And the SCOTUS Nomination Goes to ......

Dr. Jones wrote:Looks like the people have spoken.  Election or not. 

Support for SCOTUS hearings remains strong, CNN/ORC poll finds
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

Because deciding public policy with some crappy CNN poll is such a great idea and should eclipse an upcoming election.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Looks like the people have spoken.  Election or not. 

Support for SCOTUS hearings remains strong, CNN/ORC poll finds
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

Because deciding public policy with some crappy CNN poll is such a great idea and should eclipse an upcoming election.

Obviously a CNN poll is more proof of public sentiment than a public policy, but you go ahead and keep your head in the sand.

According to this CNN poll what time limit specified by the Constitution is being violated?

Skeptical wrote:
According to this CNN poll what time limit specified by the Constitution is being violated?

Who gives a Fucck?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Looks like the people have spoken.  Election or not. 

Support for SCOTUS hearings remains strong, CNN/ORC poll finds
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

Because deciding public policy with some crappy CNN poll is such a great idea and should eclipse an upcoming election.

Obviously a CNN poll is more proof of public sentiment than a public policy, but you go ahead and keep your head in the sand.

Proof? Hardly. Finger in the wind? Yes. Hell this same poll was in favor of Robert Bork being confirmed.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
According to this CNN poll what time limit specified by the Constitution is being violated?

Who gives a Fucck?

You mean you don't?
Heck, the poll is a result of the mentality that the Senate needs to act just because the MT suit HMWAIC says "jump"

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
According to this CNN poll what time limit specified by the Constitution is being violated?

Who gives a Fucck?

You mean you don't?  
Heck, the poll is a result of the mentality that the Senate needs to act just because the MT suit HMWAIC says "jump"

Details, details, Fcukstick don't need no fcukin' details.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
According to this CNN poll what time limit specified by the Constitution is being violated?

Who gives a Fucck?

You mean you don't?  
Heck, the poll is a result of the mentality that the Senate needs to act just because the MT suit HMWAIC says "jump"

Details, details, Fcukstick don't need no fcukin' details.

Speaking of details, I'd like to see this CNN poll on Bork that you referred to.  Or don't you need no fukcin' details?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
According to this CNN poll what time limit specified by the Constitution is being violated?

Who gives a Fucck?

You mean you don't?  
Heck, the poll is a result of the mentality that the Senate needs to act just because the MT suit HMWAIC says "jump"

Details, details, Fcukstick don't need no fcukin' details.

Speaking of details, I'd like to see this CNN poll on Bork that you referred to.  Or don't you need no fukcin' details?

Do your own looking Turdball. Here's a hint: The link to it is in your postings.

Who is Bork and how is he relevant to Garland?

Skeptical wrote:
Who is Bork and how is he relevant to Garland?

Dunno, ask Gomerr

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Who is Bork and how is he relevant to Garland?

Dunno, ask Gomerr

You were the one who mentioned Bork ... so the "source" is being asked.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Who is Bork and how is he relevant to Garland?

Dunno, ask Gomerr

You were the one who mentioned Bork ... so the "source" is being asked.

You're fukcing retarded.

So I had an OOOPS and missed a post ... not the end of the world!

Skeptical wrote:
So I had an OOOPS and missed a post ... not the end of the world!

No worries, Dr Mengela is on a 'gotcha' spree.

Skeptical wrote:
So I had an OOOPS and missed a post ... not the end of the world!

Whatever dude.  Coming from the guy who turns grammar nazi every time he gets his ass kicked, your little 'no big deal' rant doesn't mean much.

Find it yet Turdball™®©?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Find it yet Turdball™®©?

I assume you are referring to the part where it said he squeaked either side of 1/3 support?

Skeptical wrote:
Who is Bork and how is he relevant to Garland?

Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987 by Reagan, the nomination that caused then Sen Joe "Krazy as a Loon" Biden to state “The Senate has an undisputed right to consider judicial philosophy”. And then the fight began. One of the greatest legal minds in America was summarily smeared in Senate hearings because the Democrat held Senate preferred spectacle over substance and the politicization of Supreme Court nominations has continued ever since. When Sen "Chuckles" Schumer complains about being hoodwinked by nominees who give overly vague answers in their hearings, you need only to look to the confirmation hearing of Robert Bork (and Clarence Thomas) for the root cause.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Find it yet Turdball™®©?

Soooo, what's your point??

Dr. Jones wrote:Looks like the people have spoken.  Election or not. 

Support for SCOTUS hearings remains strong, CNN/ORC poll finds
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

Too bad it isn't up to "the people" to elect Supreme Court Justices dumb ass isn't it? You really aren't very smart are you?

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Looks like the people have spoken.  Election or not. 

Support for SCOTUS hearings remains strong, CNN/ORC poll finds
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

Too bad it isn't up to "the people" to elect Supreme Court Justices dumb ass isn't it? You really aren't very smart are you?

Yes,  because the opinion of "we the people" means nothing right?!?  At least according to obstructonist Republicans.  Dumbazz.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Looks like the people have spoken.  Election or not. 

Support for SCOTUS hearings remains strong, CNN/ORC poll finds
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

Too bad it isn't up to "the people" to elect Supreme Court Justices dumb ass isn't it? You really aren't very smart are you?

Yes,  because the opinion of "we the people" means nothing right?!?  At least according to obstructonist Republicans.  Dumbazz.

There are far too many idiots like yourself so the founders set us specific procedures for everything and created a document called the Constitution which our government is restricted by. You see, there have been mindless morons like yourself since the beginning of time. Try learning what a Constitutional Republic means.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Looks like the people have spoken.  Election or not. 

Support for SCOTUS hearings remains strong, CNN/ORC poll finds
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

Too bad it isn't up to "the people" to elect Supreme Court Justices dumb ass isn't it? You really aren't very smart are you?

Yes,  because the opinion of "we the people" means nothing right?!?  At least according to obstructonist Republicans.  Dumbazz.

A poll of 1,000 people does not equate "we the people".

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Looks like the people have spoken.  Election or not. 

Support for SCOTUS hearings remains strong, CNN/ORC poll finds
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

Too bad it isn't up to "the people" to elect Supreme Court Justices dumb ass isn't it? You really aren't very smart are you?

Yes,  because the opinion of "we the people" means nothing right?!?  At least according to obstructonist Republicans.  Dumbazz.

A poll of 1,000 people does not equate "we the people".

So you're saying every poll ever done is meaningless?  Or just CNN's?