo hoo and pi$$ and moan about not getting his way.

He is just observing " The Biden Rule " .

Oh, so now that the shoe is on the other side, you don't like it? Democrats insisted that the Republican president wait until after the general election before the nomination of new judge, but it's OK for them to be obstructionists, right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-appointments/
==========================
During last year of G.W.Bush, Chuck Schumer said:
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (Justices John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito.”
==============================
“It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed. The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. …Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.”

— Then-Sen. Joe Biden, statement on the floor of the Senate, June 25, 1992 (an election year)
==========================

Ok, you're crazy..............:MOJE_whot:........:a040:...... ..:loco:

For the die hard supporters of Obama who can only speak to talking points issued this post bears repeating for their benefit.

Well, the Senate can consider Judge Garland (a centrist) now OR wait for Hillary Clinton to name a more liberal one after she is elected. This statement actually came from Fox News today. They are basically conceding the fact that Mrs. Clinton will beat Trump in the general election.

:thumbup:

How many times per day do you have to take the X-X-X kool aid and wackie weed treatments?

Talk about hearing what ya wanna hear. But I guess that is the democratic dictate. Not only hearing what ya wanna hear but repeating it as if it had some degree of authenticity.

I recommend cutting back on the treatments to see at what point does reality come into play.

:thumbup:

Not on subject, but whenever Killary is brought up, it warrants a related comment. Has anyone enjoyed the NEW campaign add with Putin and Hillary in it. Hillary is barking like a Taco Bell dog (which she really did) and Putin is laughing at our new Democrat president. This should have been a Super Bowl ad.

http://s.nola.com/AwIj5KK

The right wing ad against Trump use clips with Trump doing the talking.


Hillery's bark was taken out of context but it is a much funnier ad.

No, the bark was real. Taking a bark out of context? Only a dog would know, I guess. I heard her speech where she started barking. The crowd smiled and giggle in embarrassment. I thought she had lost it and wondered how many votes she lost when she did her bark.

ok-you win
When did she bark and what was the context?
[i'll help you if you don't know]

Any chance you want to dispute the Trump tape? Did they lie? Was it out of context?

Here is her entire barking speech.

Hillary Clinton barks like a dog to slam Republicans - CNNPolitics.com

The context? How stupid! She was barking in a speech, period. She has finally shown her true nature. Context does not matter, especially in a campaign ad. The Trump campaign add with her barking was probably the best I've seen. The left takes comments out of context consistently, and then cries a river when someone uses their words against them.

This campaign ad was Super bowl quality. It was great.

Wow, she illustrated a point in her speech with a little light humor. Big deal!
The childish name calling ("Killery") is more troubling to me.

I suggest you get some "history" on the so called Biden Rule.

Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans will be violating their oaths of office and neglecting their duties under the Constitution if they refuse to allow a vote on Obama’s nominee. Republicans would rather cater to the shrinking base of their party than do their jobs.

The walls are closing in, and Senate Republicans are running out of excuses for taking the taxpayers’ money while refusing to fulfill their constitutional duties. What a bunch of jerks. The President has fulfilled his constitutional duty by putting forth a candidate , a moderate one that Republicans had easily confirmed before. Now they set a new precedent by not allowing a hearing. They are not opposed to the candidate, they are opposed to Obama, and are using their power just because they can. Hopefully it will backfire on them and the taxpayers will vote for someone that will actually represent them and do their job. Even so, the Democratic president will put forth the same name after the election, so this little schoolyard stunt just makes the Republicans look like what they are - a bunch of whiney little kids. Grow up.

Get over it. They are doing exactly what I voted them in for, stopping liberal corruption of our democracy. You are the "whiny little kid" that you accuse others of being. It is you that's whining because they are using the "Biden rule." You had no problem with Harry Reid holding a hundred bills, passed by the House on his desk, refusing to allow a vote on them. It is your party that forced Obamacare through when the majority of Americans did not want it. So, quit crying and get over it. There is no rush to confirm a new judge. If you really thought that Hillary was going to win the election, you wouldn't be panicking like a little girl.

Well, she was responsible for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, so what's your problem? No telling how many deaths have resulted from her felony violation of transmitting classified information over an unsecured Internet.

I suggest that you go back and listen to or read what Biden said about election year nominations. The left is adamant about getting their way, like little spoiled children. When the shoe is on the other foot, they cry like little children and scream that it's unfair.

BS! Democrats have never blocked a hearing. They have always allowed the vote to take place. You can defend this "do nothing" republican party but we all know the truth.

Typical Republican defense: "They do it to so it's ok for us." Please give us an example.

Democratic Question: How come republicans are a owned by big business?
Republican response: Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi!!!

Democratic Question: How come republicans won't do their job?
Republican response: Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi!!!

I have given examples, many times on here. NOW, you go back and read the comments. Quit being so lazy.

Kind of taking this whole thing out of context, aren't you? Are you really that retarded, or are you just so ignorant that you insist on running amok with no available points or facts to substantiate your comments?

You are definitely not the brightest light bulb on the Christmas tree. Where have you been hiding, under a rock? Before saying such idiotic things like that, you should do some research. Where do you think the "Biden Rule" came from? And have you not read or listened to Chuck Schumer's comment regarding Bush's nominations? Wow, you should abstain from commenting until you have something valid to say. If you liberals are so sure that Hillary is going to get elected, why not wait for her to nominate a liberal judge? What are you scared of? Where's your confidence? Me thinks, thou bluster is a sham.

The Republican Senate candidates that are in danger of being unseated are seeking to have their own meeting with Judge Garland. What does that tell you?

So being a little kid expecting elected officials to do their job is now a bad thing.

Here is the Biden Rule.

1. Nominee (Kennedy) was submitted.
2. Biden stated his reasons for not wanting to go through with the procedure.
3. Votes were taken, Kennedy was confirmed.

How that becomes "we ain't gonna consider a nominee" the same thing is only something a Republican can understand. Oh wait, that's right, President Obama is black and he is ruining America, lets make American great again, let's take our country back, blah blah blah.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. The Biden statement was in 1992. Kennedy was NOT nominated in an election year 1988. He was nominated the year before an election year 1987 and confirmed in Feb of the election year 1988.

In July 2007, Chuck Schumer demanded that the Democrats block supreme court nominations for 18 months.

Yes, being a little kid having a tantrum is a bad thing. What's your hurry? After all, you said Hillary is a shoo in for the next presidential position.

"Joe Biden: Claims That He Opposed Filling A SCOTUS Vacancy In An Election Year Are "Not An Accurate Description Of My Views."

In a February 22 statement Vice President Joe Biden said his 1992 comments were about "a hypothetical vacancy" and that in fact he "encouraged the Senate and the White House to 'work together to overcome partisan differences,'" which "remains [his] position today."

Biden also highlighted his record as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointing out that "he presided over the process to appoint Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed to the Supreme Court in a presidential election year."

As reported by The New York Times on February 23, Biden's aides also pointed out that "he had been warning against filling a vacancy created by a voluntary resignation of a justice rather than a vacancy created by an unexpected death. In any event, no such vacancy occurred":"

The bell just rang. I have to go to gym now. I'll be back later.

Justice Kennedy was entered for consideration Nov. 1997, and took office Feb, 1988. Joe Biden made his comment in 1992. I get your point. Kennedy wasn't held up in an election year.

When Biden made his comment, there wasn't an open seat in the Supreme Court. This "Biden Rule" is more political nonsense by the Republicans. Biden, also, stated the nominee should be consider until the election is over. If Hillary wins, the Republicans will rush to approve Garland, and they will still apply the Biden Rule. The election is over. Now, it is time to do our job. They will take a complete 180, and convince themselves that they have done nothing wrong. It is the nature of the beast.

The Senate Republicans are going to be called out for obstructing progress.

The Republican Party and the Tea Party faction is gasping at it's last breath now.

When Fox News conceded - as they did two days ago - that Hillary Clinton will win the Presidency, you know the Republicans are just twitching.

Ok, I get it. We are not supposed to take the man's word for what he said, rather the evolution of what might have been, could have been, might happen in the future or what is presently occurring. Apparently, someone got into that video clip of him speaking and edited it to reflect not what he really meant, or what he really said, but what we wanted to hear. Is that what you are saying? Depending on which party is in power, we need to be flexible to make sure that the left always gets their way, right?

Like I asked before, why the rush? Are you now afraid that Hillary won't be the next president? You have assured us that Hillary as president is a done deal. So, why hurry the process?

:1rotfl:..:clap2:...:1rotfl: That's so funny, and.....sooo desperate.

Let me know when Harry Reid is up for obstructing progress, after he held up everything while he was the leader. How many bills sat on his desk, unprocessed for a vote?

Give it a break and quit crying. It's very unbecoming. Can't threaten the Republicans with shutting down the government this time. The left has no power to threaten now. Remember what Obama said, elections have consequences. Turn around is fair play and the Dem's are crying a river. :icon_wink:

thank you for the facts. Unfortunately, the facts don't matter to Republicans.