Fuck You Mitch McConnell

[TuHolmes]

Nominate all he wants...its McConnell's job to ensure that fuck never gets even close to a vote.

You're going to be sorely upset when it's done before summer.

[headhuntersix]

I don't have a lot of faith in Mitch but guys like Sessions who'll tell him to go fuck himself...I do. They're already tring to shitcan him so if there's the hint..I expect McConnell will be headed back to Ky

[andreisdaman]

You know, I don't like hypocrisy.

All the Republicans that are now complaining, were singing a different tune in the past. Look at McConnel, circa 2005: "Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up or down vote." He went on to add "The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent." He wasn't the only one, by any means.

So what happened to the Mitch McConnel that said that the President's picks "deserve a simple up or down vote"? What happened to Mitch McConnel that wanted to change the rules of the Senate to mandate such a vote? What happens to all the other guys making similar statements?

Look, it's simple. Either you believe in the Constitution ALL THE TIME or you don't. Either you follow it when it's convienent and when it's inconvenient or you don't.

I don't like the fact that Obama gets to nominate another person to the Court - especially one to replace Scalia. I'm pretty sure I won't approve I won't approve of the person he nominates. But the fact is that he is the President and the President can nominate people to fill vacancies in the Court. It doesn't matter if he has 3 years and 364 days left on his term or 1 day on his term. He can nominate someone a microsecond before his term expires.

In fact he should nominate someone. It's his fucking job!

This nonsense about "people chiming in" is just that nonsense.

is it not his prerogative to do so?

This is an awesome post...and really nothing else needs to be said after this......the constitution is the constitution.....The Republicans are so anal about the constitution but they always show they will shitcan it when it suits them

[LurkerNoMore]

I don't have a lot of faith in Mitch but guys like Sessions who'll tell him to go fuck himself...I do. They're already tring to shitcan him so if there's the hint..I expect McConnell will be headed back to Ky

Didn't work out that way last time.

[iwantmass]

This is an awesome post...and really nothing else needs to be said after this......the constitution is the constitution.....The Republicans are so anal about the constitution but they always show they will shitcan it when it suits them

Couldn't agree with you or avxo more....except you just think he means this in regards to republicans, shit for brains.  He is talking about politician hypocrisy in general, including democrats.  You don't seem to care about theirs so much

[240 is Back]

Nominate all he wants...its McConnell's job to ensure that fuck never gets even close to a vote.

because there's only 1 year left with obama in office?

Are you okay when the dem senate stops the repub president from doing anything in the last 11 months?  Or the last 14 months?  Or at all?

Look, I hate the idea of a liberal court - but I do like to argue the lunacy of telling obama he can have NOBODY left of Scalia for 11 months.  Doesn't work that way in america.  longest ever was just over 100 days.  Saying you will stall everything for 330 days because "you just hate liberals" will suck for them in election time.

[iwantmass]

because there's only 1 year left with obama in office?

Are you okay when the dem senate stops the repub president from doing anything in the last 11 months?  Or the last 14 months?  Or at all?

Look, I hate the idea of a liberal court - but I do like to argue the lunacy of telling obama he can have NOBODY left of Scalia for 11 months.  Doesn't work that way in america.  longest ever was just over 100 days.  Saying you will stall everything for 330 days because "you just hate liberals" will suck for them in election time.

Longest what is just over 100 days?  If you mean longest vacancy, you may want to check again.

[Kazan]

This is an awesome post...and really nothing else needs to be said after this......the constitution is the constitution.....The Republicans are so anal about the constitution but they always show they will shitcan it when it suits them

Yes because the Democrats never did anything like pass a resolution, oh wait

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/

[avxo]

Nominate all he wants...its McConnell's job to ensure that fuck never gets even close to a vote.

And in 2005, McConnell's job was to ensure that nominees for an up-or-down vote, and it was unfair to the President and the nominee, to never vote. In fact, according to McConnell, it was unconstitutional.

But times change, don't they? And what's constitutional is equivalent to what's politically expedient and advantageous, isn't it?

And so, don't worry, because what goes around comes around. Maybe McDonnell and Co. get their way and the seat is left vacant (I'd say the chances of that are about 30%) this time around. And so, when, two years into a Cruz Presidency, there's one or two more vacancies and the Senate refuses to consider any of Cruz's nominees and you're bitching and moaning, I'll be sure to remind you to stop being a hypocritical bitch.

Yes because the Democrats never did anything like pass a resolution, oh wait

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/

OK... and two wrongs make a right?

Nobody said the Democrats aren't hypocrites who interpret the Constitution based on what's convenient for and advantageous to them at a given moment. If the situation were reversed, I've no doubt they'd be doing the same thing. And when – notice, I said when and not if – that happens, they should be called out too.

[240 is Back]

the LONGEST nomination ever took 108 days

I said the nomination process, not "vacancy" since obviously, the nomination doesn't start the moment the vacancy appears. 

If Obama chooses someone on, say, March 1st, and by Nov 1st (election time), Repubs are STILL blocking it - well, that'll end up costing the US Supreme Court an entire YEAR of power as the 4-4 votes stack up.

Just say it's cool - so in 2017 and 2018 and 2019, when the Senate Dems are blocking EVERYTHING the Repub president does Scotus, you say that's cool too

[Kazan]

And in 2005, McConnell's job was to ensure that nominees for an up-or-down vote, and it was unfair to the President and the nominee, to never vote. In fact, according to McConnell, it was unconstitutional.

But times change, don't they? And what's constitutional is equivalent to what's politically expedient and advantageous, isn't it?

And so, don't worry, because what goes around comes around. Maybe McDonnell and Co. get their way and the seat is left vacant (I'd say the chances of that are about 30%) this time around. And so, when, two years into a Cruz Presidency, there's one or two more vacancies and the Senate refuses to consider any of Cruz's nominees and you're bitching and moaning, I'll be sure to remind you to stop being a hypocritical bitch.


OK... and two wrongs make a right?

Nobody said the Democrats aren't hypocrites who interpret the Constitution based on what's convenient for and advantageous to them at a given moment. If the situation were reversed, I've no doubt they'd be doing the same thing. And when – notice, I said when and not if – that happens, they should be called out too.

The response was to Andre, and his knee jerk reaction of blame republicans, I don't like either party.........

[Straw Man]

And in 2005, McConnell's job was to ensure that nominees for an up-or-down vote, and it was unfair to the President and the nominee, to never vote. In fact, according to McConnell, it was unconstitutional.

But times change, don't they? And what's constitutional is equivalent to what's politically expedient and advantageous, isn't it?

And so, don't worry, because what goes around comes around. Maybe McDonnell and Co. get their way and the seat is left vacant (I'd say the chances of that are about 30%) this time around. And so, when, two years into a Cruz Presidency, there's one or two more vacancies and the Senate refuses to consider any of Cruz's nominees and you're bitching and moaning, I'll be sure to remind you to stop being a hypocritical bitch.


OK... and two wrongs make a right?

Nobody said the Democrats aren't hypocrites who interpret the Constitution based on what's convenient for and advantageous to them at a given moment. If the situation were reversed, I've no doubt they'd be doing the same thing. And when – notice, I said when and not if – that happens, they should be called out too.

Nice find and I'm sure the press will find many more examples in the days and weeks to come.
It's one thing to look at a resolution from 45 years ago and another to look at the claims of an individual person 10 years ago and then today.    There is no way for McConnell to defend his statement from Saturday when compared with his statement in 2005.   McConnell also didn't seem to have any issue voting for a SC nominee in the last year of Reagans administration:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-antonin-scalia_us_56bfcde2e4b08ffac1259285

[Straw Man]

Exactly what I said two days ago (and I'm no fan of Warren given that she gave us the CFPB) but she's right on this in response to McConnells idiotic statement

[andreisdaman]

The response was to Andre, and his knee jerk reaction of blame republicans, I don't like either party.........

No kneejerk reaction at all....but right now, Obama is still prez and can still nominate a Supreme Court Judge...end of discussion...he has the power constitutionally ......its just more obstructionism by the Republicans which they have done since Obama has been in office.....which is why Obama has gone around them and destroyed them at every turn...HELL they are STILL working on trying to repeal Obamacare...Republican legacy is eight wasted years of doing NOTHING
.
you should be talking about why the Republicans are trying to skirt the constitution ..and AGAIN trying to get away with doing NOTHING

[Straw Man]

No kneejerk reaction at all....but right now, Obama is still prez and can still nominate a Supreme Court Judge...end of discussion...he has the power constitutionally ......its just more obstructionism by the Republicans which they have done since Obama has been in office.....which is why Obama has gone around them and destroyed them at every turn...HELL they are STILL working on trying to repeal Obamacare...Republican legacy is eight wasted years of doing NOTHING
.
you should be talking about why the Republicans are trying to skirt the constitution ..and AGAIN trying to get away with doing NOTHING

he has the obligation to fill the empty seat and congress has the obligation to have a vote

it's not about either party or an upcoming election.  It's about fulfilling the duties of the office.

The voters  gave Obama a second term and he has duties to fulfill until the last day he is in office.

McConnell might have a point if we had a new president elect but that is 9 months away

I suspect if we had a president elect Hilary and Repubs also lost the Senate that Mitch McConnell would then insist that Obama nominate someone so the Repubs could have one last chance to influence the decision and get someone they liked.

[andreisdaman]

he has the obligation to fill the empty seat and congress has the obligation to have a vote

it's not about either party or an upcoming election.  It's about fulfilling the duties of the office.

The voters  gave Obama a second term and he has duties to fulfill until the last day he is in office.

McConnell might have a point if we had a new president elect but that is 9 months away

I suspect if we had a president elect Hilary and Repubs also lost the Senate that Mitch McConnell would then insist that Obama nominate someone so the Repubs could have one last chance to influence the decision and get someone they liked.

of course he would....nice point

[Kazan]

No kneejerk reaction at all....but right now, Obama is still prez and can still nominate a Supreme Court Judge...end of discussion...he has the power constitutionally ......its just more obstructionism by the Republicans which they have done since Obama has been in office.....which is why Obama has gone around them and destroyed them at every turn...HELL they are STILL working on trying to repeal Obamacare...Republican legacy is eight wasted years of doing NOTHING
.
you should be talking about why the Republicans are trying to skirt the constitution ..and AGAIN trying to get away with doing NOTHING

Why are reps or dems trying to skirt the constitution? Very simple, it impedes there ability to fuck up the country

[headhuntersix]

Yeah its the repubs fault we want to avoid rolling back Heller and allowing shitbag's immigration policies to go forward. You fucking libs and your bullshit. Harry fucking Reid would be doing the same shit. They did it to Bush in 2007. Barry can nominate  away...he can find his half gay, trans, latino, dwarf muslim convert and nominate it all he wants.

[Kazan]

Let me put it this way, if the US government was actually worth a shit, we wouldn't have this problem. The nominees would be qualified and know their job is make sure that laws are constitutional. The constitution is a legal document, not some living breathing non-sense manufactured by the left. If that was the case, then why bother having a process to amend it? 

[headhuntersix]

Great post......which is why Obama can nominate away and unless they can clone Justice Scalia right now....barry will have to wait

[Straw Man]

Let me put it this way, if the US government was actually worth a shit, we wouldn't have this problem. The nominees would be qualified and know their job is make sure that laws are constitutional. The constitution is a legal document, not some living breathing non-sense manufactured by the left. If that was the case, then why bother having a process to amend it? 

Repubs are quite happy to consider it a living document when it serves their purposes

Don't forget, corporations are people my friend and money is speech

[avxo]

Yeah its the repubs fault we want to avoid rolling back Heller and allowing shitbag's immigration policies to go forward. You fucking libs and your bullshit. Harry fucking Reid would be doing the same shit. They did it to Bush in 2007. Barry can nominate  away...he can find his half gay, trans, latino, dwarf muslim convert and nominate it all he wants.

Jesus Christ... what a vitriolic meltdown. You see everything through a partisan lens, and terms of pure black and pure white.

It's a pity that people like you get a vote. People like you are - with the same blindly partisan mindset - the reason this country elects politicians like Barack Obama.

[headhuntersix]

Well dipshit I actually have earned my right to vote serving my country so go fuck off. I vote conservative  not repub nor dem. I'm  sorry you have an issue with blocking a super libs' nominee and watching our 2nd amendment rights go down the shit tubes. I'm also not for the cultural suicide currently on display in Europe...again a gift we'd get with a lib justice. We railed against Obama here for months before the elections....not my fault he got elected. I hate Trump just as much.

[TuHolmes]

I know you hate Obama but you're not a buffoon. I agree with you on the 2nd amendment of course. You know this and I firmly believe you have every right to vote for who leads this country.

I'm just afraid that as with anything, age is catching up to us all.

The young crowd doesn't care about guns or abortion or gay people.

Is it right? I don't know. What I do know is that you and I won't be here to see it all unfold and the country is left to the young ones.

It is what they want, and while I may disagree at times it is their future.

[avxo]

Well dipshit I actually have earned my right to vote serving my country so go fuck off.

Nonsense - if you had to "earn" your "right to vote" it wouldn't be a right. And you may want to reconsider your sass; it doesn't intimidate me and only makes you look like an insecure tool.

I vote conservative  not repub nor dem.

Ooh. A freethinker! Why, I bet you read Barry Goldwater's book at 7 and it shaped your political philosophy and set you on a lifelong walk down the conservative values path!

I'm  sorry you have an issue with blocking a super libs' nominee and watching our 2nd amendment rights go down the shit tubes.

So many logical fallacies. I would explain why this straw man argument you present here doesn't represent my position, but I'm afraid the difference – and it's not a subtle one – would be lost on you.

I'm also not for the cultural suicide currently on display in Europe...again a gift we'd get with a lib justice.

The Europeans are getting exactly what they deserve. But it's doubtful that the straw that will break the American camel's back will be the Senate confirming an Obama nominee to replace Justice Scalia.  

We railed against Obama here for months before the elections....not my fault he got elected. I hate Trump just as much.

Well... that makes it all alright then.