Oh look, here's Hillary Clinton's statement after Justice Scalia died in 2016

submitted by christnmusicreleases from media.notthebee.com

all 12 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]silverandgold 8 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 7 fun -  (2 children)

anybody wanna go in 50/50 on a can of carbeurator cleaner? we can huff all day.

[–]Againstniggerfemales 6 insightful - 7 fun6 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

Me me

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Obviously people wanna fill the seat, it's the most powerful position in the entire US, with someone who has an ideology similar to theirs. Lots of people don't want President Trump picking a conservative candidate, lots of people don't want a liberal one.

Two things to keep in mind, one, when a person becomes a supreme court justice they often shed their conservative values they paid lipservice to in order to get elected, and two, that person is going to directly shape the nation for the rest of their life, which possibly means our entire life.

It shouldn't be a surprise it's so contentious, or that people didn't want Obama to appoint someone on his tail end of the presidency, or Trump's.

Trump did suggest that shit weasel Cruz as a potential candidate despite railing against him during the last election. This is a more important role than President so if someone wasn't fit for President they sure as shit aren't fit for the Supreme Court.

And that's all I gotta say about that.

[–]VirgilGriff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

people didn't want Obama to appoint someone on his tail end of the presidency, or Trump's.

They have lists of nominees for years. What makes you think that just because you're near the end of a presidency the vetting process is somehow diluted?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Trump wants conservative nominations and the Democrats are hoping to oust him and get liberal supreme court nominations. We did the same shit in 2016 but in reverse.

[–]Happy_face_caller 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah. 9 months was too long and should never have happened. The GOP should still be held accountable for that

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For changing the rules or obeying the rules?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I feel like back then mitch should have allowed a vote. But repubs had a majority in the senate then. So they should have just voted no on merrick garland. Then Obama would have to nominate someone else, and then repubs vote no on them as well. I guess Mitch just didn't want to waste time doing that since it was the obvious outcome. No one talks about why he didn't want to hold a vote. The lesson is you need a president and a senate majority of the same party to approve a supreme court nominee. Trump and mitch have both right now. But they're going to put in another jewish woman so it doesn't matter anyway.

[–]Overdrive 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd like to see who actually gets the tap before making any final calls but I do understand the dems were griping about this before and therefore they do not get to gripe about the opposite now. Pay attention to the individual, not which side gets to fill it because the dems fucked all of that up and they did it to themselves.

[–]FreedomUltd 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh look, here's Trump's statement after Justice Scalia died in 2016.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of these cocksuckers is shooting fish in a barrel. I guess that's still fun for some people.

Who out there can see that neither the red team nor the blue team is our team? Among those people, I'm thinking there's still some common ground on which to build our own team.