Ginsberg Sells the Couch

Collins and Murkowski are our, probably Mittens too, so will happen after the election probably
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count them out. Besides democrats trying to hold Mitch to a purity standard that he may or may not have set himself, there's no legitimate reason to not have a nominee. A justice died, time to pick a new one. Whether there's 40 months left in a term, or 2, it shouldn't matter.
Click to expand...

Mitch’s maneuver 4 years ago was one of canniest, duplicitous political moves of my lifetim. I called it a gamble then, but I was wrong. He wasn’t going to lose anything, only win or draw.
Click to expand...

Really? The dems trying to steal an election in Florida in 2000? Stealing an election in 1960 in Illinois? Using the CIA, FBI, DOJ and the US House of Representatives to unseat a President? Are you 6 months old?
Click to expand...

2000 was litigated, the process worked.

No idea what this Illinois thing is.

Wash your hands old timmer.
Click to expand...

Like I said - Are you six months old? The issue was dems trying to and actually stealing an election. So, the dems successfully stole the 1960 election for JFK with fraudulent Chicago dem machine votes. The tried and failed in 2000. Actual facts and history don't seem to be an important part of your life. Like facts actually matter to leftards. Keep rooting for the away team.
Click to expand...

You seem upset. I hear long walks help. Do you have a beach nearby?
 
Upset? Leftards lie and love to be lied to. I enjoy setting out the facts and then having the proudly ignorant ignore them. Why would someone put "knowledge" into their Tug handle and then go off the rails when dealing with some basic facts? That seems more like someone who is upset.
 
Is Mitch McConnel a hypocrite? Um, fuck yes. They are almost all trash ass people. Never trust any of them. That said, winners win. I think the GOP shoving through a conservative probably hurts Trump's reelection chances, as it will energize the Dems base in a BIGLY way, but, a 6-3 majority (let's face it it's really 5-4 because Roberts is a turd) might be worth 4 years of Corn Pop shitting himself in the White House. 5.5-3.5 SCOTUS for a generation is probably a bigger deal then anything that happens the next 4 years.

Also, the crying from the left (and partially justified tbh) will be EPIC! This is must see TV. I mean fuck me, this election just got Thunderdome level exciting.

Do it Mitch. Do it.

p.s. If Susan Collins fucks us here, she will rot in fiery RINO hell with McCain and that Mormon loser...

edit: @CFetters_Nacho_Lover just sent me a twat where Murkowski has already bitched out, and Collins and Grassly are wavering. So, it appears nothing has changed with the GOP. Same cuck losers they have always been.
Click to expand...

I dont really find pushing through a nomination particularly hypocritical.

Anyone who thinks that unwritten rules ever mattered in the Senate is retarded. The "its an election year" was always an unneeded pussy excuse instead of just saying "elections have consequence" and doing exactly what the power provided.

Push the vote, the reward is so much more than any of the possible negatives.

Collins, Murkowski, Romeny, Grassly... only need one plus a pence tie break.
Click to expand...

Yup,and read this and agree...

"But McConnell said not to confirm a judge prior to an election."

Yes, McConnell (and others) presented a version of this incredibly stupid argument several years back. He did it to save face. Albeit, his version of the argument was in the context of a lame duck presidency where the Senate was the opposing party, but never the less, it wasn't an argument I ever believed in. It was never logical, it never adhered to my principles, it wasn't necessary, and I certainly don't believe in applying it right now. Neither should you. Why anyone believed his silly argument is beyond me. So sure, call him a liar. That may be fair, but when you're done with that, let's explore the REAL argument...

ANY sitting president has a constitutional right to TRY and nominate someone he/she hopes the Senate would confirm, but the Senate ALSO has the constitutional right to reject any nominee they don't wish to confirm. It is a negotiation process. If there exists opposing parties on each side of the table (as was the case when Obama nominated Merrick Garland), then perhaps a nominee doesn't advance. It is THAT simple and never needed to be any more complicated than that.

When two opposing interests each control half the process, it makes perfect sense that agreement might not occur. In said scenario, the political solution of an election (which redefines those weilding power) increases the odds of resolving the standoff, as the two governing bodies (executive and senate) may be more likely to agree after they've been altered by the electorate. But again, even that doesn't guarantee confirmation. Kavanaugh, for example, came extremely close to not being confirmed. That wouldn't have meant that the senate was guilty of "refusing to give Trump what Trump was owed," which is how many people characterized the Merrick Garland debacle. Rather, it would have meant that Trump would simply have to pick a different nominee - one who was more palatable to the majority of the Senate. THAT is how negotiations work. Nothing about this is unnatural or unjust. Merrick simply didn't have the support of the Senate. Obama could have chosen a different pick. He was also able to gamble on holding off to see if his political party would win more power in the upcoming election. Both sides took the gamble. One side lost. There's nothing about that which is inherently immoral.

The only thing about this situation which was immoral was that McConnell publicly crafted a silly narrative to act as a cover story. Arguing that we shouldn't vote for a nominee before an election was never a sound argument. Call him a hypocrite if you want, but there was nothing unjust about Garland NOT getting confirmed and there is nothing unjust about us trying to confirm a new justice before political power changes. The Senate is not required to like a nominee. It's also not required to wait until after an election.

Let the negotiation process begin.
 
Is Mitch McConnel a hypocrite? Um, fuck yes. They are almost all trash ass people. Never trust any of them. That said, winners win. I think the GOP shoving through a conservative probably hurts Trump's reelection chances, as it will energize the Dems base in a BIGLY way, but, a 6-3 majority (let's face it it's really 5-4 because Roberts is a turd) might be worth 4 years of Corn Pop shitting himself in the White House. 5.5-3.5 SCOTUS for a generation is probably a bigger deal then anything that happens the next 4 years.

Also, the crying from the left (and partially justified tbh) will be EPIC! This is must see TV. I mean fuck me, this election just got Thunderdome level exciting.

Do it Mitch. Do it.

p.s. If Susan Collins fucks us here, she will rot in fiery RINO hell with McCain and that Mormon loser...

edit: @CFetters_Nacho_Lover just sent me a twat where Murkowski has already bitched out, and Collins and Grassly are wavering. So, it appears nothing has changed with the GOP. Same cuck losers they have always been.
Click to expand...

I dont really find pushing through a nomination particularly hypocritical.

Anyone who thinks that unwritten rules ever mattered in the Senate is retarded. The "its an election year" was always an unneeded pussy excuse instead of just saying "elections have consequence" and doing exactly what the power provided.

Push the vote, the reward is so much more than any of the possible negatives.

Collins, Murkowski, Romeny, Grassly... only need one plus a pence tie break.
Click to expand...

Yup,and read this and agree...

"But McConnell said not to confirm a judge prior to an election."

Yes, McConnell (and others) presented a version of this incredibly stupid argument several years back. He did it to save face. Albeit, his version of the argument was in the context of a lame duck presidency where the Senate was the opposing party, but never the less, it wasn't an argument I ever believed in. It was never logical, it never adhered to my principles, it wasn't necessary, and I certainly don't believe in applying it right now. Neither should you. Why anyone believed his silly argument is beyond me. So sure, call him a liar. That may be fair, but when you're done with that, let's explore the REAL argument...

ANY sitting president has a constitutional right to TRY and nominate someone he/she hopes the Senate would confirm, but the Senate ALSO has the constitutional right to reject any nominee they don't wish to confirm. It is a negotiation process. If there exists opposing parties on each side of the table (as was the case when Obama nominated Merrick Garland), then perhaps a nominee doesn't advance. It is THAT simple and never needed to be any more complicated than that.

When two opposing interests each control half the process, it makes perfect sense that agreement might not occur. In said scenario, the political solution of an election (which redefines those weilding power) increases the odds of resolving the standoff, as the two governing bodies (executive and senate) may be more likely to agree after they've been altered by the electorate. But again, even that doesn't guarantee confirmation. Kavanaugh, for example, came extremely close to not being confirmed. That wouldn't have meant that the senate was guilty of "refusing to give Trump what Trump was owed," which is how many people characterized the Merrick Garland debacle. Rather, it would have meant that Trump would simply have to pick a different nominee - one who was more palatable to the majority of the Senate. THAT is how negotiations work. Nothing about this is unnatural or unjust. Merrick simply didn't have the support of the Senate. Obama could have chosen a different pick. He was also able to gamble on holding off to see if his political party would win more power in the upcoming election. Both sides took the gamble. One side lost. There's nothing about that which is inherently immoral.

The only thing about this situation which was immoral was that McConnell publicly crafted a silly narrative to act as a cover story. Arguing that we shouldn't vote for a nominee before an election was never a sound argument. Call him a hypocrite if you want, but there was nothing unjust about Garland NOT getting confirmed and there is nothing unjust about us trying to confirm a new justice before political power changes. The Senate is not required to like a nominee. It's also not required to wait until after an election.

Let the negotiation process begin.
Click to expand...

TLDR translation: Two wrongs don't make a right.

 
Collins and Murkowski are our, probably Mittens too, so will happen after the election probably
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count them out. Besides democrats trying to hold Mitch to a purity standard that he may or may not have set himself, there's no legitimate reason to not have a nominee. A justice died, time to pick a new one. Whether there's 40 months left in a term, or 2, it shouldn't matter.
Click to expand...

Mitch’s maneuver 4 years ago was one of canniest, duplicitous political moves of my lifetim. I called it a gamble then, but I was wrong. He wasn’t going to lose anything, only win or draw.
Click to expand...

Really? The dems trying to steal an election in Florida in 2000? Stealing an election in 1960 in Illinois? Using the CIA, FBI, DOJ and the US House of Representatives to unseat a President? Are you 6 months old?
Click to expand...

2000 was litigated, the process worked.

No idea what this Illinois thing is.

Wash your hands old timmer.
Click to expand...

Like I said - Are you six months old? The issue was dems trying to and actually stealing an election. So, the dems successfully stole the 1960 election for JFK with fraudulent Chicago dem machine votes. The tried and failed in 2000. Actual facts and history don't seem to be an important part of your life. Like facts actually matter to leftards. Keep rooting for the away team.
Click to expand...

lOWqM1.gif


Now if you will excuse me, I have some fires to start in the name of equity.
 
Trump must appoint because we need a fully empaneled supreme court as this will likely be a contested election.

 
Upset? Leftards lie and love to be lied to. I enjoy setting out the facts and then having the proudly ignorant ignore them. Why would someone put "knowledge" into their Tug handle and then go off the rails when dealing with some basic facts? That seems more like someone who is upset.
Click to expand...

View attachment 25526

I never refuted any of your claims. I said you seem upset and you are confirming my take. You're seeing leftist ghosts all around you man.
 
Upset? Leftards lie and love to be lied to. I enjoy setting out the facts and then having the proudly ignorant ignore them. Why would someone put "knowledge" into their Tug handle and then go off the rails when dealing with some basic facts? That seems more like someone who is upset.
Click to expand...

View attachment 25526

I never refuted any of your claims. I said you seem upset and you are confirming my take. You're seeing leftist ghosts all around you man.
Click to expand...

He's trying desperately to find some grand moral high ground here, rather than just accepting the power play.
 
I accept the power play. McConnell was an idiot for pretending otherwise. Just follow the Constitution. President nominates and the Senate either approves or not. No Constitutional requirement for a vote. The Constitution is the high moral ground. What I objected to was the denial that dems try to steal elections.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top