Those Wily Republicans

[BarryBobPosthole]

Now it all becomes obvious why the GOP controlled Senate has been so reluctant to do their constitutional duty and vote up or down on Obama's Supreme Court nominee. So they could steal the election if it came down like 2000 did.

Pretty disgusting!

BkB

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/supreme-court-2016-election-decision/

[quercus alba]

Us republicans are sly dogs, that is true. We're backing a candidate that can't win so we can bitch about everything being the democrats fault for the next four years

[LJ3]

Pre-bitching, as it were.

[quercus alba]

We prefer the term preventive maintenance

[BarryBobPosthole]

We prefer the term preventive maintenance

As good a term as I've heard to describe it!

BKB

[LJ3]

Let's not pretend the dems wouldn't be doing the exact same thing. It always kills me when one party or the other points a finger and says "Look at the horrible things they're doing!" when any of us know they have, will and will continue to do the exact same bullshit when it serves them.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I see. which nominee did they hold up voting on again? Refresh my memory. Or in Maria's case, mammaries.

BKB

[LJ3]

Are you saying obstructionism is a trait that belongs to a specific party?

[BarryBobPosthole]

Obstructionism isn't unconstitutional. Abdicating the constitutional responsibility of voting up or down on a nominee is.

Especially since it was done for political reasons to influence the court's ability to rule on some pretty important issues. So they've hamstrung the judicial branch and affected the entire check and balance it represents. That's some seriously serious shit, Maynard.

Besides, they're nasty.

BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

This crap is going to backfire big time because anybody Clinton nominates will be way worse.

[Captain]

Just doing what Senator Obama said was right to do when Bush was appointing...
Why were you not on Bush's side then???
https://youtu.be/oss4niVEyVw

[BarryBobPosthole]

They ran a bluff on his dumb ass. And they never held any nominations up.

BKB

[Captain]

"Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Most presidents select a nominee within a week of a Supreme Court vacancy. However, there have been several lengthy vacancies when the Senate refused to play ball with controversial presidents or controversial nominees.

President John Tyler had a particularly difficult time filling vacancies. Smith Thompson died in office December 18, 1843. His replacement, Samuel Nelson, was in office starting February 14, 1845. That’s a vacancy of 424 days. Henry Baldwin died in office April 21, 1844. His replacement, Robert Cooper, was in office starting August 4, 1846. This vacancy lasted 835 days because Tyler could not get the Senate to work with him. During Tyler’s presidency, the Senate rejected nine separate Supreme Court nominations!

Most recently, Abe Fortas resigned May 14, 1969. His replacement, Harry Blackmun, was in office starting June 9, 1970, making the gap just longer than a year."

There old grumpy one...

[quercus alba]

7986

[BarryBobPosthole]

I was starting to think nobody noticed, QA! What a bunch of noticers these guys are.

BKB

7990

[quercus alba]

Just because I don't tell everything doesn't mean I don't know everything

[LJ3]

They ran a bluff on his dumb ass. And they never held any nominations up.

BKB

Coughborgwasahitjobcough