McConnell will keep the senate in session for October

Jul 2014
38,744
33,709
Border Fence
#21
McConnell is feeling the heat. His little shit party is all but over.

Son of Ayn Randy is gone.

Señor Cruz may be on vacations soon...
 
Jul 2014
38,744
33,709
Border Fence
#22
Okay, so what IS the rule? What's the time limit for a lame duck to get his nominee on the bench? What was the exigent circumstance that demanded it?
The McConnell rule is to refuse calling hearings for a sitting President's appointee.
 

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
57,411
45,045
CA
#24
Anger issues much?
Kavanaugh is a "POS hack corporate cock sucker"?
The "popular vote"?
You have nerve saying anyone is posting from the "handbook".

I told you why Obama's nomination would not go through: precedent and Democrat opinion previously dismissing such a nomination.

Then you melted down.
Biden made a speech - that hardly translated into a "rule"

and this


Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.

There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

There was no nominee to consider.

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year


So if you are going to just fb other members here, at least get the actual facts right.
 
Likes: Dragonfly5

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
57,411
45,045
CA
#25
That's not what I asked. And also not correct. The sitting president had plenty of hearings for his appointees.
Garland got zero hearing and zero meetings with GOP senators.

Anyway, I don't know what McConnell's end game is here. If Kavanaugh does make it through - it's just going to fire up the D's base to vote in the midterms. Especially women

And is already polling at the lowest numbers even for SCOTUS pick - along the lines of Bork.
 
Apr 2015
698
223
Mid ATL
#26
Biden made a speech - that hardly translated into a "rule"

and this


Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.

There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

There was no nominee to consider.

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year


So if you are going to just fb other members here, at least get the actual facts right.
I never referred to any "Biden rule" whatsoever.

But thanks for pointing out the myriad extraneous details you thought I needed to be filled in on.
 

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
57,411
45,045
CA
#27
I never referred to any "Biden rule" whatsoever.

But thanks for pointing out the myriad extraneous details you thought I needed to be filled in on.
You sure implied it

There's so much wrong with that claim in that it is so singularly selective and partisan and flies in the face of precedent and in the voices of even Democrats' own opinions during the Bush presidency. Or should I repeat the quotes of Joe Biden, Schumer, and Harry Reid?

But if you want to continue to "rail" against the nominees Bush put forward, it was nothing like what happened under Obama.

President-elect Donald Trump will take office with a chance to fill more than 100 seats on the federal courts, thanks mostly to an extraordinary two-year slowdown in judicial confirmations engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees. That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.

By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed


The vacancies reflect a long-term goal of McConnell and other leading Republicans to tilt the court system toward conservatives.

"There was an almost total breakdown of confirmations once the Republicans took control of the Senate," said Russell Wheeler of the Brookings Institution, who closely tracks federal judges.

This Congress filled the fewest judgeships since 1952. That leaves a big opening for Trump
 
Likes: MaryAnne
Apr 2015
698
223
Mid ATL
#28
You sure implied it

There's so much wrong with that claim in that it is so singularly selective and partisan and flies in the face of precedent and in the voices of even Democrats' own opinions during the Bush presidency. Or should I repeat the quotes of Joe Biden, Schumer, and Harry Reid?

But if you want to continue to "rail" against the nominees Bush put forward, it was nothing like what happened under Obama.

President-elect Donald Trump will take office with a chance to fill more than 100 seats on the federal courts, thanks mostly to an extraordinary two-year slowdown in judicial confirmations engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees. That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.

By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed


The vacancies reflect a long-term goal of McConnell and other leading Republicans to tilt the court system toward conservatives.

"There was an almost total breakdown of confirmations once the Republicans took control of the Senate," said Russell Wheeler of the Brookings Institution, who closely tracks federal judges.

This Congress filled the fewest judgeships since 1952. That leaves a big opening for Trump
I implied an opinion was “a rule “?
Odd interpretation to say the least.
 
Apr 2015
698
223
Mid ATL
#30
Your post, I stated that in my answer. No, I posted what I meant to say.
Wrong.
Your whole response: “That post, Sir, is a lie!”

Weak, vague, misdirected and erroneous. Care to be specific or just easily disregarded— based on having all the sentience of Porifera.
 

Similar Discussions