Scalia's replacement nomination from Obama took 46 days. Merrick Garland was Obama's pick.
Sooooo....RBG's can take 50 days and still be longer than Scalia. Right? The difference is, the senate is still a majority GOP. So unlike Obama's nomination of Garland, whoever Trump nominates could get accepted far faster than Garland's protracted debate.
Originally posted by Newjak
I mean if the Republicans aren't going to play by the rules they set why should the Democrats not also play hardball?
LMFAO@ if you think the democrats have ever been playing by the god**** rules. The f***ers wanna have another shitshow impeachment then they should quit being little b**ch ass cowards and just do it. But nah, they don't have the balls to do it again.
It is just a pathetic bluff to try to scare Trump into not selecting someone before election. It is tantamount to blackmail. Pelosi should have her wrinkled ass arrested. 👆
It is not "against the rules" to nominate someone to the SC when there is a vacancy, ffs.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaedurwank Oh Fly/star428...
LMFAO@ if you think the democrats have ever been playing by the god**** rules. The f***ers wanna have another shitshow impeachment then they should quit being little b**ch ass cowards and just do it. But nah, they don't have the balls to do it again.It is just a pathetic bluff to try to scare Trump into not selecting someone before election. It is tantamount to blackmail. Pelosi should have her wrinkled ass arrested. 👆
It is not "against the rules" to nominate someone to the SC when there is a vacancy, ffs.
Trying to do away with the electoral college is not playing by the rules.
Pushing for universal mail-in voting is not playing by the rules.
Trying to do away with all mandatory voter ID before voting is not playing by the rules.
Throwing a little b**ch ass temper tantrum and tearing up the president's speech at the SotU address is not playing by the rules.
Expanding the SC is not playing by the rules .
Saying that the blue states will secede if they lose the election is not playing by the rules.
Filling a vacancy on a SC is TOTALLY playing by the rules though.
LMAO @ the notion that it is Republicans who haven't been playing by the rules. I'm sorry,dude, but that was just an ignorant statement... either that or you were just trolling.
I still can't get over NJ saying that it is the Republicans who don't play by the rules lmao.
I've seen many stupid statements on this forum but that one has to take the cake as the dumbest one I've ever read... which is why I think the guy was actually just trolling.... even someone like pooty couldn't truly be that damn dumb.
Originally posted by Newjak
I mean if the Republicans aren't going to play by the rules they set why should the Democrats not also play hardball?
Which rules aren't they playing by?
Do not try to say the rules from 2016, cuz they said multiple times that was because the senate and white house were held by different parties which is not the case now.
But I'm sure besides that you had a different rule they didn't follow in mind and I'd love to hear about it.
"During an interview on ABC News’ “This Week,” Pelosi, D-Calif., was asked whether she and House Democrats would move to impeach the president, or Attorney General Bill Barr in an effort to prevent the Senate from acting.
“We have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now, but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country,” Pelosi said. “This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election.”
She added: “Our main goal would be to protect the integrity of the election as we protect the people from the coronavirus.”
Pelosi was pressed again on whether she would employ impeachment tactics, to which she said the Constitution requires that Congress “use every arrow in our quiver.”
IOW: She won't rule out using it.
Which already shows their desperation.
Though, magnanimous as this kunt is, she did say she wouldn't try to leverage a government shutdown over the issue. Bless her.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Amazing how in some situations certain people say "you have to prove this person said X or it's not true" and in others the same people say "that person didn't say Y but they insinuated it and that's proof".
Neat, very very neat.
Anyways, pathetic souls on this board have gone with the logic of "but the implications tho" so if you want to call their logic retarded, please do so it would delight me. Shall you?