Good.  I hope they go about and get it done.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the cupboard but what happened in 2016 is not the same as to what is happening now.  Even I can understand that.

The Democrats would be doing the exact same thing if they held the senate majority and the president was a democrat.

Get it done and God Bless America.

You seem pretty rational and logical, as apparent by your rational and logical thought process. 

Liberals are generally motivated by emotion, which often forsakes logic.  Not that there's anything wrong with basing one's opinion from an emotional perspective.  Just that most of the perspectives based primarily on emotion tend to be hypocritical and irrational.  Notice folks like that here?

Flapp_Jackson
You are absolutely correct.

I would argue that the Senate wouldn't be doing the job they were elected to do: if they DIDN'T block Obamas nomination.

As for voting on a nomination, you needed a 60% majority to even call a vote. Harry Reid and the Democrat Majority in 2013 effectively nullified the 60% majority rule with their Nuclear Option. They know they fxcked up and set a bad presidence. now they need to fix their mistake by granting Puerto Rico statehood.

You seem pretty rational and logical, as apparent by your rational and logical thought process. 

Liberals are generally motivated by emotion, which often forsakes logic.  Not that there's anything wrong with basing one's opinion from an emotional perspective.  Just that most of the perspectives based primarily on emotion tend to be hypocritical and irrational.  Notice folks like that here?

I think the Democrat Politicians are motivated by power, greed and a "win at all costs" mindset.  They know their positions do not stand up to public scrutiny, so they (and their complicit Media organizations) gin up an emotional argument they feed to the masses -- that includes everyone, not just Liberals.  The people who don't bother to understand the issues are convinced of the Dems' positions based on the information they are given alone.  The facts that destroy the politicians' positions are not offered as frequently nor as powerfully

Humans often make decisions based on emotion over logic.  What car to buy, which house to buy/rent, what guns to own, ... Corporations and charities market to those emotions, because that will motivate people to action long before a rational appeal will.

Bullshit. 

Congress (or more accurately, the Senate) did their job.  The Senate's job is to act as a check on the actions of the Executive branch and the house.  The GOP gained a majority in the Senate 2 years after Obama was elected and immediately after the ACA was CRAMED DOWN THE NATION'S THROAT without a single Republican voting "yes".

The Senate has INCREASED that majority every 2 years since.

Since the Senate is a stop-gap between the desires of the President and the desires of the people, it's logical to assume that if the Senate was wrong by not confirming Garland, and again wrong for confirming Kavanaugh in a midterm election year, the Senate would have a Democrat majority by now.

People put too much stock in who sits in the Oval Office and forgets that the Senate exists to keep the President from taking us down a radical road with the brakes off.

So, long story short, who runs the Senate says much more about how the majority of voters want the government to be run than the man (and party) elected President.

I guarantee you the Democrats would have no qualms about nominating an RBG replacement tomorrow if Hidabeast was in office.

"Elections have consequences."  -- Pres. Obama

The arguments from the Democrats are purely procedural.  The justifications of the Republicans are idealogical.  The decisions made the next few months will guide the nation's actions for decades.  That's what the Democrats are terrified of, not "precedent", "rules" or "accusations of hypocrisy."

The Democrats are all hypocrites, especially Biden.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8752197/Joe-Biden-said-2016-presidents-constitutional-duty-SCOTUS-seat.html

Dems -- always wanting to change the rules because they lost.  Biden said in 2016 FILL THAT SCOTUS SEAT NOW -- IT'S YoUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY!!  This week he's saying DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT DOING THAT BEFORE THE ELECTION!!

These are the same people wanting to tear down the Electoral College because they lost in 2016, and will probably lose again in 2020. 

If the Senate fails to take advantage of the vacancy now, Republican voters will absolutely punish them.  I think they know that.

Congress' job was to hold a nomination hearing, they didn't and McConnell gave a BS excuse for not doing it which made republicans look bad and are just fueling democrat objections now. That is the bottom line and that is why I am criticizing the actions of McConnell and his republican friends for their actions in 2016.

Pretending that which party wins and loses seats in congress is a referendum on whether they should hold nomination hearings for SCOTUS justice nominees is just a fancy dressed up empty argument. Again it all boils down to the basic argument of "we are in power so we get to decide". Anything beyond that is just lipstick on a pig.

I just wish the republicans had the integrity to do their job, be honest about it, and make statements they can be consistent on instead of flip flopping worse than John Kerry.

Your analogy is an apples to orange comparison. However I do agree that they should’ve just said they were stalling.

Conservative America should not be beholden to Mitch’s games. Like you said the republican senate had a job to do in 2016, and they have a job to do now.

Agreed. I don't actually like that one person can have so much power in congress either. It's like here when we want some bill introduced but a committee can simply refuse to hold a hearing on it and the bill dies.

Congress' job was to hold a nomination hearing, they didn't and McConnell gave a BS excuse for not doing it which made republicans look bad and are just fueling democrat objections now. That is the bottom line and that is why I am criticizing the actions of McConnell and his republican friends for their actions in 2016.

Pretending that which party wins and loses seats in congress is a referendum on whether they should hold nomination hearings for SCOTUS justice nominees is just a fancy dressed up empty argument. Again it all boils down to the basic argument of "we are in power so we get to decide". Anything beyond that is just lipstick on a pig.

I just wish the republicans had the integrity to do their job, be honest about it, and make statements they can be consistent on instead of flip flopping worse than John Kerry.

Show me in the Constitution where it says the Senate must hold hearings and schedule votes when it flies in the face of precedent?  Your opinion of what the Senate's job is needs supporting material.  The Constitution contradicts you.

There have been 29 times that a SCOTUS vacancy occurred in a presidential election year.  That counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835–36 and 1987–88.

The President made a nomination in all 29 cases! That's 22 presidents out of 44 (obviously some made multiple nominations in election years -- Washington made 3).  Therefore, Trump would be breaking with precedent if he decided to not name a nominee.

That pretty much nails down the President's case -- he has a duty to name his choice based on the Constitution and historical precedent going back to President Washington.

Next, the Senate. The Constitution gives that majority the power to seat any nominee they want, and to BLOCK any nominee they want.  Up until Harry Reid changed the rules, the Senate needed a super majority (60) to approve cloture, which allowed a confirmation vote to be taken.  Basically a vote to hold the real vote.  If the Dems had left that rule in place, they could have blocked the vote via a filibuster.  Too bad for them, the rule change allows a cloture vote with a simple majority.  Sucks to be so bent on immediate wins that you lose sight of the damage it can cause down the road when the power changes parties.   

There have been 10 times that there was a SCOTUS vacancy, and the President and Senate Majority were from opposite parties.  In 6 of the 10 cases, the President made the nomination before election day.  Only one of those was confirmed before the election.  That's 1 out of 6 confirmed when they had SAME SITUATION THAT WE HAD WITH GARLAND.  The other 4 nominations were made after the election in a lame duck session.  The Senate left 3 of those open for the winner of the General Election to decide. 

The norm in these cases strongly favored holding the seat open for the conflict between the two branches to be resolved by the presidential election. That is what Republicans did in 2016.

Finally, in the case where the President and Senate Majority are unified, election-year nominees get confirmed.  That is the norm that applies this year.  19 times between 1796 and 1968, presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate. 10 of those nominations came before the election; and 9 of the 10 were successful.

Vacancies during midterms election years, like the Kavanaugh nomination, follow another norm.  Those seats are nominated and confirmed no matter who controls the Senate.

So, your opinion of what the Senate's job is falls apart in the face of actual historical facts -- as usual.. 

Show me in the Constitution where it says the Senate must hold hearings and schedule votes when it flies in the face of precedent?  Your opinion of what the Senate's job is needs supporting material.  The Constitution contradicts you.

There have been 29 times that a SCOTUS vacancy occurred in a presidential election year.  That counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835–36 and 1987–88.

The President made a nomination in all 29 cases! That's 22 presidents out of 44 (obviously some made multiple nominations in election years -- Washington made 3).  Therefore, Trump would be breaking with precedent if he decided to not name a nominee.

That pretty much nails down the President's case -- he has a duty to name his choice based on the Constitution and historical precedent going back to President Washington.

Next, the Senate. The Constitution gives that majority the power to seat any nominee they want, and to BLOCK any nominee they want.  Up until Harry Reid changed the rules, the Senate needed a super majority (60) to approve cloture, which allowed a confirmation vote to be taken.  Basically a vote to hold the real vote.  If the Dems had left that rule in place, they could have blocked the vote via a filibuster.  Too bad for them, the rule change allows a cloture vote with a simple majority.  Sucks to be so bent on immediate wins that you lose sight of the damage it can cause down the road when the power changes parties.   

There have been 10 times that there was a SCOTUS vacancy, and the President and Senate Majority were from opposite parties.  In 6 of the 10 cases, the President made the nomination before election day.  Only one of those was confirmed before the election.  That's 1 out of 6 confirmed when they had SAME SITUATION THAT WE HAD WITH GARLAND.  The other 4 nominations were made after the election in a lame duck session.  The Senate left 3 of those open for the winner of the General Election to decide. 

The norm in these cases strongly favored holding the seat open for the conflict between the two branches to be resolved by the presidential election. That is what Republicans did in 2016.

Finally, in the case where the President and Senate Majority are unified, election-year nominees get confirmed.  That is the norm that applies this year.  19 times between 1796 and 1968, presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate. 10 of those nominations came before the election; and 9 of the 10 were successful.

Vacancies during midterms election years, like the Kavanaugh nomination, follow another norm.  Those seats are nominated and confirmed no matter who controls the Senate.

So, your opinion of what the Senate's job is falls apart in the face of actual historical facts -- as usual..

Flapp,

You are absolutely right and that idiot is absolutely wrong. I guess he has never the constitution. Whichever party is in power in the senate sets the procedure for presidential nominees. And if the senate is controlled by the other party from the president, they determine how they want to handle nominees. Just like the president does not have to explain why he nominates someone to SCOTUS, neither does the Senate have to have to have a hearing and they can reject a nominee for any reason. And they don’t have to supply a reason either. McConnell had every right and was within his power to reject Garland and not provide a reason. Period. He only made the Republicans look bad in the mind of that idiot you are showing up. It is the narcissism and prejudice that this idiot has that will keep him trying to defend himself when he has NO DEFENSE WHATSOEVER. Waiting for his narcissism and prejudice to kick in in 3 2 1.....

Video snipped

"...and a huge fight over the court's future."

Um .... nope.  It's not much of a fight when the Democrats have no leverage. 

They proved they have no interest in honor, decorum or fairness in the Kavanaugh hearings, and even less interest in historical precedence.  They trot out ONE instance of the GOP Senate holding onto a nomination in an election year (2016) while also failing to tell the WHOLE story (Dem president vs. GOP Senate).  As I posted, the history of nominations is based on one factor:  whether or not the president and the Senate majority  are of the same party.  The pattern proves that Trump and/or the Senate would be going against the norm if they delay filling this vacancy.

Pelosi said she has "many arrows in her quiver" when George "Hillary is my president" Snuffleupagus asked her about using impeachment to delay the confirmation.

Really?  She's evil enough to even consider impeachment before the election?  If she does, the House needs to remove her from Congress for abuse of power.  Impeachment is not to be used as a political tool to achieve some procedural goal.  It's the most extreme measure used to charge a top government official of high crimes and misdemeanors.  They had no actual crimes with which to charge Trump the first time around.  Right now they certainly have nothing more to offer.  Trump's following the Constitution.  Only in the twisted mind of Democrats could they ever equate that with "abuse of power" or any other charge.

Not a fight.  More like swatting mosquitos.

Let me get this straight.   Everyone here is angry at eye for saying that it's beyond hypocritical to be fine when the Republicans  blocked the Supreme Court hearing but to do the 99% the same thing themselves to get their pick in is correct thing to do. 

Let me get this straight.   Everyone here is angry at eye for saying that it's beyond hypocritical to be fine when the Republicans  blocked the Supreme Court hearing but to do the 99% the same thing themselves to get their pick in is correct thing to do.

No.  You don't have anything straight at all.

In 2016, the Dems were irate that Obama's pick was held up until after the election.  Now, in 2020, they are irate that Trump and the Senate are not holding up the nomination until after the election.  It has nothing to do with GOP hypocrisy.  It's about Democrats wanting it one way when it's their president's nominee, and use a 180-degree opposite argument when its Trump's turn.

Even though the GOP has had the Senate majority (and the power) to confirm or block a nomination, it doesn't change the fact that the Democrats have changed their tune.

The fact is that history (the "norm", or precedent -- not "president") agrees with the Senate's stance BOTH TIMES.  Who controls the Senate matters.  It always has.  Almost every time the Senate was considering a nominee which the other party's president nominated (for example, Obama), the Senate has waited until after the election to see who still sits as president and the Senate majority.  If, however, the President and Senate majority are of the same party, the norm is for the Senate to hold confirmation hearings before the election.

Just because the press and democrats in DC choose to only give the public half the equation doesn't make it add up -- no matter how much EEF wants it to.

Let me get this straight.   Everyone here is angry at eye for saying that it's beyond hypocritical to be fine when the Republicans  blocked the Supreme Court hearing but to do the 99% the same thing themselves to get their pick in is correct thing to do.

And if history, precedent, norms and facts don't convince you, then consider this:  when I think about the absolutely filthy and disgusting lies the Democrats in the Senate used to smear Kavanaugh as a sexual predator at 17 years old, as someone who exposed himself in college at parties, and as a gang bang rapist, all based on completely unsupportable, unbelievable accusations, the Democrats don't deserve a shred of consideration.  If it's legal, Trump and the Senate should ram this nomination through at light speed!!

The Dems have proven they want power and will stop at nothing, including smearing a judge's reputation in front of his wife, his children and the entire world.  McConnell should be tired of the Dems' pretense of valuing honor.  Their actions embarrassed the Senate, the Federal government, and the nation.

They are now stupidly threatening to stack the court when (if) they control the Executive and Senate.  It would just require passing a piece of legislation through both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, which the president would then sign. From a mathematical standpoint, Democrats would only need simple majorities in the House and Senate — and a Democratic president — in order to adjust the number of justices.

However, the current number of 9 seats was established 150 years ago.  FDR tried to do this, and failed miserably.  If the Dems try it, they may suffer an even worse backlash.  Just because you lose the game one year doesn't mean you need to change the rules.  If you can't establish a better strategy to win the next time around, then too bad.

The things the Dems want to do should be done in the Legislature, not the SCOTUS.  If the laws exist and can stand up to Constitutional scrutiny, then the make-up of the court is 100% moot.  What we see is that even when Obama's party controlled the House, Senate and Executive, the only thing they did of any consequence was pass ACA.  There were MANY bills they could have pushed through while the country waiting for the next midterm elections, but that was the only thing they wanted -- that and a lot more debt to bail out Obama's campaign contributors via stimulus money.  Once the ACA shocked voters into seeing through "The Messiah", the voters gave control of the House to the GOP.  Two years later, they won the Senate majority.  After that, the Oval Office.

In those 2 years, they could have tried to pack the court, but they didn't, because their party had all the power.  Now that they are the minority in the Senate, they want to stack the court?  Ain't happening!!

Let me get this straight.   Everyone here is angry at eye for saying that it's beyond hypocritical to be fine when the Republicans  blocked the Supreme Court hearing but to do the 99% the same thing themselves to get their pick in is correct thing to do.

Besides your wanting to ignore the facts/truth that Flapp laid out for you, the issue is that EEF (and you) are ignoring your own hypocrisy. You are blasting the Republicans for being hypocrites but you become a hypocrite yourself for not blasting the Democrats for the exact same thing. Either be consistent and blast both Democrats and Republicans for their hypocrisy or get blasted for only calling out one side.

Besides your wanting to ignore the facts/truth that Flapp laid out for you, the issue is that EEF (and you) are ignoring your own hypocrisy. You are blasting the Republicans for being hypocrites but you become a hypocrite yourself for not blasting the Democrats for the exact same thing. Either be consistent and blast both Democrats and Republicans for their hypocrisy or get blasted for only calling out one side.

I do.  Only difference is that they were stopped and Republicans appear not to be.  When it happened I was cheering the Republicans on.  But the fact that Republicans have made a big stink about it then proceeded to do the and thing so blatant is what I'm trying to get at. 

I do.  Only difference is that they were stopped and Republicans appear not to be.  When it happened I was cheering the Republicans on.  But the fact that Republicans have made a big stink about it then proceeded to do the and thing so blatant is what I'm trying to get at.

You have not. Please post the link where you have called out the Democrats for their hypocrisy on this subject previously on this (or any) forum and I’ll believe you called out the Democrats and are not a hypocrite on this subject.

So you are saying you can only be a hypocrite if you are successful (Republican)? And you can’t be a hypocrite if you are not successful (Democrat)?    The reason why the Republicans “Appear” not to be stopped is because they control the Senate. It is their rules and they don’t have to explain their rules or actions to anyone. It’s politics. EVERY politician lies and is a hypocrite. It comes with the territory. Why are you only calling out the Republicans for something that is truly a nothing burger? If you read what Flapp wrote you will see you are calling foul on nothing.

You have not. Please post the link where you have called out the Democrats for their hypocrisy on this subject previously on this (or any) forum and I’ll believe you called out the Democrats and are not a hypocrite on this subject.

So you are saying you can only be a hypocrite if you are successful (Republican)? And you can’t be a hypocrite if you are not successful (Democrat)?    The reason why the Republicans “Appear” not to be stopped is because they control the Senate. It is their rules and they don’t have to explain their rules or actions to anyone. It’s politics. EVERY politician lies and is a hypocrite. It comes with the territory. Why are you only calling out the Republicans for something that is truly a nothing burger? If you read what Flapp wrote you will see you are calling foul on nothing.

No I'm saying both democrats and republicans are stupid and should of never tried to push a justice through in the election year.   Its just I am calling out the republicans because they are doing it RIGHT NOW.   Would be weird if I was calling out the democrats for something that happened 5 years ago....

Personally I think this close to election I don't give a danm who controls the senate or president just leave it off till after election.

No I'm saying both democrats and republicans are stupid and should of never tried to push a justice through in the election year.   Its just I am calling out the republicans because they are doing it RIGHT NOW.   Would be weird if I was calling out the democrats for something that happened 5 years ago....

Personally I think this close to election I don't give a danm who controls the senate or president just leave it off till after election.

In 2016, did the Senate proceed according to rules/procedures?

Now, IF Senate proceeds and confirms a nominee, would it be according to rules/procedures?

Now it’s obvious that you have your own ideas of what should be an get all salty when the pesky rules don’t bend around your ideals. Like your twisted versions of what I means to be alive. I mean you are entitled to your opinion. But that’s the issue here. You feel like your entitlement is above rules and laws of Society. Sound familiar to the many “movements” going on today?  Sounds like the whining of a teenager who doesn’t get their way.

No I'm saying both democrats and republicans are stupid and should of never tried to push a justice through in the election year.   Its just I am calling out the republicans because they are doing it RIGHT NOW.   Would be weird if I was calling out the democrats for something that happened 5 years ago....

Personally I think this close to election I don't give a danm who controls the senate or president just leave it off till after election.

Except historical context doesn’t support your opinion that they should “just leave it off until the election”. Refer to flapps post on why your wrong.

Now given the historical context I’m not sure why Cruz, Graham, Mitch and others had to make some bogus excuse to not hold the vote. The people elected a republican senate and they would’ve been destroyed had they allowed Obama to push through his nomination.

No I'm saying both democrats and republicans are stupid and should of never tried to push a justice through in the election year.   Its just I am calling out the republicans because they are doing it RIGHT NOW.   Would be weird if I was calling out the democrats for something that happened 5 years ago....

Personally I think this close to election I don't give a danm who controls the senate or president just leave it off till after election.

So, you are saying that President Trump should not do the job he was elected to do by nominating a SCOTUS candidate? President Obama did it in 2016. But you didn’t provide a link to any post any where showing where you called him and the Democrats out in 2016 for doing exactly what you say President Trump should not do now. HYPOCRITE OFTEN?

You cannot say that both parties are stupid but the president shouldn’t do his job that he was elected to do without being a hypocrite. That is exactly what you are saying.

No I'm saying both democrats and republicans are stupid and should of never tried to push a justice through in the election year.   Its just I am calling out the republicans because they are doing it RIGHT NOW.   Would be weird if I was calling out the democrats for something that happened 5 years ago....

Personally I think this close to election I don't give a danm who controls the senate or president just leave it off till after election.

"should of"
"Its just"
"till after"

[drops mic]