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

Grassley's thoughts on filibustering judicial nominees...

Dr. Jones wrote:
Grassley's thoughts on filibustering judicial nominees...

And so? The Democrats initially denied Priscilla Owens' 2001 nomination a vote for 2 years when they controlled the Senate before filibustering it for another 2 years after losing the majority. At least the Republicans said they'll consider a SC nomination after the Election, not after 4 years.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Grassley's thoughts on filibustering judicial nominees...

And so? The Democrats initially denied Priscilla Owens' 2001 nomination a vote for 2 years when they controlled the Senate before filibustering it for another 2 years after losing the majority. At least the Republicans said they'll consider a SC nomination after the Election, not after 4 years.

Aaahhh yes,  Priscilla Owens.  She filled the empty seat left by Garwood in 1997.  What happened from 97 to 01?  Clinton had made two nominations, both of which were blocked by house Republicans during his presidency. Seems fair to me.

Dr. Jones wrote:

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?

Didn't say that at all. That's just more of your absurd reasoning. "We the People" is how the Social Contract is determined in democratic republics through the elected representatives. Have yet to see a poll elect anyone.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Grassley's thoughts on filibustering judicial nominees...

And so? The Democrats initially denied Priscilla Owens' 2001 nomination a vote for 2 years when they controlled the Senate before filibustering it for another 2 years after losing the majority. At least the Republicans said they'll consider a SC nomination after the Election, not after 4 years.

Aaahhh yes,  Priscilla Owens.  She filled the empty seat left by Garwood in 1997.  What happened from 97 to 01?  Clinton had made two nominations, both of which were blocked by house Republicans during his presidency. Seems fair to me.

What two nominees are you referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_Supreme_Court_candidates

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Grassley's thoughts on filibustering judicial nominees...

And so? The Democrats initially denied Priscilla Owens' 2001 nomination a vote for 2 years when they controlled the Senate before filibustering it for another 2 years after losing the majority. At least the Republicans said they'll consider a SC nomination after the Election, not after 4 years.

Aaahhh yes,  Priscilla Owens.  She filled the empty seat left by Garwood in 1997.  What happened from 97 to 01?  Clinton had made two nominations, both of which were blocked by house Republicans during his presidency. Seems fair to me.

What two nominees are you referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_Supreme_Court_candidates

Gorge Rangel 
Enrique Moreno

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Grassley's thoughts on filibustering judicial nominees...

And so? The Democrats initially denied Priscilla Owens' 2001 nomination a vote for 2 years when they controlled the Senate before filibustering it for another 2 years after losing the majority. At least the Republicans said they'll consider a SC nomination after the Election, not after 4 years.

Aaahhh yes,  Priscilla Owens.  She filled the empty seat left by Garwood in 1997.  What happened from 97 to 01?  Clinton had made two nominations, both of which were blocked by house Republicans during his presidency. Seems fair to me.

What two nominees are you referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_Supreme_Court_candidates

Gorge Rangel 
Enrique Moreno

That would be Jorge Rangel. Regardless, we have instances of both sides of the political spectrum where the Senate (not the House as Fcukstik claims) declined to use it's power of advise and consent in giving a judicial nominee a hearing. This action is not mandated by the Art 2, Sec 5 Advise and Consent clause as most of the Democrat Fever Swamp™ is claiming.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Grassley's thoughts on filibustering judicial nominees...

And so? The Democrats initially denied Priscilla Owens' 2001 nomination a vote for 2 years when they controlled the Senate before filibustering it for another 2 years after losing the majority. At least the Republicans said they'll consider a SC nomination after the Election, not after 4 years.

Aaahhh yes,  Priscilla Owens.  She filled the empty seat left by Garwood in 1997.  What happened from 97 to 01?  Clinton had made two nominations, both of which were blocked by house Republicans during his presidency. Seems fair to me.

What two nominees are you referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_Supreme_Court_candidates

Gorge Rangel 
Enrique Moreno

That would be Jorge Rangel. Regardless, we have instances of both sides of the political spectrum where the Senate (not the House as Fcukstik claims) declined to use it's power of advise and consent in giving a judicial nominee a hearing. This action is not mandated by the Art 2, Sec 5 Advise and Consent clause as most of the Democrat Fever Swamp™ is claiming.

Sorry, I had been reading all these articles about how Trump was not only going to cause Republicans to lose the Presidency, but possibly the House as well.  It's all so wild it's sometimes tough to keep everything straight.   

Yes, Democrats may have followed Republican suit in the case of Owens, but the current round of obstructon is just a short chapter in a seven year long novel.  Maybe more of an autobiography, considering they have been writing their own story in everything following their innaguration night pact to not work with Obama.

With the election less than three weeks away, and all but in the bag for Hillary, how stupid should congressional Republicans feel right now?

Dr. Jones wrote:With the election less than three weeks away,  and all but in the bag for Hillary, how stupid should congressional Republicans feel right now?

I don't know. You're the King of Stupid so why don't you tell us.

I hope Hillary's pick is so far to the left they make Sanders seem like a conservative wing nut.

Dr. Jones wrote:I hope Hillary's pick is so far to the left they make Sanders seem like a conservative wing nut.

Careful, your country hating underbelly is showing. Be a good little liberal and just play stupid.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I hope Hillary's pick is so far to the left they make Sanders seem like a conservative wing nut.

Careful, your country hating underbelly is showing. Be a good little liberal and just play stupid.

Oh please, Republicans have kept us from having a functional SCOTUS for 6 months (no Gomerr, I didn't do the math ) and you're accusing me of hating the country???

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I hope Hillary's pick is so far to the left they make Sanders seem like a conservative wing nut.

Careful, your country hating underbelly is showing. Be a good little liberal and just play stupid.

Oh please, Republicans have kept us from having a functional SCOTUS for 6 months (no Gomerr, I didn't do the math ) and you're accusing me of hating the country???

Once again, even if Merrick Garland had been confirmed by the Senate, he would not have taken part in most of the decisions made since Scalia's death. His confirmation would have taken 1-2 months and the SCOTUS was on summer hiatus for three months. How is that having a non-functioning Supreme Court? Also the SCOTUS operates frequently with less than nine justices. Recusals and illness can prevent the full complement of nine justices from hearing cases. Jeebus!

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I hope Hillary's pick is so far to the left they make Sanders seem like a conservative wing nut.

Careful, your country hating underbelly is showing. Be a good little liberal and just play stupid.

Oh please, Republicans have kept us from having a functional SCOTUS for 6 months (no Gomerr, I didn't do the math ) and you're accusing me of hating the country???

Once again, even if Merrick Garland had been confirmed by the Senate, he would not have taken part in most of the decisions made since Scalia's death. His confirmation would have taken 1-2 months and the SCOTUS was on summer hiatus for three months. How is that having a non-functioning Supreme Court? Also the SCOTUS operates frequently with less than nine justices. Recusals and illness can prevent the full complement of nine justices from hearing cases. Jeebus!

Why 1-2 months? He was already vetted for other judicial roles, and received widespread support from both sides of the Isle. He was shovel ready and there was no reason for anyone to drag their feet.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I hope Hillary's pick is so far to the left they make Sanders seem like a conservative wing nut.

Careful, your country hating underbelly is showing. Be a good little liberal and just play stupid.

Oh please, Republicans have kept us from having a functional SCOTUS for 6 months (no Gomerr, I didn't do the math ) and you're accusing me of hating the country???

Once again, even if Merrick Garland had been confirmed by the Senate, he would not have taken part in most of the decisions made since Scalia's death. His confirmation would have taken 1-2 months and the SCOTUS was on summer hiatus for three months. How is that having a non-functioning Supreme Court? Also the SCOTUS operates frequently with less than nine justices. Recusals and illness can prevent the full complement of nine justices from hearing cases. Jeebus!

Why 1-2 months?  He was already vetted for other judicial roles, and received widespread support from both sides of the Isle.  He was shovel ready and there was no reason for anyone to drag their feet.

Because if you look at the history of previous confirmations (Sotomayer, Kagan, Alito, Roberts) that's how much time is taken by the Senate from the start of hearings to confirmation vote. Hell, it took the Senate almost another three weeks of hearings to confirm Roberts as chief justice although he had already gone through some early processing with his original nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I hope Hillary's pick is so far to the left they make Sanders seem like a conservative wing nut.

Careful, your country hating underbelly is showing. Be a good little liberal and just play stupid.

Oh please, Republicans have kept us from having a functional SCOTUS for 6 months (no Gomerr, I didn't do the math ) and you're accusing me of hating the country???

Obama has already appointed two judicial morons on the bench...we don't need a third. Liberals can't even understand the role the Supreme Court supposed to play in our system of government. It is not to give rights to Kweers, faggots, and perverts.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I hope Hillary's pick is so far to the left they make Sanders seem like a conservative wing nut.

Careful, your country hating underbelly is showing. Be a good little liberal and just play stupid.

Oh please, Republicans have kept us from having a functional SCOTUS for 6 months (no Gomerr, I didn't do the math ) and you're accusing me of hating the country???

Once again, even if Merrick Garland had been confirmed by the Senate, he would not have taken part in most of the decisions made since Scalia's death. His confirmation would have taken 1-2 months and the SCOTUS was on summer hiatus for three months. How is that having a non-functioning Supreme Court? Also the SCOTUS operates frequently with less than nine justices. Recusals and illness can prevent the full complement of nine justices from hearing cases. Jeebus!

Why 1-2 months?  He was already vetted for other judicial roles, and received widespread support from both sides of the Isle.  He was shovel ready and there was no reason for anyone to drag their feet.

Because if you look at the history of previous confirmations (Sotomayer, Kagan, Alito, Roberts) that's how much time is taken by the Senate from the start of hearings to confirmation vote. Hell, it took the Senate almost another three weeks of hearings to confirm Roberts as chief justice although he had already gone through some early processing with his original nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.

How many of those were actual vacancies while court was in session, or to the point where an appointment would have made a full court for the majority of the session?