Merrick Garland
Dec 7, 2021 00:56:14 #
Dec 7, 2021 05:35:56 #
SteveR wrote:
Conservatives really dodged a bullet when they kept him off SCOTUS.
Yeah, Mitch should be proud.
Dec 7, 2021 06:28:20 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
Yeah, Mitch should be proud.
When you look how the guy runs the Justice Department, Mitch did good.
Dec 7, 2021 06:30:30 #
SteveR wrote:
When you look how the guy runs the Justice Department, Mitch did good.
What Mitch did was wrong and shameful; even if you think the means justifies the end.
That is no way to run a government.
Dec 7, 2021 07:39:16 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
What Mitch did was wrong and shameful; even if you think the means justifies the end.
That is no way to run a government.
That is no way to run a government.
He was right, though. If the situation had been reversed with the prospect of putting a Justice like Kavanaugh on the bench, the Dems would have done the same thing. As it is, they held up Trump's judicial nominees for as long as they could.
Dec 7, 2021 07:42:04 #
SteveR wrote:
He was right, though. If the situation had been reversed with the prospect of putting a Justice like Kavanaugh on the bench, the Dems would have done the same thing. As it is, they held up Trump's judicial nominees for as long as they could.
He wasn’t right. He circumvented Constitutional process for his own agenda. That was wrong.
To say the Democrats would have done the same thing is the reasoning is a child. They didn’t.
Dec 7, 2021 07:45:51 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
What Mitch did was wrong and shameful; even if you think the means justifies the end.
That is no way to run a government.
That is no way to run a government.
Moscow-China Mitch McConnell is a good example of just
how dirty and low politicians can go and get away with it.
Dec 7, 2021 07:46:19 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
He wasn’t right. He circumvented Constitutional process fo4 his own agenda. That was wrong.
To say the Democrats would have done the same thing is meaningless.
To say the Democrats would have done the same thing is meaningless.
I doubt it. If you want to talk about things that have been done wrong, then fess up to the wrongs of YOUR party.
Dec 7, 2021 07:47:44 #
SteveR wrote:
I doubt it. If you want to talk about things that have been done wrong, then fess up to the wrongs of YOUR party.
Why deflect from the topic of your own thread rather than address and admit what Mitch did was wrong?
Dec 7, 2021 09:53:08 #
If one reads the words of the Constitution, that person will find that no time limit is mentioned in Article II, Section 2, Clause ii:
It's called politics.
Great call!! McConnell had far more inside information about Garland than the public.
I didn't see any squealing by the Left when a great legal mind in the person of Judge Robert Bork was slandered and libeled by "Drown em" Ted Kennedy, and denied a seat on the Supreme Court.
Quote:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and co... (show quote)
It's called politics.
Great call!! McConnell had far more inside information about Garland than the public.
I didn't see any squealing by the Left when a great legal mind in the person of Judge Robert Bork was slandered and libeled by "Drown em" Ted Kennedy, and denied a seat on the Supreme Court.
Dec 7, 2021 10:20:35 #
pendennis wrote:
If one reads the words of the Constitution, that person will find that no time limit is mentioned in Article II, Section 2, Clause ii:
It's called politics.
Great call!! McConnell had far more inside information about Garland than the public.
I didn't see any squealing by the Left when a great legal mind in the person of Judge Robert Bork was slandered and libeled by "Drown em" Ted Kennedy, and denied a seat on the Supreme Court.
It's called politics.
Great call!! McConnell had far more inside information about Garland than the public.
I didn't see any squealing by the Left when a great legal mind in the person of Judge Robert Bork was slandered and libeled by "Drown em" Ted Kennedy, and denied a seat on the Supreme Court.
Mitch had no Constitutional right to do what he did, no matter what “inside information” he had on Garland.
We are a country of laws and processes that are designed to be followed, not disregarded along party affiliations.
Mitch was wrong, but he got away with circumventing his job, and preserved a seat of Trump’s choice. Disgraceful.
Dec 7, 2021 10:47:32 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
Mitch had no Constitutional right to do what he did, no matter what “inside information” he had on Garland.
We are a country of laws and processes that are designed to be followed, not disregarded along party affiliations.
Mitch was wrong, but he got away with circumventing his job, and preserved a seat of Trump’s choice. Disgraceful.
We are a country of laws and processes that are designed to be followed, not disregarded along party affiliations.
Mitch was wrong, but he got away with circumventing his job, and preserved a seat of Trump’s choice. Disgraceful.
What do you call the Dems holding up Trump's judicial appointments, then?
Dec 7, 2021 11:01:48 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
Mitch had no Constitutional right to do what he did, no matter what “inside information” he had on Garland.
We are a country of laws and processes that are designed to be followed, not disregarded along party affiliations.
Mitch was wrong, but he got away with circumventing his job, and preserved a seat of Trump’s choice. Disgraceful.
We are a country of laws and processes that are designed to be followed, not disregarded along party affiliations.
Mitch was wrong, but he got away with circumventing his job, and preserved a seat of Trump’s choice. Disgraceful.
Read the Constitution. "Advice and Consent"; no time line. He didn't "circumvent" anything.
Dec 7, 2021 12:20:28 #
pendennis wrote:
Read the Constitution. "Advice and Consent"; no time line. He didn't "circumvent" anything.
He refused to schedule confirmation hearings when there was ample time before e******ns. It was a lie, but keep clinging to political crap if you chose.
Dec 7, 2021 16:18:45 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
He refused to schedule confirmation hearings when there was ample time before e******ns. It was a lie, but keep clinging to political crap if you chose.
And you should learn something of how the political process works. McConnell didn't lie about anything. He refused to schedule hearings on Garland as was his right to do so as majority leader of the United States Senate, and within the strict confines of the U.S. Constitution. He told everyone that it was unlikely that Garland would get a hearing in 2016; that's not a lie.
You still haven't answered for Ted "Drown 'Em" Kennedy and his absolute libelous an slanderous behavior toward Judge Robert Bork. Or doesn't that fit your narrative.
You also have remained mum about the slander, libel, and perjured testimony presented when Judge Kavanaugh was nominated. Ford should have been indicted for her testimony.
Get over yourself.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.