The GOP is not going to allow Obama to get a nominee through. McConnell has said NO HEARINGS and with no hearings there can be no vote. This is totally within his authority to refuse to advise or consent to a Presidential appointment. It is unclear what the fear is that would prevent the GOP from going through the process of following the Constitutional methodology of letting Obama submit and name, evaluate his or her fitness and voting. The GOP can keep the seat open by voting NO on the person if they have good reason. Do this a couple times and we are to the next President.
And if that next President is a Democrat and the GOP holds the Senate do they just let it stay vacant? Should a political party refuse to accept a nominee who is qualified but differs in Constitutional interpretation from the dogma of that party? If under the next Democratic president 2 or 3 more justices die or retire do those seats also go unfilled?
If the "election" results should be awaited before a nominee can be considered does that apply to all elections where the Senate or the Presidency is in play? Should any vacancy in 2018 be stonewalled pending the Senate elections that year? Where does this end?
If the Democrats retake the Senate in 2016 and the GOP wins the Presidency does that mean that the Dems should block any new nominee as the voters have spoken by electing Democrats who surely are going to be running on the SCOTUS issue?

"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor.."

Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Guest

The GOP is not going to allow Obama to get a nominee through. McConnell has said NO HEARINGS and with no hearings there can be no vote. This is totally within his authority to refuse to advise or consent to a Presidential appointment. It is unclear what the fear is that would prevent the GOP from going through the process of following the Constitutional methodology of letting Obama submit and name, evaluate his or her fitness and voting. The GOP can keep the seat open by voting NO on the person if they have good reason. Do this a couple times and we are to the next President.
And if that next President is a Democrat and the GOP holds the Senate do they just let it stay vacant? Should a political party refuse to accept a nominee who is qualified but differs in Constitutional interpretation from the dogma of that party? If under the next Democratic president 2 or 3 more justices die or retire do those seats also go unfilled?
If the "election" results should be awaited before a nominee can be considered does that apply to all elections where the Senate or the Presidency is in play? Should any vacancy in 2018 be stonewalled pending the Senate elections that year? Where does this end?
If the Democrats retake the Senate in 2016 and the GOP wins the Presidency does that mean that the Dems should block any new nominee as the voters have spoken by electing Democrats who surely are going to be running on the SCOTUS issue?

They did it to eleven of Bush's nominees. So, what's new?

Originally Posted by Guest

They did it to eleven of Bush's nominees. So, what's new?

Yeah, BUT that was THEM.

Even Obama said, last week, he regretted supporting such actions when he was a senator and they were blocking republican nominees.

When he states things like that it only shows how stupid he thinks we are.

OR, more likely (and I favor this one) shows how stupid he is.

The man truly believes all he has to do is say something and his words make it all right......at least in his limited way of looking at reality.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yeah, BUT that was THEM.

Even Obama said, last week, he regretted supporting such actions when he was a senator and they were blocking republican nominees.

When he states things like that it only shows how stupid he thinks we are.

OR, more likely (and I favor this one) shows how stupid he is.

The man truly believes all he has to do is say something and his words make it all right......at least in his limited way of looking at reality.

Everything he says always sounds like he is lecturing children. Dem's support him and they also support the criminal Clinton(s). I can see how he thinks all of us are stupid, by the way he is stupidly supported by liberals.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, nothing the Dems did in the past is supposed to matter today. Arrogance reigns supreme on the left.

Originally Posted by Guest

They did it to eleven of Bush's nominees. So, what's new?

I was not aware of Bush having eleven supreme court nominees. I don't know how I missed that. Could you list them here for me as Google can't find them either. I do know that one of G W Bush's nominees was rejected, Harriet Miers, but she was rejected by the radical right wing of the GOP because they were worried she was not right wing enough. You know the same wing that runs things now. So No you fail your history lesson. The only Bush nominee to fail was rejected by his own party.

Maybe you mean GHW Bush #1 . He had two nominees and both nominees were considered and approved. So .... did you have a point to make?

The only thing that is not new is the lack of intelligence from those in your camp. Read history, and try to retain some of it before you post again.

Originally Posted by Guest

I was not aware of Bush having eleven supreme court nominees. I don't know how I missed that. Could you list them here for me as Google can't find them either. I do know that one of G W Bush's nominees was rejected, Harriet Miers, but she was rejected by the radical right wing of the GOP because they were worried she was not right wing enough. You know the same wing that runs things now. So No you fail your history lesson. The only Bush nominee to fail was rejected by his own party.

Maybe you mean GHW Bush #1 . He had two nominees and both nominees were considered and approved. So .... did you have a point to make?

The only thing that is not new is the lack of intelligence from those in your camp. Read history, and try to retain some of it before you post again.

Originally Posted by Guest

I was not aware of Bush having eleven supreme court nominees. I don't know how I missed that. Could you list them here for me as Google can't find them either. I do know that one of G W Bush's nominees was rejected, Harriet Miers, but she was rejected by the radical right wing of the GOP because they were worried she was not right wing enough. You know the same wing that runs things now. So No you fail your history lesson. The only Bush nominee to fail was rejected by his own party.

Maybe you mean GHW Bush #1 . He had two nominees and both nominees were considered and approved. So .... did you have a point to make?

The only thing that is not new is the lack of intelligence from those in your camp. Read history, and try to retain some of it before you post again.

Snarky aren't you? The comment said Bush's nominees. Did it say Supreme Court nominees? Let me answer that for you, since you are too lazy to look it up. The statement said " They did it to eleven of Bush's nominees." Got it? Instead of acting like an @ss, why don't you follow the thread so you will understand how the conversation is going. That IS the point of what was said. Got it? No? Well, pick up your history book and read it again. Then come back and give us a book report, junior.

Originally Posted by Guest

Snarky aren't you? The comment said Bush's nominees. Did it say Supreme Court nominees? Let me answer that for you, since you are too lazy to look it up. The statement said " They did it to eleven of Bush's nominees." Got it? Instead of acting like an @ss, why don't you follow the thread so you will understand how the conversation is going. That IS the point of what was said. Got it? No? Well, pick up your history book and read it again. Then come back and give us a book report, junior.

Seeing as I started the thread, and it is titled SCOTUS (hint supreme court of the United States) and the 11 reference was directed at the original post which dealt with the opening on the SCOTUS either the person who made the 11 statement is unable to stay on topic (poor reading skills, untreated ADHD, general "poor education" per Trump, or some other disorder, or the 11 is referring to nominees to the SCOTUS.
If you wish to discuss failures of presidents to get nominees considered for other Federal courts, start your own thread on the topic. (Hint the GOP has been the most obstructionist in history during the Obama administration)
Confirming federal judges during the final two years of the Obama administration: Vacancies up, nominees down | Brookings Institution

Originally Posted by Guest

Seeing as I started the thread, and it is titled SCOTUS (hint supreme court of the United States) and the 11 reference was directed at the original post which dealt with the opening on the SCOTUS either the person who made the 11 statement is unable to stay on topic (poor reading skills, untreated ADHD, general "poor education" per Trump, or some other disorder, or the 11 is referring to nominees to the SCOTUS.
If you wish to discuss failures of presidents to get nominees considered for other Federal courts, start your own thread on the topic. (Hint the GOP has been the most obstructionist in history during the Obama administration)
Confirming federal judges during the final two years of the Obama administration: Vacancies up, nominees down | Brookings Institution

Nice try, but all you did was admit that you misread the comment regarding 11 nominees. The person that made the comment regarding the 11 nominees was replying to the previous comment. Try reading or try reading comprehension. Twisting the words to suit your embarrassment doesn't fool anyone.

Originally Posted by Guest

Snarky aren't you? The comment said Bush's nominees. Did it say Supreme Court nominees? Let me answer that for you, since you are too lazy to look it up. The statement said " They did it to eleven of Bush's nominees." Got it? Instead of acting like an @ss, why don't you follow the thread so you will understand how the conversation is going. That IS the point of what was said. Got it? No? Well, pick up your history book and read it again. Then come back and give us a book report, junior.

This thread is about the SCOTUS

Why don't you pay attention and stop making an azz of yourself ?

In case you are too lazy or are unable to figure out what the acronym SCOTUS is, try google.

After you figure that part out, then come back and comment on the process of the President nominating someone to SCOTUS, junior.

Originally Posted by Guest

This thread is about the SCOTUS

Why don't you pay attention and stop making an azz of yourself ?

In case you are too lazy or are unable to figure out what the acronym SCOTUS is, try google.

After you figure that part out, then come back and comment on the process of the President nominating someone to SCOTUS, junior.

You should try putting that bottle down, because the comment WAS about the subject. It was a reply to another comment. Try reading before blathering in defense of your mistake. Just apologize for your mistake and get over it. The only relationship with your comment to the subject of the thread was to include the acronym SCOTUS in your reply. If you wish to carry this thread on by attempting to save face, you probably should let it go.

He said "...11 nominees." It was in a reply to someone's "..does that mean that the Dems should block any new nominee.." He was NOT the one that was diverting. He was just responding to the other poster's comment. Case closed.

"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor.."

Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court