Jump to content

Ginsburg 2016: "The president doesn't stop working during an election year. He needs to nominate a justice and the Senate needs to confirm".. Heard enough?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So was Ginsburg lying?   Biden has flipped flopped....   And numerous have shown to be hypocrites .....

You are absolutely right.   Unlike Barack Obama who left 130 Judicial vacancies when he left office, presumably because he simply does not like to work, President Trump has rolled up his sleeves and i

She's dead?   Maybe we can spend $40 million and try connecting it to Trump

Flashback: In 2016, Ginsburg said Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year

Ginsburg remarked in 2016 that 'nothing in the Constitution' precludes 11th hour nomination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year," Ginsburg said in a 2016 New York Times interview in which she called for Garland to receive a confirmation vote in the Senate.

LEADERS FROM BOTH PARTIES UNDER FIRE FOR PREVIOUS STATEMENTS ABOUT SCOTUS NOMINEES

As for whether the Senate should take up a vote on Garland, Ginsburg said at the time, "That's their job."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scout said:

And Ginsburg's wisdom was not followed.

And thus, the GOP finds themselves fucked up the rectum with an auger. 

So Ginsburg's "wisdom" wasn't followed..

 

Well then..

Let's do it right now..

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Scout said:

And Ginsburg's wisdom was not followed.

And thus, the GOP finds themselves fucked up the rectum with an auger. 

 

LMFAO

 

How so Biddy? McConnell is gonna jam an evangelical Catholic woman on the SC and there ain't a THING you, @maineman aka mainesatan, or PiglosBITCH can do about it!

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Z09 said:

Flashback: In 2016, Ginsburg said Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year

Ginsburg remarked in 2016 that 'nothing in the Constitution' precludes 11th hour nomination.

Yep. Her and nearly EVERY OTHER Democrat.

 

I am sure CNN will be playing the clips of them saying so in 2016 compared to what they are saying now. Right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Z09 said:

So was Ginsburg lying?

 

Biden has flipped flopped....

 

And numerous have shown to be hypocrites .....

 

This chatter is too stupid for sustained conversation.

Just follow him on this thread and you will see his stupidity and

dishonesty in clear view for all to see. 

 

Right now he is trying to argue it is okay for all Republican politicians to lie and ignore the Constitution.  Enjoy. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scout said:

 

This chatter is too stupid for sustained conversation.

Just follow him on this thread and you will see his stupidity and

dishonesty in clear view for all to see. 

 

Right now he is trying to argue it is okay for all Republican politicians to lie and ignore the Constitution.  Enjoy. 

 

Ignore the Constitution...

 

YOU don't want the president to do hi job..

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

One of the many reasons that I have such lack of respect for politicians is that they flip flop. Every last one of them. If it helps their re-election chances or public image, they change their tunes quicker than one blinks an eye. 

It's what happens when you put 536 lawyers in the same room

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Scout said:

And Ginsburg's wisdom was not followed.

And thus, the GOP finds themselves fucked up the rectum with an auger. 

So..

 

Why not wisdom now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Skans said:

You are absolutely right.   Unlike Barack Obama who left 130 Judicial vacancies when he left office, presumably because he simply does not like to work, President Trump has rolled up his sleeves and is going to work on picking the next Supreme Court Justice. 

 

Trump was elected to do a job and not just for 3 of his 4 year term.  This President has worked harder and continues to work harder than none other.  He proves that hard work has no relationship to being wealthy or poor, it's all about character.   President Trump once again makes me proud that I voted for him.  MAGA!

The reason there were vacancies was not because Obama didn't nominate any. It's because Moscow Mitch intentionaly held up all the appointments. Just like he held up Merrick Garland's nomination. According to Moscow Mitch, there is one set of rules for Democrat President's and an opposite set of rules for Republican presidents. Political dishonesty to the max. We'll see how the voters will respond very soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Z09 said:

So was Ginsburg lying?

 

Biden has flipped flopped....

 

And numerous have shown to be hypocrites .....

 

SO let it be SAID... SO let it be WRITTEN !!

 

The President has the responsibility to Nominate a SCOTUS... and the SENATE has the responsibility to ADVISE and CONSENT !!  NO WHERE does it say the President CAN NOT nominate when it's within 3 months of an election... or that the Senate can not Advise and Consent EXCEPT when the democrats WANT them to !!

 

NO WHERE !!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Z09 said:

"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year," Ginsburg said in a 2016 New York Times interview in which she called for Garland to receive a confirmation vote in the Senate.

LEADERS FROM BOTH PARTIES UNDER FIRE FOR PREVIOUS STATEMENTS ABOUT SCOTUS NOMINEES

As for whether the Senate should take up a vote on Garland, Ginsburg said at the time, "That's their job."

I don’t think anyone is disputing that.  We’re wondering why there are two standards... one in which cocaine mitch can balk at the nomination of merrick garland on the basis of an election year.

 

Meanwhile, we’re in an election yr & he’s gung ho over filling the vacant SC seat.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jrock2310 said:

I don’t think anyone is disputing that.  We’re wondering why there are two standards... one in which cocaine mitch can balk at the nomination of merrick garland on the basis of an election year.

 

Meanwhile, we’re in an election yr & he’s gung ho over filling the vacant SC seat.

 

 

That's the only way two faced Moscow Mitch operates. Honesty and Integrity are not in his vocabulary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

I don’t think anyone is disputing that.  We’re wondering why there are two standards... one in which cocaine mitch can balk at the nomination of merrick garland on the basis of an election year.

 

Meanwhile, we’re in an election yr & he’s gung ho over filling the vacant SC seat.

 

 

There is not 2 standards. There were opposite parties in the WH and Senate in 2016. Secondly, weren't Democrats saying in 2016 that the nomination process SHOULD go forward, despite the election?

 

Can you be intellectually honest and admit that the democrats would do the exact same thing if they were in the WH and Senate?

  • Thumb up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, superds77 said:

There is not 2 standards. There were opposite parties in the WH and Senate in 2016. Secondly, weren't Democrats saying in 2016 that the nomination process SHOULD go forward, despite the election?

 

Can you be intellectually honest and admit that the democrats would do the exact same thing if they were in the WH and Senate?

Exactly...

Why in 2016 did Dems say the EXACT opposite?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, calguy said:

That's the only way two faced Moscow Mitch operates. Honesty and Integrity are not in his vocabulary. 

 

Uh, SHITSTAIN, you should THANK McConnell for NOT EMBARRASSING Garland with that REJECTION since any "vote' taken would have been a MAJORITY NO VOTES!!!

 

Fact is, since your little weasel Hairy Reid decided to do away with the Judicial filibuster, you would have been MORE EMBARRASSED for your SHITSTAINS even more had there been a filibuster!!!

 

So in effect, you got your "advice and consent" from the Senate in 2016. Because you didn't like it, doesn't mean it wasn't given. Garland was REJECTED as a nominee. PERIOD!!!

 

I bet it REALLY SUCKS when that PIT VIPER you SHITSTAINS created comes back and BITES YOU IN THE ASS, huh??

 

Now, go get mommy to change your SHIT FILLED DIAPER!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, calguy said:

The reason there were vacancies was not because Obama didn't nominate any. It's because Moscow Mitch intentionaly held up all the appointments. Just like he held up Merrick Garland's nomination. According to Moscow Mitch.....

That's right, elections have consequences.  The Republicans won and won big.  They won because Obama's Socialist Agenda was very unpopular with Americans.  He got shellacked, and was a lame duck president after his first two years.  Who's fault was that?  Mitch McConnell's?  I suppose Mitch was just that much more effective than your lame Socialist Obama.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...