The DNC ramming Clinton to the nomination in 2016 will never stop ing America over. you Debbie Wasserman Schulz and Donna Brazile, die of AIDS you ing cunts.
answering a question with a question
i believe in consistency and precedent as a principle in the judicial and governmental systems unless there is overwhelming reason to deviate. a very strong and contentious precedent was set just 4 years ago. i think it should be followed, particularly when the same people who made the call then are the ones making the call now
The DNC ramming Clinton to the nomination in 2016 will never stop ing America over. you Debbie Wasserman Schulz and Donna Brazile, die of AIDS you ing cunts.
He doesn't care about stuff like that he just wants his name linked to judges
Just realized, this all but guarantees Obamacare gets torn to shreds. People with pre-existing conditions should be more motivated than ever.
Good news for me since the health insurance I had before Obamacare was the s.
No one here is supporting criminals except for cultists like you, brainwashed moron
you support the criminal traitor?
latinos supporting trump is like chickens voting for colonel sanders- pendejo!
This could have been Clinton 3 picks for justice but it is Trumps
If re-elected he might even get to name 2 more IMO
Bruh, I'm an Independent. em both tbh
The question wasn't to me, and you're the one conceptually bringing the matter up.
At precedent being based on something that happened just four years ago.
A "precedent" based on legislature tabling doing their f'ing jobs being something you support.
That would be great.Just realized, this all but guarantees Obamacare gets torn to shreds.
4 years ago
Republicans had senate
Not president
No pick
Now
Republicans have senate and president
Not the same as 4 years ago IMO
Would it help if Trump carried salsa with him everywhere?
What if he played some Despacito?
Now time for the Chief Justice to have a heartache
pendejo,
any vote wasted is a vote for the ing nazi you
pinche roberto estupido
McConnell never made that distinction in 2016. He simply said the voters should decide.
the more recent the precedent is, the stronger effect it typically has
i didnt support it then because i did not feel the senate would have had to rush through the nomination process to put garland in. yeah, if scalia had died in june or july with only a few months to the election, you risk expediting to process to a degree that errors can be made instead of a proper, thorough vetting. instead, garland was nominated by mid-march, giving the senate more than half a year to do their due diligence
with that said, even if i didnt support it then, it would be completely absurd for the same senators then who refused to push through a nomination on the basis of it being an election year to now ram through somebody during an election year with significantly less time than there was in 2016
if the current senate held up and decided to wait for the election, it would at least show some semblance of credibility and make it more likely that in the future, other senates would follow the same protocol
I give the guy credit, he's decisive. McConnell has already said Trump's candidate will get a vote:
Can't wait for the Dems to invent a whole bunch of fake stories about the next person like they did with Kavenaugh. Democrats really showed how de able they are with Kavenaugh but a woman judge might be able to dodge some of that.
Not an October suprise but
You're a white dude telling a Latino that he's not Latino if he doesn't vote for Biden.
RD2191
I mean, not really. Why should I vote for a candidate that doesn't support my views?
It was a tweet but no reason to think it's fake
McConnell's statement is real
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)