If any drivers around me were looking, they woulda seen a very angry, crazy lady driving next to them, visibly screaming and pounding the steering wheel.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]And the worst part is, they'll double down on their lies when challenged with facts and even videos proving that they're lying, while a whole lot of people will simply accept the lies without question and call them true.

Unbelievable.

which of course he did not mention.

But Democrats NEVER prevented a Republican President in modern history from at least having their SCOTUS nominees heard/voted on, even when it could have been easily justifiable for them to prevent (P)resident George W. Bush from filling seats even though his own legitimacy as POTUS was questionable from the beginning.

but, they actually received hearings and votes. Nixon had two that were voted down. It was actually fairly common in the 1800s, and even George Washington had a nominee voted down (Washington put him on the court via RECESS APPOINTMENT... but, he got involved in some controversy and when the time to actually vote came around, he was voted down...)

Republicans were too cowardly to even give Garland a hearing and a vote. I think that was unprecedented.

Last edited Thu Mar 30, 2017, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)

I probably would have been "ok" if Republicans had held a hearing and voted him down, because at least then Republicans would have followed the normal confirmation process. What happened smacked of Republicans changing the normal process/rules to get away with not allowing President Obama to replace that particular Justice (Scalia) because they knew that it would tilt the ideological balance of the Court away from right-wing dominance. It *might* have been a different story had it been Ginsburg or Breyer resigning (but then they might have still done it to directly seize a liberal seat too, so......?)

At any rate, Republicans suck and they cheated us here.

that Garland was such a good moderate candidate that they would not have had a reason to vote against him and people like Graham, McCain, Collins and a few others probably would have gotten him confirmed.

i hope the room broke out in spontaneous laughter

he is truly an idiot.

challenge him on that.
Or are they all worthless cattle?

by refusing to give Garland an up/down vote, even though he was qualified.

how W kept us safe from terrorist attacks.

The pressure to allow for a confirmation vote would have probably been overwhelming and they would have been tied up in knots trying to explain why they wouldn't vote to confirm him even though several Republican Senators had voted to confirm him for other judicial seats and Senator Hatch had even suggested him. They were mad desperate to keep him off of C-Span.

And NO ONE questioned him on that. Not one so-called journalist asked him about how they blocked Merrick Garland. Damned "liberal media."